GUNS

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Cris

Cough cough, you really don't know what you are talking about do you, have a look at the Brady law and it's current implementation, unless it's been changed recently you get the background check then immediately pick up the gun.

And the background check is the vetting you dummy. The person has to be a US citizen and naturalised in the US, and have a clean record. There's really not much more vetting can tell you other than that.

Originally Posted by Cris

"Current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold by licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of gun sales. This means that two of every five guns acquired in the US change hands without a background check. This includes guns bought at gun shows, through classified ads, and between individuals. There are between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows held every year."

But they can't register the gun in their name unless they meet the vetting criteria and have a permit. Just as it is with vehicles in the UK and, as I understand it, the former owner has to pass on details of who they've sold it to, again, similar to vehicle registration.

Originally Posted by Cris

I think that the military is a little more discerning that just doing a criminal background check too. You might want to look into what it takes to get into the armed forces. You don't just drop in an application then get issued an SA80.

ROFL. UK background checks are fncking worthless. I know this for a fact. Look at all the illegals employed as security guards in government offices. And the psych evaluation.... "I see dumb people."

Originally Posted by Cris

As a side point don't you find it a little strange that, so far at least, no one else has come out supporting the availability of battle field weapons and biological weapons to the general public. Just a thought.

You were the dummy who suggested that, I was just playing along to humour you. "Back pocket?" Well really.

[R33_GTS-t]

Guns don't have to be nasty:




Hello Kitty AR-15 - evil black rifle meets cute and cuddly

[Trev]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Guns don't have to be nasty:




Hello Kitty AR-15 - evil black rifle meets cute and cuddly

Guns don't kill people - Rabbid's do

[stealth]

Originally Posted by Trev

Guns don't kill people - Rabbid's do

I thought it was Lawnmowers Trev!

[Cris]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

You were the dummy who suggested that, I was just playing along to humour you. "Back pocket?" Well really.

Nope I asked where you draw the line and you said nuclear weapons were too much etc etc etc. With respect you should take a moment to read what you wrote.

So you don't actually believe what you are posting then.

In that case I think that everyone should be legally required to carry a gun at all times. If any un-armed citizens are involved in crime then they will forfeit their legal rights unless exceptional circumstances can be proven.

See we can all talk bollox if we want to.

PS Do you vote BNP too?

[Howsie]

Death by R33 GTS-t, now that would have the whole world surrendering.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Cris

Nope I asked where you draw the line and you said nuclear weapons were too much etc etc etc. With respect you should take a moment to read what you wrote.

So you don't actually believe what you are posting then.

In that case I think that everyone should be legally required to carry a gun at all times. If any un-armed citizens are involved in crime then they will forfeit their legal rights unless exceptional circumstances can be proven.

See we can all talk bollox if we want to.

PS Do you vote BNP too?

If someone suggests that biological weapons are stored in people's back pocket, I treat them as an idiot. You clearly fell into this category. I think people should be allowed upto machine guns and small calibre cannons and there should be a system of registering and licensing for weapons to ensure none fall into.... well your hands for one.

BNP? No I vote Waffen SS, you great 'nana.

[gavman]

Originally Posted by Howsie

btw, did you see Michael Portillo search for a 'humane' execution method?

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The search for a 'humane' execution

i did (except for the last five minutes)

found it slightly disturbing to be sharing the same perspective as someone who favours the death penalty for the vast majority of the programme.

i agreed with his views on the current methods, especially electric chair and lethal injection

however i'm not sure whether execution SHOULD ever be palatable, which was his stated objective

however if that's your view, then hypoxia does seem the least painful method of state killing

[R33_GTS-t]

Strap them to a 2000lb bomb and drop them on a remote island. Guaranteed instantaneous death.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by gavman

i did (except for the last five minutes)

found it slightly disturbing to be sharing the same perspective as someone who favours the death penalty for the vast majority of the programme.

i agreed with his views on the current methods, especially electric chair and lethal injection

however i'm not sure whether execution SHOULD ever be palatable, which was his stated objective

however if that's your view, then hypoxia does seem the least painful method of state killing

Well, I happen to favor the death penalty (i know, no suprise huh Gav) and I will tell you that if a person has committed a grevious crime, especially against a child or elderly person that warrants the death penalty I'm not really concerned if the method of their death is the most painless for them...call me what you will, but maybe they might deserve a little pain while they are taking their last breath...

I suppose that since this is a guns thread I should post some fact about how your crime rate has skyrocketed since the 97 gun ban...but I dont really have the energy right now.

Cheers!

[stu0x]

Originally Posted by psd1

I should post some fact about how your crime rate has skyrocketed since the 97 gun ban...but I dont really have the energy right now.

Well that, plus you'd be making it up. Crime's been on a significant decline since 1995, both in the BCS and the official police figures.



As you can see, crime is at about half the level that it was in 1995.

Good skills though.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by stu0x

Well that, plus you'd be making it up. Crime's been on a significant decline since 1995, both in the BCS and the official police figures.



As you can see, crime is at about half the level that it was in 1995.

Good skills though.

OK, I should have been more clear, since it was a GUN thread, I thought it would be assumed that I was taking about gun crimes. Te following is from your source for the graph "Note: Violent crime, as measured by the BCS, includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences."

Sorry, guess I should have added "violent" i.e. GUN crime is on the rise since the ban. Using your OWN source it appears that there were 58 deaths by shooting in 97, the only years since then that were lower were 98/99. In fact the number of folks killed by shootings was 97 in 2001...explain how your gun ban is working if more people have died by shooting since the ban than before the ban?

If your gun ban is so successful why were guns used in 23K reported crimes in 2005? Proves the point that if you outlaw guns, only crims will have them!

Here is the link to the source. If you go to chapter 3, you will see that gun violence has risen since the ban, no ifs ands or buts about it.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

[moleman]

Originally Posted by psd1

If your gun ban is so successful why were guns used in 23K reported crimes in 2005?

Because in 2002/2003 the new National Crime Recording Standard was introduced which meant that many, many more crimes were eligible for recording.

Gun crime has been in decline since 2001.

[R33_GTS-t]

Nice random graph. Don't seriously expect this to hold any weight, the axes aren't even labelled. Probably just records doughnuts eaten per second.

Originally Posted by stu0x

Well that, plus you'd be making it up. Crime's been on a significant decline since 1995, both in the BCS and the official police figures.



As you can see, crime is at about half the level that it was in 1995.

Good skills though.

[Chilli]

Guns.
Are'nt they great! don't u just feel a kind of extreme power just holding one..hey...hey
Good post though, kinda gets emotions a stirring hey
Columbine par example
Injuries and deaths in initial incident
1. Rachel Scott, age 17, killed by shots to the head, torso, and leg on a grassy area next to the West Entrance of the school.
2. Richard Castaldo, age 17, shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen on the same grassy area.
3. Daniel Rohrbough, age 15, killed by a shot to the chest on the West Staircase.
4. Sean Graves, age 15, shot in the back, foot and abdomen on the West Staircase.
5. Lance Kirklin, age 16, shot with wounds to the leg, neck and jaw on the West Staircase.
6. Michael Johnson, age 15, escaped from the grassy knoll with wounds to his face, arm and leg.
7. Mark Taylor, age 16, shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll.
8. Anne-Marie Hochhalter, age 17, shot in the chest, arm, abdomen, back, and left leg near the cafeteria's entrance.
9. Brian Anderson, age 16, injured near the West Entrance by flying glass.
10. Patti Nielson, age 35, hit in the shoulder by shrapnel near the West Entrance.
11. Stephanie Munson, age 16, shot in the ankle inside the North Hallway.
12. Dave Sanders, age 47, died of blood loss after being shot in the neck and back inside the South Hallway.

Bet in their dying moments they pleaded to god they'd not come accross the barrel of a gun