Motivational wrote

Click to View Content

002 wrote I looked at that same graph and contemplated putting it in, but I didn't want to do the math to see where it ended up as the US is almost 500% bigger lol. I see how those say 82% more and all that, but keep in mind the US is 500% bigger, I'm not seeing a 500+% figure.

Let's try to get back on track here to make everyone happy. It seems the biggest question here from people from other countries is "why do you need guns?" My argument before about how we need to protect ourselves from a tyranical government (remember this was put in place by the founding fathers, not Joe on the conspiracy forum) is relevant, yet people don't fully understand it, so I'll put it in another term. Guns make us happy, and / or feel safe. Eating vegan, or driving a prius make a person feel good inside, but we aren't taking away their rights because 0.0003% of their communities are morons. We all have a different life style, and if my guns make you feel uncomfortable, I'm sorry. My advise to you is, get one yourself and get trained how to use it. That way you'll feel safer.

I used to work for an older lady (probably in her 70's), great lady, her and I had differing opinions on a lot of things but it was never "you're an idiot", it was always, "I feel differently, but if that makes you happy, so be it". She HATED guns, 100% take them away. I explained to her my position on guns, and still she didn't like them. Last month or so I helped her install a couple things in her house and I was amazed to see a pistol on the counter. I said "I thought you hated guns?". What she said was the coolest thing. She said something like "I do, but people own guns and that makes me scared so I bought one myself and I feel safe".

I also love this article:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I'll use this post to also respond to your post on the rant thread as to why I don't think you need guns. Hopefully we can try and form a mutual agreement from this point out.

There's three different kinds of people involved here. The people who need guns, the people who don't and criminals.

The people who don't need guns such as myself feel extremely.. threatened I guess? By the fact that other people can walk around with a weapon capable of killing someone from long range and so quickly. A semi automatic rifle can literally (as we saw the other day) kill a large amount of people in a small amount of time and there's nothing that can be done against it. I'm a very traditional kind of person, I dislike the idea of using a gun as a weapon. I'd honestly be more fascinated by a bow or a sword.

Now, you suggest that we too purchase a gun. This is my problem. If a criminal jumps out of a bush and wants to cause harm to me physically without a gun, it will be a fair fight, even if they have a knife I would still have a fighting chance, however if they have a gun there's literally nothing I can do. I honestly don't think that it's worth allowing people such as yourself to carry a firearm which lets criminals access them too when people such as myself have no intention of owning one and never will. I shouldn't have to carry a piece of metal around with me to defend myself, we are human beings and should be able to live without the threat of being shot by weapons that we made.

The people who need guns such as yourself could survive without a semi-automatic rifle. You can use a bolt action rifle for hunting, a crossbow or even a shotgun. It wouldn't be that big of a deal for you to trade your AK-47 in, so long as you got your money back.

The criminals want guns for the purpose of committing crimes. You can easily rob someone with a shotgun or rifle. So I don't think that this would be that big of a deal for them.

My solution would be:

1) Legalise drugs (to an extent) to try and minimise gang crime. The criminals would have no need to fight over drugs and they wouldn't be able to make so much money of selling them because the government could sell drugs far cheaper than a small private company.

2) Limit weapons so that semi-automatic weapons aren't available. Weapons need to be extremely slow firing so that they can't kill so quickly. You should have to manually bolt the bullet into the chamber for the weapon. This would still be fine for target practice but extremely bad for mass shootings.

This way there's a trade going. The criminals have their drugs but they lose their guns.

I was actually just thinking of something there. What about some sort of vouch system, say for example you need five family members to say that you're mentally stable and that they vouch for you being able to handle a gun. It's actually not too bad of an idea. Not sure if it's already implemented though.

I honestly think that Americans are focused far too much on guns. They need to focus more on their fast food restaurants, immigration and their next president.

However, the idea of the tyrannical government is madness to me, as I've said multiple times. One tank could take out any city in America. One swat team could take down almost any building or compound. It's pure madness to suggest that because you have a semi-automatic weapon, you will be able to stop a tank. Sixty tons of impenetrable armour. Unless you have a rocket launcher, which to my knowledge isn't easily available in America and even then, it's still going to take multiple rockets.

As you said before, you don't really have free speech. Say bomb in an airport and see what happens or as I read in an article a couple of weeks ago, some guy put on twitter joking that he'd shoot up a school and the FBI were at his house almost immediately and he was arrested and is serving time.

