How many hard drives do you need to stop an armour piercing round??

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yet there is less gun crime per 1000 people in this country than the US. Also when is the last time that robbers have had a massive shoot out with police in this country with semi-automatic weapons? In fact when is the last time there was any shoot out between police and any one else in this country?? If there was one it would make the national(not local) news headlines.

How many adolescent kids in this country have gone a round murdering people at schools here then??
Police do not need to carry guns around here to protect the peace. They do not need to be pointing around a gun to get some sort of respect.

Quoting the Swiss is pointless since they are countries with SMALL populations and high GDP which do not have many of the social problems that others do. Also the Swiss and Sweden have very small standing armies and hence need to use the civilians they train as soldiers during any invasion. The fact of the matter is the US has a huge standing army and hence does not need armed to the teeth civilians to protect its territorial integrity.

Dropping easily accessible guns(legal or non legal) into any country which has deep seated poverty, major social problems and very limited social care and benefits(unlike Sweden and Switzerland which have some of the highest standards of living in the whole world) is NOT a good idea.

Those sniper rifles are used to take soldiers with armour and other materiel. Also why sell AP bullets then?? Why not sell anti-tank weapons and AP mines so that people can blow up old cars for fun??
The fact of the matter is that a semi-automatic assault type weapons are designed to kill many people quickly and 12.7mm sniper rifles are designed to take out soldiers wearing armour and destroy VEHICLES!! Most of the semi-automatic and automatic weapons are designed to be reloaded quickly too.

They were not designed to kill Bambi. How many soldiers have you seen having a handgun or a hunting rifle as standard issue?? Even the shotguns they have are not the standard type that most people think off(SPAS15 for example).

With a 500 billion dollar+ defence budget I think that your armed forces can protect your country well enough.

Having civilians armed to the teeth does not help "protect" yourself and neither does having armed police.

Many countries in the world still have low gun crime and do need to have all their police and civilians armed to the teeth.

There were 42 gun related deaths in Great Britain last year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1232069.html

The US has considerably more gun related deaths per 1000 than the UK:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r..._b_139879.html

Even if the figure were reduced by 50% they would be still terrible.

[icanhazburger]

The UK also has about 5 times as many burglary's while people are at home than the US, as its riskier there. Not saying there gun laws are a good thing, but some laws are, such as having the right to defend your property, you're less likely to have your house turned over while your in bed if there worried about being shot.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The UK also has about 5 times as many burglary's while people are at home than the US, as its riskier there. Not saying there gun laws are a good thing, but some laws are, such as having the right to defend your property, you're less likely to have your house turned over while your in bed if there worried about being shot.

Except resorting to guns to protect yourself is NOT the way forward as it would mean that more and more criminals will also arm themselves to counter this. Also if someone catches you by surprise it makes no difference unless you are sleeping with a gun under your pillow does it?? What makes it more likely that burglars will kill the home owner(s) first to make sure that they do not attack them with guns when they are searching the house??

How many of these burglars even have guns?? How many of the people burgled were actually murdered then?? What are the stats for the number of people murdered in home burglaries,home invasions and robberies in the US for example using guns??

Tony Martin had a gun yet it did not make any less vulnerable to being burgled did it??

The problem with the UK law is that you have to be careful how you tackle an intruder as it can be seen as assault and battery if you go overboard. The penalties for burglary are pretty lame too!! The fact that an intruder can take the home-owner of the home, they have burgled, to court if they are injured is just proof of how wonky the law has become. How many people get community service and very short term prison sentences then? They have no fear of the law so they feel that they can invade peoples homes with no repercussions. If they are injured by the home-owner then the latter will be taken court and perhaps sent to prison if they use unreasonable force.

The law is too lax on criminals here!! This is why there is the issue with burglary here.

If the law allowed you to defend yourself with more reasonable force in your home(without using guns) and actually had harsher sentences for such crimes then it would help reduce it.

Having people armed to the teeth with military level weapons is just plain nuts. Imagine if a rambler trespassed by mistake onto somebodies land?? Is it OK for them to shoot them dead for this then?? They could be construed as a harmful risk especially if the farmer had prize livestock for example. It could be seen as a direct attack on the farmers livelihood and well-being especially if some had been nicked already by someone else!!

