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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't criminals (who want guns) possess said guns regardless of whether they were legal or not? I can't imagine a bunch of hard core East End crims suddenly going:

"Oi lads, the jobs off. We can't rob the bank 'cause shooters are illegal still. I guess we'd better find ourselves some real jobs ay?" (/cockney accent)

There's an implicit assumption here that becoming a 'criminal' suddenly grants one access to enormous supplies of illegal weaponry.

If there's a ban on guns, than they're not being brought into the country legally or legally available for purchase. Most 'criminals' are petty small time drug peddlers, chavs, local hardboys, bag snatchers, house robbers and so on. Whilst the inner city London gangs and the more devoted career criminals will have always have the knowledge and wherewithal to access firearms, Pete the pickpocket from Bristol will not.

By removing guns from general circulation, you remove the ability of your average thug, small time drugs dealer, and occasional madman to get hold of them. Buying a gun on the black market is not particularly easy if you don't know the right people (and are known by them). If it wasn't that way, the police would nail them relatively quickly. Firearms smuggling/construction is a fairly serious crime and takes resources that more serious underground players would rather not lose.


So in answer to your question HBMC, no. Criminals do not instinctively and naturally acquire firearms. By removing them from general circulation, you make it much more difficult for any aspiring or small time crook to acquire them. And thus, the number of crimes involving guns will be much lower than it would otherwise be.

As a Brit, I can confirm that that article is a load of crap.

Criminals over here prefer to operate with knives.. silent, legal to buy, easily concealed, just as deadly/ threatening.

No point risking the time, expense and trouble involved with a gun when there is access to an easier weapon that gets the job done just as effectively.

Guns are mainly used in gang vs. gang warfare, where both sides are armed, and one side wants an advantage over the other.

For those who want guns for sport, there's a simple answer - take up archery instead!

It requires far more skill - guns are the WAAC option.

 Hedgehog wrote:
For those who want guns for sport, there's a simple answer - take up archery instead!

It requires far more skill - guns are the WAAC option.

Ha. Yeah, those "gun" people are just power-gamers. Archery is a much more fun and fluffy way to launch deadly projectiles.

 marv335 wrote:
I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)

I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.

You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.

Tibbsy wrote:
Well it seems I am massively outnumbered

I will put that down to bias, but I must say, under laws for rifle/shotgun ownership (Not sure on pistols pre-ban) self defence is NOT a valid reason to own a firearm, nor can they be carried in public, concealed or not. When being transported they must be in a secure gun case, and stored at home in a securely locked safe, with the ammunition kept separately, also locked away. I think laws covering shotgun and shotgun ammunition storage are a bit more relaxed, but rifle laws are quite strict.

Ownership is pretty much purely for those who take up sport shooting. (Or for pest control, farmers usually fall under this category) Not sure on US laws, and I know it differs by state, but over there, isn't self-defence a valid reason? That wouldn't work over here, and is not a reason I agree with personally.

Self defense is a major reason a lot of people buy guns in the US, and many firearms are marketed for that purpose, as well as purpose built self defense rounds such as home defense shells for shotguns and hollowpoints for pistols. Heck, even our vice president apparently believes in it (albeit he has a very odd view on it) A lot of people I know keep a shotgun or a pistol in the house specifically in case someone breaks in.

In my state, we have laws that protect a person legally defending themselves whether we're at home, in our vehicle, or even out on the street. We have options to carry a weapon, either openly or concealed (the latter requiring a license) and Kentucky has a law that allows you to keep a loaded handgun in your car if it's in a "factory installed container" such as a glove compartment or center console, with no license required. Many states have "stand your ground" and "Castle doctrine" policies, which specifically cover self defense with a deadly weapon in order to protect yourself or your home.

Not all states are this way of course.

Its a accountability issue. My weapons are secured at my house. I see them. I can touch them. I know where they are 24/7. As much money I put into my weapons I much prefer them at home, with me. If I live on post then I need to secure my weapons at the unit armory/weapons room where I have to trust the unit armorer. Arrange to draw my weapons which is a pain the arse for the armorer and to turn them back in. No chance in Hell on a weekend be it a 2,3 or 4 day to draw personnel weapons. Also its been known for personnel weapons to be drawn out without the owner being aware and fired at a range. Next time they see the weapon it hasn't been clean which is an indicator that you got "Blue Falcon"

 mwnciboo wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)

I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.

You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.

As it happens I did store my guns at an armoury.
I didn't need them at home, and I had access to an armoury, so I used it as it was far cheaper than installing all the secure lockers I would have needed to be legally compliant.
As the law stands I can't own the handguns I previously owned.

 mwnciboo wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)

I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.

You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.

ahh the good old "you have a small penis" argument, classy projectionist argument coming from someone who cant show the empathy to acknowledge that guns are used for legitimate self defense, which by large does not even involve actually shooting anyone, far more often then illegitimate murder.

if a crook breaks into your house, has a gun/knife/bat/accomplices, and you are there with your wife and kids with help only a phone call and 15-20 minutes away, you can try telling them to leave, or risk your life ninja'ing them away with a baseball. Personally Im too old for that kind of movie mumbo jumbo. If the last time someone broke into your house you were fit and ninja skilled enough to fight them off with whatever you happened to have handy, good for you. Some people are small, non ninja-esque and generally unable to fight off one or more assailants, let alone armed assailants. Most people, be they man, woman, disabled, old, ect can rack a shot gun and scare off most hooligans simply because they present a hard target. If not even my grandmother can safely operate small caliber handguns.

I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.

If you are paranoid about freak occurrences of mass muder, but completely oblivious to the much more numerous mass "mundane" murders then the talking heads have done their job I suppose.

Don't you understand? We're supposed to be like Orks. Whoever has DA MOST BOYZ and DA BIGGEST MUSCLES can do whatever they want.

What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.

It's funny you comment about the paranoia over the freak chance of a mass killer taking precedence over the far more common killings as 'talking heads' doing their job. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US there are quickly people telling us that if gun ownership was easier and more people were able carrying guns in the street then it wouldn't have happened. It's fairly obvious that more guns result in more shootings, it's a simple matter of accessibility. It seems to me that it's you who live in a paranoid world of fear where more guns are the solution to the crime that is out to get you in the street or in your beds in the middle of the night.

You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.

You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.

This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.

 easysauce wrote:

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

Guys do we really need another thread devolving into bickery? Literally every thread that mentions so much as a bb gun has this happen and all it does is annoy the mods.

Just agree to disagree and be done with it, please.

I'm quite fond of the set up and balance of gun regulation we have here at the moment...even those with illegally obtained firearms tend to be pretty wary of using them for whatever reason, in my experience, and I like it this way.

 motyak wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.

You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.

This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.

 easysauce wrote:

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

Not my fault people I know from overseas happen to have a different opinion then you, might have something to do with being my mates and sharing common interest and all that. Just because the people I know are saying something, doesnt mean some aussie on dakka land cannot hold a different view point, but to continuously try to attack my character instead of my argument is what I come to expect.

Plenty of people do have their homes broken into, plenty of people use firearms for self defense, its not some fantasy, your anti gun side always pretends that there is no benefit to having a gun in self defense situation, and ignores all the people who bring up any of the benefits or examples of firearms saving lives.

 easysauce wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.

You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.

This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.

 easysauce wrote:

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

Not my fault people I know from overseas happen to have a different opinion then you, might have something to do with being my mates and sharing common interest and all that. Just because the people I know are saying something, doesnt mean some aussie on dakka land cannot hold a different view point, but to continuously try to attack my character instead of my argument is what I come to expect.

Plenty of people do have their homes broken into, plenty of people use firearms for self defense, its not some fantasy, your anti gun side always pretends that there is no benefit to having a gun in self defense situation, and ignores all the people who bring up any of the benefits or examples of firearms saving lives.

I'm not attempting to attack the character as much as the argument style. You are making statements of another country's opinions based upon the random people that you know in that country. That would be like me saying that the Yanks I know are part of the crowd who believe that gay marriage is going to bring down America, therefore "all the americans I know think they are worse off with homosexuals being allowed to marry, disintegrating society has become something to fear, since society no longer has structure.". It's just not a good way to argue, if you had said 'The Australians that I know, who could well be a minority, said these things to me', then I doubt you would have had so many people out and out disagreeing with you in the other thread, and it wouldn't have been brought up again.

I'm curious about the dingo's in Australia. Is it like the coyotes here in the States? Actually in Washington you need a license but if on an individual property you need a good justification to kill them. The prefer weapon is a 5.56mm rifle. Wondering because a few days ago I had neighbor that asked me a chuckleheaded question if I had an issue shooting coyotes. I've no problem shooting feral dogs in Afghanistan but shooting a coyote in a residential area a bit freaking much.

Australia is really weird with its animals (I know I'm going OT here but hey). Things that you'd expect wouldn't be an issue and act like real pests (like seagulls and crows) are actually protected, and I'm pretty sure that dingos are protected as well. I don't know if there is any way to legally hunt them. Feral dogs and cats you can hunt just fine at a farmer's request I believe, but I'm pretty sure dingos are a no go.

edit: after googling and what not I think I may be well wrong, dingos could be fair game, at least the NSW government uses poison and other means to cull them, so whether or not the public can as well I'm not sure of, but I wouldn't be surprised.

You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.

ahh the good old "you have a small penis" argument, classy projectionist argument coming from someone who cant show the empathy to acknowledge that guns are used for legitimate self defense, which by large does not even involve actually shooting anyone, far more often then illegitimate murder.

if a crook breaks into your house, has a gun/knife/bat/accomplices, and you are there with your wife and kids with help only a phone call and 15-20 minutes away, you can try telling them to leave, or risk your life ninja'ing them away with a baseball. Personally Im too old for that kind of movie mumbo jumbo. If the last time someone broke into your house you were fit and ninja skilled enough to fight them off with whatever you happened to have handy, good for you. Some people are small, non ninja-esque and generally unable to fight off one or more assailants, let alone armed assailants. Most people, be they man, woman, disabled, old, ect can rack a shot gun and scare off most hooligans simply because they present a hard target. If not even my grandmother can safely operate small caliber handguns.

I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.

If you are paranoid about freak occurrences of mass muder, but completely oblivious to the much more numerous mass "mundane" murders then the talking heads have done their job I suppose.

What? You are comparing the rule of Common Sense gun control, with the oppression of peoples freedom of Sexual Expression?

How about you being paranoid about having someone break into your house?

1. Buy better Locks.
2. Buy better Doors and Windows.

Your argument is flawed, because if you shoot someone in the UK even on your property it's against the law and you will be prosecuted and because a Firearm is a serious offence you go to Prison. The Law is blind, it's not a case of "He was stealing from me so I killed him" that isn't proportional, equally "I was afraid for my life so I killed him in Self Defence" that rarely ever washes either because 99% of Burglars will run if disturbed and won't fight it out because they will be much more likely to get caught.

Proving theft is equally difficult because you have to prove "The Intent to permanently deprive"

If there were Armed intruders why would they rob a Suburban House with few items and little or no Cash? If you have a Gun would you risk you life to Steal a few things from Someone's House, or would you go after a Higher pay-off like a Bookmakers, Bank or Post Office which may have £10,000's or more?

So fundamentally Gun's in the UK is about Machismo, Power and Prestige. There is no reason other than Pest Control, or Hunting (Deer / Birds). Personally I don't see any point in target shooting even the olympics now has Laser Guns, so really lets get down to the real issue. Guns are about machismo and Power, I saw it out Afghanistan all the time, Afghan Men didn't feel like Men unless they had a rifle or an AK. You see it all over the Middle East.

Firearm's has nothing to do with Freedom, it's actually the opposite it's the ability to impose your own will on events or people and empower the individual to subvert the rule of law as they see fit. It's a culture built on Paranoia that others will do what they will to me, if I don't have it.....The question is always "What are you going to do in a 1 in a Million event you get burgled at home, you gonna do nothing, or are you gonna be the big man grab your gun and kill him"...This is the net result...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499

Guns Deprive People of Freedom, like their life and their liberty. It means people think they can subvert the rule of Law, and it makes them believe they can protect themselves from "Oppression" which is nonsense because who determines what Laws are Oppressive and what is not? Isn't that the politicians we vote for?

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm curious about the dingo's in Australia. Is it like the coyotes here in the States? Actually in Washington you need a license but if on an individual property you need a good justification to kill them. The prefer weapon is a 5.56mm rifle. Wondering because a few days ago I had neighbor that asked me a chuckleheaded question if I had an issue shooting coyotes. I've no problem shooting feral dogs in Afghanistan but shooting a coyote in a residential area a bit freaking much.

Here in Colorado you just need a varmit permit. Year round unlimited bag. Justification? It is a goddessdamn coyote. Personally I do not hunt coyotes during the spring time. I would not want to leave a litter of pups motherless. That is just cold... besides once the pups grow up they are fair game as well. The Yotes are becoming a serious problem out here though, Arizona too, I cannot speak for any where else but the Yotes are getting bigger, they are smart and adaptable already, and they are starting to work in groups more as they increase in size. They threaten even suburban homes in some areas in Colorado Springs, my gran had to be careful when she walked the dog in the morning. As you get closer to the mountains, you still get yotes now and then and get the added benefit of my own personal Moby Dick. Mountain Lions. The first rifle I am building at school this fall is going to be purposefully built as a dangerous game rifle, just so I can apply for my tag next year and go get my cat. The most dangerous opponent I can legally face. Two apex predators, one is several hundred pounds of furry hate, claws and teeth, an optimized predator that is my physical superior in every way but the ability to walk up right and opposable thumbs. Then there is one man, me, with a rifle, a back up pistol to shoot the cat off the top of me if it manages to get me pinned. It shall be glorious, savage combat of the mind, intelligence vs. instinct with an opponent I can truly respect. If I die, it will be a good death indeed.

 easysauce wrote:

I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.

When gun owners are murdered in concentration camps for being born gun owners, when gun owners are beaten into comas, outcast from their families and friends, denied the basic rights of those around them and discriminated against every day of their lives, in all manner of ways, then you get to make that comparison.


Until that time, you should really tone down your infantile and offensive hyperbole.

You're letting the side down.

 Ketara wrote:
There's an implicit assumption here that becoming a 'criminal' suddenly grants one access to enormous supplies of illegal weaponry.

Say what? I was sure there was like a club or something they all joined. Has its own Sears Catalogue-style gun magazine where you can order everything from .22 pistols to aircraft carriers.

 Ketara wrote:
So in answer to your question HBMC, no. Criminals do not instinctively and naturally acquire firearms. By removing them from general circulation, you make it much more difficult for any aspiring or small time crook to acquire them. And thus, the number of crimes involving guns will be much lower than it would otherwise be.

I see what you're saying, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at (I don't think criminal = sudden access to firearms). What I'm more saying is that once you've made that choice to be a criminal, the legality of the weapons you choose to use is kinda moot. Maybe I just don't think arming everyone else is an effective counter.

 mwnciboo wrote:
There is no reason other than Pest Control, or Hunting (Deer / Birds). Personally I don't see any point in target shooting even the olympics now has Laser Guns, so really lets get down to the real issue.

Only for pentathlon. All other Olympic sports use "live" rounds (If you can call air rifles live). A laser gun will never act like a real gun. Lasers do not fall, give recoil, blown by wind etc.

I see your point, but "manlyness" is not the case with most target shooting.

I agree with you about not needing guns for home protection etc. I don't agree with that argument for the UK at all. Even if you do have a gun the best thing to do to be safe is hide and give them what they want, not go confronting them.

The chances of someone using a gun in a crime in the UK is tiny. Having a US style system would massively increase the number of gun related deaths and use of guns in crime. It would make obtaining a gun for criminal use a matter of braking in to the right house rather than a complex system of knowing the right person who knows the right person to rent a gun from.

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA

No... Violent Crime is recorded differantly.

Nobody likes a smart-ass!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.

But, TBH, and I've said this before, it makes sense for Americans to have guns because:

1) The country is full of them - every crook has one, so law abiding citizens need them.
2) The nearest sheriff could be miles away and/or bear attacks!
3) The well documented assault on individual liberties that has been steadily eroding people's rights these last decades

4) The permanent threat of Canadian/UN taskforce invading!

But seriously, reason number 3 is one that concerns me. I'm a student of American history/politics and what's been happening over there the last 20 years from both Democrats and Republicans is scary - and I don't even live there!

I understand your lov eof the NHS. Me wants one!

Also, Gun Owners aren't the new gays, that's silly. They are the new fat person. The butt of jokes and generally frowned upon for making poor life choices.

 mwnciboo wrote:

rule of Common Sense gun control

What, pray tell, is that?

I'm guessing if guns aren't commonly available then you are less likely to see people shot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.

Read this post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.

Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.

Read this post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.

Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"

It's what happens when you let the government run things. Private industry is more likely to get it right, because their customers will find someone else to provide it if they screw it up. When it's all the government... well doesn't matter how jacked it gets, you got no where else to go.

bad djones520... We need guns in this thread, not healthcare.


Here look guns: