ANPR: what's the point.........
10 March 2012, 03:47 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One way to counter the terror threat would to re-protect the natural right to bear arms which successive legislation has eroded. Believe it or not it was only in the 20th century that firearms had draconian restriction put upon them.
Would AQ try a Bombay style attack if every citizen was carrying a piece?
Would AQ try a Bombay style attack if every citizen was carrying a piece?
Can you imagine the bloodshed if the large percentage of retarded fcukwits in the UK population had the rght to bear arms??? It doesn't even bear thinking about!
10 March 2012, 04:28 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could equally use the same argument to ban cars, or aspirin...or step-ladders.
At least with universal right to bear arms one is able to defend oneself against criminals especially armed ones.
At the moment only criminals have guns.
10 March 2012, 05:18 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Midlands and Kent
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have guns and im not a criminal, everyone has the right to bear arms.
In fact its far to easy to bear arms in the UK, the screening process should be longer and there should be yearly evaluations to look at your mental state and how well you can use the weapon.
If for example you legalised small barreled weapons like pistols (concealed weapons) for everyone to own it would end in madness. it takes a lot to aim a pistol where you want the round to go one slight move of the barrel may only seem a little at the barrel end but it could be 3 meters off at 30meters range, what im getting at here is with untrained people using such weapons you will probably see a percentage of inocent people getting hit when the idiot behind the pistol panics and just fires the gun off in the general direction of the threat.
we cant even trust people over here to not **** around with a fire extinguisher when they have had a few...........imagine if they had short barreled weapons on them.
Back to ANPR etc,
Its there for a reason and it works, i dont care if they know where i am roughly why should i?
As for monitoring social networking sites, well the internet is monitored more than you think, even down to the nitty gritty for example the local police had a profile on a forum i used to be a part of, we put up a meet they looked at it and set up a op at the location it was going to be at as we drove in they all pounced, basic reconnaissance boys and girls go's on a lot more than you think, get used to it.
In fact its far to easy to bear arms in the UK, the screening process should be longer and there should be yearly evaluations to look at your mental state and how well you can use the weapon.
If for example you legalised small barreled weapons like pistols (concealed weapons) for everyone to own it would end in madness. it takes a lot to aim a pistol where you want the round to go one slight move of the barrel may only seem a little at the barrel end but it could be 3 meters off at 30meters range, what im getting at here is with untrained people using such weapons you will probably see a percentage of inocent people getting hit when the idiot behind the pistol panics and just fires the gun off in the general direction of the threat.
we cant even trust people over here to not **** around with a fire extinguisher when they have had a few...........imagine if they had short barreled weapons on them.
Back to ANPR etc,
Its there for a reason and it works, i dont care if they know where i am roughly why should i?
As for monitoring social networking sites, well the internet is monitored more than you think, even down to the nitty gritty for example the local police had a profile on a forum i used to be a part of, we put up a meet they looked at it and set up a op at the location it was going to be at as we drove in they all pounced, basic reconnaissance boys and girls go's on a lot more than you think, get used to it.
10 March 2012, 05:54 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have guns and im not a criminal, everyone has the right to bear arms.
In fact its far to easy to bear arms in the UK, the screening process should be longer and there should be yearly evaluations to look at your mental state and how well you can use the weapon.
If for example you legalised small barreled weapons like pistols (concealed weapons) for everyone to own it would end in madness. it takes a lot to aim a pistol where you want the round to go one slight move of the barrel may only seem a little at the barrel end but it could be 3 meters off at 30meters range, what im getting at here is with untrained people using such weapons you will probably see a percentage of inocent people getting hit when the idiot behind the pistol panics and just fires the gun off in the general direction of the threat.
In fact its far to easy to bear arms in the UK, the screening process should be longer and there should be yearly evaluations to look at your mental state and how well you can use the weapon.
If for example you legalised small barreled weapons like pistols (concealed weapons) for everyone to own it would end in madness. it takes a lot to aim a pistol where you want the round to go one slight move of the barrel may only seem a little at the barrel end but it could be 3 meters off at 30meters range, what im getting at here is with untrained people using such weapons you will probably see a percentage of inocent people getting hit when the idiot behind the pistol panics and just fires the gun off in the general direction of the threat.
Why are you framing the argument from a safety POV?
Is safety more important than freedom?
Why not ban cars too? Ban people leaving their homes? Ban electricity.
Ban everything!
How many people are victims of gun crime a year and have no way to defend themselves except the possibility of a locked double barrel shotgun with the ammo locked away in a separate place.
There are countries with less draconian gun laws and it is not chaos. I am thinking of Switzerland etc. The US is often cited as some sort of gun toting anarchy but I have spent several months in the US and was never shot.
10 March 2012, 08:41 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Midlands and Kent
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am framing the arguement from a safety point of view because thats how the people who made the laws of firearms probably looked at it.
In this world of risk assesments for everything its an open and shut case...... more guns = more risk, i dont even see in the next 10 years average joe bloggs being able to own a shotgun or firearm, yes that will probably mean me giving up my weapons and licence.
