make all weapons legal

[s_mac]

Hi all

 

yor right guns dont kill people do!(unless your a kind soul and just aim for the nuts)

 

a weapon can be anything and just carving a bow and arrow is easy enough so i still say we should be LICENSE ALLOWED to carry:)

 

look at shotgun licenses we have to pass a police home visit to keep a shotgun(rather weak checks but hey

 

im one in many that dispite saying they would like to be armed would rather not use it but we still would like the choice if confronted with someone who doesnt care eitherway

 

times havnt changed that much since the wild west,only now its easier to be caught for gunning someone down.

plus for crims instead of hanging its a cosey life with your xbox.(real detterant that!!

 

the prisons are soft and life dont mean life and even IF it did id be ok ill get a PS2 this year(whats next years lags list:)

 

and ontop the victim is still dead and the familys still suffer!!level the playing field and maybe if the crim just loses a leg he has sufferd something(not enough but something

 

sg

 

I dont know fully the laws about guns...but know what they can do....reading through some post, about who owns a shot gun, and the checks you say you have to go through...

 

can you tell me, if those checks were different to someone having a pistol, in the days when you could hold a licenses for them...

 

The part i fail to understand, is what is the difference between, a pistol and a shot gun....to me they both kill, to me they are one of the same...they are both weapons designed to kill...one can be hidden more easily than the other. and as for the checks.....what real safe guards are there....i could at the end of the day, fool myself through a police check...............

 

Lets say im 40 years old, been squeeky clean all my life, joined myself a club, and all that....but my real intention is to get my ex back who is ****ing me big time, or something similar.........im not a gun owner....and dont know the law.......so please tell me

[snakey1]

My theory? All I am saying is the public should not have the right to carry a firearm??? That statement is born out of common sense. Thankfully the vast amount of people in this country believe that also, you are very much in the minority. Just add this want to a very long list of things that we will never see or the return of:

Capitol Punishment

Hunting With Dogs

Banning of Angling

Briitol Rovers in the Premiership

BNP Forming a Government

Feel free to add some of your own

we may never see the return of capitol punishment and to be honest i think this is a good thing as i have never agreed with it but if you think that just because hunting with dogs has been made illegal that it doesn't go on then you are seriously deludeing yourself. As for banning angling PETA, ALF and various other organisations are still trying to achieve this as we speak and PETA have a large and vocal following including some very famous people. as for the BNP and bristol rovers well i'm afraid you can't predict the future many have tried and none have succeeded so who knows.

I may be in the minority but strangely enough in this country being in a minority seems to give you advantages that the mass majoritys don't have, the majority of people i would think would like to see criminals get locked up instead of being let out on supervision or given meaningless asbos however the majority haven't got their wish in this respect. the majority of people would like to see the NHS better funded and more hospitals being opened instead of closed but this doesn't seem to be happening either,and of course the majority of people apparently didn't want us to go into iraq but we did. so being in the majority nowadays isn't always to your advantage.

As for not allowing the general public to carry some sort of weapon to defend themselves as a statement born out of common sense well thats just your opinion.

[snakey1]

I dont know fully the laws about guns...but know what they can do....reading through some post, about who owns a shot gun, and the checks you say you have to go through...

 

can you tell me, if those checks were different to someone having a pistol, in the days when you could hold a licenses for them...

 

The part i fail to understand, is what is the difference between, a pistol and a shot gun....to me they both kill, to me they are one of the same...they are both weapons designed to kill...one can be hidden more easily than the other. and as for the checks.....what real safe guards are there....i could at the end of the day, fool myself through a police check...............

 

Lets say im 40 years old, been squeeky clean all my life, joined myself a club, and all that....but my real intention is to get my ex back who is ****ing me big time, or something similar.........im not a gun owner....and dont know the law.......so please tell me

To be honest if you were determined enough and had no criminal record or mental problems yes you could probably legally obtain either a shotgun or firearm certificate but it is a long drawn out process, if your ex was "****ing you big time" and you wanted to kill her it would be much quicker and easier to pick up a kitchen knife and stab her or beat her to death with a golf club or other blunt instrument, but if you really wanted to shoot her there are plent of places you can buy an illegal firearm anyway without any sort of checks. the idea you can legislate against psyco and sociopaths is unfortunately a false one. yes you can kill a lot of people in a short time with a firearm but remember one thing Harold Shipman killed more people than any other killer in this country and he used morphine not a gun so should we now ban all doctors and all painkillers.

before anyone claims shipman was a one off the majority of serial killers don't use firearms e.g peter sutcliffe, dennis nielson, john wayne gacey, pedro lopez, richard ramirez,ted bundy, fred and rose west, and ian brady and myra hindley to name just a few.

Edited December 3, 2006 by snakey1

[kleinboet]

I have posted earlier in this thread, but it would appear that no-one read it properly!

The law is only as good as it is policed (you only have to look at how many numpties are driving around with a mobile phone clamped to their ear to see that!) When it is policed, the crims know the human rights law better than the police and get away with it! When they are brought to court, the judge (who hasn't got a clue how the "hoi paloi" lives, but THINKS he does!) gives a "sentence" which is an encouragement for them to go out and do it again. THERE IS NO LEGAL DETERRENT!!

Edited December 3, 2006 by kleinboet