More than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for the British TV host Piers Morgan to be deported after he criticised America's gun laws.
After December's Newtown school shooting President Obama opened up the emotionally charged debate over stricter gun control, which CNN host Morgan is strongly in favour of.
The White House has issued a statement defending Mr Morgan's right to free speech.
No civilian should have the right to own a M4A1 legally. Period.
No civilian should have the right to own a M4A1 legally. Period.I don't understand why non-lethal weapons like tazers, bean bags, etc have a more prominent role in the self defense laws. Killing someone for self defense isn't self defense, it's murder. Defending yourself by taking somebody elses life and JUSTIFYING that under retard ancient laws is simply inhumane. To consider your life so valuable that you end somebody elses in order to protect your own.... Man that's selfish.
Wouldn't that only increase the potentiality?
*sigh*
This above isn't just relevant to drug laws, it's relevant to ANY law. Give them a softer, more harmless alternative, instead of an empty void. Don't ban ALL guns, make non lethal weapons a better ALTERNATIVE.. Sure tazers and bean bags are still dangerous, but at least people can defend themselves WITHOUT jeopardizing somebody's life.Amen
Piers is completely right, the second amendment right is based on 1791!! Influenced by british law from 1689.... THERE IS A HUGE f**kING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS:Damn true man, I don't mean to offend Americans, but when you have a petition signed by WAY OVER 100,000 people to have a man removed from your country just because he disagree's with your gun laws, you know you either have a mental or denial problem, it's like I always hear them saying 'If the government wants my guns, they will have to fight for them,' is that really what you'd do if the government took all your guns? Murder a bunch of innocent people who are just doing their jobs..
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/12240/12498449_1.jpg?v=8CEEB74F39CECA0)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3OnhId99mrQA3kc4_Za7wdY11RR0HTcMduPaRMjO1nNU73HuyUw)
AND THIS:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnA-Xx00KWQaNbbwEB7ZMpB3lkyJzY9mDKECt3fTTSnOjS5tuNvQ)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6ovcg0N-4rY1zpO1nNJ0Z5lomfgRZB38KU3pZA6uYiRwqFnKe)
Piers is completely right, the second amendment right is based on 1791!! Influenced by british law from 1689.... THERE IS A HUGE f**kING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS:
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/12240/12498449_1.jpg?v=8CEEB74F39CECA0)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3OnhId99mrQA3kc4_Za7wdY11RR0HTcMduPaRMjO1nNU73HuyUw)
AND THIS:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnA-Xx00KWQaNbbwEB7ZMpB3lkyJzY9mDKECt3fTTSnOjS5tuNvQ)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6ovcg0N-4rY1zpO1nNJ0Z5lomfgRZB38KU3pZA6uYiRwqFnKe)
Here we go again...Crazy Brits...
Didn't Piers Morgan threatened to deport himself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/31/piers-morgan-deport-himself-gun-control) if gun control failed?
Here we go again...If you plan on committing mass murder with a 200 year old rifle (or whatever it is) you're going to be there reloading it alot longer than a military machine gun, you can't kill people with a TV and the internet.
Didn't Piers Morgan threatened to deport himself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/31/piers-morgan-deport-himself-gun-control) if gun control failed?
So by his logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to modern media like TV and the Internet?
So by his logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to modern media like TV and the Internet?
No civilian should have the right to own a M4A1 legally. Period.
I agree, speech can be as dangerous as a gun, but speech doesn't change, guns do, they become bigger, faster, lighter... That's not "defense"... That's "death".
Civilians cannot own a M4A1 legally without going through the proper channels (ATF) because it's fully automatic. That's why there's a civilian variation of the M4A1 called the AR-15.That doesn't stop those who want to miss-use them, from getting them, I think it was the Panorama TV programme in the UK that went to the US, bought an M4A1 and some ammo from a gun market (where different people all go sell their guns in 1 place), she didn't have to show ID or anything, just took the M4A1 in a case after paying and left the building. :roll:
And if you try using only speech against a government that has these type of weapons that you cannot own? That's "genocide".
You know this isn't 1950, you don't live in communist russia, stalin's dead.. You do know that right? Really, if the US government wanted its people dead, ain't much you can do about it.Yeh because Obama just can't wait to start a civil war which would ruin the US, well actually it kind of already is ruined, major gun problems, massive debt, continuous mass wasting of money on the US military, constant borrowing. :roll:
Didn't Piers Morgan threatened to deport himself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/31/piers-morgan-deport-himself-gun-control) if gun control failed?
Civilians cannot own a M4A1 legally without going through the proper channels (ATF) because it's fully automatic. That's why there's a civilian variation of the M4A1 called the AR-15.Oh so now it's all cool? That state of mind you're displaying is why the situation in America is messed up.
Oh so now it's all cool? That state of mind you're displaying is why the situation in America is messed up.
Keep him. We don't want him.This guy speaks the truth. Him being in America keeps him off Britain's Got Talent. :hurray:
That doesn't stop those who want to miss-use them, from getting them, I think it was the Panorama TV programme in the UK that went to the US, bought an M4A1 and some ammo from a gun market (where different people all go sell their guns in 1 place), she didn't have to show ID or anything, just took the M4A1 in a case after paying and left the building. :roll:I saw that. Very messed up and should be reviewed immediately. If anyone can just go to a gun show, purchase a M4 like they can a chocolate bar something is incredibly flawed. Obama says he will work to close down these "gun loopholes", I'm still waiting Barack so is the rest of America and please don't wait for another school massacre before you start thinking about doing something.
I didn't say it was all cool, I'm just stating facts in response to Jacob. What state of mind do you honestly think I have?You're saying, or atleast making it look like you're saying that an AR-15 resolved the gun situation.
This guy speaks the truth. Him being in America keeps him off Britain's Got Talent. :hurray:The loopholes will remain aslong as people can buy and sell guns. :roll:
I saw that. Very messed up and should be reviewed immediately. If anyone can just go to a gun show, purchase a M4 like they can a chocolate bar something is incredibly flawed. Obama says he will work to close down these "gun loopholes", I'm still waiting Barack so is the rest of America and please don't wait for another school massacre before you start thinking about doing something.
You're saying, or atleast making it look like you're saying that an AR-15 resolved the gun situation.
What I want to say is that no firearm such as the AR-15 or anything that can kill should be allowed (that easily).
Only "logical" reason to own a civil assault rifle is for hunting large animals... Which is pretty much illegal in a crapton of places.. Also hunting is an outdated hobby which should be considered as a crime against nature.. But I ain't peta so shoot all you want.They should be setting up game reserves and not allowing civilians to have these high capacity weapons outside of these places. It would make it safer.
Only "logical" reason to own a civil assault rifle is for hunting large animals... Which is pretty much illegal in a crapton of places.. Also hunting is an outdated hobby which should be considered as a crime against nature.. But I ain't peta so shoot all you want.
2nd Amendment wasn't created just for hunting. As for hunting, they actually encourage hunting in order to prevent overpopulation as mentioned here (http://www.catholic.org/green/story.php?id=48839) and here. (http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/77285/)
You can't infringe a constitutional right in which the people can fight back.Yes because all of the armed citizens in the US are going to shoot at innocent cops who are just enforcing the law, that law possibly being to remove everyones guns.
If you're anti-gun, that's cool. But, since you're not even from America(talking to non-americans obviously) you really can't speak on our Bill of Rights.Your gun violence effects the world, so we do have the right to speak about it, we constantly have to hear depressing stories of the latest mass shooting in the US, the last one being just last week.
Britain doesn't quite have the street gangs and criminals we do.Difference between US and UK gangs:
Gun control may work for you, but it can't work for us. We have actual crime - and it's common.Are you trying to say the UK doesn't have 'actual crime'? And the reason gun control works for us, is because very citizen isn't armed to their teeth with guns and ammunition.
Just to clarify, gun control may work for your country, but it can't work for ours.Yes, because you let it get out of hand.
but holding on to 200 year old rationality can eventually have its toll..Kind of already is having it's toll. :roll:
Yes because all of the armed citizens in the US are going to shoot at innocent cops who are just enforcing the law, that law possibly being to remove everyones guns.
Your gun violence effects the world, so we do have the right to speak about it, we constantly have to hear depressing stories of the latest mass shooting in the US, the last one being just last week.
It's not much, but it clearly shows that having something to defend against a mass shooter means a lot.If everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have mass shooters, simple.. :poke:
Mikal, you have to be reminded that the U.S has an open border with a country known to smuggle drugs and weapons. The UK doesn't have the gun smuggling issue the US does. We could ban all the guns for citizens, however Mexican drug cartels would be free to smuggle guns to gang members. Until we can close our border with Mexico, we will always need guns. We can not protect ourselves with mace or a stun gun. When the criminals have guns, the citizens need guns. Like I said, you can't compare US crime to UK crime mainly because of our gangs and open borders. Our gun violence doesn't effect the rest of the world, it only effects us.Gangs in the UK have guns, but theres only around 40 shooting incidents per year, as opposed to the USA's 12,000, the smugglers would be a tiny proportion compared to the whole USA population, and simply would not matter and all, the police would deal with them, and the police could do alot more if your government would stop wasting billions and billions on the uselessly large military for no absolute reason, money could go into funding the Mexican police deal with the problems, of even offering them physical support.
One thing I'm not sure everyone gets is we can't get the guns out of criminals hands. Even if the US Government were to ban all guns, every gang member would still have guns. We can't stop the gangs from owning guns. There is nothing we can do about them owning guns.
One thing I'm not sure everyone gets is we can't get the guns out of criminals hands. Even if the US Government were to ban all guns, every gang member would still have guns. We can't stop the gangs from owning guns. There is nothing we can do about them owning guns.America has got to stop hiding from the truth and start acting. You can keep on saying that more guns will solve the problem because you'll come to regret it years down the line when things start to become uncontrollable.
America has got to start hiding from the truth and start acting. You can keep on saying that more guns will solve the problem because you'll come to regret it years down the line when things start to become uncontrollable.Stop* and it already is uncontrollable. :D
If everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have mass shooters, simple.. :poke:
Gangs in the UK have guns, but theres only around 40 shooting incidents per year, as opposed to the USA's 12,000, the smugglers would be a tiny proportion compared to the whole USA population, and simply would not matter and all, the police would deal with them, and the police could do alot more if your government would stop wasting billions and billions on the uselessly large military for no absolute reason, money could go into funding the Mexican police deal with the problems, of even offering them physical support.
Can't remove the guns? You're gonna have a bad time.
Gangs here in America are far worse then gangs in your country. Read up on gangs here, some will literally kill you and your family if you look at them funny. Gangs in America are no joke. We have over a million documented gang members nation wide, and that's just the documented ones. The smugglers and gangs result for the majority of our murders. Our regular ole citizens aren't killing people. 65%-80% of our murders are gang-related. The police can not do anything about gangs due to civil rights and realistically because of immigration laws. Since we can't deport illegal immigrants, 66% of Hispanic street gangs, we can't stop them. Like I said, gun control may work the UK but we have actual problems here in America. Street gangs are no joke here. The criminal justice system sucks here and people are getting off for big crimes. I live in a good neighborhood, but just this year there's been 5 home invasions and multiple burglaries. The difference between a home invasion and burglary is a home invasion takes place while people are home. They get tied up and gagged and the gang members go freely because the police can't stop them.Sorry am I missing something? Is how bad your countries gangs are supposed to be a good thing? Just seems that way by the way you brag about it, if your '65-80%' is true, the other percentage is still freaking huge considering the USA's population size, and you forget to realise, the people who do things like the Sandy Hook shooting are not in gangs, they were regular citizens, who decided to commit mass murder for whatever reason, and the guns they used were as easy to get as a batch of eggs from the corner shop, I can see why you came to the UK though, atleast we can control guns, and gangs.
Stop* and it already is uncontrollable. :DThat's what I meant, edited ;)
Gangs here in America are far worse then gangs in your country.As Mikal pointed out the majority of major mass shootings in America recently have not been gang related but they are down to mentally ill people or the lone gunman. They aren't planned attack, just random which is harder for the police to prevent as they can't predict it. So you must look to putting in the preventative methods to stop these people from having high capacity weapons which aren't needed at all in civilian hands. Your President has got to stop waiting for these massacres to boost his political campaigning by saying what he will do and actually put his words into practise.
Sorry am I missing something? Is how bad your countries gangs are supposed to be a good thing? Just seems that way by the way you brag about it, if your '65-80%' is true, the other percentage is still freaking huge considering the USA's population size, and you forget to realise, the people who do things like the Sandy Hook shooting are not in gangs, they were regular citizens, who decided to commit mass murder for whatever reason, and the guns they used were as easy to get as a batch of eggs from the corner shop, I can see why you came to the UK though, atleast we can control guns, and gangs.The people who commit mass-shootings are always mentally ill. The mentally ill should not be able to get their hands on guns, I agree. However, there is a much simpler solution then stripping good, law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment right. The mentally ill should be in mental hospitals. Look at the most recent mass shooting. The guy was mentally ill and troubled. He was even investigated for making bomb threats. How did he get his hands on guns? He should have been locked up a long time ago. If we could go back to the system we had pre-1970/1980's, we wouldn't have mass shootings. Back then, if you were insane and wanted to harm others, they locked you up. Today, these mentally ill people can do whatever they want. The problem isn't guns, it's our criminal justice and mental health systems. This is an unarguable fact. If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.
Back then, if you were insane and wanted to harm others, they locked you up. Today, these mentally ill people can do whatever they want. The problem isn't guns, it's our criminal justice and mental health systems. This is an unarguable fact. If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.I don't think locking people up is the correct way to solve the problem, a number of other factors have to be considered. Something is obviously a problem as there are mentally ill people here in the UK but they seem to be fine walking the streets here without shooting anyone. Why? Because they have access to no weapons. Instead of locking them up remove the source of the problem and disallow them from owning a weapon. You wouldn't put someone in prison because they have ginger hair and might shoot someone, why do it to the mentally ill?
The people who commit mass-shootings are always mentally ill. The mentally ill should not be able to get their hands on guns, I agree. However, there is a much simpler solution then stripping good, law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment right. The mentally ill should be in mental hospitals. Look at the most recent mass shooting. The guy was mentally ill and troubled. He was even investigated for making bomb threats. How did he get his hands on guns? He should have been locked up a long time ago. If we could go back to the system we had pre-1970/1980's, we wouldn't have mass shootings. Back then, if you were insane and wanted to harm others, they locked you up. Today, these mentally ill people can do whatever they want. The problem isn't guns, it's our criminal justice and mental health systems. This is an unarguable fact. If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.Right, so I assume you'll go round and test the whole US population for mental illness and somehow prevent them all from getting hold of guns which nearly every household has, good luck with that. :)
Like I said, you can't compare the US and UK like this. They're faaar to different. Illegal guns are very easy to access in America, I could go to the streets of LA right now and probably pick up an AK47 if I had the money. But keep in mind, these are illegal guns. There's a huge difference.The UK's gun control is an example that the US should follow.
The people who commit mass-shootings are always mentally ill. The mentally ill should not be able to get their hands on guns, I agree. However, there is a much simpler solution then stripping good, law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment right. The mentally ill should be in mental hospitals. Look at the most recent mass shooting. The guy was mentally ill and troubled. He was even investigated for making bomb threats. How did he get his hands on guns? He should have been locked up a long time ago. If we could go back to the system we had pre-1970/1980's, we wouldn't have mass shootings. Back then, if you were insane and wanted to harm others, they locked you up. Today, these mentally ill people can do whatever they want. The problem isn't guns, it's our criminal justice and mental health systems. This is an unarguable fact. If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.
[...] If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.
The man behind the deadly June 7 shooting rampage in Santa Monica tried to buy a gun two years ago, but the state rejected his purchase, police said Thursday.
Instead, John Zawahri began purchasing parts from stores around the country and ultimately assembled his own rifle in a configuration that made it an illegal assault rifle in California, according to police.
Zawahri killed five people  including his father and brother  before being fatally shot by police in the library of Santa Monica College.
...the semi-automatic weapon appears to have been built with parts that are legal to obtain, but put together make the rifle illegal in California.
Zawahri was carrying 1,300 rounds of ammunition in magazines that were capable of holding 30 rounds each.
Such high-capacity magazines are illegal to purchase, sell or transfer in California.
It would make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. :roll:How? Criminals don't follow the laws. Most of them also aren't going to buy guns legally because they want something that is not limited, and cannot be tracked. They will get them illegally, which the laws have no effect on whatsoever.
How? Criminals don't follow the laws. Most of them also aren't going to buy guns legally because they want something that is not limited, and cannot be tracked. They will get them illegally, which the laws have no effect on whatsoever.Are you real? IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS PEOPLE CAN SELL GUNS, IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS CRIMINALS CAN BUY THEM.
Are you real? IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS PEOPLE CAN SELL GUNS, IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS CRIMINALS CAN BUY THEM.Wrong. Guns are used and made regardless worldwide. Even if you get rid of them nationally, people can still get them into the country illegally. All you would be doing is increasing crime by getting rid of them.
You know things are serious when the police is actually telling you to get trained (http://www.examiner.com/article/wisconsin-sheriff-tells-his-people-get-a-gun-for-your-own-protection) on firearms and own one because of budget cuts affecting officers from being able to respond to 911 quickly.Old information now, but this shows a similar trend from the former Sacramento County Sheriff in California:
Earlier this year, Sheriff John McGinness said he would consider issuing more concealed weapons permits as the Sheriff’s Department faced steep budget cuts that would lay off hundreds of deputies. “I have to be open to the potential that there will be more people in need of the ability to protect themselves as individuals," he said in May.
