Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
I'd be more worried if I was Activision than if I were Bushmaster at this point.

Agreed, there was actually talk of pressing a lawsuit against bioware since the killer was a fan....... lawyers

 Da Boss wrote:
Nah, realistically Ireland has only been self governing for the last 90 or so years. And "governing" is a strong word for what our political class occupy their time with

Good to see some more discussion of the culture of violence and gun worship in the US getting some mention. I think it must have a lot to do with what's happening, and that's where the push should be heading. I mean, if individual states want to tighten their gun laws up as well, I see no harm in that either.

Of course you don't. You don't theat right. I do. Pardon me if I give your opinion less weight as a consequence.

 Frazzled wrote:

Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.

No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...

The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...

You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.

Article 10, Human Rights Act 1998.

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.

No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.

The law of the internet requires you to cite your sources, the both of you

Wikipedia will be allowed, but not Cracked.

Thanks Steve Steveson, I stand corrected...

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.

No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...

The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...

You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.

Article 10, Human Rights Act 1998.

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

 Alfndrate wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.

No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.

The law of the internet requires you to cite your sources, the both of you

Wikipedia will be allowed, but not Cracked.

Sorry, of course..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/07/2012726141159587596.html

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting viewpoint in today's spiked magazine. Well worth a look IMO

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13179/

That's pretty brilliant, in my book.

 Huffy wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'd be more worried if I was Activision than if I were Bushmaster at this point.

Agreed, there was actually talk of pressing a lawsuit against bioware since the killer was a fan....... lawyers

Except the funny part is that was NOT the killer who had "Liked" Mass Effect.

And it was only Jack Thompson talking about it. Nobody cares about Jack Thompson anymore except for silly folk.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.

No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.

The law of the internet requires you to cite your sources, the both of you

Wikipedia will be allowed, but not Cracked.

Swiss law, back in the day, had their males with awesome Sigs under their beds. Evidently Swiss chocolate and high mountain passes keep everyone calm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
There's an argument that crazy (serial and mass killers) are partially driven by societies in flux. This accounts for the US, China, Japan slightly earlier. Its an interesting theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Huffy wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'd be more worried if I was Activision than if I were Bushmaster at this point.

Agreed, there was actually talk of pressing a lawsuit against bioware since the killer was a fan....... lawyers

Whats Bioware and what does that have to do with it?

 Frazzled wrote:

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.

Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.

Bioware is a video game company...

Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Except the funny part is that was NOT the killer who had "Liked" Mass Effect.

And it was only Jack Thompson talking about it. Nobody cares about Jack Thompson anymore except for silly folk.

The morning news shows are hammering not only guns, but the "Hollywood glamorization of violence and above all violent video games that these loners play." Jack Thompson ain't on any of them.

One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

If your government really turned against you, it wouldn't be like the Waco incident, they wouldn't be worrying about any collateral damage. You would get to see the full might of federal government in action and that might has more firepower than you do.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Bioware is a video game company...

Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.

Yes, true, but I doubt things have changed massivly in the last 5 years. Nither country has undergone huge changes in that time and I don't think the Small Arms Survay dose this kind of work every year.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan. It becomes even murkier when you consider that, while the majority of law enforcement and military personnel aren't 'gun guys,' the ones that are might well end up on the other side.

But I don't own guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. I own and carry guns partly because I have to, and partly because I do not believe "Trust in the benevolent intentions of everyone you meet," to be a good personal security policy.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.

Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.

NO. NOT THE SAME. It takes the votes of 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. Thats why there are so few of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.

Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.

So in other words you don't actually have the right to free speech, if the judge decides what is hate speech or isn't.

Offensive speech is not limited in the US.
Fighting words are only limited in situational moments when they might lead to a physical fight. Even then they're generally ok. You're citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Bioware is a video game company...

Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.

Wait, what? What does a video game company have to do with it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.

Yesterday:
Coming from family outing to Fuddruckers - a rarity now with teenagers. Wife hits same curb she always hits.
Frazzled to GC: see. Don't do that.
Teenager to GC: yea don't do that. You'll never pass your test.
Mrs. Frazzled: What are you people talking about? I never hit curbs.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Bioware is a video game company...

Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.

Wait, what? What does a video game company have to do with it?

They're violent, and thus leading our children down the narrow path to sodomy, rampant drug use, and sex with alien chicks... Also violence...

I've been playing violent video games for years, I was a wow addict for a solid 3 years (anti-social, low confidence, all those social stigmas that come from WoW playing, except for bathing and eating I still did those things), and never once did I think, "I'd like do this in real life."


Edit: Frazz, is GC younger than I thought? I could have sworn you mentioned something about college a year ago with her... I might just be crazy...

0.o Woah, people are being really conservative with their viewpoints on this thread.

"Your country has silly laws" "No your country has the stupid laws", and so on...

Personally I don't think its the availibility of the guns that's the problem, its the way society's devloping. I mean you still get cases of mass murder in the US that don't involve guns, it just happens that they're ridiculously easy to obtain.

^^ The notion that you could all get together and form some sort of resistance movement against your government is a cute one, aww pet. I assume that a few of ya'll are Nathan Holn supporters.

