• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

23 year old incel kills 5 people with shotgun before killing himself in Plymouth, UK

Status
Not open for further replies.

AJUMP23

Member
Exactly.

How are people still making this argument? 🙄
because "Good guy with a gun can stop bad guy with a gun" rhetoric. Except there are very few examples of this actually happening. It's actually a self defense Cold War.

Not to start a Gun debate in a thread where a mentally ill person used a weapon to cause mass grief and personal tragedy. That person should have never been around a weapon. Responsible individuals though should not have their rights removed because of irresponsible people. Responsible individuals should be able to own any weapon, because they will act responsibly with it.

In the US the second amendment is not designed to allow people to hunt, but for two main reasons. The first being an armed populace cannot be dictated to and over-run by an overzealous government or military. The second reason is for personal protection. An armed populace secures its freedoms and keeps them.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Smart people have known for thousands of years that you should enforce monogamy in order to create a stable society. We got rid off that in the 60s and now, as one of the many negative consequences, we have piece of shit incels who gun innocent people down because they're sexually frustrated. Social media just made this worse btw. We need to delete it.
What you're talking about is pretty sexist though. The sexual revolution was also tied into women's liberation. "Enforcing" monogamy means treating women like property and then assigning them one a piece to losers. In the 50s, women settled for less. They didn't really know they had that many options, and were heavily shamed for having a career, for showing interest in sexuality, for dating multiple people, even if it was one at a time. What you're talking about as a fix is really just oppressing a whole gender.

Women now know they have a lot of social capital, and they are free to spend it however they want. They can date people they want, and it's not really anyone else's business.

You even call these guys "pieces of shit" in your post, but then act like we should somehow enforce people dating them. Think that through for yourself, and don't just take anything Jordan Peterson says as gospel. Maybe the past did have some societal stability advantages, but it literally comes at the cost of oppressing an entire gender and telling them what to do like they're property. There's no reason anyone's sexual choices should be "enforced."

This guy had mental illness. There's nothing physically wrong with him, and he's certainly not too ugly to be able to date someone. He's mentally sick, and the people that encouraged his mental illness are other losers online.
 
Last edited:
What you're talking about is pretty sexist though. The sexual revolution was also tied into women's liberation. "Enforcing" monogamy means treating women like property and then assigning them one a piece to losers. In the 50s, women settled for less. They didn't really know they had that many options, and were heavily shamed for having a career, for showing interest in sexuality, for dating multiple people, even if it was one at a time. What you're talking about as a fix is really just oppressing a whole gender.

Women now know they have a lot of social capital, and they are free to spend it however they want. They can date people they want, and it's not really anyone else's business.

You even call these guys "pieces of shit" in your post, but then act like we should somehow enforce people dating them. Think that through for yourself, and don't just take anything Jordan Peterson says as gospel. Maybe the past did have some societal stability advantages, but it literally comes at the cost of oppressing an entire gender and telling them what to do like they're property. There's no reason anyone's sexual choices should be "enforced."

This guy had mental illness. There's nothing physically wrong with him, and he's certainly not too ugly to be able to date someone. He's mentally sick, and the people that encouraged his mental illness are other losers online.
I mentioned in a previous post that I don't think the old system is better. It's probably not.
 

Tschumi

Member
It's just chilling how some users seem to be paying lipservice to the tragedy then saying "but seriously folks" and proceeding to mince around their own sympathetic views, with "example" visual aids no less.

So there was an unenlightened time when women were second class citizens. There was also milk sick. The measles. We got over all three of these diseases, among others. If you can't handle women getting close to Duke Nukem levels of sexual self confidence, despite their continuing to not get equal pay, that's your insecure, tilted problem.

Don't try to co opt the doublethought reframings of some YouTube monetization whores and present yourself as having a meta view on the social order of things. You're just wasting time you could be spending on a bicycle, chucking your beer away.

tumblr_p3qh0x1HWW1r9ymsao6_250.gifv


This woman, and those she "stood" for and with, did more to correct the misguided course of modern civilization in an instant than every single incel influencer and their duped peons combined will ever achieve, ongoing.
 
Last edited:
Why can't these fuckheads just kill themselves? Why must they harm others?

I hope Hell exists specifically for pieces of shit like this.

Why oh why do the general public need to own guns

Wow that didn't take long.

He could have murdered them with any number of weapons, or just crashed a fucking truck into them.

We need guns to DEFEND ourselves against people like this.