Not to mention, we have the United Nations for a reason. If your government turned against you, Britain, France and Russia would be there to help you out.

I can see where you're coming from, but I still have to disagree. I am still on the fence about legalizing drugs, only 2k people die from gang related issues, however I do think that legalizing drugs would disband a lot of drug lords and gangs.

If you feel threatened by a gun, you really shouldn't. I'm sure your intelligent enough to know it's not the guns fault, it's the people. With that being said, it's just a tool. It's like someone new to wood working being afraid of a table saw. Rightfully so, both tools can mess your life up, but once you're trained with that tool, you're find.

I personally don't think it'd be a fair fight (fist to fist) for a couple reasons, and I think this is where we differ. People jumping out of bushes to rob someone aren't picking people like me (I'm a big guy). They are choosing the petite girl who can't do much, or the guy in the 3 piece suit. In the end, your belongings are taken, and I think that there is more possibility of getting injured with a knife. They can cut you real quick and it would be fairly silent besides you screaming. If you live in an area like Seattle, L.A., New York, etc. screaming is normal. The only place gun shots are normal (that I've found) are Chicago, Oakland, Stockton, and of course your farming communities. Any other place, a gun shot is out of the ordinary and police are getting called. With a gun it's shoot or just intimidate. With a knife there are many more options. I've taken many gun courses and have limited experience with knives (outside of hunting and that sort of thing, I have no experience). I am more scared of a knife or baseball bat than I am a gun. It is extremely easy to disarm a person with a pistol. If the have a long gun, you duck and push the barrel away as you tackle them. A knife is a lot more complicated in my eyes. Again, this is where we differ as I have used many guns and have a bit of training with them so I'm comfortable with them, where as a knife I don't have much experience with and I assume you'll have more experience with a knife than I will.

We could survive without a semi-auto rifle, you're right, but it's protection. If a guy breaks into my house, no I'm not using the AK or AR, that's stupid. If we have a maniac running down the street shooting at houses, I'm using the AK or AR. As far as the bolt action rifle i concerned, these guns are a lot more powerful and a lot more dangerous than an "assault weapon". I can go to Seattle, get on a roof top, and start sniping people down. An oil filter surprisingly works well as a silencer as well you didn't hear it from me). I am more afraid of a sniping attack with something like my bolt action rifle than a shooting like Orlando with an AR. The AR I can identify the thread and know where it is. The bolt action rifle I can't. Also, I live in Washington state, many places like WA state have animals that hunt you. bear, cougar, etc. When a bear is charging you, I don't want to fumble around with a bolt, I was to spray and pray. My last trip deer hunting I went to the Olympic peninsula (this is where we see most of our bear), so that is when I used the AR. I actually enjoyed it more because I felt safer, it was lighter, and more compact than my bolt action rifle. That's why I hunt with the AR or AK now lol.

I agree with legalizing drugs. Though I don't see where it'll help very much, it'll help a little and right now drugs are so easy to get they pretty much are legal lol.

Taking away semi-auto weapons I completely dis-agree with for reasons mentioned above.

As far as the family member idea, I think it's a thought however I wouldn't go for it. Now you have to get 5 family members on their day off to help you buy a gun. The idea is there, but the principal behind it I don't think would work. It would be a way of making it very hard to get guns though lol.

One tank cannot take out any city in America. The shells are pretty small. Sure they could take out a portion of a house, but that's it. I actually have a shell if you'd like to see a picture of it. Would it be difficult to take a tank out? Very much so. Is it doable? Absolutely. The Afghans have proven it. As you said about the UN, other countries (theoretically) should back us up. We just need to hold out until they get here. Having that semi-auto rifle will make it a lot easier for us and a lot harder for the government.

Yeah, we have freedom of speech, yet we don't. My work requires me to fly all over the country and I heard something interesting. If you text your buddy (or even do what I'm doing now, typing this on a random forum) that you're going to bomb something, or shoot something up, you get the "random" pat down. I did this when I flew out and sure enough, they gave me my massage when I flew out and flew back in lol.

Guns arent the problem.. People who use the guns are..

