Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by jonathan666666
Listen, I'm the most pro gun guy around. I live in NYC. I'll be completely honest. Sometimes, I'm glad that they're not allowed here. There are WAY too many idiots here for it to work. Trust me, I would love to keep my 12 gauge next to my bed. Not 200 miles away from me, like it is now (and will be forever). But it just would not work. Too many kids who think they're Bloods. Too many idiots that get cranky when someone cuts them off. It just wouldn't be good. I feel safer knowing that I have a baseball bat, and not every average idiot in Staten Island can get a gun. But I am 100% pro gun, and anti-asshole. I wish we could have guns everywhere without problems, but there's just too many stupid people out there.
edit: I want to add. I've lived my whole life here. I've seen the wrong side of a gun twice in my life (and it's a weird ****ing feeling, let me tell you), but I feel that it would happen much more if the laws were more lenient.


In an earlier post it was mentioned that while here in Ky, we are not with out crime, compared to ya'll up there we have virtually none. Ya'll folks have gone for to long with out the ability for self defense. Could be the reason you have so many kids thinking their bloods, so many people that get cranky if their cut off. Retaking the streets would be a bad, and bloody business, my thinking best to not let things get in the shape in the first place. I feel sorry for ya'll folks up in NY. Here in Ky damned near evey house hold has at least one gun, and we don't have ya'lls problems. Once a problem gets out of hand, it will be hell to get it back under control.
Quote by burghUK
please don't confuse what im saying though , i totally disagree with american gun ownership.

Murder rates are currently lower in the UK than the US EVEN when we account for the population difference. I guess that goes to show that less gun ownership = less deaths. Stop being selfish america and think of those 9000 dying every year.

My second point which i would like to repeat is this... You cannot use States such as new york to prove that gun conrol doesn't work , because there is no border control between new york and the rest of the US. Guns can be bought elsewhere in the country and brought in.


While in the UK the criminals may be using knifes , this cannot be used as a case for having guns anyway because we do not have the gun deaths to add to that. While 300 may be dying ever year (made up example) it doesn't mean that number would stay the same if we had guns. It would be higher and that's just not worth it.

While I can respect your opinion being different than mine, my thanks came from someone across the pond not playing the you dont speak proper English card so I can just play dumb with what your saying thing. As far as guns being bought else were, and brought into New York, I'm aware that happens, so why ban them in New York? For right, or wrong guns are a fact here in the U.S, the privately owned guns number in the billions. That being the case, laws against them will not work, confiscation, and forced turn ins, only good guys follow the law, bad guys dont. So why not give the citizens of New York the ability to defend themselves against the bad guys the same as citizens of Ky has? If a bad guy is coming at you with a knife, wouldn't it be nice to have a gun to defend yourself with? If your answer is no, then I guess thats one of the differences between English folks, and U.S. folks.
Quote by willT08
If I've ever seen confirmation bias...



Confirmation, is confirmation. At the prison, we had a much faster rate of response than anyone on the street unless someone was standing in front of a hospital. I don't understand your bias statment.
Quote by burghUK
The ratios stay the same because you need to account for the difference in population.

So theoretically while the number of murders in the UK may seem lower than to the US , the ratio might suggest that's it's similar if you account for the difference in population. It's not hard ffs.

Why thank you. It's good to see someone that may speak a different brand of English than we do, yet still can understand what we're saying. Happy New Year, this glass of John Walker Black is for you.
Quote by chookiecookie
Simple logic really

Lost on some folks.
Quote by Todd Hart
I daresay your eleven year old has a better grasp of English than you as well, proud?


Really depends on were your standing. In my little corner of the world people would look at what you say, scratch their head, and say what the hell is he speaking.


And again, I don't need an extensive knowledge of firearms to know that a semi-automatic is faster firing than a bolt-action, and thus makes killing a class of children a quicker and easier task, and given that that's all I've said to you I fail to see your point.

Yes you fail to see my point. I dont think your going to see it, but I'll give it one more go. In a gun free zone, such as a school, a person with some firearms skill can do as much damage with bolt guns, and revolvers, because there is no one there with other guns to take him down. Sitting ducks on a pond. Our good senator Fienstien wants to ban assault weapons, aka semi automatics. In a gun free zone, no one but the bad guy has a gun. A bit of practice and anyone can work a bolt real quick, and reload quick. They do make speed loaders for revolvers, so a 17 round mag for a glock really aint that big of a deal when you consider someone with a S&W 686 and some speed loaders, along with some skill can reload fast, and be more accurate, with a more potent round.