If you can't say that the majority of violent crime/mass killings in the UK would have been stopped if a good guy had a gun (which they can't even have knives I think?), then you're a liar. This is more proof of what happens when bad guys have guns and good ones don't.
 
Last edited:

lachesis

Member
Personal choices, and civil/equal rights aside, here's a study regarding marriage and crime rate.

Marriage and Crime rate - a Havard study

"We found that being married is associated with a significant reduction in the probability of crime, averaging approximately 35 percent across key models in both the full sample of nearly 500 men examined from ages 17 to 32 and the targeted subsample of 52 men assessed from ages 17 to 70"

So yes, I think monogamous marriage and nuclear family is beneficial to the society as long as social stability is concerned, but the institution of marriage itself is dying or already dead for many people - with no real answer for viable alternative while keeping the society civil and flourishing with more population that can contribute to the society itself. Birth rates in all the developed countries are pretty low to sustain itself and its ideals. (hence, immigration)



Even Iran where polygamy is legal (but I hear it's seen as a mean to justify for an old men "caught" cheating), is having issues with falling marriage rate, so the government made their own official dating app.

But I feel like the cat is already out. Many people see marriage as raw deal for both men and women, so they avoid it - and I don't blame them either. Like water, people move in the path of least resistance after all. I think that's the price we are paying in this post modern society where everything - religion, institution, tradition - is subject to be taken apart.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
We need guns to DEFEND ourselves against people like this.

If you can't say that the majority of violent crime/mass killings in the UK would have been stopped if a good guy had a gun (which they can't even have knives I think?), then you're a liar. This is more proof of what happens when bad guys have guns and good ones don't.

Not here we don‘t, thanks.

And we’ve had one mass gun killing in eleven years.

Please keep your US gun rights bull out of this. The U.K. is very happy with its strict gun laws. None of us want or need more guns to play with.
 
Last edited:
Not here we don‘t, thanks.

And we’ve had one mass gun killing in eleven years.

Please keep your US gun rights bull out of this. The U.K. is very happy with its strict gun laws. None of us want or need more guns to play with.

Laxer gun laws leads to more violent crimes rates, now moving on.

Ah I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

Funny how much those strict laws have reduced crime and violent crime rates... oh wait, London has a higher crime rate across the board than NYC:

 

Armorian

Banned
Ah I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

Funny how much those strict laws have reduced crime and violent crime rates... oh wait, London has a higher crime rate across the board than NYC:


i don't see shootings there...

Plus London "welcomed" fuck ton of "refugees" with questionable origins/crime history and even age (lol), crime statistics are going higher and higher in the recent years.
 

reksveks

Member
Ah I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

Funny how much those strict laws have reduced crime and violent crime rates... oh wait, London has a higher crime rate across the board than NYC:

About Crime Indices At This Website (numbeo.com)

This section is based on surveys from visitors of this website.

So not exactly official stats.

London Met 2021 - Violent Crime - 11,949 arrests

ujnzaLf.png


NYPD data set 2021 - 12,657 arrest under assault

aIq4vs3.png


Also given that London has a population of 9m vs New York City's 8.4m, London has a slightly lower crime rate.
 
Last edited:
i don't see shootings there...

Plus London "welcomed" fuck ton of "refugees" with questionable origins/crime history and even age (lol), crime statistics are going higher and higher in the recent years.

Well I hope they have fun defending themselves from "refugees" (many of whom are criminals, who don't recognize weapon laws), without any weapons.
 

RafterXL

Member
We need guns to DEFEND ourselves against people like this.

If you can't say that the majority of violent crime/mass killings in the UK would have been stopped if a good guy had a gun (which they can't even have knives I think?), then you're a liar. This is more proof of what happens when bad guys have guns and good ones don't.
Lunacy. 45% of the TOTAL civilian guns on this planet are in the U.S. and we can't stop mass killings. This is proof that guns in the hands of lunatics result in horrible tragedies, nothing more.

Ah I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

Funny how much those strict laws have reduced crime and violent crime rates... oh wait, London has a higher crime rate across the board than NYC:

Bullshit cherrypicking. Look at the entire country and the UK is far better off that the US.



I'm actually pro gun, within reason, but these NRA talking points are absolute nonsense.
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
Not to start a Gun debate in a thread where a mentally ill person used a weapon to cause mass grief and personal tragedy. That person should have never been around a weapon. Responsible individuals though should not have their rights removed because of irresponsible people. Responsible individuals should be able to own any weapon, because they will act responsibly with it.