Ok, we get it, you guys are doomed.Only if current practices continue.
Only if current practices continue.Well you seem to be obsessed with keeping your problem, guns, so how will anything change?
Well you seem to be obsessed with keeping your problem, guns, so how will anything change?
Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are. Anything can be a deadly weapon. It just depends on who's holding it. Remember that next time you eat dinner with a fork and knife.
Yeah the police are there for those situations and no It's not as simple as always killing in self defense. But admit, guns are meant to kill, not to temporarily disable.. Especially assault rifles and shotguns.Well when you run into a situation where the person attacking you is carrying around a very large and highly-illegal weapon, chances are you are going to want equal firepower. Even the Police agree with this. This image may explain it from their point of view a bit more too:
Well when you run into a situation where the person attacking you is carrying around a very large and highly-illegal weapon, chances are you are going to want equal firepower. Even the Police agree with this.
Well when you run into a situation where the person attacking you is carrying around a very large and highly-illegal weaponAnd how'd he get that weapon?! Oh yeh thats right, you guys have no gun control.
And how'd he get that weapon?! Oh yeh thats right, you guys have no gun control.Apparently you didn't read the part where it says illegal, or maybe the part where I said my state is the strictest in the country, outlawing nearly all types of guns in some way or another. I suggest you look those parts over again. There is some important information there you may have also missed.
Apparently you didn't read the part where it says illegal, or maybe the part where I said my state is the strictest in the country, outlawing nearly all types of guns in some way or another. I suggest you look those parts over again. There is some important information there you may have also missed.Ok, an 'illegal' gun which he still managed to get hold of due to the lack of gun control in the US.
Ok, an 'illegal' gun which he still managed to get hold of due to the lack of gun control in the US.I don't think you understand the concept of what gun control laws are in reference to what is and isn't legal. They are laws. If criminals cared about following them, they wouldn't be criminals to begin with. Plain and simple.
I don't think you understand the concept of what gun control laws are in reference to what is and isn't legal. They are laws. If criminals cared about following them, they wouldn't be criminals to begin with. Plain and simple.No, not plain and simple, if the laws were stricter, these kind of guns, illegal or not, wouldn't find their way into the wrong hands as easy as they currently do.
No, not plain and simple, if the laws were stricter, these kind of guns, illegal or not, wouldn't find their way into the wrong hands as easy as they currently do.You really don't get it. If criminals want weapons, they will get them regardless of how strict the laws are. Please refer back to my reference about the American Alcohol Prohibition. Not a single state in the country had access to it. Criminals brought it in despite the complete federal ban on it. Weapons will be no different.
...good luck with your gun problem America.Good luck with your gun problem too. I really hope your country's police force arms it's officers soon, because violent crime is on the rise worldwide, regardless of what laws our homes create.
Good luck with your gun problem too. I really hope your country's police force arms it's officers soon, because violent crime is on the rise worldwide, regardless of what laws our homes create.
I have yet to see a gun problem in my country, where small arms are strictly restricted to shooting clubs. A few minor incidents, but nothing serious like Columbine or people shooting at cops with AK's.Are your police armed?
Are your police armed?
Good luck with your gun problem too.:lol: :rofl: Funny man, thing is, we don't have a gun problem, sure there are a few minor incidents every once in awhile, but nothing at all like the USA, and crime as a whole is down in the UK, just because your country has a big problem you shouldn't try to share it round others to make it look normal.
I really hope your country's police force arms it's officers soon
Are your police armed?
I don't want our offices to carry guns on person, we have armed response units dedicated to responding with fire arms in situations where they are needed, such as the Woolwich incident, where both suspects were shot and survived, if it were the US both suspects would have been shot and would be dead, with no answers to why they did what they did, yes, the armed response units response was a tad slow, lesson learned, hopefully there is never an incident like this again, but if there is I assume their response time would be quicker, UK police officers have refused guns time and time again, and they probably will continue to, we only need specially trained units, which every force in the UK has.The police response to Woolwich was about one to two minutes but those officers held back as they can't go into an area where there's guns reported without armed response first. Thankfully firearms incidents are rare around the country but when they are they are likely to be national news drawing in media attention. It is quite worrying though that in certain parts of the country you can be waiting for a ARV (armed response vehicle) for about 20-30 minutes, when every second counts at the scene.
They are. They shoot a few suspects a year, but most of them try to kill the police officers with meat cleavers, so yeah, they got it coming.Exactly why it's not an issue for you.
...we have armed response units dedicated to responding with fire arms in situations where they are needed...And if someone pulls out a gun and shoots an officer who can't defend themselves, I'm sure the armed response teams set in place can't be there faster than the suspect's reaction time to prevent it. You're still missing the point as to why I'm saying they should be carrying them to begin with.
Exactly why it's not an issue for you.If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.
And if someone pulls out a gun and shoots an officer who can't defend themselves, I'm sure the armed response teams set in place can't be there faster than the suspect's reaction time to prevent it. You're still missing the point as to why I'm saying they should be carrying them to begin with.
If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.
Btw it's funny how a lot of commodities in the US was, is and will be Made in China...What does that have to do with this? :trust:
If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.You clearly don't understand how firearms training works with Police. From day one, Officers are taught to pay extreme attention to details even out of their normal view, and to watch for things that most civilians wouldn't notice at all during their entire day of being around a single person. If they see a suspect pull out something that appears to be a gun, they are ready at all times to draw their weapon and then, and only then, make the decision to fire or not based upon whether the person in question is holding a gun or something else. Decent training provides them with this extreme attention to detail and lack of hesitation so they can make split-second decisions that most others cannot.
We don't have a pathetically out of control gun problem in my country, so we do not need guns and neither does every police officer.As I said, it's only a matter of time.
As I said, it's only a matter of time.
Why?The U.S. is not the only country flooded with guns.
What happened in America doesn't have to happen in the UK or anywhere else...
What does that have to do with this? :trust:
Btw
The U.S. is not the only country flooded with guns.
As I said, it's only a matter of time.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:You can keep playing the blame game all you like, but it's an inevitability. The world is becoming more and more chaotic as each day passes. Humanity eventually will stop caring about laws. We've all seen the movies, history books, etc., and we know where our race is headed. Just because it's not an issue for you now doesn't mean it won't be later.
No, LOOOOOOOOOOOL, sorry but thats hilarious, it will never happen in the UK aslong as the gun laws stay as they are, you've noticed you have a major problem, both in denial and guns and so you try to say it will happen in other countries to make your situation look normal, we don't have a gun problem and never will aslong as our laws stay the same, along with many other countries in Europe, and around the world as a matter of fact, the US stands out most because it's supposed to be a 'modern and civilized' country, but your gun problem says otherwise, a celebrity went against guns, and now you're trying to remove him from the country he lives in when he's a legit tax paying citizen who has a say in what goes on there.
I thought I made it fairly clear you can't compare US gun crime to UK or any where else gun crime. The United States is the complete opposite to the UK in these terms. Stop trying to compare them, it will never work.I never compared them. I said one day every place is going to get overrun by guns regardless of laws. They are way too common, and the mentality of the human race is shifting more towards violence worldwide every day. It's only a matter of time. I'm not saying the UK has a problem now. I'm saying everyone will eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312))25 dead, sorry how many people die in shooting in the US in 2 years because of shootings? Well I can say everyday since people do die in the US from being shot everyday.
China. They have guns banned. I think this sums up several of my points quite well.
I thought I made it fairly clear you can't compare US gun crime to UK or any where else gun crime. The United States is the complete opposite to the UK in these terms. Stop trying to compare them, it will never work.If you'd bothered reading you'd see we arn't comparing the US and UK, we are arguing because SugarD said the UK will have the same problem in the future, when it clearly wont as we have some of the tightest gun laws in the world, armed response units who respond to any incident, and high jail time for those who obtain a gun illegally.
25 dead, sorry how many people die in shooting in the US in 2 years because of shootings?You forgot the 115 injured, as well as the several other shootings and stabbings listed on that page.
You forgot the 115 injured, as well as the several other shootings and stabbings listed on that page.Only several other shootings? Sorry how many shootings are there in the US per year? China has the worlds biggest population by miles, so the statistics for China arnt that bad, quit trying to make it out other countries have major gun problems like the USA's just to make it seem normal. :poke:
That is a place where guns are banned completely. Need I say more?
I see you are another American who thinks the whole UK is 'England', funny thing is the US government and many laws were created off the basis of UK laws, and the largest majority of Americans are British descendants, so I think it's pretty obvious both countries can be compared, even if you Americans have strayed miles off the path of the UK, the main issue you have in the US is that you're all in denial, atleast the ones who support keeping guns anyway, and until every kid of every person who supports keeping guns is shot, nothing will change, oh wait, nothing will change if that even happend, because then you'd just say 'Oh hey, we should give kids guns so they can defend themselves!', also seems your current country is the UK, have you been shot/seen anyone get shot in your time over here? :razz:Are you saying the UK and the US are practically the same socially and economically just because most of our citizens are of british heritage? That doesn't even make sense. We are very different is so many different ways. Our gun problem is so different from yours that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Are you saying the UK and the US are practically the same socially and economically just because most of our citizens are of british heritage? That doesn't even make sense. We are very different is so many different ways. Our gun problem is so different from yours that there isn't even a word to describe it.What does economics have to do with this? Damn right we are very different, we'd never let a bunch of innocent kids get shot up over here and still support guns being in the public domain. :trust:
sidenote I'm not sure why my country is listed as the UK.
What does economics have to do with this? Damn right we are very different, we'd never let a bunch of innocent kids get shot up over here and still support guns being in the public domain. :trust:And we would. That's how we're different. Guns to us are different than guns to you. You're born into a country without guns, hence you're anti-gun. I'm born into a country with guns, hence I'm pro-gun. Since the majority of Americans are pro-gun, our gun laws will not change.
And we would. That's how we're different. Guns to us are different than guns to you. You're born into a country without guns, hence you're anti-gun. I'm born into a country with guns, hence I'm pro-gun. Since the majority of Americans are pro-gun, our gun laws will not change.And thats why the blood of all shootings is on your hands, you continue to support guns even after a bunch of 5 year olds were shot up, sick in the head.
34 Americans are killed everydayThose numbers are pathetically high..
2,191 Americans use guns in self defense every day.
Those numbers are pathetically high..So we should get rid of guns and flip those numbers then?
So we should get rid of guns and flip those numbers then?Get rid of guns = 2,191 less Americans use guns in 'self defence' everyday and resort to something less lethal, like a bat.
So many dumbasses on this thread that know little about firearms and think it's actually possible to obtain automatic rifles in the United States.:lol: :rofl:
and think it's actually possible to obtain automatic rifles in the United States.THATS BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE! :lol: :rofl:
:lol: :rofl:
THATS BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE! :lol: :rofl:
I think it was the Panorama TV programme in the UK that went to the US, bought an M4A1 and some ammo from a gun market (where different people all go sell their guns in 1 place), she didn't have to show ID or anything, just took the M4A1 in a case after paying and left the building. :roll:
And thats why the blood of all shootings is on your hands, you continue to support guns even after a bunch of 5 year olds were shot up, sick in the head.While I don't really think having guns as widely available as they are in the US is a good idea, that is a flawed line of thinking.
THATS BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE! :lol: :rofl:It isn't actually, though.
Get rid of guns = 2,191 less Americans use guns in 'self defence' everyday and resort to something less lethal, like a bat.Ya, meanwhile the thousands upon thousands of criminals who shoot people while committing crimes will only continue to do so without resistance.
34 Americans are killed everyday = Probably 10 or less without guns.
It isn't actually, though.Right, so even though the BBC did it, and put it on TV, you say it isn't possible?
Ya, meanwhile the thousands upon thousands of criminals who shoot people while committing crimes will only continue to do so without resistance.And meanwhile the police can shoot at the remaining psychopaths with their own guns until they are all extinct.
I can't help but find it funny how everyone bashing the U.S. is in Europe for the most part. Are you Europeans still mad because you can't own a firearm yourself, and are just taking your anger out on the U.S., the great nation that it is (Although with Obama not so much), and trying to bring us down to the same level as you?:gd: Hey man, don't call me a European, that shit is offensive.
Right, so even though the BBC did it, and put it on TV, you say it isn't possible?
I don't understand why non-lethal weapons like tazers, bean bags, etc have a more prominent role in the self defense laws. Killing someone for self defense isn't self defense, it's murder. Defending yourself by taking somebody elses life and JUSTIFYING that under retard ancient laws is simply inhumane. To consider your life so valuable that you end somebody elses in order to protect your own.... Man that's selfish.
And meanwhile the police can shoot at the remaining psychopaths with their own guns until they are all extinct.Ya, while CSI is collecting bodies of innocent victims who couldn't defend themselves, not to mention any officers who couldn't pull the trigger before it was pulled on them...
Ya, while CSI is collecting bodies of innocent victims who couldn't defend themselves, not to mention any officers who couldn't pull the trigger before it was pulled on them...Yes because criminal drug dealers (the main ones who use guns for bad) are running round gagging to shoot at innocent civilians.
So, you're saying that I should sacrifice myself by trying to shoot someone who has a real gun aimed at me with rubber bullets? Because i cannot kill shoot him with a real gun? So he can come and threaten me but i still have no right to end his criminal scum life?
Yes because criminal drug dealers (the main ones who use guns for bad) are running round gagging to shoot at innocent civilians.Actually yes...yes they are. If they see someone they want to rob, they won't hesitate. I've been robbed at gunpoint 3 times as a kid. AS A KID. I'm lucky that I wasn't shot any of those times. I probably wouldn't be so lucky if I were an adult in those situations...
Actually yes...yes they are. If they see someone they want to rob, they won't hesitate. I've been robbed at gunpoint 3 times as a kid. AS A KID. I'm lucky that I wasn't shot any of those times. I probably wouldn't be so lucky if I were an adult in those situations...So is your President gonna go do anything about it or allow kids to be shot and robbed at gunpoint in your streets?
So is your President gonna go do anything about it or allow kids to be shot and robbed at gunpoint in your streets?What do you expect him to do? Police funding nationally is horrible. Cops can't even respond to the 911 calls fast enough, let alone patrol or take reports. The only solution at this point is self-protection, but we see how that topic is going already :P
What do you expect him to do? Police funding nationally is horrible. Cops can't even respond to the 911 calls fast enough, let alone patrol or take reports. The only solution at this point is self-protection, but we see how that topic is going already :PWell maybe it's time to step down from the 'super power' position and manage your own country (not you, your government), I mean they waste billions and billions, more than every other country on Earth put together on the military, WHY?! Why do they need such a large military?! Do they plan on doing what Hitler tried to do? Thats honestly the only reason I could think of a country needing such a large military, all that money could be going on gun removal and policing, it's ok having the muscles, but you can't use them if you don't have the brains, something which the US Gov. lacks.
Okay, so basically we should have people resort to less lethal self defense techniques? You see the main difference is our criminals actually have guns. While yours may not, OURS do. We can't do ANYTHING about them owning guns. They do not obtain them legally, therefore untrackable. Our criminals will ALWAYS have guns, and I know you didn't get it the first time so let me restate it in caps and in bold: THERE IS LITERALLY, AND I MEAN LITERALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT CRIMINALS GETTING GUNS. Notice how I said literally twice. This means not one of your theories will work, no matter how many times you think it will. I know you still won't get it even after I said it again in caps and bold, but my words are solid fact.
Take it like this, say you're unarmed right? A criminal(sidenote: a criminal is NOT a law abiding citizen) approaches you, takes out his gun(remember how I stated we can't do anything about them having guns?) and aims it at your face. He has no intention of robbing you, he only means to kill you. You reach for your pepper spray(less lethal technique you suggested) and you spray him. The pepper spray only pisses him off. It has no affect on him.(sidenote: pepper sprays/tazers DO NOT effect everyone) He shoots you and now you're dead. The police show up 5 minutes later and say, "Aw shit, poor guy.."
Scenario two: You're armed this time, you're ready.(sidenote: you're a law abiding citizen, you have no intention of killing anyone, you simply have a gun to defend yourself if the shit hits the fan) A criminal approaches you and aims a gun at your face. He simply wants to kill you. You take out your weapon(sidenote: your weapon was bought completely legally) and place 3 rounds in the criminals chest. The criminal dies at the scene. The police show up 5 minutes later and say, "Aw shit.. you're lucky."
OUR criminals have guns. We need to be one level higher than the criminals or else total chaos will happen.
small sidenote; while I can't own a fully automatic gun in my state, many states allow you to own a fully auto providing you're not mentally ill and you match all their very strict requirements.
And I just want to say it one more time, even though no one will understand it: There is LITERALLY NOTHING we can do about criminals obtaining guns.
There is a lot of threats against USA, if you would be in that position, you would like to have some security too.Well, the US is the most hated country on Earth [FACT], and China/Russia couldn't wait to laugh about the whole Edward Snowden incident, and now the US gov. is having a tantrum and accusing them of helping him escape their grasp, I find it funny actually how the US tries to enforce it's own laws in other countries, constantly saying 'It would be in the best interests of blablabla country to uphold the law' - When they are talking about US law, I'm starting to think they think they run the whole world, can't manage their own country, never mind them all.
