throdgrain
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,197
- Thread starter
- #91
They probably would yes 
A sad day
- Thread starter throdgrain
- Start date
PLightstar
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,103
A very strange man R.I.P good actor I still like Omega Man, but I am one of a few people here that didn't exactly like his personal views, but as that saying goes:
Democracy 'I may not agree with you on any of your opinions but damm i'll die fighting for your right to say them' (I think Family Guy said it aswell)
Democracy 'I may not agree with you on any of your opinions but damm i'll die fighting for your right to say them' (I think Family Guy said it aswell)
I was trying to read all of this, but I got a bit sleepy around page 5..
I just want to point out that yes, guns don't kill people - people do.. but the guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
For example, they make it a lot easier for a somewhat unstable/overly emotional youth/person who's having a really shit couple of months to do something really stupid. Without the access to the gun, without the idea that the gun is accessible, chances are he won't even consider it and he's probably more likely to consider other options (certainly not necessarily violence) a whole lot more.
Guns are pretty easy to work out how to use and make doing stupid things a lot easier.
The other point is, as its been said, the constitution can't be used to justify gun ownership and even if that was what it actually said, that isn't a valid argument anyway - "It's written down, ergo it is correct".
It's a difficult situation and there's no absolutely right or wrong answer to the problem - all I know is that people with weapons lying around are going to be more likely to consider their use. Also, if you make it freely available, you make it a whole f***ing lot easier for the people who do actually want to misuse them.
People who go to Gun clubs and do recreational hunting don't need to have their own guns at home anyways..
Anyways, my few cents, sorry for off-topic.
RIP.
I just want to point out that yes, guns don't kill people - people do.. but the guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
For example, they make it a lot easier for a somewhat unstable/overly emotional youth/person who's having a really shit couple of months to do something really stupid. Without the access to the gun, without the idea that the gun is accessible, chances are he won't even consider it and he's probably more likely to consider other options (certainly not necessarily violence) a whole lot more.
Guns are pretty easy to work out how to use and make doing stupid things a lot easier.
The other point is, as its been said, the constitution can't be used to justify gun ownership and even if that was what it actually said, that isn't a valid argument anyway - "It's written down, ergo it is correct".
It's a difficult situation and there's no absolutely right or wrong answer to the problem - all I know is that people with weapons lying around are going to be more likely to consider their use. Also, if you make it freely available, you make it a whole f***ing lot easier for the people who do actually want to misuse them.
People who go to Gun clubs and do recreational hunting don't need to have their own guns at home anyways..
Anyways, my few cents, sorry for off-topic.
RIP.
throdgrain
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,197
- Thread starter
- #94
Who says? You? Who the fuck are you? My god, aint you a little nu-lab member
Its none of you're business is it? Your whole post is 1984 20 years too late. Think what you're saying. Consider your words. Its not the goverments job to tell us how to think, how to behave. They work for the people, thats all. People like you would bring in a law for everything!
nath
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 8,009
Who says? You? Who the fuck are you? My god, aint you a little nu-lab member
Its none of you're business is it? Your whole post is 1984 20 years too late. Think what you're saying. Consider your words. Its not the goverments job to tell us how to think, how to behave. They work for the people, thats all. People like you would bring in a law for everything!
I notice you completely ignored my earlier post. Surely the same logic you displayed above can be applied to nuclear weapons - something that clearly shouldn't be in the hands of the public. If you accept that, then surely you must accept that it's merely a case of where we draw the line. Honestly man, you need to stop digging out the "nu-labour thinking, 1984 zomg!" line... it's as tedious as daily mail comments. This issue isn't as clear cut as you claim it to be, suggesting it is just makes you look like a cock.
Plus, how is gun restriction telling us how to think? It's telling us what we can and can't buy/use but when it comes to public safety that certainly is the governments department. Whether that means guns should be banned is another question - as I said earlier, I'm undecided on this.
throdgrain
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,197
- Thread starter
- #97
Sorry I was well pissed when I wrote that, it didnt mean to come over quite so agressive
My point is, and has been all along, people like to shoot, and all we ever get in this country is laws telling us what we should do, and what we should think for that matter. The fact is simple, just like Im sure Mr Heston would have told you, that when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns. This is superbly demonstrated in this very country. There have been 2 tradgedys invloving licensed shooters in this country, one of whom was a criminal in the first place. There are 1000's and 1000's of shooters in this country - far more than you might think - and a tiny tiny incidence of any crime.
Gun crime is carried out by criminals, who dont have a licence anyway.
I was in this thread pointing out that Charlton Heston had died. A great defender of shooters rights, a great campaigner against racism in his country, a great actor too.