No.

Number of incidence of crime is not important, the rate of crime is what matters, and there isn't a great deal of difference. The contributing factor is clearly ease of access to firearms, if it wasn't then England would have high rates of school stabbing.

This also shoots the 'hurr durr the blerk merkert' whining down as well, as if the black market really provided such easy weapon access the England would, again, have rates of gun violence much closer to America.


A larger populace will all ways mean a larger crime rate. Simple math.
Okay mate, firstly, paragraphs.


Ok so now, here is one of the things I'm speaking of, ya'll say firstly, we say first off.
Quote by willT08
Except I'm much more likely to survive being stabbed than shot in the face...

Not really, being a former corrections officer, I've seen alot of people die from being shanked.
Quote by Todd Hart
What you're currently doing isn't a dialect, it's simply wrong.

And, actually, I have a rather good knowledge of weapons, given that my dad is an avid air-rifle and clay shooter. However, that isn't required to know that a semi-automatic is faster firing than a bolt-action: that's a pure physics problem, and one that has a clear answer. There are a few ways to try to defend mainstream access to semi-automatic weaponry; claiming the fact that they're somehow equal in speed to bolt-actions anyway isn't among them.

And you think your opinion matters? Bless.

Edit: ^ (reply to last paragraph) Definitely, it would appear that a lot of Americans are incredibly paranoid. It's a little disconcerting.

My 11 year old has air rifles, and is an avid shooter of clays as well. He recently took three trophies at the 4H banquet fpr shooting trap. That dosent mean he has a rather good knowledge of firearms, your missing the point of what I said, and I dont much figure your going to get it. BTW it seems my 11 year old son has more knowledge of firearms than you. Something for you to be proud of no doubt.
"I think after America gets battered around a bit more you'll chill out about this stuff. The IRA were bombing towns left, right and centre and you didn't see everyone start packing a shotgun 'for protection'."

Perhaps if more of yall were carrying shot guns, or assault weapons, the IRA wouldn't have been able to bomb so many towns, killing so many innocents. In any matter, I can respect your opinion, and raise this glass of John Walker black to you matey. Just this once any way.
"I've also never experienced this, nor had any of my friends experience this. And I'm from London, the capital of Knife crime. No doubt it happens, but it's preferable to being shot. I'd happily take lower gun crime rates for slightly higher knife crime."

At the end of the day, dead is dead. Be you shot or stabbed.
Quote by Todd Hart
So much dumb. You really are a discredit to your source.

What ever you say chap.
Quote by Todd Hart
Stop quadruple posting.

And yes, nothing to secure the safety of children like adding even more bullets into their classroom...

And it doesn't matter how skilled you are it's still faster to fire a semi-automatic, always.

Really though, I have no idea what you're talking about: you really do need to work on your sentence construction.


What can I say you speak the queens english, and I speak backwoods redneck. You have no knowledge of firearms other than that which you have gotten from media, or hollywood, so in truth, you dont know jack about anything firearm related. Your in england, I'm in the U.S, so at the end of the day, your opinion really dont matter.
Quote by willT08
I've lost no war to anyone considering I'm not a soldier.

I guess.

Difference being that living in and around the poor areas of London all my life, I've never been in a position where I've needed a gun, nor had a friend in a position where he needed a gun, or heard of anyone I know being in a position of needing a gun.

If I'd grown up in the poor areas of Baltimore, what's the bet that'd be the same?

I know many people that have lived along time and never felt they had the need to own a gun, and I know some who were damn glad they had one when the moment came to be. As I said in an earlier post, my Kenpo instructors are from England. They told me its true not many people get shot, but people will pull a knife, or break a bottle and put it in your face in a minute. They also told me England sucks. I guess thats why they moved here. Your being from England and all, why exactly should we care what you think of our laws? I mean we did kick ya'll the hell out of here a couple of times, as well we bailed ya'll out of a couple of world wars, (in the last one millions of Americans donated rifles to British citizens in case they were invaded by Germany because not many of yall had them) not meant as flame bait, just saying.
Remember, the Brits formed a large empire defeating most every army in their path with a bolt gun. The 303 Enfield was listed as the top combat rifle ever made not long ago.
Quote by Todd Hart
It's clear that you learnt grammar from a potato.

And a semi-automatic weapon is a more efficient weapon for hitting multiple people in a given time than a bolt-action one. Plus, having a bolt-action weapon leaves you much more open to some incredibly brave soul trying to stop you, or for people to escape.

Wow, the grammar police make an entrance. Its a message forum, not an english class chill out a bit. A person with a bit of skill can load, and fire a bolt action rifle real quick, and if you have no one able to shoot back thanks to gun free zones any brave soul trying to stop someone with a bolt gun, and a revolver will die. Now if it werent a gun free zone, and someone had a semi auto, things would be different, and a bolt gun would only get off maybe 10 shots or so. No doubt the crazies that commit these kind of acts, as well as criminals are very thankful for gun free zones.
Alot of people speak of England, and not many people dieing frrom being shot. No doubt thats true, not many people are getting shot. My Kenpo instructors were from England, they told me that while there's not much chance of getting shot, someone will pull a knife, or break a bottle and put it in your face real quick. England in recent years has been banning swords, and knives as well. So we an see gun control dosent equal violence control. A person is just as dead be they shot, stabbed, or beat to death. Dead equals dead regardless of the means. Firearms bring about balance. A small, weak, non violent person is equal to a large, strong, violent person. When the smaller one has a gun.
Quote by Todd Hart
You clearly couldn't, if Mausers were as efficient and effective as assault rifles then we wouldn't have invented assault rifles.

It;s obvious your firearms knowledge comes from media, and hollywood. There is a real world seek it out.
Quote by chookiecookie
If you'd look at the statistics you would know states in America who are strict on their gun laws don't achieve their 'anti crime' mindset. It has the exact opposite effect.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Feel free to check the crime by states. Especially the ones with anti-gun laws or stricter gun control.

Edit: For all of you out-of-state folk, those states would be New York, Illinois and California in particular with the strictest control laws.

Edit2: and for comparison, compare them to my state (Ky) with some of the loosest gun laws around.

Here in Ky we are not without crime, but compared to other states with strict gun control, we would be looked at as all most crime free.
Quote by willT08
You know how neither of you would have been able to do that much damage?

If neither of you owned guns. These are just facts, get over it.


Had guns never been invented, your statment would have merit. Fact is, they are here, and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Damn I hate repeating NRA talking points, but facts is facts.
Quote by burghUK
except in countries with firearms out of the picture it's incredibly difficult to get hold of one.

I could walk the streets of edinburgh for 2 weeks and still have no idea where to start about finding a gun.

So **** ya , get over it .


*edit*

People in the US always compare gun crime in one state with guns to another without , these facts are irrelevant as there are no border controls between states.

The only way you could have a valid opinion on the solution to the problem is to listen to those with experience , like half the brits you have hounded out of this thread with all your "liberty , 'murica , amendment" BS.

Walk the streets of edinburgh for 2 days looking for one, and I'm certain you'll find it.
I could do as much damage with my WW2 era bolt action mausers, and a 357 revolver as the psycho did at that school with an AR, and a glock, were I inclined to do so. It's not the gun, its the person behind the trigger. These are facts, there is no stalemate, so get over it.
I'd really like for someone to tab this song, its great.
I play through a peavey butcher. All tube, one channel. I use a digitech bad monkey, a marshall blues screamer, and a marshall governor. They all three give great sound. Especiall if you drive the amp. The bad monkey is a great box for that seventies type sound.
Epiphone is owned, and authorized by Gibson. The only real difference in Epiphone and Gibson from the standard model and up is around 2000 dollars.
I've been playing guitar for 21 years, mainly just picking around on a flattop. I've recently bought a les paul custom, a kustom quad xd 65 amp, and following effects boxes. Boss m2 metal zone, digitech blues screamer, digitech bad monkey, digitech xd delay, digitech digiverb, and digitech chorus (the overdrives I have ran through the effects loop, I discovered they clashed with the preamps in the amp). What would be some good settings on both the amp, and the boxes for sounds such as AC/DC, Metallica, GnR, Skynyrd, and other blues type sounds. Any info is appreciated thanks.