# private ownership of weapons



## bunny basher (Nov 29, 2014)

i live in uk, we have probably the strictist laws governing the ownership of weapons, Even pocket knives,but especialy firearms, i always was led to believe that it was alot more free in the states, we keep hearing talk here of, gun ownership over there being brought into line with our laws, is there any truth in the us gov buying up all your ammo, or is this just scaremongering the storys of the imment collapse of the doller further? ive been shooting all day with my mate and were just having this disscussion now, so would appreciate your views stateside


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

Well, in New York, the government would love nothing more than to be in line with the oppressions you have over there. Unfortunately, this has led to some pretty archaic restrictions; 10 (+1) round limitations to rifles & handguns, semi-auto shotguns have been restricted, too, & even common sporting rifles like the AR can't have certain accessories or features (like pistol grips), etc, etc. .22LR is hard to come by, but still available in limited quantities (I used to be able to get these rounds at rural hardware stores not even 10 years ago), but that's about it with regards to ammo shortages (around me, anyways).

I've been spending more time at my local fun store than usual as of late, & have come to a realisation; the vast majority of these laws have absolutely no impact on the majority of us. The magazine size is really the only one that really stings, most models are (& their ammo) are still readily available, they just look different. For example, my pre "SAFE" act ARs shoot the same rounds out of the same barrels with the same uppers & lowers, but now they have a shoulder stock instead of a pistol grip. Mini 14s with folding stocks before, are now fixed...in other words, many of the drastic changes are on the surface, to make püssy liberals & stupid soccer moms feel safer, thus promising to harvest their future votes (though we a know that those who see themselves as perpetual victims will never TRULY accept that they are "safe")...

...also, we need permits for handguns in this state. As a nation though, guns aren't going anywhere (& federal attempts at restriction fail on every try), despite what the media tells you...


----------



## bunny basher (Nov 29, 2014)

well thank goodness for that, id hate for you to end up like us, i shoot shotgun and section 1 firearms (rifle), cant own handguns anymore, and can only eat, shit and piss when told to do so, we see a lot of these malitia groups you have on tv, they forcast these senarios of the us gov de arming america due to a collapse of the doller causing civil unrest and all that, sounds a bit far fetched to me anyway mate?


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

?! What militias?? Sounds sensationalistic more than anything...

...on the plus side for you, I've heard that you guys can legally own/shoot all the way down to 8ga for waterfowl; the best we can do over here is 10ga in VERY limited circumstances...


----------



## bunny basher (Nov 29, 2014)

i am an avid wildfowler my self, there is no limit on calibre for fowling, my freind owns a punt gun , thats where we have been today, it fires one pound of shot from a 19 foot gunning punt, i cripple stop for him with my 10 bore, and we have no bag limits, i understand you have limits to stop market gunning canvasbacks?


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

I....want a punt gun, LoL. We can own some cool stuff, but can't necessarily hunt with it (unless you can; there's a million regs to sort through).

...different states have different limits; the whole thing is a giant clusterfuck.


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

...this is one of the things I find to be completely asinine; this here is a 20mm anti-tank rifle. Drop $200 for a "destructive device" tax stamp, & you can buy one of your own. Now I'm all for this, don't get me wrong...but the same people who tell me I can have this gun with which I can TAKE DOWN TANKS from over a mile away, are telling me that I can't have a pistol grip on a .223 because of danger to the chilluns...








...I want one of these real bad...


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Tentacle Toast said:


> ...I want one of these real bad...


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

LoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoL


----------



## bigron (Nov 29, 2012)

where are you going to mount the bands on it :rolling:


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

bigron said:


> where are you going to mount the bands on it :rolling:


...anywher I damn well please...


----------



## Imperial (Feb 9, 2011)

Tentacle Toast said:


> bigron said:
> 
> 
> > where are you going to mount the bands on it :rolling:
> ...


----------



## sduncan91 (Mar 13, 2012)

Tentacle Toast said:


> Well, in New York, the government would love nothing more than to be in line with the oppressions you have over there


An important point to consider is that whether or not gun restrictions are an "oppression" is largely down to the culture and history of the area. I'm Scottish, and by and large the idea that not being able to own firearms should be considered an "oppression of freedom" is considered ludicrous here. In the same way most people don't consider not being able to purchase heroine an oppression. There may be those who believe they are entitled to own guns, but as a country we don't want or need guns. It isn't a matter of being oppressed by "pussy liberals", we collectively have no desire to introduce guns into everyday society. Civilians don't carry guns, and police don't carry guns, and that's how most of us believe it should be. The benefit of this attitude is levels of gun crime vastly lower than the US, and a homicide rate nearly 80% lower.

I'm not saying that's how the US should work. It's a different country with a different culture, and you have your own rules. I just take issue with you calling our laws an oppression. We do not consider ourselves oppressed. The majority believes guns are a detriment to society, and there are compelling reasons to back that up. We're not a country of "pussy liberals" because we feel no need to own guns. 


