Poetry Forum

Full Version: Firearms
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

Lawrence

Inspired by an earlier thread, I now present to you, faithful pen members, the question: Should law permit the possession of concealed firearms?

In fact, should firearms even be LEGAL?

I don't know how the Brits do it, but even though I support concealed-carry laws, I think you should stay far away from weapons. You lost that privilege when all sixteen members of the American army kicked yer asses out of here Tongue

But seriously, folks. Opinions?
in the uk any gun apart from shotguns have to be stored at the gun club. and shotgun licenses are only given to farmers for vermin control. criminals can get gut from europe main but in general we're a gun-less society (some police do carry them)
i'd like to see all hand guns and automatic weapons banned except when stored at firing ranges. and anyone caught with an illegal gun get life.

i realize that that will never happen so i say make proper checks on who you give a license to. i'm happy that they're illegal in the uk.

thethingy

(01-10-2011, 03:01 PM)Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]Inspired by an earlier thread, I now present to you, faithful pen members, the question: Should law permit the possession of concealed firearms?

In fact, should firearms even be LEGAL?

I don't know how the Brits do it, but even though I support concealed-carry laws, I think you should stay far away from weapons. You lost that privilege when all sixteen members of the American army kicked yer asses out of here Tongue

But seriously, folks. Opinions?

No, should be banned, but the 16 colonies didn't kick our ass you had the most amount of help from the French, there was over a million red coats that could have come and killed you all but the fact of the matter was you lost Canada (over half the continent) and at the time Jamaica made far more cash than the colonies so a few measly territories going solo was no biggie,, but guns are for killing so no need to have them really, I'm glad they are heavily regulated in the UK but that was only after WW1, up until then you could have what you wanted, you can now for the most part have what you want (small side arms are a no-no) with a licence but not to carry concealed and when transporting guns they must be unloaded and in a case which is quite sensible, there is a ancient law that lets us arm ourselves in the face of persecution but the yanks haven't invaded us yet so we still live in a civilised nation, the side arm ban only came about in the last few years after the Dumb-lane indecent and really the US should have had a similar ban after Columbine but you lot are still paranoid that the red coats are coming back to civilise you again..........................

and don't forget the Canadians/British kicked your ass in the war after independence but we let you keep your country again cause its no worthy.................

Lawrence

It's not our fault The Brits dressed up in red coats, in the snow, in single file lines of twenty. Very efficient!
(Like your dental plans TonguePP)

and WHOA! You got sore over my Brit comments Tongue


I kind of think blaming columbine on guns is like Rosie blaming her spoon because she's fat. I view guns like drugs; if criminals want drugs, they'll get drugs by...get this...BREAKING THE LAW! Same goes for guns Smile

I kid. I love my Brits! I don't love America at all....I just love being a dick!
Oh, and the French don't exist. Not anymore. They don't get to have a history (because it's written by the winner AKA Americans)

thethingy

(01-10-2011, 09:07 PM)Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ]It's not our fault The Brits dressed up in red coats, in the snow, in single file lines of twenty. Very efficient!
(Like your dental plans TonguePP)

and WHOA! You got sore over my Brit comments Tongue


I kind of think blaming columbine on guns is like Rosie blaming her spoon because she's fat. I view guns like drugs; if criminals want drugs, they'll get drugs by...get this...BREAKING THE LAW! Same goes for guns Smile

I kid. I love my Brits! I don't love America at all....I just love being a dick!
Oh, and the French don't exist. Not anymore. They don't get to have a history (because it's written by the winner AKA Americans)

Well if you couldn't walk in to a supermarket and buy an M16 then that would make things a little bit harder for criminals, I think to a certain extent you can blame the gun but obviously the user is responsible, if guns weren't readily available then there would be less gun crime, when things are rare the price increases so the guns would be out of reach for the common criminal in some cases, don't get me wrong perhaps in Florida where you have alligators in your garden then a gun would be useful but say in the city then there really is no justification for it, like really why on earth does a civilian need an assault rifle or automatic machine gun?, it's crazy.................

(I like Americans except mad dog Hillary Clinton)
okay, it's in serious discussion so let's leave the red and any other coloured coats out of it please. stay relevant to the topic which concerns the now and not 200 years ago/admin

VF; i can understand that people have possession of more small arms than the armed forces. most in the armed forces have 1 small arms weapon. many civilians (and there are a lot more civilians than members of the armed forces) have 1, 2, 3, or even whole collections of small arms. specially in the usa. i was a little surprised about europe though.

thethingy;
i agree, i think the fact that people can carry concealed weapons is fundamentally flawed.

1. should you be held up at gun point and then try to pull your gun out, the chances are you'll end up dead.

2. how many weapons get into criminal hands after being held up and disarmed?

3. robbers would more likely hold up some when they can't see the gun as holding up someone who has a gun in plain sight.

i can understand people wanting a gun in the home. but not one to wear concealed. i could also never see the point of having a weapon that wasn't loaded upon the person.

lawrence;
the people who did the columbine killings were not criminals before the act. they were two senior students who had access to guns. to use the analogy that the killers were "criminals" is a misnomer. the weapons they used were either bought legally or borrowed from friends, these borrowed weapons were also acquired though legal means (a shop) while gangsta types will always get guns. collage types would find it a lot harder to acquire if their friends and relatives hadn't already bought them.
without the gun laws in the usa we can assume at most they may have gotten their hands on maybe one weapon and a small amount of ammo.

the blaming the fat girls obesity on the spoon falls down against the fact that these guns were readily available and that if they were not the two killers probably wouldn't have had the where with all to acquire them. i'm not sure how many weapons they had but it was more than one or two.

apart from gangsta deaths i'm sure (though i have no source) that non gangster deaths are fewer in countries where weapons are harder to come by. specially the accidental deaths where a kid plays with the fathers magnum and blows his little head off.
the gun solution in america is obviously more gunsConfused
Non-American's are simply jealous of the freedom American's have

to kill Americans.

Seriously--the delusional hand wringing that goes on time after time after time when American school kids knock off a couple of dozen classmates would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and so predictable: "Oh no, kids shooting each other, that's terrible, what can we do?" "Limit access to guns." "You're crazy. How can you possibly think that reducing access to guns would reduce shootings?" ...

As for allowing every whack job in my country to walk around with lethal and impersonal weaponry? That would be insane.

thethingy

(01-21-2011, 08:52 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]Non-American's are simply jealous of the freedom American's have

I think the issue lies in the right to have firearms, most other nations allow you to have firearms just not as a birthright, perhaps if the right was removed then the want /need to have would die down, people could still have what they have, it just wouldn't be cultural anymore.

You could make the chemicals in the gunpowder illegal and that would effectively ban firearms without removing the right to have a firearm if that would be easier, or heavily regulate the gunpowder stuff.
yeah,right,leave the right to bear arms but make ammo illegal;lostit;

thethingy

(01-21-2011, 10:05 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]yeah,right,leave the right to bear arms but make ammo illegal;lostit;

yip, save a constitutional amendment Hysterical
i always found it a bit contradicting that one should have the right to bear arms but it's illegal to kill people with them,what else are they for?

thethingy

(01-21-2011, 10:58 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]i always found it a bit contradicting that one should have the right to bear arms but it's illegal to kill people with them,what else are they for?

You get mad contradictions like that all over, in the UK cannabis is illegal but buying cannabis seed is not, LSD is illegal but magic mushrooms aren't, just saying I think a lot of the "right to bear arms" crap has more to do with the government not tampering with that centuries old constitution that to me seems no longer relevant.

relevant I mean: The right to bear arms was perhaps arguably a sensible thing at the time when the US was first formed because there was no army or FBI or CIA or really any state protection for the citizens, the right to bear arms should have really been reviewed when the federal army was formed in the later half of last century, after all the army is there to protect the people and that is what the right to bear arms was, I believe, intended for.
You missed contents of the spoiler.
the spoiler made me laugh.

i think the usa is in the position of being damned if it curbs gun ownership and damned if it doesn't.
the country was built with guns, to try and get the guns out of the hands of the common man would
be an enormous task. and probably mean non election of any president to be, should they back or propose such a bill. jmo
True, but the question was "should firearms be legal?" not "could firearms be made illegal?"

FWIW, on the second point, I agree with you--it's politically impossible to implement gun control in the US.

fair enough.

i think for certain things guns should be legal. hunting, pest control. that said hand guns are used for neither.i think all hand guns, as well as all automatic weapons should be made illegal for personal use, unless stored at a gun club where they can be used on a range.
i believe it should be illegal to carry a gun concealed or i the open. and that anyone caught doing so charged with going equipped to kill. 1st offence, mandatory 10 yrs 2nd offence, mandatory life without parole. (unless you're a police officer etc) jmo like i said i can't see any party soon being brave enough to actually ban guns let alone be draconian enough to give those kind or prison sentences to offenders.
Since change isn't possible in that regard, perhaps we could move the discussion on to something related which is possible? You'll stop me I'm sure if it's too far off-topic.

Should police officers be armed?

They are in many countries but not mine, though it is being called for increasingly often following several shootings of officers over the past couple of years. I expect it will happen fairly soon but I think it's a bad move which will actually result in MORE police (and members of the public) being shot and killed. I think criminals are more likely to use weapons (as opposed to merely threatening with them) when they know that the police confronting them are armed.

I also think that arming police will harden police attitudes to the public. In the same way that drivers are more aggressive than pedestrians because they're encased in a steel shell, someone walking around with instant death on their hip cannot help but feel safer in behaving aggressively than someone with a "mere" uniform.

And that such a change in attitude will in turn harden the public's attitude to the police.

It's a vicious spiral and a downward one.

thethingy

(01-23-2011, 09:17 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]Since change isn't possible in that regard, perhaps we could move the discussion on to something related which is possible? You'll stop me I'm sure if it's too far off-topic.

Should police officers be armed?

They are in many countries but not mine, though it is being called for increasingly often following several shootings of officers over the past couple of years. I expect it will happen fairly soon but I think it's a bad move which will actually result in MORE police (and members of the public) being shot and killed. I think criminals are more likely to use weapons (as opposed to merely threatening with them) when they know that the police confronting them are armed.

I also think that arming police will harden police attitudes to the public. In the same way that drivers are more aggressive than pedestrians because they're encased in a steel shell, someone walking around with instant death on their hip cannot help but feel safer in behaving aggressively than someone with a "mere" uniform.

And that such a change in attitude will in turn harden the public's attitude to the police.

It's a vicious spiral and a downward one.

Are you New Zealand or UK?, they aren't generally armed in the UK but armed response can get to a situation in the same time, they say, as normal police, I prefer them unarmed I think it's a bad reflection on the people if the police need to patrol with guns, if all police were armed and I was up to no good then I think I would arm myself too in order to counter the police's measure............
Pages: 1 2