In the US the second amendment is not designed to allow people to hunt, but for two main reasons. The first being an armed populace cannot be dictated to and over-run by an overzealous government or military. The second reason is for personal protection. An armed populace secures its freedoms and keeps them.

Self defence as an argument doesn’t make sense to me. “I need a gun because the other guy might have a gun” is exactly the point I’m trying to make.

How about neither of you have guns? Surely that’s the safest outcome?

And the constitutional bullshit about protecting yourself from an overzealous government is even more ridiculous. You think that .45 you have in your desk drawer is going to protect you when the choppers and tanks come rolling in?
 

subsmoke

Member
I've noticed most incels aren't as ugly as they think they are. There was nothing wrong with the way this guy looked aside from that Brillo pad on his head. His social skills and mental issues were probably the real issue in why he had trouble getting dates.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Well I hope they have fun defending themselves from "refugees" (many of whom are criminals, who don't recognize weapon laws), without any weapons.

Jesus Christ, you American gun nuts literally have no idea how the rest of the world functions, do you? 😂

We don’t have gun deaths in the UK because we don’t have guns.

You can convince yourself of some other fantasy, so you can continue to justify clutching your little toys, but we’re fine thanks.

Speaking as someone who’s held a shotgun licence for 15 years, I can say we have it exactly right on gun laws. Exactly.
 
Jesus Christ, you American gun nuts literally have no idea how the rest of the world functions, do you? 😂

We don’t have gun deaths in the UK because we don’t have guns.

You can convince yourself of some other fantasy, so you can continue to justify clutching your little toys, but we’re fine thanks.

Speaking as someone who’s held a shotgun licence for 15 years, I can say we have it exactly right on gun laws. Exactly.

Yeah we're absolutely bonkers over here, let me tell ya.

I feel sorry for y'all. Will never know the thrill of competing in a 3-gun or IDPA competition, great hunting, doing fun dumb shit with AKs and tannerite (like ultimate pond fishing), hogging, etc.

Hell, y'all can't even sit in your backyard and plink with a .22.

Can you even carry a knife there?

Must be awesome wallowing in that moral superiority knowing someone slightly bigger than you with a butter knife and a temper could end your life.
 

Keihart

Member
Yeah we're absolutely bonkers over here, let me tell ya.

I feel sorry for y'all. Will never know the thrill of competing in a 3-gun or IDPA competition, great hunting, doing fun dumb shit with AKs and tannerite (like ultimate pond fishing), hogging, etc.

Hell, y'all can't even sit in your backyard and plink with a .22.

Can you even carry a knife there?

Must be awesome wallowing in that moral superiority knowing someone slightly bigger than you with a butter knife and a temper could end your life.
I think everyone would agree with you if the violent crimes of NA weren't so high compared to countries with strict gun laws. Developed countries at least, unless you want to compare NA with somalia or some shit.
 
Last edited:
I think everyone would agree with you if the violent crimes of NA weren't so high compared to countries with strict gun laws. Developed countries at least, unless you want to compare NA with somalia or some shit.

I'd have to look up our rankings as a country but I'm sure they're not great.

My pro-gun stance breaks down like this:

1. Guns have been in America since it was founded. Without them we would still be a British colony. One of our most famous founders, Ben Franklin, was a literal gun nut and invented one of the first machine gun/gatling guns.

2. There is simply no logistical way to "collect all the guns" in America. Myself and a lot of people I know own many. Something like 40% or more of Americans own at least one gun.

3. If you do manage to "collect all the guns" guess who still has them? The criminals who didn't comply with turning them in/stole them/bought them illegally. It's an old argument but it's flat out true.

4. This ties into #3... we already tried prohibiting alcohol, and drugs, and both of those "wars" / confiscations went on for years and only INCREASED crime. This will do no different.

--

edit: and these are simply the logical/logisitical reasons... much less the fact that gun ownership is a protected amendment in our Bill of Rights... so important its #2 behind freedom of speech... and it is important for sport, hunting, protection etc.

If guns weren't fun and tactical operations weren't intriguing then guess what? Airsoft wouldn't be huge like it is in the UK (I wonder why), Call of Duty wouldn't be the #1 game annually, etc.
 
Last edited:

RoboFu

One of the green rats
PC culture, Advertising and oither media are creating and inflating violent crimes.

Its not that the guy was incel its that he created that situation by thinking he had to have a supermodel for a GF, then society hammered that into him. anyone can find a partner / get laid. anyone..