Who determines what level of the risk determines the need for using a gun then?? What are the rules of engagement then?? Where is the line drawn between defending yourself and cold blooded murder??

A lot of crime can be solved buy the use of proper education and proper use of the law. The roots of the crime need to be looked at(like poverty,deprivation and lack of education) first and steps taken to remedy these issues. People should also be taught repect for the law and for each other and the full hand of the law should be brought to bear on those who break them.

[TeePee]

You've answered your own question when it comes to crime rates: 'Swiss is pointless since they are countries with SMALL populations and high GDP which do not have many of the social problems that others do'

Crime is a product of problems with society. Guns aren't dropped here, they've been here for ever, and removing them is impossible. Just as in the UK, they are accessible to criminals, so why not let people defend themselves.

I recognise that shooting sports no longer exist in the UK, but here they are alive, well, and really rather good fun.

I'm an expat. My country is the UK.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You've answered your own question when it comes to crime rates: 'Swiss is pointless since they are countries with SMALL populations and high GDP which do not have many of the social problems that others do'

Crime is a product of problems with society. Guns aren't dropped here, they've been here for ever, and removing them is impossible. Just as in the UK, they are accessible to criminals, so why not let people defend themselves.

Wow!! I never knew that so many people are being killed with guns in the UK. Wow let's arm ourselves with body armour in case some one tries to shoot or stab us!!??

What is the bet that most of the gun crime in the UK happens in some parts of London or Birmingham???

There were around 40 gun related deaths in the whole UK last year(60 million people). At this rate of gun crime it would mean 6 gun related deaths a year in Switzerland for example.

I never said to ban guns did I?? I said that having semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be allowed!!

How is having an M16 going to stop a criminal more than an shotgun or handgun??

Why do you need a gun that can fire at a high rate and can be quickly reloaded??

Intend to take on the mob then??

Why do you need to have a 12.7mm gun sniper rifle with freely available AP ammo?

Intend to destroy some criminal's vehicle then?

People like you watch to many Rambo movies methinks or believes everything some tabloids says.

Perhaps you watch to much of the Sopranos too.




Your argument holds no water!! I know plenty of people who have been trained in the army and they have no need or wish to be having guns around their homes.

In fact they think it is a bit pathetic that people have such obsessions with weapons which after all are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly!!


If people like shooting them for fun why cannot they be just restricted for use at shooting ranges. Perhaps they should also be stored away under lock and key at a separate location so they can never be used anywhere else.

Perhaps you need to examine why most police here do not need to carry a gun around as standard then??

How many mass murders have been done in this country using guns in the last 20+ years(2 to be precise) and how many by children(none).

Look in Germany and Austria for example.

The fact is that the law has failed if it is not capable of defending the populace and the latter "need" guns to protect themselves.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons have been banned hear for over 20 year plus and this has not meant that all of a sudden that civilians are murdered with guns every second in their homes by criminals does it?

Also the fact is that you have failed to answer what determines the rules of engagement for an armed civilian??

Should a civilian be allowed to fire assault type and military issue weapons outside a firing range then??

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I recognise that shooting sports no longer exist in the UK, but here they are alive, well, and really rather good fun.

I'm an expat. My country is the UK.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gun clubs still exist but for use with pistols,rifles and shotguns.
NOT for assault type weapons though.

[TeePee]

Let me try to answer your questions in order:

A good bet, with no point.

You're saying to ban some of the most popular firearms in the US.

For a home invasion, I'd take the shotgun for close range, followed by the rifle and use the handgun only to get to a real gun. A handgun is significantly less likely to stop a criminal. In a Katrina-style event, the rifle for home defense becomes a necessity.

Sport. It's good fun!

Sport. It's good fun! Most .50BMG ammunition is AP because it's milsurp, but making a non-AP .50BMG would be a challenge. That's a lot of energy! AP handgun ammo is already illegal to sell, and AP 5.56, for example, is simply impossible to find.

Only if they're shooting at me from it.

Liked the original, but you forget Rambo is an anti-war film.

I know of only one mass-murder in the UK in the last 20 years of the type you're so obsessed about. These deaths make up a minute number of intentional killings. I know over the same period the murder rate in the UK has doubled while it reduced significantly in the US. Moreover shootings in the UK continue, Jill Dando and David Bieber being classic examples. There are also many high profile knife killings, Robert Knox and Damilola Taylor, which simply show the result of a violent culture.

Better examples of the effect of gun control would be to compare gun violence in states in the US which have restrictions (like California and Illinois) against those which don't. I suggest reading the Lott study.

Comparing the US to the UK compares very different societies. I also have several friends here who served in the US forces. All own firearms. All but one have a CHL. In the US, people are more prepared to take responsibility for the safety of themselves and their families, wihle in the UK, people expect the police to do so.

I'm not saying that all weapons should be legal everywhere. Far from it. In countries without a culture of shooting sports, there would be few people interested in legally buying guns. In countries such as the US, where such a culture exists, then to try to remove them would not be successful. There is an interest and a legitimate sporting use for the firearms you're trying to demonize.

The rules of engagement for an armed civilian are very simple. If someone tries to kill you, try to kill them right back.

Yes! Why should your fun be dictated by a range Nazi. With proper training and education (something most children don't learn in the UK) guns are safe and nothing to be afraid of!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

For a home invasion, I'd take the shotgun for close range, followed by the rifle and use the handgun only to get to a real gun. A handgun is significantly less likely to stop a criminal. In a Katrina-style event, the rifle for home defense becomes a necessity.

The rules of engagement for an armed civilian are very simple. If someone tries to kill you, try to kill them right back.

!

Oh really then?? So do you kill the person if you think they may harm you or if they actually brandish a gun then? What if they are unarmed then??

The way you talk about brandishing multiple guns is like some sort of game. So you would rather murder someone than incapacitate them??


Even armed police here only kill criminals if it is considered a last resort (or if they are considered to be a suicide bomber).

I know of only one mass-murder in the UK in the last 20 years of the type you're so obsessed about. These deaths make up a minute number of intentional killings. I know over the same period the murder rate in the UK has doubled while it reduced significantly in the US. Moreover shootings in the UK continue, Jill Dando and David Bieber being classic examples. There are also many high profile knife killings, Robert Knox and Damilola Taylor, which simply show the result of a violent culture.

Which still pales on comparison to the amount of violent gun crimes per thousand people in the US. The reason why any crimes like murder or shootings make BIG news here is because they are relatively rare and are considered shocking. The US has a huge number of gun related deaths per thousand of the population when compared to the UK. I doubt that many would even make the national news(unless it was big).

The UK crime figures include things such as brawls for goodness sakes!! Do you think US crime figures would include people punching each other in a fight??? The UK has so much violent crime that the police do not even need to carry guns as standard. I wonder how many British police officers died in shoot outs last year??

43 gun deaths in this ENTIRE country of 60 million people last year!! So I assume that there were less than 215 gun deaths last year in the US(population 300 million) ?? In fact most of the gun crimes are in London and Birmingham which makes the rest of the UK relatively safe.

TBH unless you carry your gun everywhere on your person with how are you going to be safe if a criminal attacks you?? TBH I would rather someone attacked me with a knife than a gun as at least you have a slightly higher chance of surviving or fighting back. Unless organised crime is involved most home intruders are NOT armed with guns here.

Also the fact of the matter is the murder rate of the US per thousand of the population is still higher than the UK or even a country like Canada.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

In a Katrina-style event, the rifle for home defense becomes a necessity.

In the US, people are more prepared to take responsibility for the safety of themselves and their families, wihle in the UK, people expect the police to do so.

Funny how natural disasters in this country and western europe don't seem to desent into this level of chaos?? I wonder if the Dutch started shooting at each other when they have massive floods too or the Japanese started shooting at each other after the Kobe earthquake of 1995 where 6500 people died in a city of 1.5 million people.

Japan has one of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. We can see that your way work well didn't it??

Also the police do not need to carry guns most of the time too!!

[TeePee]

Oh really then?? So do you kill the person if you think they may harm you or if they actually brandish a gun then?

The way you talk about brandishing multiple guns is like some sort of game. So you would rather murder someone than incapacitate them??

Even armed police here only kill criminals if it is considered a last resort (or if they are considered to be suicide bomber). The last guy who did that was sent to prison because he shoot the

Which still pales on comparison to the amount of violent gun crimes per thousand people in the US. The reason why any crimes make BIG news here is because they are relatively rare and are considered shocking. The US has a huge number of gun related deaths per thousand of the population than the US.

43 gun deaths in this ENTIRE country of 60 million people last year!! So I assume that there were less than 215 gun deaths last year in the US(population 300 million).

Also the fact of the matter is the murder rate of the US per thousand of the population is still higher than the UK or even a country like Canada.

There's no such thing as shooting to wound. The police don't do it, anywhere, and nor should a responsible armed civilian. Self defense isn't murder. Shooting someone would be my last resort too, and if I had to do it I'd want something that would stop them shooting back!

The murder rate in the US is just under three times that in the UK, which I assume is what you meant. The fact that the murder rate is so much higher in the US than Canada, where guns are legal, proves my point, not yours.

How many of these spree killings you're so afraid of actually used a semi or fully automatic rifle caliber? Columbine, VT and Dunblane certainly didn't. Hungerford did, but where are the masses of murders happening with such weapons? Most criminals use handguns, which you say should still be allowed! (after all, they 'do the job at close range').

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

There's no such thing as shooting to wound. The police don't do it, anywhere, and nor should a responsible armed civilian.

I never said that they shoot to wound did I?? I said that police only kill someone here as alast resort. Also BTW I repeat again he vast majority of officers here are not armed with guns. Even arming them with tazers is considered controversial here.

The murder rate in the US is just under three times that in the UK, which I assume is what you meant. The fact that the murder rate is so much higher in the US than Canada, where guns are legal, proves my point, not yours.

Regarding Canada actually in BC(population 4.5 million) there was 53 gun related murders alone last year:

http://www2.canada.com/2008+record+y...tml?id=1358228

This is more than the WHOLE of the UK which has 15 times the number of people!! So actually it does NOT prove your point. It only proves that the Canadians are slightly less trigger happy. Also Canada has greater restrictions on the types of guns that can be owned too unlike the US.

Self defense isn't murder. Shooting someone would be my last resort too, and if I had to do it I'd want something that would stop them shooting back!

If you shoot an unarmed person it is manslaughter at the very least! What about kids trespassing on you property or even trying to vandalise things?

Self defence does not mean killing the person either. Are you telling me if you did shoot your intruder and they were still living you would kill them to make sure?? What if they were in no state to offer any resistance after you shot them first?

Jeez, if it comes down to the average person thinking of what gun they need to protect themselves it just shows how much law and order has deteriorated TBH.

How many of these spree killings you're so afraid of actually used a semi or fully automatic rifle caliber? Columbine, VT and Dunblane certainly didn't. Hungerford did, but where are the masses of murders happening with such weapons? Most criminals use handguns, which you say should still be allowed! (after all, they 'do the job at close range').

Most modern gun crimes are done using sawn off shotguns or with certain types of pistols which are banned. Handguns are also restricted too. According to you, you said criminals use them so they must be effective. However according to you previously it would not be able to stop a person so this means a lower powered gun is enough to protect most criminals but not a civilian? The logical way would be for the criminals to have a more powerful weapon than the law enforcement or civilians(like Clyde Barrow had)?? Obviously this is not the case in most instances.
Why do you need an M16 then?? So you do not need your military assault type weapons or military issue sniper rifles to defend yourself then?? Even before the Hungerford massacre there was huge restrictions on owning semi-automatic weapons. The fact is that we have lower gun crime anyway and most of the public do not want assault type weapons and other military issue guns to be freely available too.

So what if your assault type weapons were only modified(irreversibly) to fire one or two shots a time(before reloading) then would that be unacceptable to you?? Or is that not enough to protect yourself with!?? Of course you just need your 12.7mm anti-materiel sniper rifle to shoot down trespassers as they pass the boundaries of your land??

The armed forces and the police are there to protect the peace not gun toting civilians.

I think I prefer the way law enforcement is handled here rather than having the need for civilians to arm themselves to the teeth "just in case"!! The fact that you are idolising military weapons which are only designed to kill large numbers of people quickly and at maximum range is a bit sick TBH.

[TeePee]

What exactly is your argument?

I pointed out two reasons for owning a Semi-automatic weapon in the US, and you're argument is that the culture here is different so I'm sick?
How does stopping someone from shooting back even imply I'd execute someone 'to be sure'.

You need to start actually reading what's posted, and re-read your own replies before you post them. If nothing else it will save wear and tear on that edit button.

Aside from sport shooting, which alone is a good enough reason for a civilian to own whatever. (Try watching some 3-gun videos on youtube so you understand what that's about). I mentioned a SHTF scenario such as Katrina as an example of a time to use a rifle for home defense. Your argument that other countries manage just fine but the society in the US is bad is a circular one. I agree it's bad, but banning one type of gun won't change that. Just because a criminal only has a handgun doesn't mean I should limit myself in the same way. The idea is to win, and I'd rather cheat. It's the nature of the culture which requires it.

You're correct that in the majority of situations a handgun is enough, which you find acceptable, until it's used for home defense, because now I'm gunning down unarmed civilians again.

Canada has a lower murder rate than the UK, despite guns being legal.

So, three sentences or less, what is your argument?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So, three sentences or less, what is your argument?

And what is yours apart from the paranoid I need to protect myself from evil people who may attack me in my home and may be armed with a gun and hence I need to make sure they are dead or so injured that they might as well be(which ties in with the paranoid "the police are incapable of protecting me" so I need big military type assault weapons and sniper rifles argument).

Also the argument about the obsessive "I idolise guns and they are fun to shoot especially the military ones which are designed to take out infantry and jeeps".

In fact why the heck do you need a weapon with such a high rate of fire or one with such stopping ability to protect yourself??

[TeePee]

(1) Shooting is a fun sport, that help's get me outdoors, makes friends and teaches a valuable skill!

(2) I am responsible for my own life, and if someone invades my home with a gun, which is possible since the US is a violent country compared to the UK, I have other options besides waiting ten minutes or more for the police.

(3) See (1)

Your turn!

[TooNice]

If you shoot an unarmed person it is manslaughter at the very least!

The problem I suppose is that how do you know the person is unarmed? And how do you know that the person who is invading your home 'only' wanted to rob you and not cause physical harm to you or your family? And any reasonable person would assume that the person would be able to overpower you if they get close (not quite the 13 years old graffiti spraying your walls outside your house). Push come to shove, I would side with the home owner, if there is an obvious break-in in the middle of the night.

In the UK at least (I think there are many flaws when comparing different countries), I would rather keep it gun free. However, I do think that certain self-defense equipments currently illegal should be allowed in a person's home. On top of my mind are pepper spray and maybe tazers.

I am fine with banning them in public, and while they are not quite a sure way of neutralising an invader compared to more lethal meals (i.e. guns), I think they offer a decent compromise. The argument against is that it may lead to an arm race between home owners and invaders. But criminals will probably always have an edge. And in the end, I'd rather be able to defend myself with a weaker ranged weapon, than no ranged weapon at all (obviously your preferences would be different if you 6'4, 200lb of muscle and well trained in self-defence - but not everyone falls into such category ).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

(1) Shooting is a fun sport, that help's get me outdoors, makes friends and teaches a valuable skill!

(2) I am responsible for my own life, and if someone invades my home with a gun, which is possible since the US is a violent country compared to the UK, I have other options besides waiting ten minutes or more for the police.

(3) See (1)

Your turn!

Which proves nothing as it just shows how much you idolise guns. How many learn this "skill" by using non military type guns?? But even forgetting this why do you need such a weapon to protect yourself with then?
So you are incapable of making friend's outside of shooting guns together?? Right.................!!
Also it just shows how paranoid you are about something which will rarely happen to most people in their lifetime. If not this would mean most unarmed americans would be dead by now.

Funnily enough all the americans I have met have never seen the need to own guns or even idolise them. Perhaps they are capable of living a full life without resorting to them.


I feel sorry for Obama too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hten-laws.html