The Gun Law Discussion


  1. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Comparing the UK to Israel is extremely unfair, however. The UK was one of the victorious powers of WWII, and is a Great Power. It is a peaceful country. It does not oppress others, and while in Europe we can see them as being the ones who throw their toys out of the pram, as a state it is mature and sensible. It is also half of Europe's nuclear defence.

    TL;DR, the UK has every right to nuclear weapons, for historical and present reasons.

    Israel did not develop nuclear technology on its own. It is a very small country, not a Great Power for sure. It is not a mature and reasonable country. It oppresses others outside the state. And so on. And as I said, Israel cannot be trusted with its nuclear technology, as it has been all to willing to help non-democratic states (1980s South Africa) obtain nuclear technology for no good reason.

    Israel does not admit to its ownership of nuclear weapons. It does not allow proper international inspections (unlike Iran). Now, seeing as how it has nuclear weapons, and is pressing for action against Iran for daring to put in the groundwork for nuclear weapons, logically, Israel also deserves sanctions.


    Iran certainly doesn't deserve US support. However Saudi Arabia and Israel, for different reasons, should by rights be ostracised states, not enjoying massive support. Countries such as Jordan, Egypt etc certainly deserve Western support, although perhaps in a different vane.
  2. funpig

    funpig Well-Known Member

    That is very unrealistic. It is difficult enough to get the political will to pass contentious state or federal laws. Good luck with trying to make a constitutional change.
  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    There are those who live in Northern Ireland who would disagree with that statement most vehemently. It's all a matter of perspective really.

    The US has supported both Jordan and Egypt in the past and considered Mubarak an ally at one point until he became hugely unpopular in his own country and it was no longer politically feasible to support him.
  4. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    They would, however, be wrong. The London government was wrong not to interfere enough in the runnings of the Northern Irish state, but then again, why should they? Once the Troubles flaired up London did a decent job, the problem was with the Unionist community in NI, not the British. The British were the ones who subsidised the state and brought about the main positive changes there (Welfare state post-WWII etc).

    Yeah I am simply saying that these countries do deserve support. Unfortunately other countries do end up being somewhat neglected on the other hand (90s Afghanistan springs to mind).
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    My point being that it is all about perspective.
  6. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Ah of course, but one can't real compare the two countries and actually say that they are equally 'bad' without using biased sources and doing an overall shitty report.
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    As I said, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Certainly the US doesn't view the UK as any sort of oppressive regime. Northern Ireland would disagree with that assessment. The US also views Israel as an important and loyal ally in the Middle East. The UK would seem to differ on that. It's a matter of perspective.
  8. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    But, it really isn't. The vast majority of Northern Irish citizens wish to remain in the UK, and for good reason. You are mistaking the British government for the Unionist administration.
  9. dontpanicbobby

    dontpanicbobby Guides Guide

    Chris Rock has the right idea;

    “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

    Yeah! Every time somebody got shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S**t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
    And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

    So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”

    I edited for a PG rating.
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  10. sntaylor

    sntaylor Well-Known Member

    I already suggested something along these lines but the notion was shotdown :-(
  11. dontpanicbobby

    dontpanicbobby Guides Guide

    :congrats:Arrgh!
  12. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member

  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    It's really a dumb idea since bullets are nothing more than chunks of lead and/or other metals and lead is not only cheap, but easy to get. It would not be difficult at all to melt your own bullets and create your own. People re-load their own shotgun shells all the time. Let's not forget that you're essentially saying the feds can dictate the price of an item and tell businesses that they must sell it for X when the market would dictate otherwise. I'm sure businesses wouldn't mind because suddenly they're making outrageous profits and no one is allowed to compete with them.
  14. JimmyRayBob

    JimmyRayBob Well-Known Member

    The feds would NEVER do that .... nor would they ever make us buy a product or service in the first place ...

    Oops ... that one is now law :mad:

    (sorry ... i'm not trying to change the subject)
  15. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Primers might be a problem. Reloading with homemade this and that is one thing . . . primers are likely still needed and you likely cannot make them. What do we do if primers go away?

    This is why I suggest keeping your nail gun ready at all times.
  16. sntaylor

    sntaylor Well-Known Member


    I still gotta ask as I've never had an answer....

    Has anyone on here actually had to use a gun to protect themselves? Shot someone in doing so?
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I've been driving for 15 years. Not once has a seatbelt saved my life. I still wear one.
  18. JimmyRayBob

    JimmyRayBob Well-Known Member

    And I've gotta ask .... has anyone ever gone target shooting for fun???
  19. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member

    It is better to have one and not need one, than to need one and not have it.

    How often do you drive a vehicle that has no airbags? Have you ever been in an accident and needed them to save your life?
  20. sntaylor

    sntaylor Well-Known Member

    So going by my asking twice before and finally getting what can only be read as no for answers I'm guessing no one would know what it feels like to kill someone, to live with that thought, the what ifs the persons family etc!

    Obviously it'd be different if someone was shooting at you in the first place, but even thenit'd still be hard! And accidents can easily happen, if Oscar pritorius is found to be telling the truth.....

    Personally I find it sad that so many people have to live with that fear if I felt I had to have protection in my own home, I'd move! Of course anything COULD happen, but why live life worrying!
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I don't feel I need protection in my own home personally. I've never quite understood people who do either, but that's just me. To me a lot of those people are just paranoid, but that's not a crime and it harms no one in this case. C'est le vie.
  22. sntaylor

    sntaylor Well-Known Member

    I just did a quick search and I don't know the validity of the stats in this page but its quite interesting particularly if true!

    www.asecurelife.com/burglary-statistics

    The USA has the highest burglary rate worldwide so clearly owning a gun doesn't put the criminals off, actually it is probably the opposite as guns are one of the items targeted in the robbery!

    but I thought having a gun was supposed to ward off potential criminals!?!
  23. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Well-Known Member

    I personally have not, but I can guarantee that the regret or grief I would feel shooting someone to defend my family would be no where near as great as the regret I would feel if I could not protect them if I needed to.
  24. JohnLaird

    JohnLaird Well-Known Member

    Kind of a null statement...guns aren't meant for bluffing or intimidation. That causes all kinds of problems. One of the fundamental rules is that you never point a gun at something or someone you aren't ready to shoot (and destroy). As a civilian I'm not going to try to ward off or scare someone who breaks into my home or otherwise clearly threatens my life. I'm going to shoot them. And keep shooting until they no longer present a threat to my life. Brandishing (or trying to "ward them off") and not following up shows to them that you are not ready to take that step...which puts me in a much worse position then I would be in if I never drew and just ran.
  25. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    thats the 2nd time Ive heard that ridiculous statement... dunno if it was you or who said it the first time..... too lazy to go look

    you do realize that people leave their houses right? burglars, though not always, typically target unoccupied homes

    does your report say how many times a burglary occurred while the gun owning homeowner was home? Id be willing to bet that number is pretty low

    just so youre aware....... despite containing tons of money and drugs...... thieves dont usually target the evidence lockers at police stations either

Share This Page