Violent crime is on the rise across america. why? because no one is guilty anymore. its not their fault. its all racism... even though gun violence has tripled in areas for the last three years as we release violent criminals from jails and ignore violent areas in cities because most of the people are of a certain race. but yet its all the guns fault.
 

Keihart

Member
I'd have to look up our rankings as a country but I'm sure they're not great.

My pro-gun stance breaks down like this:

1. Guns have been in America since it was founded. Without them we would still be a British colony. One of our most famous founders, Ben Franklin, was a literal gun nut and invented one of the first machine gun/gatling guns.

2. There is simply no logistical way to "collect all the guns" in America. Myself and a lot of people I know own many. Something like 40% or more of Americans own at least one gun.

3. If you do manage to "collect all the guns" guess who still has them? The criminals who didn't comply with turning them in/stole them/bought them illegally. It's an old argument but it's flat out true.

4. This ties into #3... we already tried prohibiting alcohol, and drugs, and both of those "wars" / confiscations went on for years and only INCREASED crime. This will do no different.

--

edit: and these are simply the logical/logisitical reasons... much less the fact that gun ownership is a protected amendment in our Bill of Rights... so important its #2 behind freedom of speech... and it is important for sport, hunting, protection etc.

If guns weren't fun and tactical operations weren't intriguing then guess what? Airsoft wouldn't be huge like it is in the UK (I wonder why), Call of Duty wouldn't be the #1 game annually, etc.
Not arguing with the "fun" in gun games, they are, even punching each other in the face is fun thus fighting sports.
I think you are right in the logistics to make it happen but on the other hand there is nothing stopping stricter gun laws instead of abolishing them. Having less guns going around is safer if we get down to the numbers of it.
Buying guns in a Wallmart seems like a little too much to me, as cool as it might be.
I know it varies from state, but open carry it's kinda crazy too, i guess it works in theory as a deterrent? but i haven't seen the numbers between states like Texas and other states.
 
Last edited:
Not arguing with the "fun" in gun games, they are, even punching each other in the face is fun thus fighting sports.
I think you are right in the logistics to make it happen but on the other hand there is nothing stopping stricter gun laws instead of abolishing them. Having less guns going around is safer if we get down to the numbers of it.
Buying guns in a Wallmart seems like a little too much to me, as cool as it might be.
I know it varies from state, but open carry it's kinda crazy too, i guess it works in theory as a deterrent? but i haven't seen the numbers between states like Texas and other states.

That's a logical and reasonable take.

My thoughts:

1. Having less guns circulating *may* make things safer... but if you constrain the supply then it will just lead people to illegal methods. It's a lot easier if there was barely any in circulation to begin with. This has been proven with many other products/substances.

2. You can't really buy guns worth a shit at Wal-Mart. You can effectively take out more people with a Karambit or other fighting knife better than you can with a shotgun (once that shotgun is empty the perpetrator can quickly be attacked/subdued... you can't stop a madman with a knife unless you can disarm them and risk death, or they die).

3. All I know is in GA, we have a city, Kennesaw, that requires gun ownership by citizens. The crime rate there is essentially nil. Whereas in Chicago you have incredibly strict gun laws... and they call it "Chiraq" (play on Iraq), for a reason.

--

People that live in strict gun control countries just don't understand it because they don't live in a country with a massive population that has had guns and needed them since its inception. The concept of defending one's property and family with a firearm is literally in our heritage.

--

This may help, a quote from the legendary Ida B. Wells:


“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”​


― Ida B. Wells-Barnett

--

Just like the population/gun ownership thing I mentioned... for the black community, a gun is sometimes the only barrier between life and death... because there are places cops will simply not go. You're on your own.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
Yeah we're absolutely bonkers over here, let me tell ya.

I feel sorry for y'all. Will never know the thrill of competing in a 3-gun or IDPA competition, great hunting, doing fun dumb shit with AKs and tannerite (like ultimate pond fishing), hogging, etc.

Hell, y'all can't even sit in your backyard and plink with a .22.

Can you even carry a knife there?

Must be awesome wallowing in that moral superiority knowing someone slightly bigger than you with a butter knife and a temper could end your life.

Dude, you’re talking to someone who spent an entire weekend once up to my arse in shotgun shells at a two day clay pigeon competition. I know how much fun guns can be (especially when you shoot a 44).

But the gun laws in the U.K really are pretty much perfect. Those who want to engage in sporting gun activities can, after rigorous checks (which we’re all happy to do) while we also know there’s very, very little chance of being threatened with one ever. I don’t know one gun enthusiast in this country who would want much of a change to the laws.

And why the hell would I want to carry a knife either? What kind of battleground shithole do you live in?
 
Last edited:
This thread about one group of brain dead morons turned into a discussion about a different group of brain dead morons. Yeehawwww guns!

Ah yes, Ben Franklin, one of the most famous braindead morons of all time.

Dude, you’re talking to someone who spent an entire weekend once up to my arse in shotgun shells at a two day clay pigeon competition. I know how much fun guns can be (especially when you shoot a 44).

But the gun laws in the U.K really are pretty much perfect. Those who want to engage in sporting gun activities can, after rigorous checks (which we’re all happy to do) while we also know there’s very, very little chance of being threatened with one ever. I don’t know one gun enthusiast in this country who would want much of a change to the laws.

And why the hell would I want to carry a knife either? What kind of battleground shithole do you live in?

Y'all just had a mass shooting and London has comparable violent crime rates to most U.S. cities and you think you have to live in a "battleground shithole" to want to carry something for self defense? Seriously? I carry a knife for not only that but the 100 other uses knives have. You know, like opening shit? I use my knife multiple times a day.

I can't believe someone would need the use of a knife justified to them. I'm glad I don't live in the UK, sheesh.
 

Jaysen

Banned
Ah yes, Ben Franklin, one of the most famous braindead morons of all time.



Y'all just had a mass shooting and London has comparable violent crime rates to most U.S. cities and you think you have to live in a "battleground shithole" to want to carry something for self defense? Seriously? I carry a knife for not only that but the 100 other uses knives have. You know, like opening shit? I use my knife multiple times a day.

I can't believe someone would need the use of a knife justified to them. I'm glad I don't live in the UK, sheesh.
Dear non Americans, this guy sadly represents a great many Americans. I apologize for them. Just imagine how awful it is living among them.
 

reksveks

Member
London has comparable violent crime rates to most U.S. cities and you think you have to live in a "battleground shithole" to want to carry something for self defense? Seriously? I carry a knife for not only that but the 100 other uses knives have. You know, like opening shit? I use my knife multiple times a day.

Lets compare homicide rates


Hmm, London is half of New York?
 

Armorian

Banned
Lets compare homicide rates


Hmm, London is half of New York?

WTF is happening in Baltimore?
 

FunkMiller

Member
Y'all just had a mass shooting and London has comparable violent crime rates to most U.S. cities and you think you have to live in a "battleground shithole" to want to carry something for self defense? Seriously? I carry a knife for not only that but the 100 other uses knives have. You know, like opening shit? I use my knife multiple times a day.

I can't believe someone would need the use of a knife justified to them. I'm glad I don't live in the UK, sheesh.

This post misses the mark more than Michael Bay did

*sing it with me*

with Pearl Harbourrrrr…


(oh, and I fucking live in London, chopsy- I think I have a better idea of how safe it is than you do).
 
Last edited:
This post misses the mark more than Michael Bay did

*sing it with me*

with Pearl Harbourrrrr…


(oh, and I fucking live in London, chopsy- I think I have a better idea of how safe it is than you do).

I'm still waiting for you to explain how carrying a knife is somehow weird or crazy.

I take it you don't have a job where you'll ever use one, and you never go hunting, fishing, work outside, etc. I literally use my Kershaw daily. It serves pretty much 0 purpose for self defense as I have my CZ P10S I carry at almost all times.

I've had a guy attempt to mug me with a bowie knife... I'll never regret or rethink carrying a pistol. I'm glad you can live in magic faerie land where nothing bad happens (except horrific knife attacks, bombings, and other fun stuff).
 
Dear non Americans, this guy sadly represents a great many Americans. I apologize for them. Just imagine how awful it is living among them.

I'm surprised you have enough oxygen to type up there on your high horse.

You must be one helluva soyboi - never been outside before in your life I take it? Didn't have a dad to take you hunting or fishing? Never shot a gun? Probably think they're scary death machines? God forbid you ever have to use a nail gun, or a box cutter (yikes!).
 

FunkMiller

Member
I'm still waiting for you to explain how carrying a knife is somehow weird or crazy.

I take it you don't have a job where you'll ever use one, and you never go hunting, fishing, work outside, etc. I literally use my Kershaw daily. It serves pretty much 0 purpose for self defense as I have my CZ P10S I carry at almost all times.

