Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The worst anti-gun argument ever.

75 replies to this topic
afk4ever
  • afk4ever

    Joined: October 25, 2012

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013

#1

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:20 PM

http://www.rulen.com/gunban/

 

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

 

 

 

Someone please tell me they put this on the list as a joke.

 

If they didn't, then I would like any hackers here to tell me the address of whoever wrote this list. I have an entire bucket of sulfuric acid and a cloth that could easily cover someone's face.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#2

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:32 PM

Looks to be typical Pro-Anti-gun propaganda to me. All solid *facts* that I've seen or heard over the years.

I'm sure the Brady Bunch would have nothing against it.

 

People need to understand that the taking of a life (with a firearm) is not lightly done, unless the life taken is of no consequence, such as a foe in war.

As a Religious person once said, "Taking the life of a rapist before he has the chance to plant his seed is flying in the face of God's Will to replenish life on this earth, and just as criminal as a murdering mother who casts God's Gift of life from her loins via abortion. All life is too precious to waste."

~~~~~

VVVV


afk4ever
  • afk4ever

    Joined: October 25, 2012

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013

#3

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:40 PM

Looks to be typical Pro-Anti-gun propaganda to me. All solid *facts* that I've seen or heard over the years.
I'm sure the Brady Bunch would have nothing against it.
 
People need to understand that the taking of a life (with a firearm) is not lightly done, unless the life taken is of no consequence, such as a foe in war.
As a Religious person once said, "Taking the life of a rapist before he has the chance to plant his seed is flying in the face of God's Will to replenish life on this earth, and just as criminal as a murdering mother who casts God's Gift of life from her loins via abortion. All life is too precious to waste."
~~~~~
VVVV


Impressive.

I'm not even religious, and that still convinced me more than that bulljizz liberal site.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#4

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:44 PM

There are idiotic arguments in both sides.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#5

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:50 PM Edited by finn4life, 23 October 2013 - 10:53 PM.

This is retarded


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#6

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:04 PM

That site is a pro gun site, the piece in question attempts to ridicule the Liberal anti-gun stance. Nothing to see here. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#7

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

Did you somehow miss the massive NRA emblem at the bottom of the page?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#8

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:16 PM

Always encouraging to see the rabid hawks jumping on their own mockery of other people's views then presenting this pastiche as if it came from the mouth of their adversaries. No surprises who has jumped in on the action either.

This is what happens when you let vitriol and unwarranted hostility cloud your better judgement. Or an example of people lacking better judgement resorting to vitriol and unwarranted hostility. Potato, tomato.

DSO_BillV
  • DSO_BillV

    Spooky Scary Skeleton

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#9

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:18 PM

"Studies have proven - where there are more guns, there are less shootings."
  • OG Sunny likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#10

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:31 PM

Except they haven't. Singapore has no guns and no shootings. The US has lots of guns and a higher rate of shootings than anywhere else in the developed world. Norway had lots of guns but very few shootings. Germany has a moderate amount of guns and a moderate amount of shootings. The UK has a fairly small number of guns and very few shootings. Australia has a moderate amount of guns and very few shootings.

There's no real correlation between raw firearm numbers and numbers of criminal firearm shootings. There's a strong correlation between nations with mandatory firearm licensing and training and very low instances of firearm crime, regardless of total number of firearms.
  • The-King likes this

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#11

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:40 PM Edited by lil weasel, 23 October 2013 - 05:47 PM.

http://www.rulen.com/gunban/

 

Someone please tell me they put this on the list as a joke.

 

If they didn't, then I would like any hackers here to tell me the address of whoever wrote this list. I have an entire bucket of sulfuric acid and a cloth that could easily cover someone's face.

YES, it is a Joke (with sarcastic replies).  The WHOLE thing is based on real statements by Anti-Gun people, with sarcastic replies by Pro-Gun people. So put the acid away, and just hope the countries that promote this gun crap find a time when it would be nice to have them.

Spoiler
.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#12

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:49 PM

I hate to say it, but some of the points it makes are points made by people who want to ban guns. The parts about the amount of school shootings today compared with the 40s,50s, and 60s - where guns were readily available all over the place, is interesting. While the issue is obviously far more complex than that, I've heard plenty of anti gun folks say that guns are the sole reason for school shootings. Obviously the page is stupid for the most part, but it does speak to the larger issue that with gun arguments, we tend to narrow the focus back and forth to stupid soundbites. 


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#13

Posted 23 October 2013 - 07:49 PM

It's a - poorly written - satirical column. Tempted to lock because this is even stupider than the "fart in your face" thread.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#14

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:09 PM

Like the U.K. during the invasion scare of WW2 when kindly U.S. citizens sent their rifles to the U.K. beggars

 

 

What, you mean the lend-lease agreement of 1941, which effectively came after the UK had started full mass production of the Lee Enfield Mk4, after which US small arms played almost no role in equipping the British Amry? Or do you mean the cash-and-carry agreement, which permitting the sale- not gifting as you imply, but sale- of matériel to anyone- not just the British- who offered cash for it and who supplied their own shipping capability, a policy which had absolutely no measurable impact on UK domestic armament apart from risking the lives of large numbers of merchant seamen for comparatively little gain?

 

Seriously, do you actively endeavour to get things wrong? Or am I just "nit-picking" again?


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica
  • Yardie Achievement Award

#15

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

That's not a liberal site. It's clearly a pro-gun site. And I honestly have never heard any liberal use arguments such as the ones on that website to defend their position. Idiots maybe, but not people who actually know what they're talking about.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#16

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:17 PM

I was talking about the

http://www.freerepub...ws/650257/posts

 

Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars
American Rifleman -- Official Journal of the National Rifle Association of America | April 2002 | Mark A. Keefe, IV -- Editor

 

Funny how easy it is to forget.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:24 AM

I was talking about the

http://www.freerepub...ws/650257/posts

 

Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars
American Rifleman -- Official Journal of the National Rifle Association of America | April 2002 | Mark A. Keefe, IV -- Editor

 

Funny how easy it is to forget.

Ah, so that's why Sea Lion was cancelled. American guns were sent over there and there would've been armed people defending the British Isles, so Hitler decided against it.

 

Sigh.


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#18

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:43 AM

There's no real correlation between raw firearm numbers and numbers of criminal firearm shootings.

And that's basically where the argument should stop.
  • F4L? likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#19

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:09 AM Edited by sivispacem, 24 October 2013 - 07:11 AM.

I was talking about the

http://www.freerepub...ws/650257/posts

 

Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars
American Rifleman -- Official Journal of the National Rifle Association of America | April 2002 | Mark A. Keefe, IV -- Editor

 

Funny how easy it is to forget.

 

Funny how I can only find a couple of direct references to the existence of an "American Committee for the Defence of British Homes" having any active role, and only ever on pro-gun sites. Nothing in proper historical media about it. Wonder why that is?

 

The simple fact of the matter is that most of that article- and I'm being generous calling it that- is wrong. For instance, the UK never operationally deployed the M1 Garand, either amongst its armed forces or in the Home Guard, despite the claims of your source. Next you have the feasibility issue. I have no doubt that some civilian arms were shipped from the US to the UK in the 1939-40 period. But think logically for a second. We're talking general donations here. You'd end up with an arsenal of weapons of numerous different kinds and calibres. How much use is such a varied arsenal in home defence when access to such varied ammunition would be scarce? Limited at best. Then there's the fact that by the outbreak of WWII, the UK had a total of 2 million Lee Enfield Mk3 rifles available for both combat troops. Records show that only about a million of the 3-4 million members of the British Home Guard were ever armed with US-made weapons- mostly military surplus M17s and M1903s, which were not obtained from the US civilian populace but directly through the cash-and-carry agreement. Then there's the logistics of the demand. As far as I've been able to determine, all claims about this organisation are made by the pro-gun lobby around June 1940. Given that the threat of the invasion of the UK had entirely subsided by September 1940, and the idea of arming the civilian populace was abandoned by the point, how many of those weapons that were shipped- limited in number as they were- do you think actually saw any active role in arming the UK civilian population, given that the logistics of transporting them to the UK from the US invariably meant they didn't arrive until after the fact? Some of the handguns in military calibres were re-purposed for special operations, an amount of the Winchester .22 rifles that were sent were used as training weapons for the armed forces, and there's almost no record in existence of anything else really. In fact, most of the civilian weapons sent to the UK were probably melted down to produce useful arms, like the Lee Enfield Mk4 and Bren.

 

The amount of historical revisionism which goes on in the far right gun nut fringe really does surprise me.


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#20

Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:12 AM Edited by D- Ice, 24 October 2013 - 01:16 PM.

EDIT: My post was meant in reply to lil weasel's post about the necessity of guns for national defence, not Irviding. Apologies for the confusion.

 

@lil weasel: Alongside Sivi's very good points, I'd just like to add my two cents on the shortcomings of your pro-gun arguements. It is short-sghted by both parties in the pro-gun vs. anti-gun camps to boil down gun ownership to only their advantages or disadvantages - something I feel you are doing. There are good and bad things in gun ownership, and you have to balance out the good versus the bad.

 

Regarding civilian gun ownership and national defence - I'll point out that the likelihood of the US being wholesale invaded by any other nation anytime soon is frankly laughable.

 

Gun ownership might give civilians-turned-insurgents a few extra weeks headstart in defending their country - but not much else. Two personal cases below:

- I visited Syria in 2010, a year before the revolution, and virtually no one had guns. No even the security protecting the airport - in fact they didn't even have melee weapons - they only had their shoes or belts as weapons if the worst happened. Now the country's awash with international black-market weapons and those captured from the army.

- In the year prior to the 2003 war in Iraq, the government started arming every household with automatic weapons, with free training of civilians in guerilla warfare and sleeper-cell operations. Yet not a single bullet was fired against the oppressive dictatorship until the Coalition forces disbanded it, in which case it was Iranian-sponsored militias.

 

My point is that defence of a nation depend far more on the will of the people than on guns alone. And the massive international black market is always happy to help all those committed enough toorganise and raise funds.

Your point on the advantages of guns in protecting America are thus over-exaggerated on two fronts - the likelihood of invasion, and the usefullness of civilian gun ownership.

 

Now, regarding the disadvantges of civilian gun ownership IMO:

Easy gun availability to the civilains means easy gun availability to criminals. Now before anyone throws the typical pro-gun arguement "criminals get their guns on the black market":

- The US guns black market is fed from legally brought guns, via 'straw-purchases' (PBS Frontlines). In fact, even the black markets in neighbouring Mexico and perhaps beyond are fed by legal US weapons. It is simply far easier than dealing with, or stealing from, militaries.

- Many criminals still buy their guns completely legally. Only because they are criminals, does not mean they do everything in their lives illegally - most criminals legally buy their cars etc...

 

Secondly, I simply do not believe that civilians without professional training, authority and responsibility (i.e. armed law enforcement/military) can be trusted with guns.

I do believe people have the right to defend their lives in any way possible - including crimes like murder. However, put a gun in that same civilian's hands, and they are far more likely to pull the trigger out of fear or anger at those who do not pose a direct and immediate risk to their lives. They are also likely to shoot at the criminal before exhausting all other options available to them.

 

And finally, even if you believe that it is ethically justified to shoot a guy dead simply because he entered your house, or looked at you the wrong way on the streets, you have to consider escalation. If he has a gun too, the situation will likely end up with one of you dead. And over what, a few thousand dollars worth of jewelry or a stupid arguement in the streets?

  • Irviding likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#21

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:18 AM Edited by sivispacem, 24 October 2013 - 10:24 AM.

The point you make about black versus white market firearms is an extremely valid and important one but from my experience one that also cuts both ways when it comes to the respective pro/anti lobbies. I've seen people claim the grey-market weapons that are involved in the majority of crimes are both legal (look, people can't even be trusted with legal weapons) and illegal (criminals get their guns from the black market, so firearm restrictions only affect law abiding citizens). In actuality, neither is true.

As an interesting aside, in the UK whilst the overwhelming majority of firearms used in the pursuit of crime are either illegally owned or aren't actually firearms (replica/non-gun/blank-firing but treated as illegal as possession of replica firearms is in itself illegal without a specific exemption), the majority firearms used in murders and serious injuries are legally owned and registered sporting purpose weapons possessed by people who have been subject to our extensive but unfortunately flawed screening process.
  • D- Ice likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#22

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:33 PM

 the majority firearms used in murders and serious injuries are legally owned and registered sporting purpose weapons possessed by people who have been subject to our extensive but unfortunately flawed screening process.

Let's be honest though, if we're talking about the amount of such murders committed in the UK a year, we're talking double digits. It's because these aren't contract killings or muggings or robberies, these are crimes of passion. It's simply not practical for criminals to use guns and they've more or less been removed from "criminal culture."


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#23

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:43 PM

The point you make about black versus white market firearms is an extremely valid and important one but from my experience one that also cuts both ways when it comes to the respective pro/anti lobbies. I've seen people claim the grey-market weapons that are involved in the majority of crimes are both legal (look, people can't even be trusted with legal weapons) and illegal (criminals get their guns from the black market, so firearm restrictions only affect law abiding citizens). In actuality, neither is true.

As an interesting aside, in the UK whilst the overwhelming majority of firearms used in the pursuit of crime are either illegally owned or aren't actually firearms (replica/non-gun/blank-firing but treated as illegal as possession of replica firearms is in itself illegal without a specific exemption), the majority firearms used in murders and serious injuries are legally owned and registered sporting purpose weapons possessed by people who have been subject to our extensive but unfortunately flawed screening process.

 

I can now definately see your point about how firearm restrictions will mostly disarm law-abiding civilians, but IMO that's not necessarily as terrible a thing as pro-gun lobbists claim. Criminals do not go around marauding, looking for civilians to kill and rape - guns are usually only used for threatening civilians (armed robberies) or gang-on-gang violence. In the case of the former, I think armed civilians will yield overall worse outcomes (in my long post).

 

If neither case is true, I am now really interested in what you think the case is with grey-market weapons?

Thanks.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#24

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:48 PM

That's my point. Almost the sole cause of firearm murders in the UK are instances of domestic violence, and many of these are perpetrated by individuals whom, should the licensing procedures have been properly enforced, would have been stripped of their weaponry as a result of criminal complains relayed to their domestic abuse. The problem isn't that the restrictions on initial ownership are too lax- if anything the inverse is true- its that it has proven difficult to remove legally held weapons from people who have committed or have been accused of criminal actions that sit in a grey area between no action and mandatory delicensing

ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#25

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:14 AM

Australia has a moderate amount of guns and very few shootings.

 

What do you classify as very few? I've heard of several in the past few days in my city. We have considerably more shootings than the UK does. Italy, Germany, France etc. are all safer than we are. And we only have 23 million people. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#26

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:49 AM

 

Australia has a moderate amount of guns and very few shootings.

 

What do you classify as very few? I've heard of several in the past few days in my city. We have considerably more shootings than the UK does. Italy, Germany, France etc. are all safer than we are. And we only have 23 million people. 

 

We're still talking double digits though. I think the figure for last year is a little over forty. I can't find it again, but the most recent year I can find statistics for is 2011, in which there were twenty five. America sees around eleven thousand a year.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#27

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:57 AM

According to 2010 figures, Australia's firearm related death rate is 1.06 per 100,000. Which, whilst quadruple that of the UK (0.25) is about half to a third of comparable European countries with similar firearm licensing laws (France 3.01, Belgium 2.42, Austria 2.95, Finland 3.64, Norway 1.78, Portugal 1.77). To put that into perspective, the US is about 10.3.

Of course that doesn't tell the whole story but it's about the only indicator that can be applied across different nations because it isn't required to take into account differences in how firearm crime is recorded.

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#28

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:20 AM

It's not a very good pro-gun argument either, so stop clutching at straws.

 

How about we aim for a world where there are no guns and no women getting raped?


ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#29

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:40 AM

 

 

Australia has a moderate amount of guns and very few shootings.

 

What do you classify as very few? I've heard of several in the past few days in my city. We have considerably more shootings than the UK does. Italy, Germany, France etc. are all safer than we are. And we only have 23 million people. 

 

We're still talking double digits though. I think the figure for last year is a little over forty. I can't find it again, but the most recent year I can find statistics for is 2011, in which there were twenty five. America sees around eleven thousand a year.

 

40 fatal? I've seen varying statistics regarding our shooting murders. I think it's a fair bit higher than that personally. 

 

For example, a few months ago there was a news report about shootings in the Sydney metropolitan area. They said there had been 260 or something shootings this year. Mind you, this was aired in August so it's definitely increased since then. Those were non-fatal only. This was an apparent decrease from this time last year as well. 

 

I remember last year they said that there were something like 50 murders involving firearms in Sydney for 2012. That's still quite low for a city of nearly 5 million people. 

 

My city, Melbourne, has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country, however you still hear about shootings, robberies involving firearms every week. I'm not saying it's out of control, but it's not exactly utopia either.

 

The crime statistics here aren't always exactly truthful. Not trying to sound like some conspiracy nut but it's been proven that it's done for political reasons from time to time.

 

Interesting to see France's murder rate is so high. Then again they have a population over 3 times the size and are much more condensed. I always thought Norway had very loose gun laws? It's difficult to get a semi-automatic rifle here if you're not a farmer, hunter or professional sporting shooter. The majority of people are restricted to shotguns, pump/bolt rifles and handguns (which take 6 months to obtain since the laws changed following a university shooting in 2002).  Also interesting that police in Norway aren't even armed. While ours are fully geared up at all times.

 

Anyway back on topic.

 

What's interesting to note is that while the United States has a much higher homicide rate and far, far more gun crime, you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime in Australia or the UK than you are in the US. Maybe that falls back on the different categorizations of violent crime? 

 

I've had some bad experiences, and have been a victim of crime a fair few times, so I guess I'm somewhat jaded. I'm not saying Australia is a bad or dangerous place, but you definitely have to be careful like anywhere. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#30

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:59 AM

The problem is that press reports and other anecdotal sources aren't really that telling when compared to actual statistical audits. Similarly, actual criminal statistics, whether independent or otherwise, are usually far more wise-ranging that many of the surveys that take place. Allegations of intentional obfuscation aside, they're still the best source of information on the issue by virtue of being the most detailed and thorough.

As I pointed out, those figures aren't murder rates but death rates. The figures are somewhat swayed by nations like the Nordic countries which typically have higher suicide rates. But, as I said before, it is basically impossible to directly compare criminal use of firearms between nations because of the differences in how firearm crimes are categorised. In the UK, a crime committed with an imitation firearm or the vague threat of a firearm is treated as a firearm crime; elsewhere they only count as firearm crimes if a real firearm is used or if a weapon is discharged.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users