The items you state we should ban as well yes each are a danger to life but its a risk that can be taken, a car is not designed to kill in fact it is made as safe as it can be for its occupants and pedestrians, electricity is not designed to kill its designed to sustain life in many forms and measures are taken so it dont kill you unless your real unlucky. however a gun's sole purpose is to cause injury or take a life, that is what they were desgined for and its only adaptations to the original desgns that see weapons used for sports etc.
I can see your argument dont get me wrong but i feel that my above posts and the goverments reasons for restriction the type of weapons you can own are the right ones.
besides who wants to carry a weapon round with them 24/7 risking everything everytime you get involved in road rage (through no fault of your own or starting it) the majority could probably be trusted but there will be a percentage who cant so the risk factor is right back there.
we would hae theives (banned from owning) breaking into houses to find the weapons while looking for the keys to your car, there is no way a weapon should be kept insecure the only time it should be out is when its in the hands of the owner.
maybe for self protection we should be looking along the lines of being able to own less leathal weapons, is that the way forward do you think. I think its more suitable than outright killing people even though they may deserve it
In this world of risk assesments for everything its an open and shut case...... more guns = more risk, i dont even see in the next 10 years average joe bloggs being able to own a shotgun or firearm, yes that will probably mean me giving up my weapons and licence.
The items you state we should ban as well yes each are a danger to life but its a risk that can be taken, a car is not designed to kill in fact it is made as safe as it can be for its occupants and pedestrians, electricity is not designed to kill its designed to sustain life in many forms and measures are taken so it dont kill you unless your real unlucky. however a gun's sole purpose is to cause injury or take a life, that is what they were desgined for and its only adaptations to the original desgns that see weapons used for sports etc.
I can see your argument dont get me wrong but i feel that my above posts and the goverments reasons for restriction the type of weapons you can own are the right ones.
besides who wants to carry a weapon round with them 24/7 risking everything everytime you get involved in road rage (through no fault of your own or starting it) the majority could probably be trusted but there will be a percentage who cant so the risk factor is right back there.
we would hae theives (banned from owning) breaking into houses to find the weapons while looking for the keys to your car, there is no way a weapon should be kept insecure the only time it should be out is when its in the hands of the owner.
maybe for self protection we should be looking along the lines of being able to own less leathal weapons, is that the way forward do you think. I think its more suitable than outright killing people even though they may deserve it
10 March 2012, 09:03 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am framing the arguement from a safety point of view because thats how the people who made the laws of firearms probably looked at it.
In this world of risk assesments for everything its an open and shut case...... more guns = more risk, i dont even see in the next 10 years average joe bloggs being able to own a shotgun or firearm, yes that will probably mean me giving up my weapons and licence.
In this world of risk assesments for everything its an open and shut case...... more guns = more risk, i dont even see in the next 10 years average joe bloggs being able to own a shotgun or firearm, yes that will probably mean me giving up my weapons and licence.
It's an ethic which puts the safety of society over the freedom of individual.
My body is my own, if I own a gun it should be my own private property. Society has no business taking away this right if I abide by reasonable laws.
The items you state we should ban as well yes each are a danger to life but its a risk that can be taken, a car is not designed to kill in fact it is made as safe as it can be for its occupants and pedestrians, electricity is not designed to kill its designed to sustain life in many forms and measures are taken so it dont kill you unless your real unlucky. however a gun's sole purpose is to cause injury or take a life, that is what they were desgined for and its only adaptations to the original desgns that see weapons used for sports etc.
I can see your argument dont get me wrong but i feel that my above posts and the goverments reasons for restriction the type of weapons you can own are the right ones.
besides who wants to carry a weapon round with them 24/7 risking everything everytime you get involved in road rage (through no fault of your own or starting it) the majority could probably be trusted but there will be a percentage who cant so the risk factor is right back there.
besides who wants to carry a weapon round with them 24/7 risking everything everytime you get involved in road rage (through no fault of your own or starting it) the majority could probably be trusted but there will be a percentage who cant so the risk factor is right back there.
Who in their right mind would break into a house where the householder have weapons available possibly by the side of their bed?
Your whole argument would render the idea of weapons for self-defense obsolete. Imagine if the first army with steel swords had decided to melt them down in case their enemies stole them from them?
10 March 2012, 09:53 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Midlands and Kent
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not going to re quote all the above as there is no argument, its never going to happen.
Show me a theif that is stealing to fund a drug habbit who will no steal from an armed person.
What you have to understand is that we are just mere people in this country and we get told how to do things everyday of our life in every aspect of it, be that by our work or the goverment.
If you want to have a concealed weapon go and own one and stand up for your rights as a person, just be sure not to get seen with it as you may then be added to the list of number plates the ANPR van looks out for and you'll get forever pulled over as it would be criminal activity.
Cant wait for the next lot of riots to happen if people have the use of guns
Show me a theif that is stealing to fund a drug habbit who will no steal from an armed person.
What you have to understand is that we are just mere people in this country and we get told how to do things everyday of our life in every aspect of it, be that by our work or the goverment.
If you want to have a concealed weapon go and own one and stand up for your rights as a person, just be sure not to get seen with it as you may then be added to the list of number plates the ANPR van looks out for and you'll get forever pulled over as it would be criminal activity.
Cant wait for the next lot of riots to happen if people have the use of guns
10 March 2012, 10:14 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why because business owners could defend their property. Nobody touched the Turkish shop owners in London 'cos they were tooled up and stood guard. The rioters had access to the same crude weapons but picked on easier targets. Who is going to go to a gun fight just to nick a pair of trainers?
11 March 2012, 12:35 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically wholesale restriction did not come in until 1903 with the pistols act.
Rights to bear arms are in the Bill of Rights and in English common law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom
11 March 2012, 11:31 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
A large majority of firearms deaths and injuries are as a result of misuse, either accidents 'while cleaning' or guns being turned on their owners
Do you really believe it would be any different over here
11 March 2012, 12:08 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have those statistics?
11 March 2012, 01:10 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
11 March 2012, 01:15 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Americans have grown up in a gun culture where most are educated by their elders about how dangerous a gun is and what it should be used for. They are taught to respect them and use them correctly.
Here there is none of that and the fcuktards that populate much of the UK would be running around shooting iniocent bystanders, each other and themselves in much the same way they routinely dole out casual vioelnce as part of a nght out
The thought is frankly horrifying!
11 March 2012, 01:21 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be way different here and by that I mean way worse.
Americans have grown up in a gun culture where most are educated by their elders about how dangerous a gun is and what it should be used for. They are taught to respect them and use them correctly.
Here there is none of that and the fcuktards that populate much of the UK would be running around shooting iniocent bystanders, each other and themselves in much the same way they routinely dole out casual vioelnce as part of a nght out
The thought is frankly horrifying!
Americans have grown up in a gun culture where most are educated by their elders about how dangerous a gun is and what it should be used for. They are taught to respect them and use them correctly.
Here there is none of that and the fcuktards that populate much of the UK would be running around shooting iniocent bystanders, each other and themselves in much the same way they routinely dole out casual vioelnce as part of a nght out
The thought is frankly horrifying!
11 March 2012, 01:51 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a large propeortion of 'people' who think a Saturday night out is getting drunk and some mindless violence to round the night off. Give these 'people' guns and it will be mass murder on a weekly basis in every town in the country.
11 March 2012, 01:58 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
There is a lot of surveillance between Keighley and Skipton on the dual carriageway, just outside of Bradford. There is often a huge Police lorry with multiple cameras on it with 3 high powered BMWs or Volvos ready in wait next to it and a police motorbike at the end of the carriageway.
11 March 2012, 02:04 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but society has changed beyond all recognition, in the 19th Century if you got caught brawling in the street you went to prison (proper prison btw) whereas today you get counselling FFS!!!
There are a large propeortion of 'people' who think a Saturday night out is getting drunk and some mindless violence to round the night off. Give these 'people' guns and it will be mass murder on a weekly basis in every town in the country.
There are a large propeortion of 'people' who think a Saturday night out is getting drunk and some mindless violence to round the night off. Give these 'people' guns and it will be mass murder on a weekly basis in every town in the country.
Anyway this is quote to consider:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life" - Robert Heinlein
11 March 2012, 03:11 PM
#54
There is a lot of surveillance between Keighley and Skipton on the dual carriageway, just outside of Bradford. There is often a huge Police lorry with multiple cameras on it with 3 high powered BMWs or Volvos ready in wait next to it and a police motorbike at the end of the carriageway.
11 March 2012, 03:13 PM
#55
when driving your hire car in the USA, it is advisable NOT to make eye contact with other drivers in ANY circumstances. The result may be a violent encounter including firearms."
11 March 2012, 04:04 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
I don't know how this has got on to guns, but I have to say I think that we should be 'allowed' to keep guns in our houses for self-defence. The one thing police aren't very good at is prevention. If someone wants to do something in this country they generally can. Now, the laws on self-defence say that you can use proportionate force up to and including killing someone. That's a fact, and it's a good thing; it's just.
With that said, we should be able make sure we can legally counter all force used by criminals against us when they enter our homes, which would include using a firearm either to threaten or, as a last resort in the act of defence, to disable or kill, if necessary, to stop an attack.
As the law stands we have no access to firearms for that use, which means if confronted with a situation we can't escape from, outnumbered against weapons we have no chance against, we basically have to resign ourselves to a fate that we could have made preparations to avoid.
That has to be a failing of 'justice', surely?
With that said, we should be able make sure we can legally counter all force used by criminals against us when they enter our homes, which would include using a firearm either to threaten or, as a last resort in the act of defence, to disable or kill, if necessary, to stop an attack.
As the law stands we have no access to firearms for that use, which means if confronted with a situation we can't escape from, outnumbered against weapons we have no chance against, we basically have to resign ourselves to a fate that we could have made preparations to avoid.
That has to be a failing of 'justice', surely?
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 11 March 2012 at 04:05 PM.