Nath one down the line you could say omg then we must be allowed atom bombs in our gardens (a bit of a silly point I thought, which is why I didnt respond to it ) , but if you take it the same way, but in the opposite direction, we shouldnt be allowed cars, as they kill a huge amount of people every year. Or microwaves, I dunno, whatever.
Im not against - nescessarily - some kind of licences for guns in this country, but the licencing we have is far far too draconian and only serves to make the government look like its "doing something", when really it does nothing at all.
Raven, you cant really shoot pheasants with an air rifle. You need a shotgun. Or a powder burning rifle, thoough the pheasant is a game bird, and that would be Jolly Bad Form to shoot one that isnt moving. If you wanted to buy an air rifle for £100 Id say buy a secondhand better one than a new cheaper one, it will not be good enough otherwise.
You also in our country always ALWAYS have to have permission of the landowner to shoot anywhere, otherwise its armed tresspass, even with an air rifle, and you'll get in Deep Shit!
My point is, and has been all along, people like to shoot, and all we ever get in this country is laws telling us what we should do, and what we should think for that matter. The fact is simple, just like Im sure Mr Heston would have told you, that when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns. This is superbly demonstrated in this very country. There have been 2 tradgedys invloving licensed shooters in this country, one of whom was a criminal in the first place. There are 1000's and 1000's of shooters in this country - far more than you might think - and a tiny tiny incidence of any crime.
Gun crime is carried out by criminals, who dont have a licence anyway.
I was in this thread pointing out that Charlton Heston had died. A great defender of shooters rights, a great campaigner against racism in his country, a great actor too.
Nath one down the line you could say omg then we must be allowed atom bombs in our gardens (a bit of a silly point I thought, which is why I didnt respond to it
) , but if you take it the same way, but in the opposite direction, we shouldnt be allowed cars, as they kill a huge amount of people every year. Or microwaves, I dunno, whatever.Im not against - nescessarily - some kind of licences for guns in this country, but the licencing we have is far far too draconian and only serves to make the government look like its "doing something", when really it does nothing at all.
Raven, you cant really shoot pheasants with an air rifle. You need a shotgun. Or a powder burning rifle, thoough the pheasant is a game bird, and that would be Jolly Bad Form to shoot one that isnt moving. If you wanted to buy an air rifle for £100 Id say buy a secondhand better one than a new cheaper one, it will not be good enough otherwise.
You also in our country always ALWAYS have to have permission of the landowner to shoot anywhere, otherwise its armed tresspass, even with an air rifle, and you'll get in Deep Shit!
Don't shoot pheasants with air-rifle mate, you'll end up causing more harm than good as you'd have to hit them spot on. Using a shot-gun is completely different to using a rifle. Pheasants are game birds and as such subject to strict seasonal regulations (Oct 1st - Feb 1st). If you go on a big, organised shoot where you pay by the bird, it can cost as much as £30 / pheasant shot.
I'd suggest having a look at what these guys recommend, I've been a member for a number of years and they have starter programs for all sorts of stuff.
British Association for Shooting & Conservation
throdgrain
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,197
- Thread starter
- #100
Tab Im also a member
Game licences are gone now mind, but there's still a season for pheasants obviously. You dont have to go on lar-di-dar driven shoots of course (they wouldnt like my semi-auto anyway ), but as you quite rightly say, air rifles are out for anything bigger than a rabbit.Interestingly our country is one of the only countries I can think of where you're allowed to hunt with an Air Rifle. Anywhere else (and I'm talking Europe here, my rabid anti gun folk
) you would have to get a powder burning rimfire gun like a .22 or so. This of course would be very straightfoward in oh, France, or Germany, or just about any bloody country except ours, where we have to go through a 6 month procedure just to get the licence!Tell you what though, on reflection this country's biggest weapon against gun ownership is simply LAND. Again in most countries you have the right to go shooting on "public" land for food for the table, all that's needed is a hunting licence. That again is not the case here. Since the enclosures act of about 1813 or so all land is pretty much owned by someone. The only place other than that is the foreshore, for wildfowling. Ive thought about that, joining a club and trying it, but its a muddy cold bloody business. Ill stick to clay pigeons mostly
I think that if you were to allow legal pistol ownership again, and relax some of the laws a bit - for example only being allowed 2 round in the magazine of a pump shotgun, plus one in the spout - it would have no difference whatsoever on the amount of gun crime in our country.
Mey
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,252
and thus the cycle is complete..
nath
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 8,009
Nath one down the line you could say omg then we must be allowed atom bombs in our gardens (a bit of a silly point I thought, which is why I didnt respond to it
You can go the other way and show how absurd it would be to ban cars but that would go to prove my point too, which was that it is simply a matter of where we draw the line. Some people feel the line should be drawn at guns, some just after guns.. both are perfectly valid opinions.