Tentacle Toast said:


> Well, in New York, the government would love nothing more than to be in line with the oppressions you have over there. Unfortunately, this has led to some pretty archaic restrictions; 10 (+1) round limitations to rifles & handguns, semi-auto shotguns have been restricted, too, & even common sporting rifles like the AR can't have certain accessories or features (like pistol grips), etc, etc. .22LR is hard to come by, but still available in limited quantities (I used to be able to get these rounds at rural hardware stores not even 10 years ago), but that's about it with regards to ammo shortages (around me, anyways).
> 
> I've been spending more time at my local fun store than usual as of late, & have come to a realisation; the vast majority of these laws have absolutely no impact on the majority of us. The magazine size is really the only one that really stings, most models are (& their ammo) are still readily available, they just look different. For example, my pre "SAFE" act ARs shoot the same rounds out of the same barrels with the same uppers & lowers, but now they have a shoulder stock instead of a pistol grip. Mini 14s with folding stocks before, are now fixed...in other words, many of the drastic changes are on the surface, to make püssy liberals & stupid soccer moms feel safer, thus promising to harvest their future votes (though we a know that those who see themselves as perpetual victims will never TRULY accept that they are "safe")...
> 
> ...also, we need permits for handguns in this state. As a nation though, guns aren't going anywhere (& federal attempts at restriction fail on every try), despite what the media tells you...


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

sduncan91 said:


> ... as a country we don't want or need guns...


Say, that's terrific; & I hope you never do need them, but if you think for a second your police don't have guns, you've done lost your mind. They may not carry them "on the beat", but they're very much at the ready should the lot of you need to be brought in check.

Also, I think you may very well represent a good portion of your fellow countrymen, but I doubt you speak for "80%" any more than a friend of mine who hails from Edinburgh does, when he says he says he wishs Scotland's firearm policy was more in line with ours over here (he thinks the violent crime rate would be lessened significantly...like it is over here: you have less murder, we have less violent crime overall)...he claims "everyone" wishes they could have guns; I doubted this claim like I doubt yours.

As far as your heroine analogy is concerned, that is the epitome of "ludicrous"; you'd be hard pressed to hunt/depend yourself or family/keep your government in line with heroin, if you ever needed to. But carry on  I hope food is always at the ready, your people & their government are always in balance, & your family is ever safe from the violence that surrounds you


----------



## sduncan91 (Mar 13, 2012)

Your comments are laced with passive-aggressive smileys  and condescension and it isn't necessary. I'm not trying to insult you or belittle your beliefs. I deliberately pointed out that your country is very different to mine and that the US shouldn't live by the same rules as the UK. The right to bear arms is in your constitution and I don't think it should be taken away from you.



> Say, that's terrific, I hope you never do need them...you'd be hard pressed to hunt/depend yourself or family/keep your government in line with heroin, if you ever needed to. But carry on  I hope food is always at the ready, your people & their government are always in balance, & your family is ever safe from the violence that surrounds you


This is disgusting, your smug contempt is palpable. Safe from the violence that surrounds me? Your implication that I am delusional for thinking firearms aren't necessary for Scottish families to be safe is laughable. And I think the implication that I'm somehow failing my family by not owning a firearm is insulting. People have different definitions of what is required to support a family, and you are not objectively right, particularly when talking about a different country and culture.

You've made a few points I'd like to address. You've also said potentially misleading which I will get to.



> if you think for a second your police don't have guns, you've done lost your mind. They may not carry them "on the beat", but they're very much at the ready


Yes I know this. We have specially trained forces with guns. I meant that our everyday police "on the beat" don't have guns. As a nation, we do not want or need them to have guns. There's no mass protests calling for the arming of police. Here's a Scottish article which references an incident in which armed police were deployed in Scotland, and the reaction was negative towards the "militarisation" of the police. Note there's also a poll at the bottom strongly against police officers carrying guns http://edinburgh.stv.tv/articles/282993-poll-should-more-scottish-police-officers-carry-guns/



> but I doubt you speak for "80%" any more than a friend of mine who hails from Edinburgh does


I never said I speak for 80%, I don't know where you got that number from. I said "most of us" don't want guns, which is true.

Here is where you said something which could be very misleading.



> you have less murder, we have less violent crime overall


It's impossible to just say "violent crime" when comparing the UK and US. It's a misunderstanding based on the wildly different definitions of "violent crime" in the UK and the US. Here is the definition of violent crime in the US:



> *"In the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force." * (FBI - CUS - Violent Crime)


Violent crime in the US is murder, manslaughter, rape and aggravated assault. Here is the UK definition:



> *"Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim."* (THOSB - CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)


Note that the UK definition of violent crime includes pushing, and a multitude of crimes in which no physical harm is caused. In 2010, *less than half* of our "violent crime" involved no physical harm. It's important to keep that in mind



> you'd be hard pressed to hunt/depend yourself or family/keep your government in line with heroin


With regards to hunting, we are allowed to hunt with guns in the UK. I've spent some time shooting a shotgun before and know people who have hunted.

Keep my family safe? My family is already safe in the UK. Violent crime (the UK definition) is on a long term and steady decline which is continuing despite our lack of handguns http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27119689. And like I said, our murder rates are already a fraction of the US.

Keep my government in line? What? This isn't the 1700's. It takes more than a handgun to overthrow the government. We keep our government in line by having elections



> your family is ever safe from the violence that surrounds you


I find this statement to be nothing but despicable scaremongering


----------



## Tentacle Toast (Jan 17, 2013)

...you got all that from what I said? Holy Jesus, man, you must be MAD! I....didn't read past the smiley thing, so that's all I'll correct you on; there's nothing passive-aggressive about them. Condescending, yes, but passive-aggressive, no. I understand that the truth of what I said must've stung somethin' fierce for you to pen up a dissertation complete with dissection & content analysis of my post, but please...calm down, & don't read too deep into the smilies.


----------



## bigron (Nov 29, 2012)

wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the soap box yesterday :naughty:


----------