Right Mikal? :lol:
Are you from the U.S? You have a UK flag under your avatar.Yes, I'm from the US I'm not sure why it says the UK nor do I know how to fix it.
And I totally agree with what you said
Said it before, guns don't make you feel safe but powerful. Just like authority they are seductive but when wrongly used it can have devastating results. Both the gun problem and excessive criminal activity route from the American society and way of life, so that's where the government needs to focus at.A gun has never made me feel powerful. I do however, feel safe when there's one around(providing it's in the correct hands)
You're kidding, right?
Pepper spray does work on everyone, it depends how close to the eyes and forehead you get.
Tazers are... Hmm. Know anyone resistant to electricity? A right shot, he's on the ground, leg it/take his gun/etc...
It's always about being one level higher than what the 'enemy' has. Fighting fire with more fire, does not put one out.
You're all scaring yourself, with dangers and threats of probable events, taking huge measures in securing your safety. You do realise that when a news network actually has any emotional influence on you, may it be outrage, sadness or joy, you're playing their game, following the same ideals and political/economical views... Pro-gun seems like an entire cultural aspect of certain cities and states. Take the guns away, take the culture away? And what a culture.
Look, find an alternative for civil protection or maintain the same issues.
I think I've said enough in this thread, it's clear that cultural indoctrination and idealism have once again taken its toll on progressive thinking.
Well maybe it's time to step down from the 'super power' position and manage your own country (not you, your government), I mean they waste billions and billions, more than every other country on Earth put together on the military, WHY?! Why do they need such a large military?! Do they plan on doing what Hitler tried to do? Thats honestly the only reason I could think of a country needing such a large military, all that money could be going on gun removal and policing, it's ok having the muscles, but you can't use them if you don't have the brains, something which the US Gov. lacks.The military funding WAS cut. The lack of police funding is not a federal issue, it is a state one. You clearly don't understand how the system works. Regardless of any of this, that has nothing to do with people self-arming themselves to protect themselves from malicious criminals. I also do not appreciate you implying that we are some evil country that is going to enslave people like Hitler did.
I also do not appreciate you implying that we are some evil country that is going to enslave people like Hitler did.Well then blame the way your government acts.
Well then blame the way your government acts.The way my government acts has nothing to do with a lack of state funding.
Military cuts you say, strange, arnt they still building a few more aircraft carriers? :poke:
:lol: :rofl: Funny how you resort to finding the small number of failures in non-lethal weapons to make them look useless, just shows how desperate you are to hold onto guns, for some odd reason.I will personally buy you a plane ticket to America, along with a taser and pepper spray then I will invite you to the ghettos and you can see how well a taser or pepper spray holds up against an armed gang member. :) Ask any American police officer how well either of these non-lethal options works against someone with a gun.
I will personally buy you a plane ticket to America, along with a taser and pepper spray then I will invite you to the ghettos and you can see how well a taser or pepper spray holds up against an armed gang member. :) Ask any American police officer how well either of these non-lethal options works against someone with a gun.So what you're saying is, unless you live in a ghetto, you don't need a gun for self defence.
So what you're saying is, unless you live in a ghetto, you don't need a gun for self defence.No, I'm saying you're much more likely to be robbed or shot in Compton then a town of 25 people. Does violent crime still exist in small towns? Of course, but personally I wouldn't go into a ghetto area without a gun. I have this personal policy of never becoming a victim. Some people want to be victims, but that's their choice.
Phone and condom. Gun would be the worst, because she took another man's life. +1 -1 = 0.
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4336/99sv.jpg)
All 3. +the man spends (most) his life incarcerated, which is preferable should you want to punish him as hard as possible.
I'm telling you, final statement: Maintaining widespread firearm tolerance will NEVER stablise illegal gun murders, it will increase or conserve. IllegalisingfirearANYTHING will do the opposite of withdrawing appearance and influence. >BALANCE< from birth to death, life in its entirety is BASED. ON. BALANCE. Too much of something, bad; too little, bad. JESUS IT'S A GODDAMN KIDSTALE!! Poppa bear(US) has really hot soup. Momma bear(UK) has really cold soup. But baby bear(NL) has his soup juuussst right... I'm not saying NL is a profane example of all that is good in the world, but I'm not denying our lack of gun problems (even tho every country has it). What we did in the 70s/80s to decrease heroin addiction was give people AN ALTERNATIVE, something less influent, but in the long run, as useful. Heroin. Addiction. Gone.
I'm not talking about drugs, I'm talking about human psych, this applies to A LOT of aspects in society.
Get the hint?
Yang guns - yin hugs.
Hug guns, get pepper.
I'm out, for real.
Guns the worst because obviously when there's a gun involved, it must be fired? What if she just aimed it? Less than one percent of people who use guns for self defense actually fire the gun. Plus, even if the daughter shot and killed the rapist, who cares? It was a piece of shit rapist. One less asshole on this earth and as far as I'm concerned, that's a positive. When someone gets locked up(note, he wouldn't serve life for rape) the tax payers have to pay for him. So every time some asshole criminal is killed, it saves the tax payers a lot of money. Win win in my books.
I'm out, for real.
Guns the worst because obviously when there's a gun involved, it must be fired? What if she just aimed it? Less than one percent of people who use guns for self defense actually fire the gun. Plus, even if the daughter shot and killed the rapist, who cares? It was a piece of shit rapist. One less asshole on this earth and as far as I'm concerned, that's a positive. When someone gets locked up(note, he wouldn't serve life for rape) the tax payers have to pay for him. So every time some asshole criminal is killed, it saves the tax payers a lot of money. Win win in my books.Ok, and everytime an asshole grabs his relatives legal gun and goes on a killing spree, thats a win win too? Not really.
Can I just clarify, it's called defence, not defense.That depends on the variation of the English language you use.
Can I just clarify, it's called defence, not defense.No, innocent people dying is a lose-lose situation. A criminal, more specifically a rapist, dying is usually a win win.
Ok, and everytime an asshole grabs his relatives legal gun and goes on a killing spree, thats a win win too? Not really.
That depends on the variation of the English language you use.The one without all the spelling mistakes.
No, innocent people dying is a lose-lose situation. A criminal, more specifically a rapist, dying is usually a win win.Well more innocent people die by the gun per day than criminals, so your logic on how they are good is flawed.
The one without all the spelling mistakes.The majority of our homicides are gang related so not many innocent people are dying. Do some innocent people get killed every day, yeah, but the vast majority are gang members in cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles. We can't keep the gangs from killing each other, that will never stop.
Well more innocent people die by the gun per day than criminals, so your logic on how they are good is flawed.
People guy guns legal, they then sell them guns to criminal gangs, the ease of the person buying the gun legally is how gangs get guns, if guns were harder to get, gangs would have to go through a larger process of getting them, instead of just getting a 'legit' person to buy one from your local ammunation. :roll:"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.[94]"
The one without all the spelling mistakes.do you feel good about yourself
<responding to all your posts>
Then somehow you can argue with everyone else? Seems as if you have nothing TO say to my post because you can't counter the truth...Or maybe because I had work this morning and was too busy getting ready to go to bother reading your whole post? Some people have jobs, and can't sit on the forums all day, not that I will even bother reading what you said now that I'm home. :razz:
do you feel good about yourself
What exactly is your suggestion Mikal? To 'remove' guns from the US? Are you even trying to prove a point or are you just expressing your hatred for guns and criticising the US for the situation they're in now, without even attempting to suggest a useful/valid solution?Yes, removing guns.. :poke:
The one without all the spelling mistakes.So you use both? Alrighty.
No, innocent people dying is a lose-lose situation. A criminal, more specifically a rapist, dying is usually a win win.What if it was someone who actually needed mental help,without prior criminal record at all. So a underage girl can take life and death matters into her own hand. I am not really comfortable with that. I sure am not going to Florida, where a white male can go on a killing spree and later say: "Well I felt like my life was in danger so I shot the person." And get away with it.
What if it was someone who actually needed mental help,without prior criminal record at all. So a underage girl can take life and death matters into her own hand. I am not really comfortable with that. I sure am not going to Florida, where a white male can go on a killing spree and later say: "Well I felt like my life was in danger so I shot the person." And get away with it.
1.Good find, Cero.
Confirmed for not knowing anything about the Zimmerman case, keep gobbling up whatever the media throws at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
Anyone who thinks Zimmerman was guilty should take the time to watch the video I just linked, it really does put things into perspective.
2. If anyone wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it. Where there is a will, there is a way.
I won't let my principles be swayed by such poor arguments.
1.I stand corrected on the first point.
Confirmed for not knowing anything about the Zimmerman case, keep gobbling up whatever the media throws at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
Anyone who thinks Zimmerman was guilty should take the time to watch the video I just linked, it really does put things into perspective.
2. If anyone wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it. Where there is a will, there is a way.
I won't let my principles be swayed by such poor arguments.
I completely support the second amendment and believe "banning" guns would not help one bit.Let me give you an example - Australia!
Yes, Australia, an island where smuggling weapons in is nearly impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Mexican drug cartels can smuggle weapons into the US very easily, therefore gangs can gain access to weapons very easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
Any idiot can do an interview, cherry pick the bad parts about what someone said and add a quirky comment and have some fake laughs in the background.Also any idiot can completely miss the point and intentionally ignore the facts and check them themselves if have to.
The only thing this video shows is what level gun grabbers argue on.
Also any idiot can completely miss the point and intentionally ignore the facts and check them themselves if have to.
Are you seriously saying that because it worked in Australia it'll work in the United States?I am not saying it would work, but not because of the people, but because how your government operates.
Please tell me how you plan to confiscate 258 million guns from gun owners that do not want to give them away.
Oh, and how about the MILLIONS of unregistered guns? You're going to force people, who you don't know have them to register them, so you can take them away?
What about the criminals who have guns? I guess they'll give them up aswell, after all, they follow the law.
I am not saying it would work, but not because of the people, but because how your government operates.
Calm down now there, although yes we started talking about "gun ban" I am actually for gun regulation rather than complete ban. I understand that Farmers may need guns to protect their cattle, Hunters need guns, Sportsmen need guns. If people want guns for self-protection, fine, let them have it, but they have to go trough safety training for the society's sake and their gun should be registered. So if you are law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about government won't take away your guns. Tell me, is that too much to ask?
If you're a law abiding citizen you wouldn't protest to having cameras installed all around your house, having an RFID chip inserted in you, letting the government view your mails, etc. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?In order for a person to drive a car, he/she has to first obtain driving license as well the car he/she is driving is in the national(state?) registry. Do you oppose that? Do you think it makes government easier to come and confiscate the population's cars?
There is a thing called having a private life, without the government saying what you can own, what you can browse, what you can do that doesn't affect others.
Registering guns will have everyone in a national registry, which will make it easier to confiscate and ban guns later, because now you know who owns them. Letting you literally walk door to door and confiscate them.
I'm all for sensible gun ownership and healthy values when it comes to gun safety, but I don't think the government should be enforcing tighter gun control, instead they should give gun safety courses and make videos to show people how to be safe around firearms, not try to take them away.
Murder is against the law, doesn't stop people from committing it all the time. Criminals will always have a way of getting guns, even if they were banned completely.
Yes, you ARE asking for too much.
In order for a person to drive a car, he/she has to first obtain driving license as well the car he/she is driving is in the national(state?) registry. Do you oppose that? Do you think it makes government easier to come and confiscate the population's cars?
Driving on public roads where a high level of cooperation is required to simply get around is necessary is obviously the same as privately owning and keeping firearms.If you can't drive you put people around you in danger, if you don't know how to handle a freaking gun you put people around you in danger. So tell me, why you think that one is ok to own without any safety training and other one is not.
Please tell me about the movement against cars in private ownership, you've genuinely peaked my interest.
Are you going to continue arguing like this?