This is why legalised guns in UK would be so wrong!

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by CH512O, Sep 10, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Found this on Youtube. Its a gun range in Florida that for a small fee you can fire numerous weapons from pistols to MP5's etc. i have been to this range and fired a few guns, amongst which were the MP5, Glocks and Sig Sauers. Now im a fully trained soldier ( :? ) but any Joe Public, by showing that your above 21, can fire whatever you want..like this bloke!
    Why is it when you watch it, it seems so wrong?? Good weapon handling drills...NOT 8O

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=g-nhVCevhpY
     
  2. I live in Florida and it's illegal to rent or hire guns to non-immigrant aliens as the US government lovingly calls holidaymakers. That's unless they've got a valid hunting licence which you can get in Walmart (where the guns are usually right next to the tv and video department). AND YES I've brought ammunition when I've been out with the wife doing the weekly food shop.

    If I need to hire a gun on the range they need to see my green card and hold my florida driving licence until I hand the gun back in.

    Your chances of being attacked by by the US equivalent of a chav as they never know what I'm carrying and in Florida they won't even arrest me if it's self defence.
     
  3. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-7-2005-68250.asp

    'Nuff said.
     
  4. Now if only they'd pass this law on the quiet and legalise firearms over here. I wonder how many chavs could I taunt into attacking me before they caught on...
     
  5. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    There is a total and irrelevant hysteria in this country about firearms. A myth perpetuated by quasi official bodies and vocally powerful minority interest groups. The credo is that guns are evil, guns are the harbinger of doom and private ownership will result in mass slayings, and total anarchy. This is crap!
    Incidents such as Hungerford and Dunblane perpetuated this myth, and whilst they were genuine tragedies, they were avoidable too.
    Hungerford, for example, when Ryan went on the rampage, is a market town in a rural area. There were dozens, if not hundreds of legally owned and held firearms available, and the offender could have been stopped dead, had we not been brainwashed into believing that this was not the thing to do.
    That case, along with Dunblane, had little or nothing to do with the then Firearms legislation. Lunacy is not detectable on a visit by a police officer unless it is of the raving slaverung sort, and neither of these men had shown any signs that they would be likely to embark on a killing spree.
    When the subject of gun ownership comes up the focus is always directed to the USA. New York used to be regarded as a violent city, with many shootings, and the city became a byword for violence. But, it was almost impossible to obtain a permit for a handgun there, so the guns were illegal.
    Where private ownership is allowed, the crime rate is very small. Switzerland is a prime example of this.
    And one county in the USof A actually makes it compulsory to carry or own a firearm, and the crime rate there is minimal.
    responsible and legal ownership is not wrong.
    We have had a huge rise in firearm incidents in this country, mostly involving handgun, and it is legally impossible to won a handgun here.
     
  6. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Time for a fully armed police force?
    75% of UK CIVPOP seem to think so from a poll out today.
     
  7. agreed, since when has joined up thinking had been the hallmark of British Government.


    "An armed society is a polite society" I can see why, you would have to be an absolute nutter to start a shoot out with somebody, even then if the other is armed he can be taken out fairly quickly without having to wait for the police firearms unit to turn up and possibly saving lives in the process.

    like the Virginia shooting, had any of the teacher had a weapon, the gunman could have been stopped there and then.
     
  8. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Up until 1956 the British police were armed as a matter of routine, although it was the choice of the individual officer as to whether he carried a pistol or not ( Webley .455 was weapon of choice ) and the decision was respected by all.
    Now, some 24% of police are armed at all times, with that number rising when other 'authorised shots' are required.
    I have no problem with a fully armed police force -sorry, service!
    The litany of voices against are usually a chorus of how it would ruin the traditional image of the British 'Bobby'. That image has long gone. During my service we railed against that tunic, nylon shirt and tie. Complained that the 'big hat' was cumbersome and that a more modern uniform would be more comfortable and practical. The nay-sayers refuted it on the grounds that it would be a para-military look.
    Now, we have coppers dressed like extras on 'Dallas Swat' and a very military style uniform Ok, a bit sort of Continental military style, but ligt years away from tradition. So, why not go the whole hog?
     
  9. Well I for one am shocked! No marksmanship principles even if the birds t*ts were nice.
     
  10. msr

    msr LE

    Exactlt, gun deaths are going down: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

    The majority of guns are shotguns - no match for a assault rifle. So that isn't a valid argument.

    Wrong again: That people were suspicious of his stability was also well documented, and he was taking an increasing interest in guns, shooting and the damage that guns could do. His firearms licence was not revoked, despite discomfort of club members regarding his behaviour with guns, and police investigations of him.

    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1011701

    Any others? http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

    Prove it.

    Here are Arpeio's goons in action: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

    Do I want a police farce [sic] like that? No thanks.

    msr
     
  11. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Without spending endless hours searching for stats, I am unable to prove it, but the article you quote at the beginning of this actually does indicate such a rise. Or maybe I am not interpreting the stats in a politically correct way.
     
  12. msr

    msr LE

    So, explain this:

    The USA has the highest level of gun ownership. It also has the highest level of gun crime.

    I simply don't have time to argue with those who cannot see this link.

    msr
     
  13. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Some might say that crims will see that as a carte blanche license for them to be routinely armed, because the police are. Others, more enlightened would say that scumbags are routinely armed anyway, right down to 14 and 15 year old drug dealers.

    Why is it that scumbags can be armed, the police can be armed but the people on the street or at home who actually OBEY the law cannot be trusted with firearms unless they've gone for a bottom inspection to justify their twisted, nay perverted and utterly wrong desire?

    Guns can be obtained (totally banned pistols for example, or even machine pistols) freely in the UK, and the police are likewise armed. If, on the other hand, you are a legitimate, law abiding person who wishes to apply for a licence to use one within the law of the land, you have to jump through hoops.

    After Dunblane, all pistols were made section 5 firearms (as are automatic weapons of any calibre) and thus banned for public ownership. However, when various children are getting shot in the street, or drive-by machine gun shootings occur, NOTHING is proposed by the government in terms of a change in the law.

    The knee-jerk reaction of the gobment after Dunblane was to ban pistols for public use. Why did they not simply ensure that the Police who allowed the man who committed the atrocity to use their POLICE shooting range as a member, DESPITE the numerous complaints from members of the public that the man was a menace to children where sacked and that police vetting procedures where improved, or even go one further in ensuring that anyone who wishes to hold a firearms licence has been on a course that teaches them how to use one safely and effectively? Why did they not put something in place so that if a person wishes to have a firearms licence, he has to have character references from the great and good?

    No; the gobment has decided that every time someone gets shot, even if the firearms are held illegally is to bounce the easiest target - legitimate users.

    It's no different to the CSA hitting the parents who were available to hit for money, whilst leaving well alone those that would not/could not pay.