Found 26 results
Found 26 results
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.
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.
If I've ever seen confirmation bias...
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.
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.
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.
Except I'm much more likely to survive being stabbed than shot in the face...
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.
So much dumb. You really are a discredit to your source.
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.
I've lost no war to anyone considering I'm not a soldier.
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?
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.
You clearly couldn't, if Mausers were as efficient and effective as assault rifles then we wouldn't have invented assault rifles.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.