I've had a guy attempt to mug me with a bowie knife... I'll never regret or rethink carrying a pistol. I'm glad you can live in magic faerie land where nothing bad happens (except horrific knife attacks, bombings, and other fun stuff).

Good lord, man. How small is it?
 
And the constitutional bullshit about protecting yourself from an overzealous government is even more ridiculous. You think that .45 you have in your desk drawer is going to protect you when the choppers and tanks come rolling in?
You can't control and patrol the entire country with a military. And all it takes is one dictatorship and a few years to ramp up millions of deaths which will vastly eclipse any and all deaths from random shootings.
 

nush

Member
I'm still waiting for you to explain how carrying a knife is somehow weird or crazy.

I take it you don't have a job where you'll ever use one, and you never go hunting, fishing, work outside, etc. I literally use my Kershaw daily. It serves pretty much 0 purpose for self defense as I have my CZ P10S I carry at almost all times.

I've had a guy attempt to mug me with a bowie knife... I'll never regret or rethink carrying a pistol. I'm glad you can live in magic faerie land where nothing bad happens (except horrific knife attacks, bombings, and other fun stuff).
j2V06W.gif
 

Woopah

Member
Not to start a Gun debate in a thread where a mentally ill person used a weapon to cause mass grief and personal tragedy. That person should have never been around a weapon. Responsible individuals though should not have their rights removed because of irresponsible people. Responsible individuals should be able to own any weapon, because they will act responsibly with it.

In the US the second amendment is not designed to allow people to hunt, but for two main reasons. The first being an armed populace cannot be dictated to and over-run by an overzealous government or military. The second reason is for personal protection. An armed populace secures its freedoms and keeps them.
The issue I have with this is that you need people to agree on the point when an armed uprising is an acceptable thing to do. If a group of American citizens today started killing US troops I don't think the reaction of the majority of the American population would be "I'm really glad those people have guns to attack the government with".

Also if the point of an armed population is that they cannot be over-run by an overzealous government or military then the population also needs the right to own weapons that can take down tanks, drones and aircraft.
 
This post misses the mark more than Michael Bay did

*sing it with me*

with Pearl Harbourrrrr…


(oh, and I fucking live in London, chopsy- I think I have a better idea of how safe it is than you do).
We need to see how safe London is after the global debt bubble explodes and energy growth means austerity hits big time. When the hard time comes, then we'll see. Depending upon how harsh times get the government itself could implode.
The issue I have with this is that you need people to agree on the point when an armed uprising is an acceptable thing to do. If a group of American citizens today started killing US troops I don't think the reaction of the majority of the American population would be "I'm really glad those people have guns to attack the government with".

Also if the point of an armed population is that they cannot be over-run by an overzealous government or military then the population also needs the right to own weapons that can take down tanks, drones and aircraft.
It is not just against the gov, but for self defense. And yes eventually small private militias need the hardware to fight and defend themselves against others, lest power concentrate too much.

Criminals Break Into Wrong House & Immediately Get 2A Acquainted​

 
Last edited:
What, the attacker without a gun either?

Maybe you just get into a good ol’ fist fight, maybe you both end up with a broken nose and a black eye but non of that death and life in prison stuff. Crazy thought I know.
Except when one person is vastly more powerful then the other. Or when multiple assailants come at you. A small dude or woman is not going to be able to defend an attack again muscle bound 6'5 roid rage dude. The gun doesn't even have to be used, just pull it out and poeple will think twice.

As someone who got mugged in n Philly for being the wrong skin color/nationality and hit on the back of the head with a pipe while walking in front of a 7-11 and then beat on by 3 dudes while they yelled racial slurs at me, that gun could of come in handy and maybe I could of taught some assholes a lesson, that you don't go jacking people walking down the street. It may have not helped with the swing from behind but it could of got those people to scatter. Of course Philly is a no gun city in a pro gun state. Only people with guns there are drug dealers/criminals.
 

Woopah

Member
We need to see how safe London is after the global debt bubble explodes and energy growth means austerity hits big time. When the hard time comes, then we'll see. Depending upon how harsh times get the government itself could implode.

It is not just against the gov, but for self defense. And yes eventually small private militias need the hardware to fight and defend themselves against others, lest power concentrate too much.

Criminals Break Into Wrong House & Immediately Get 2A Acquainted​


Who would lead these private militia, and at what point would you say it is right for them to begin an armed revolution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom