Looks like the U.K. will never be able to have freedom of gun ownership now

Forums are not the place for those too sensitive for opposing opinions. I think that opinions will change over time when good people are intimidated by, well you know. As you welcome those people into your society with open arms, you will slowly see the need to be armed. I hope I am wrong.

 

that sort of makes it harder to shoot criminals or gun stealers coming to your home

why do you want to make the lives of robbers safer? since criminals cannot own firearms legally, they certainly aren't going to comply with such a moronic law. Do you people who want to ban guns actually think about the consequences of the silly laws you want to pass?

 

Oh look, 5 more Americans wanting to divert the thread to talking about gun control in the US. Read the title guys then do one....

 

You keep mentioning the US statistics in your comments. Why is that? Isn't this a thread about the UK?

 

Then stop bringing up matters in the united states to suggest they are worse off in the matter.

Beyond such, there isstill no response on the part of yourself as to what the united kingdom will do when motor vehicles become more and more common in terrorist-related attacks. They obviously cannot be restricted in any manner even close to what is currently done with firearms, so what course of action can possibly be taken to prevent someone plowing into a crowd with a legally owned or rented motor vehicle? What will come about from this potentially becoming a weekly occurrence? Are there any answers to be had if such were to become reality?

 

Your confusion is not my problem.

 

Ah, the old moronic arguement. Used to be knives. Good to see evolution even among the dangs.

 

moronic argument-changing the legal environment for honest gun owners will somehow deter criminals who use guns illegally

 

I am not confused, you on the other hand are rude, obnoxious and have poor social skills.
You have lots of problems.

 

Do you intend to deny that the recent terrorist-related attacks in the united kingdom have utilized motor vehicles as the weapon of choice for murdering numerous individuals?

 

No but because you can't do everything is not a valid arguement against doing something.

 

Do something that's Constitutional, effective, enforceable and willing to be enforced.

 

Actually no data has been posted. Unless of course one is silly enough to think that personal stories of very limited breadth constitutes data. You wouldn't make thst mistake would you?

 

So now you have data on the awareness of people living in Florida. Good to have someone of the forum with such a plethora of imaginary facts at his disposal.

 

Great idea. How about universal background checks for all gun sales. Maybe limit access to fully automatic weapons limit clip size, ban armor piercing bullets. Make drivers wear seat belts and register their cars and maybe even require drivers licenses.

 

Why? In the years between NFA 1934 and Hughes, no legal civilian owned fully automatic weapon had been used in a homicide. Please show how this would be effective in reducing violence.

Violates Miller. Please show how reducing magazine size will reduce violence.

Pretty much every centerfire rifle round made will penetrate body armor. Are you suggesting a ban on all rifles of all types?

How do we do that?

 

All unconstitutional in the forms pursued by the civilian disarmament movement.

If you're going to argue for a political agenda, at least be halfway knowledgeable about it.

Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934 and the purchase of new ones banned in 1986. How the F can we "limit access" when they're already banned?

Do you remain ignorant of the fundamental differences between a "clip" and a "magazine"??

Do you even know how to define what makes a bullet "armor piercing"???

 

you've been on this board 4 years and you never bothered reading the proof that has been posted several times that private citizens are more accurate than cops.

 

background checks don't do anything to decrease criminals from getting guns

you are clueless about the laws concerning automatic weapons

how many people have been killed with "AP" ammo? the BM calls any round that can pierce ANY body armor AP which is dishonest. My hunting crossbow will blow right through many vests BTW. so will an Ice pick. the vest that hangs on my bed post will stop handgun rounds but not a deer rifle.

anyone who supports "clip [sic] limits is a gun banner pure and simple

 

Unenforceable, and thus useless.

Federal law since 1934.

"Clip". LOL
Unenforceable, and thus useless.

Federally banned for more than 20 years.

Anything else?

 

About the registering of firearms sales and firearms.

It would actually have a positive effect, from the gun controllers point of view, people would be even more accountable for their firearms, and it would make straw purchasing of firearms for criminals way harder.

BUT. There's a big but here, especially considering the US gun culture and attitude towards governmental infringement of rights.

People would hoard firearms in the years or months leading up to an implementation of such laws. There's already shitloads of firearms in the US, and most would escape registration. The new law would only be for newly produced firearms, or firearms sold to firearms vendors. So in the months leading up to the new law, people would buy an absolute horrendous amount of firearms, so the law would fail in limiting firearms in society in general. It would take decades before noticing any positive effect of such laws, and in the meanwhile, the law has just contributed to an absolutely huge black market for guns, since people will buy more than they can afford in the panic leading up to the new law.

Think about the magazine frenzy after that Connecticut school shooter, but way more.

And in the end, there's no guarantee the law would stick, just like the assault weapons ban of 94. So, you may end up in a situation where you have this law for a few years, enough for the panic buy to set in, but not long enough to see the positive effects of registration, leading to a huge black market, and later, to a lesser regulated normal market. The end result being more guns in the society.

 

Indeed. 1994-2004, "pre-ban" 'assault weapons' commanded a premium.
Imagine the money you could get for a "legally unregistered" firearm.

 

One of the things I find interesting is when you put a gun control advocate on the spot for detailing effective measures that would pass Constitutional scrutiny, or explain how those measures will work, what a training program for licensing training requirements would consist of, etc., you are either met with silence or a mindless series of repeated slogan generality measures usually calling for redundant laws impacting the law abiding and never addressing the real underlying issues impacting criminal use of guns. Reminds me of praying...none of the measures have a prayer of a chance of being effective.

 

that's because their stated motivations are a facade for their real goals-to harass and impede legal gun owners and ownership, not crime control

 

*********************

See what silly statements you make ?

I have relatives and freinds in Florida.
I have lived in Florida,
I have met Marion Hammer.
I read accounts of defensive Gun use in Florida.
Many Police blotters.

You doubt personal stories of defensive Gun use as anecdotal yet expect people to accept a statement like;

"A Gun kept in the home is more likely to be used to kill it's owner than a criminal."

Gun control advocates will accept any Anti Gun statement, without proof, yet discount any successful defensive Gun use, as an anomoly and not the norm.