Counter to your stats.
Our definition of Violent Crime is much different to yours:

5.1 Violent crime
Violent crime covers a range of offence types from minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving
that result in no physical harm, to murder. This includes offences where the victim was intentionally
stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. as well as offences where the victim was
threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
Source: User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales (1.36 Mb Pdf) - Office of National Statistics I would link it but it auto downloads a pdf.

The US definition of Violent Crime is:

Definition
In the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Lets cut to the chase and go straight into murder rates since it's either you're dead or you're not riight?

US: "There were 4.5 murders per 100,000 people"
Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

UK: "Over the past decade the volume of homicides has generally decreased while the population of England and Wales has continued to grow. Based on police recorded crime data, the rate of homicide has fallen by over a third between the years ending March 2005 and December 2015, from 16 homicides per million of the population to 10 homicides per million."
source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

So 10 Homicides per million = 1 Homicide per 100,000

Statistically if staying alive is what I'm worried about I'm safer in the UK.
P.S I'll shove you and add another Violent crime to the UK's stats if you keep saying you're safer

Schoey wrote

Click to View Content

002 wrote

Motivational wrote

More like they were denying it's very existence. They were talking about the ban on guns in the UK which was in the nineties. So they are relevant for the time.

Yes, they were relevant for that time, but they're not relevant today.

Comparing crime rates in the UK vs America and trying to justify that there's more crime in the UK is completely pointless. It's safer to live in the UK without doubt in terms of crimes.

The majority of these facts are not true. Just read the bottom of the page. I'm sorry but a newspaper written for the purpose of selling as many copies as physically possible is not a credible source. Fair enough, the articles written by Universities are probably legitimate but the BBC, guardian and telegraph are not legitimate sources.

Less guns = Less gun crimes. That's simple economies with supply and demand. All these illegal gun dealers are not making their guns, they're buying them off their suppliers who have a legitimate licenses and are purchasing their weapons from the local gun store. We need to make handguns and assault rifles illegal to reduce this kind of thing from happening IMO.

What? " It's safer to live in the UK without doubt in terms of crimes" No it's not... According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Counter to your stats.
Our definition of Violent Crime is much different to yours:

5.1 Violent crime
Violent crime covers a range of offence types from minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving
that result in no physical harm, to murder. This includes offences where the victim was intentionally
stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. as well as offences where the victim was
threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
Source: User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales (1.36 Mb Pdf) - Office of National Statistics I would link it but it auto downloads a pdf.

The US definition of Violent Crime is:

Definition
In the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Lets cut to the chase and go straight into murder rates since it's either you're dead or you're not riight?

US: "There were 4.5 murders per 100,000 people"
Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

UK: "Over the past decade the volume of homicides has generally decreased while the population of England and Wales has continued to grow. Based on police recorded crime data, the rate of homicide has fallen by over a third between the years ending March 2005 and December 2015, from 16 homicides per million of the population to 10 homicides per million."
source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

So 10 Homicides per million = 1 Homicide per 100,000

Statistically if staying alive is what I'm worried about I'm safer in the UK.
P.S I'll shove you and add another Violent crime to the UK's stats if you keep saying you're safer

Well, you can look at it a multitude of ways. 2k of our murders are gang related, so you have to take that out of the equation unless you're in a gang.

Now let's look at it a different way. 14,249 murders in the US (2k of which are gang related). The US is 3.806 million square miles which means there is 1 murder for every 267.1 miles (or 310.7 not including gang violence). The UK is 94,058 square miles and has 537 murders as of last year. That is a murder for 175.1 miles. Geographically speaking, living in the UK you are closer to murders than in the US.

You can look at it either way you want. Less murders per person, or less murders per mile. Statistically speaking, there are less murderers in the UK per 100k. Geographically speaking murders are closer together per mile in the UK. Do you want to be closer to murders, or further away? Double edge sword really, I myself would choose further away.

Getting back on track here, let's see how many other things are a bigger contributors (bigger issue) to death to US citizens than guns are.

Here are some real time stats on death in the US.




I highlighted murder by gun so we can see where that is. Ironically, homicide it right next to it. We won't look at things like kidney failure as sometimes that's not preventable, we'll only look at things that are preventable and cause more damage than firearms.

Hmm... Currently drunk driving is 3x higher than death by firearms. Why isn't alcohol illegal? I mean, driving drunk is illegal, just like shooting someone is but clearly that's not working.

Next up, tobacco. WOW, look at that number, 160k. 32x more dangerous to US citizens than a gun.

Abortion. That's pretty sad people haven't figured out how to use a condom.... Nothing to do with the guns argument, just caught me off guard lol.

Well, you can look at it a multitude of ways. 2k of our murders are gang related, so you have to take that out of the equation unless you're in a gang.

Now let's look at it a different way. 14,249 murders in the US (2k of which are gang related). The US is 3.806 million square miles which means there is 1 murder for every 267.1 miles (or 310.7 not including gang violence). The UK is 94,058 square miles and has 537 murders as of last year. That is a murder for 175.1 miles. Geographically speaking, living in the UK you are closer to murders than in the US.

You can look at it either way you want. Less murders per person, or less murders per mile. I myself would rather be further away, but that's me.

Why would you take the murders out of the equation because they're gang related? So things such as gang rapes, robberies and drive by shootings don't have any affect on civilians?

Your second comment makes no sense. There's probably more land in America that's not even populated and is just forrest and fields than there is land in the whole UK. And I've been to America, have you been to the UK? I don't think you fully understand, there's literally no guns in the UK. Period. Only extremely low income areas have them and even then it's rare. There is almost no weapon threats. People get assaulted and threatened the odd time but nothing really happens.

And I fail to understand, how is it relevant how close you are to the murder? More people are murdered in America than the UK. Therefore, you're more likely to be killed in America than the UK.

There's no other deciding factors, the way the murders happen or how close to each other is totally irrelevant.

Your other post makes no sense by the way. Tobacco harms nobody but the person using it and it only harms them after years of abusing it. Should sugar be illegal because it can cause diabetes? A disease that can kill you, cause blindness, the loss of limbs and more? Of course not. Tobacco only affects the user and so does sugar.

As far as drunk driving, the positives outweigh the negatives. Everyone can save years off their lives and get to places far faster by using cars.

And alcohol, the same as tobacco cannot harm anyone but yourself. Nobody has ever got alcohol poisoning because they sat beside someone who took a ridiculously high amount of alcohol.

When you combine these two things, you have an idiot and I don't think that we can even call the drunk driver a victim of the crime since they consciously par took in driving the car while intoxicated.

The point I'm trying to make is that these things have a purpose, alcohol allows people to escape from reality and have fun and tobacco does the same. They don't harm anyone else. A gun has no purpose. Nothing else on this planet has the same affect as alcohol or tobacco, they're completely unique.

It's not hard to go hunting with a crossbow or knife the way they used to do it hundreds of years ago. There is definitely a replacement for guns.

I'm not even going to mention the diseases, they speak for themselves. The human body was not designed to live past forty years old, people shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong.

Motivational wrote

Well, you can look at it a multitude of ways. 2k of our murders are gang related, so you have to take that out of the equation unless you're in a gang.

Now let's look at it a different way. 14,249 murders in the US (2k of which are gang related). The US is 3.806 million square miles which means there is 1 murder for every 267.1 miles (or 310.7 not including gang violence). The UK is 94,058 square miles and has 537 murders as of last year. That is a murder for 175.1 miles. Geographically speaking, living in the UK you are closer to murders than in the US.

You can look at it either way you want. Less murders per person, or less murders per mile. I myself would rather be further away, but that's me.

Why would you take the murders out of the equation because they're gang related? So things such as gang rapes, robberies and drive by shootings don't have any affect on civilians?

Your second comment makes no sense. There's probably more land in America that's not even populated and is just forrest and fields than there is land in the whole UK. And I've been to America, have you been to the UK? I don't think you fully understand, there's literally no guns in the UK. Period. Only extremely low income areas have them and even then it's rare. There is almost no weapon threats. People get assaulted and threatened the odd time but nothing really happens.

And I fail to understand, how is it relevant how close you are to the murder? More people are murdered in America than the UK. Therefore, you're more likely to be killed in America than the UK.

There's no other deciding factors, the way the murders happen or how close to each other is totally irrelevant.

Your other post makes no sense by the way. Tobacco harms nobody but the person using it and it only harms them after years of abusing it. Should sugar be illegal because it can cause diabetes? A disease that can kill you, cause blindness, the loss of limbs and more? Of course not. Tobacco only affects the user and so does sugar.

As far as drunk driving, the positives outweigh the negatives. Everyone can save years off their lives and get to places far faster by using cars.

And alcohol, the same as tobacco cannot harm anyone but yourself. Nobody has ever got alcohol poisoning because they sat beside someone who took a ridiculously high amount of alcohol.

When you combine these two things, you have an idiot and I don't think that we can even call the drunk driver a victim of the crime since they consciously par took in driving the car while intoxicated.

The point I'm trying to make is that these things have a purpose, alcohol allows people to escape from reality and have fun and tobacco does the same. They don't harm anyone else. A gun has no purpose. Nothing else on this planet has the same affect as alcohol or tobacco, they're completely unique.

It's not hard to go hunting with a crossbow or knife the way they used to do it hundreds of years ago. There is definitely a replacement for guns.

I'm not even going to mention the diseases, they speak for themselves. The human body was not designed to live past forty years old, people shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong.

Oh boy, here we go. Why would I take gang murders out of the equation? Because when you are in a gang it's expected. You're transferring drugs and doing other illegal activities, you are more likely to be shot than a normal citizen, just like the people in the military.

I made that second comment expecting exactly what you said. You can choose to live in a place like Stockton, it's a low income area with a very high crime / death rate. Alternatively you could live in a place like Forks. Still a low income area, yet not a lot of deaths. You say there are no guns in the UK. How are there gun crimes them? A gun crime can't happen without a gun, no?

It's relevant in the whole scale, just like population numbers are. You can look at the UK has having less murders per 100k people, or having more murders per 100k miles. You bring up the fact there are area with higher densities of crime, yet you can't understand this.

Tobacco harms the people around it. Every hear of second hand smoke? You can get cancer from it...

Alcohol cannot harm anyone but yourself? Alcohol altars your mind, look up the statistics on it. The alcohol isn't making that person drive drunk and kill someone, just like that gun isn't making someone pick it up and kill someone. It's how people act, end of story. Did you know that when someone kills someone in a drunk driving accident, it's usually counted as vehicular homicide and goes into the homicide count?

The drunk driver isn't the victim, neither is the shooter. They both made a bad decision. The answer that people seem to find for the shooter is to take away guns or make it harder to get them, why aren't we doing the same with alcohol when it's clearly more deadly?

I just told you how alcohol and tobacco harm others, so I won't get into that. What really erks me is the idea that a gun has no purpose. I explain to you time and time again that a gun allows me to put meat on the table for my family. A gun allows me to feel safer in this world. A gun allows me to protect my family. A gun allows me to have fun at the range. Clearly in the 10 pages of this thread and the 7 in the other, you don't understand this. Guns are not the issue here, people are. There are far bigger issues in this world other than guns, yet we focus on guns. Why? Because the government controls what the media says and the government wants to take away our guns. Don't believe me? Look closely into 9/11. Look at our elected officials ratings before 9/11, and after. Now look at how many new mandates came out of that as people blindly followed the government. Anyway, that's a topic for another time.

At the end of the day, there are bigger issues than guns. My firearms will never be taken away and that's all there is to it. If you feel threatened by them, send me a PM, come over the US and I'd be glad to take you out to the range to get you familiarized with them. After all, fear comes out of lack of experience.

A female British politician of parliament was murdered today by a man with a handgun in the middle of the street in northern England.

But that gun ban is working out.

Miss wrote A female British politician of parliament was murdered today by a man with a handgun in the middle of the street in northern England.

But that gun ban is working out.

Exactly. If we ban guns it will not stop the crime. Look at Chicago. It has some of the strictest gun laws in America. It is one the murder capitals of the US as well.

Oh boy, here we go. Why would I take gang murders out of the equation? Because when you are in a gang it's expected. You're transferring drugs and doing other illegal activities, you are more likely to be shot than a normal citizen, just like the people in the military.

I made that second comment expecting exactly what you said. You can choose to live in a place like Stockton, it's a low income area with a very high crime / death rate. Alternatively you could live in a place like Forks. Still a low income area, yet not a lot of deaths. You say there are no guns in the UK. How are there gun crimes them? A gun crime can't happen without a gun, no?

It's relevant in the whole scale, just like population numbers are. You can look at the UK has having less murders per 100k people, or having more murders per 100k miles. You bring up the fact there are area with higher densities of crime, yet you can't understand this.

Tobacco harms the people around it. Every hear of second hand smoke? You can get cancer from it...

Alcohol cannot harm anyone but yourself? Alcohol altars your mind, look up the statistics on it. The alcohol isn't making that person drive drunk and kill someone, just like that gun isn't making someone pick it up and kill someone. It's how people act, end of story. Did you know that when someone kills someone in a drunk driving accident, it's usually counted as vehicular homicide and goes into the homicide count?

The drunk driver isn't the victim, neither is the shooter. They both made a bad decision. The answer that people seem to find for the shooter is to take away guns or make it harder to get them, why aren't we doing the same with alcohol when it's clearly more deadly?

I just told you how alcohol and tobacco harm others, so I won't get into that. What really erks me is the idea that a gun has no purpose. I explain to you time and time again that a gun allows me to put meat on the table for my family. A gun allows me to feel safer in this world. A gun allows me to protect my family. A gun allows me to have fun at the range. Clearly in the 10 pages of this thread and the 7 in the other, you don't understand this. Guns are not the issue here, people are. There are far bigger issues in this world other than guns, yet we focus on guns. Why? Because the government controls what the media says and the government wants to take away our guns. Don't believe me? Look closely into 9/11. Look at our elected officials ratings before 9/11, and after. Now look at how many new mandates came out of that as people blindly followed the government. Anyway, that's a topic for another time.

At the end of the day, there are bigger issues than guns. My firearms will never be taken away and that's all there is to it. If you feel threatened by them, send me a PM, come over the US and I'd be glad to take you out to the range to get you familiarized with them. After all, fear comes out of lack of experience.

I will ask again, why are you taking the gang gun crimes out of it? You're arguing which country is safer and it's a fact that there's more gangs in the USA than the UK. Some of the UK crimes were gang related too.

I said there are literally no guns. There are obviously some guns but they are barely used in comparison to knives.

Oh, I forgot to mention that 10% of the UK's population is immigrants and about half of them come over to abuse the free health care, education and benefits system. They also cause most of the burglaries and robberies because they're on such low income.

Do you seriously not understand the size difference? The USA is literally 40x the size of the UK, of course there is going to be less people murdered per mile since our country is so small compared to yours. I guess Russia is the safest country in the world then?

The chances of you getting killed have two factors. The population and the number of people killed.
30x more people are murdered in the US than the UK per year, therefore you're more likely to be murdered in the USA.

Send 10K people to USA and 10K people to UK and more people be murdered in America. And what does dividing the amount of land by how many people are murdered prove? That there's a larger distance between each murder? Well isn't that pretty obvious since your country is 40x bigger than ours?

Second hand smoke is not an issue. Being around someone who smokes frequently is something that you have a choice over. You can easily walk away and smoking indoors is illegal in public places.

Oh no, you're comparing drunk driving with shooting someone. Someone who is drunk driving is just trying to get home, they're not going out with the objective to kill someone. You can't compare that to someone who intentionally ends another person's life. That's why we have manslaughter and murder, two completely different charges.

You're ignoring what I'm saying, do you honestly think that you couldn't hunt with a crossbow or bow instead of a gun? A deer would be killed instantly with a well placed arrow and it would be far cheaper and cleaner than using a gun. Guns are good for hunting but so are older weapons.

And fear comes with lack of experience? Have you seen the video where the little girls shoots the instructor in the head with the Uzi? Not to mention the thousands of children who shoot themselves and their parents each year with guns. You should always be scared of guns in some extent otherwise you'll leave them lying around and an accident could happen.

My brother was in some foreign country a couple of years ago, he goes on holiday all the time so I have no idea where it was but they let him fire weapons at a weapons range.

As his friends and him are firing pistols, he noticed that the instructor kept a pistol in a holster by his leg and his hand was rested beside the whole time. It was obvious that if they messed around with the guns, the instructor would shoot them down. I understand that they're only beginners so this is understandable but guns are extremely dangerous, if you want to own them then it's your choice but they're dangerous things.

I wasn't going to reply to what you said before but there's no way that I could let you say that the USA is safer than the UK.

Anyway, I've said enough on this thread for now and we're kind of drifting off subject about guns since we've both stated our opinion multiple times. Thanks for the offer about the shooting range BTW, I honestly appreciate it, that was very kind of you. I've learnt a lot about guns and the subject during this and I appreciate it. Definitely one of the best and most educational debates I've had here.

Fact: It's 3AM in the UK now lol.