 AustonT wrote:
It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.

Yeah, I edited that in after kicking myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
^^ The notion that you could all get together and form some sort of resistance movement against your government is a cute one, aww pet.

Better let those Syrian rebels know they're violating the laws of hilarity.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.

And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.

I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.

What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?

A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

And let's not pretend your experience is either.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

It's not universal, but it is pretty much national...

It's tiresome to read comments from people saying stuff like "no guns = no shootings!" Well, duh. Good luck getting all the guns out of america or any other country.

The guy in the spiked article has a definite point about social atomisation and exaltation of self esteem above all else. That is the dogma that is preached in educational psychology lectures, at least in my training course- that self esteem is the single most important facet of psychology, and that it must never be compromised. Definitely seemed to me that many of the lecturers I dealt with had a chip on their shoulder from "mean" teachers in their own education. A more common problem than low self esteem these days is delusions of grandeur brought on by constantly inflated self esteem, whether from parents who tell their kids that they are superior to others or through a system that lauds the most mediocre of accomplishments as though they were amazing and the most banal of qualifications as if they were useful.

I dunno. Like most people, I'd love a window into the head of someone like that, so that we could analyse the factors leading to these horrific actions and then minimise their occurrence in society.
Guns aren't the issue so much as the choice to use guns to slaughter innocents. If you'd taken away his guns, he could still have wreaked havoc with any number of explosives or gases, provided an internet connection access to some fairly common materials. Perhaps the glorification of guns in culture helped him to choose that as his modus operandi over gas or bombs, but the issue is still the motive, not the means.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Bioware is a video game company...

Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.

Wait, what? What does a video game company have to do with it?

They're violent, and thus leading our children down the narrow path to sodomy, rampant drug use, and sex with alien chicks... Also violence...

I've been playing violent video games for years, I was a wow addict for a solid 3 years (anti-social, low confidence, all those social stigmas that come from WoW playing, except for bathing and eating I still did those things), and never once did I think, "I'd like do this in real life."


Edit: Frazz, is GC younger than I thought? I could have sworn you mentioned something about college a year ago with her... I might just be crazy...

Well, I guess its Restrictions on the Bill of Rights for Everyone Weee!!!

OT but GC just turned 14 and The Boy is about to turn 18. he's on the launch pad for college and co-ed party time!.

 AustonT wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with their government. It's the basic mindless robot argument that's about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.

I do not think that as many members of the militaries and police would side with the citizenry that people believe.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan. It becomes even murkier when you consider that, while the majority of law enforcement and military personnel aren't 'gun guys,' the ones that are might well end up on the other side.

But I don't own guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. I own and carry guns partly because I have to, and partly because I do not believe "Trust in the benevolent intentions of everyone you meet," to be a good personal security policy.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

Okay that's fair comment... in that situation, but "giving them a run for their money" isn't the same as going toe to toe on equal terms. A group of citizens holed up in a ranch with a cache of weapons wouldn't stand a chance against the full force of a federal attack.

Running off into the woods or hiding in the cities, going all Red Dawn is a different scenario. Especially as they usually involve everybody fighting against an enemy invader. Just image how bloody a 2nd civil war would be?

Yes you are correct, a saw is a saw, but you do have different saws for different jobs. You wouldn't buy 5 of the same course cut saw to do the same job.

That argument still stands. If you are defending a house why would you need 2 or more types of gun, or in fact 10,000 rounds of ammo? If you are in a situation where your home is being stormed, then you up the creek no matter what.

As to your situation, you're correct I haven't and I have no response to that. The genie is out the bottle, how it's controlled I don't know.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?

The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.

That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.

And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.

Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?

All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.

Most people only have a handsaw.

In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.

What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.

Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.

I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.

What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?

A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.

As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.

I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.

And let's not pretend your experience is either.

Wait people have hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition?
1. Who's the millionaire?
2. So what? That just means they're either: Competing and have a corporate sponsor (such a thing does exist actually), or have to much money that they need to give to me.
3. Why do you want to oppress them again?

 Frazzled wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.

Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.

NO. NOT THE SAME. It takes the votes of 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. Thats why there are so few of them.

Again, your legal system is diffrent to ours. That dose not make the UK laws worthless. And typing in bold DOSE NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

Under the same argument it takes a majoraty vote in both the house of commons and the house of lords to repeal an act of parlement rather than the one house in the US. The reason there are so few is more to do with the political power of the constitution in the US.

Repealing an act of parliment in the UK is not easy, and anyway, you were saying we do not have protection of free speech when we do. How difficult or easy that is to remove is irrelevent. The fact is you are wrong and we do have free speach laws.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?

It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.

Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.

So in other words you don't actually have the right to free speech, if the judge decides what is hate speech or isn't.

Offensive speech is not limited in the US.
Fighting words are only limited in situational moments when they might lead to a physical fight. Even then they're generally ok. You're citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist.

"Fighting words and offensive speech" is the specific legal title of what you are calling "Fighting words". I am not "citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist." you just don't know your own law. My point was things are excluded US law from free speech.

Just because our law is diffrent dose not mean it dose not exist.