The †roll Cave ®™

Off-topic
#3820

first its irrelevant in the UK as no one carries a gun around with them in the streets so the guns simply are not there too scare any violent attacker off apart from in the home and there is no way of telling which home has guns . so its a pointless statistic in the UK’s situation .

secondly the reason for this is easily explainable . people that own guns here are generally financially secure and live in nice areas . and go out shooting together . they dont come from housing estates where 90% of our violent crime happens .

#3821

secondly you was never allowed to carry the handgun with you any way so thats also pointless to try and make into "proof "

in your country . the statistic would hold true in the UK however it holds no ground what so ever as guns simply dont exist in open society . the exist behind closed doors

#3822

Ever heard of the Northern Ireland?

I am sorry but I don’t understand this sentence and I believe it is not because I am not a native speaker. Would you care to write in a coherent language please?

Anyways, when was carrying a firearm outlawed in UK? Because in my country it was first in 1939 by Nazis and then in 1948 by Communists.

1 Like
#3823

in 2015 not many in NI carry guns any more .

[quote=“snejdarek, post:3822, topic:21032”]
I am sorry but I don’t understand this sentence and I believe it is not because I am not a native speaker. Would you care to write in a coherent language please?
[/quote] even when you was legally allowed to own a pistol in the UK(mainland) you was still only ever allowed to use it at a range . concealed carry has never in my knowledge been allowed on main land UK .

so the outlawing of handguns (pointless in my opinion ) holds no value what so ever . where as the picture you posted is trying to draw a correlation between the ban and crime going up .

also what that picture doesnt say is that "firearm crime " includes replica guns and blank firing guns . very few of actual gun crime involves a real working gun

#3824

1870 was when we introduced restrictions on carrying a gun outside your home .
interesting article here on the history of UK gun laws and US gun laws which were born from the exact same bill of right :slight_smile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm

#3825

What was the justification in 1870?

#3826

im not too sure to be honest

#3827

In our mind gun control simply equals to nazism and communism due to our historical experience. That is probably why we are so keen to keep our gun rights even when most of the population make no use of them.

1 Like
#3828

in my opinion thats a very dangerous point of view and leaves you so open to being exploited . by the very forces you so fear .
being free is so much more than just the ability to own an object where you can hold someones life in your hands . and the moment you forget that is the moment you lose your true freedom .

nazism is a great example of this he rallied the german people behind the idea of financial stability and german "greatness " that while they cheered for that one ideal which he in many aspects delivered they forgot about all the other things he begun slipping away . such as democracy , freedom of expression , freedom of choosing your own music etc .

so my advice to you is while its great you feel so passionate on a particular cause that you keep your eye on all the other causes .

#3829

Just that nobody says it is only that.

#3830

plenty do by their actions . im sure there are plenty of people mainly in the US that would vote for a particular party solely based on their views on gun control . which is what im getting at .

bit like these people :slight_smile: some people become so narrow minded on particular area that they miss all the other issues

#3831

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

#3832

Well I am lucky that we have pro-gun politicians basically in all parliamentary parties, we are probably the only country where even the greens are officially pro-gun rights. There was a newsreel couple of years ago where journalists were trying to find out how many parliamentarians actually carry during the parliament sessions (about 25% are licensed to carry) but contrary to the news station obvious expectations it didn’t make any fuzz - nobody even raised eyebrow.

Which is actually quite interesting considering that only 3% of people actually own firearms. But that makes 10% of households. And then there is everyone who thinks they might want/need one once and don’t want to find themselves stonewalled by gun control legislation. And everybody else basically doesn’t care since the most gun murders were in early 1990s after fall of communism when guns were still legally banned - somehow that didn’t stop the criminals from having them and using them.

#3833

So really only wealthy people have access to guns? Sounds really fucking shitty.

Probably because they’re still ruled by inbred assholes who don’t want any threat to their power. Even in the middle ages the monarchy didn’t really like the idea of having their peasants armed a lot of the time. That’s why the messer was invented because its technically a large knife not a sword.

I think it’s a similar situation here. We have a huge distrust for governments and the British imposed gun control. In fact the revolutionary war was started over gun control. The British troops went to take the arms and ammo in Concord.

Tell me what would you do if your government took away your rights? Would your people rise up with knives and shotguns? You’re only as free as your government allows you to be.

Not really i know Democrats who voted for Obama yet like guns and vise versa.

#3834

no thats not what i said was it ? financially secure is what i said . e.g not people living in social housing on benefits .

social housing estates is our "ghetto’s " these are the areas where most of our crime takes place .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3833, topic:21032”]
In fact the revolutionary war was started over gun control.
[/quote] errmm no it wasnt ? there was no gun control on the colonies which is how you massed so many weapons in the first . the seizing of weapons came when the British realized what you were massing them for .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3833, topic:21032”]
Tell me what would you do if your government took away your rights? Would your people rise up with knives and shotguns? You’re only as free as your government allows you to be.
[/quote] my government does not hold the power to take away my rights first off a rouge government would have to get such legislation through parliament , house of lords then royal approval . be simply impossible secondly no government service pledges an oath to our government they pledge it to the queen so by force is out of the question . but lets say they did get it though to run with your point .

your government is only as powerful as the people allow them to be .
think about that statement ,
what actual power does obama have to make the american people do an action ? none . he only remains powerful while the people choose to listen .

“People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3833, topic:21032”]
Not really i know Democrats who voted for Obama yet like guns and vise versa.
[/quote] how many americans voted for obama because he is black ? same point .

rally a group of people behind a single ideal and they will forget about all the others . every dictator as used this principal and its worked . distract the people on one ideal and you can do ANYTHING

#3835

So only wealthy people have access to guns is what you’re saying.

Um what do you call sending 700 troops to take the guns and ammo being held in Concord? They weren’t going to ask for them they were going to take them. Taking guns from the colonists was by definition a gun grab.

You’ve clearly never learned about dictators or their rise to power. They do not go through the system they seize power. You’re very naive if you think that can’t happen in Britain.

Only if the population is armed. do they have reason to be afraid. There is nothing stopping the government from striping your rights none at all. They don’t need to fear a rebellion from.

Um… okay? Whats your point? I was only arguing that people don’t really vote for presidents based on their gun views alone.

#3836

no . im saying financially secure people . e.g people with a fucking job :slight_smile:

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3835, topic:21032”]
Um what do you call sending 700 troops to take the guns and ammo being held in Concord? They weren’t going to ask for them they were going to take them. Taking guns from the colonists was by definition a gun grab.
[/quote] thats wasnt the cause of the revolutionary unrest was it , that was a result not a cause . one of the main causes was actually tax .

what would you do if you got intel that a large group of people are stock piling weapons to over throw your rule ?
nothing ?
so ill say it again , there were no control laws on the colonies . by taking part in conspiracy to commit terrorism which they were by an nations definition you surrender that right and become a criminal , correct ?
learn the actual causes of the revolution i would of thought you of all people would have a good knowledge of them .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3835, topic:21032”]
You’ve clearly never learned about dictators or their rise to power. They do not go through the system they seize power. You’re very naive if you think that can’t happen in Britain.
[/quote] and that requires people to support and back that cause does it not ? hitler gained power though an election did he not ? russian communist’s gained power by the people united behind them against the monarch did they not ?

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3835, topic:21032”]
Only if the population is armed. do they have reason to be afraid. There is nothing stopping the government from striping your rights none at all. They don’t need to fear a rebellion from.
[/quote] see your my point all over you fail to see a very simply thing and government requires its people to follow its orders when a people decides not to they lose all meaning and all power .

the syrian people have guns , ask them how free they are .
doesnt matter how many guns you have as long as people follow and support the government they have power .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3835, topic:21032”]
Um… okay? Whats your point? I was only arguing that people don’t really vote for presidents based on their gun views alone.
[/quote] your not reading my posts then . my point wasnt solely gun control . my point was people shouldnt be so narrow minded on one single value that they allow other values be stripped away from them .

example being people voting for obama on the fact that he is black and not actually reading what he stands for

#3837

I never said it was the main cause i said it started over it. The very first shot, the shot heard around the world was fired by either the British or the militia when they tried to stop the British from marching on concord to take fire arms and ammo being held there.

Okay im going to say this really slow for you. Terrorism is deliberate acts of violence to cause panic and fear target at civilians mainly. The colonists never did this so it’s not an act of terror.

Through murdering and arresting his political opponents. He actually bombed the Reich-stag and blamed it on his opponents as an excuse to have them arrested and killed.

As soon as their in power they don’t need to use the people anymore. they just use the military or police force.

Pretty sure the unarmed people that were thrown in the concentration camps didn’t support the government. Or the 60 million murdered under Stalin. Or the 100 million under Mao. Or the millions under pol pot.

#3838

a statement like that would be perceived as a cause . e.g why did the fight start ? "ohh jimmy called paul’s mum fat "
that would be the cause of the fight wouldnt it :slight_smile:

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3837, topic:21032”]
Okay im going to say this really slow for you. Terrorism is deliberate acts of violence to cause panic and fear target at civilians mainly. The colonists never did this so it’s not an act of terror.
[/quote] okay im going to say this slow as well ,
its 2015 a group of men begin stock piling weapons to use against US troops and over throw the US government . they’re caught and put on trial what would they be tried for ? and what would the news describe them as .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3837, topic:21032”]
they just use the military or police force.
[/quote] which are made up of who ? ohh thats right the people .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3837, topic:21032”]
Pretty sure the unarmed people that were thrown in the concentration camps didn’t support the government. Or the 60 million murdered under Stalin. Or the 100 million under Mao. Or the millions under pol pot.
[/quote] indeed they didnt but the other millions did , didnt they ? or are you denying hitler was democratically elected by the german people ?

#3839

Not sure what you’re trying to say but that was the fuse that set the bomb off. That event started the revolutionary war.

People already do that. They are protected by the constitution. Anyone who owns a number of fire arms are considered terrorists by the Obama administration.

They were part of the government. Gestapo all of them ect where government employees.

For the most part he wasn’t really. He was just so popular that no one gave a shit if he seized power. Do you really think Kim jong un is a popular leader? Yet hes in power. Hitler was hated by the people he persecuted yet he remained in power. Castro despite what you might think was not popular that;s why many Cubans defected to the U.S mainly Florida

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz