Should The UK Make Firearms Legal?

[BunnieBealla]

If you think about it there's really no way to defend ourselves if the worst happens
most if not all weapons and even pepper spray is prohibited here
and with the knife crime and acid attacks increase over the last decade I think there's at least slight unease amongst the general population
Do you think we should be more lenient and have a right like the US to carry for protection? Or do you think it was the right choice to ban them? uwu

[Lone Wolf]

PISS*****님이 먼저 게시:

or just make 3d printers cheaper

[Masque]

Making firearms legal is useless without also making the right to self-defense, and to defense of life, legal, too.

So sure, I guess... but.... would they also make it legal to shoot the guy attacking you with the machete? Or nah?

Nah, right?

[Triple G]

Masque님이 먼저 게시:

Making firearms legal is useless without also making the right to self-defense, and to defense of life, legal, too.

I´m pretty sure that´s legal anywhere.

Masque님이 먼저 게시:

So sure, I guess... but.... would they also make it legal to shoot the guy attacking you with the machete? Or nah?

Nah, right?

That´s probably called like "proportionality", and usually a case for the courts and lawyers, which makes any self defense thing difficult. But how would You defend against a machete, if You don´t have a sword by Yourself to have a good old sword fight? Bare hands doesn´t work. So You shoot him in the face. Twice. And one time in the heart. And then You go into jail. Shooting in the arm or leg would do i guess to get away with it. Perhaps into both legs if he is still faster than You - and desperately wants to do some machete action...

[Swarmfly]

They should really make sure their native weapons actually work before they decide to make them legal to use by civilians.

[Triple G]

Trash님이 먼저 게시:

Yes especially with the foreign intruders who end up committing violent acts against the natives.

At which generation doesn´t it count as foreign intruder any more? Some 80 years ago we had a rule that You need to verify Your heritage since the year 1800, or 1750 if You were part of the SS - to count as Aryan. While any black, Jewish, Sinti and Roma people could never count as native, and it was forbidden for them to marry or to procreate with natives.

Do You think some 150 years heritage would suffice, or is that too short? Or is it just about citizenship, which is probably possible to get in like 3 years as shortest option? Or do You have Your own definition of it?

[Magma Dragoon]

Self defense is illegal and the police work to protect criminals so it doesn't matter.

[Xautos]

If firearms are to be made fully legal, i'd rather they be less-than-lethal, at least the chances of killing people drop dramatically and people can defend themselves by incapacitating an intruder instead. No live ammo, no blanks, just rubber bullets and beanbag rounds.

[Triple G]

Magma Dragoon님이 먼저 게시:

Self defense is illegal...

What? Source. I can´t imagine any country in which self-defense is illegal, and it´s usually also expanded to help others in need.

[Xautos]

Magma Dragoon님이 먼저 게시:

Self defense is illegal and the police work to protect criminals so it doesn't matter.

the problem is that the UK police as stretched thin as it is thanks to the government constantly savaging their numbers and resources. You'd be lucky to get a police response half the time.

[ImSoCool599]

Learning magic from Hogwarts is always an option too

[Fake]

ImSoCool599님이 먼저 게시:

Learning magic from Hogwarts is always an option too

Mudbloods can't use magic. . . .

[Triple G]

Midori님이 먼저 게시:

The fact that the closest thing to a self-defense tool we have is "pepper spray, except it's just red paint that paints them red to mark them as a criminal" is depressing.

The depressing part is that most would consider "common sense" as rather good self defense tool - while there it´s apparently only pepper spray, which the people could use...

[Magma Dragoon]

Xautos님이 먼저 게시:

Magma Dragoon님이 먼저 게시:

Self defense is illegal and the police work to protect criminals so it doesn't matter.

the problem is that the UK police as stretched thin as it is thanks to the government constantly savaging their numbers and resources. You'd be lucky to get a police response half the time.

The only thing being savaged is the little white girls in Telford, which the police actively covered up. The police don't work for you.

[Γαῖα]

The number one driver of weapon related crime is drugs. The number one driver of theft related crime is drugs. So the attention should be denoted to said crime instead of flooding the market with weaponry under the veil guise of self defence when the majority of victims are themselves involved in gangs funded by the control and sale of drugs.

We know if the government were to open a shop in every area giving away free drugs, these gangs would lose over night its main source of income not to mention the ability to procure items that have been stolen. While this wont completely dissolve either violent crime or theft, it would leave us with the remaining suspects of jealousy, revenge and poverty.
Three things easier to get to grips with than a business model fuelled on crime that propagates crime.

[aka]

If people in the UK want more firearms, they can go to one of the other 100 Commonwealth nations they own... You can mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your Toyota and shoot the forest just to see what happens.

You can buy sticks of explosives at the fruit market and just blow up hills to see what's inside them. You don't need any ID, there are no warnings or rules about what you can and can't blow up.

The UK is like Canada... Jolly, and they just want to enjoy a proper breakfast and a nice cup of tea.

Know your surroundings... you don't fish in a desert and you don't climb a prairie.

You're welcome guys