Fake News

[Ph64]

The UK banned handguns after the Dunblane massacre. There have been no mass shootings with handguns since. Restrictions save lives, that's why you can't drive past a school at 100mph. You are fighting for the freedom to drive as fast as you like and denying culpability when children die as a result of your freedom.

Correlation does not equal causation, handgun restrictions saved no lives, you cannot attribute no mass shootings with handguns to handgun restrictions, you didn't have many mass shootings with handguns prior to Dunblane, and a lack of mass shootings after Dunblane with handguns is pure luck.

Hate speech being allowed does not result in anyone getting hurt, hurt feelings do not count, your analogy is thus complete trash.

Yes, we did have handgun mass shootings before Dunblane.
Handguns were always very highly regulated though so very few people were allowed to legally possess them before the ban.
The lack of shootings, mass or otherwise, is certainly due to tight restrictions on gun ownership.

So I'm curious, after the Manchester arena concert bombing, did you pass tighter restrictions on bombs? They obviously have been pretty lax in the past and the IRA and then the Muslim terrorists have taken advantage of that.

[DBTrek]

They should make bombing people to death extra illegal.

[Fife]

They should make bombing people to death extra illegal.

It's almost as if some bombings are better than others.

[StCapps]

Handguns were always very highly regulated though so very few people were allowed to legally possess them before the ban.
The lack of shootings, mass or otherwise, is certainly due to tight restrictions on gun ownership.

Prove it. Correlation does not equal causation, all you are presenting is an opinion, no facts to back it up, just wishful thinking. Handguns being heavily restricted before was not the reason for very few mass shootings compared to America, the culture just has very few mass shootings in general, it has nothing to do with your silly gun control laws.

[Montegriffo]

Correlation does not equal causation, handgun restrictions saved no lives, you cannot attribute no mass shootings with handguns to handgun restrictions, you didn't have many mass shootings with handguns prior to Dunblane, and a lack of mass shootings after Dunblane with handguns is pure luck.

Hate speech being allowed does not result in anyone getting hurt, hurt feelings do not count, your analogy is thus complete trash.

Yes, we did have handgun mass shootings before Dunblane.
Handguns were always very highly regulated though so very few people were allowed to legally possess them before the ban.
The lack of shootings, mass or otherwise, is certainly due to tight restrictions on gun ownership.

So I'm curious, after the Manchester arena concert bombing, did you pass tighter restrictions on bombs? They obviously have been pretty lax in the past and the IRA and then the Muslim terrorists have taken advantage of that.

We already have very tight restrictions on bomb making ingredients because of the IRA.
You can't just go and buy explosives and bomb ingredients like fertilisers now have inhibitors in them so they can't be used.
The IRA had to get their guns and explosives from the likes of Libya.
The British security services fought a war against terrorism for 30 years which is part of the reason they are better at it than most Western democracies with the exception of Israel.

[Speaker to Animals]

If they are better at it, then why is the UK the greatest victim of terror attacks?

[The Conservative]

[StCapps]

If they are better at it, then why is the UK the greatest victim of terror attacks?

Because restrictions on free speech and gun control work of course, that's the solution to terror attacks.

[Ph64]

If they are better at it, then why is the UK the greatest victim of terror attacks?

Because restrictions on free speech and gun control work of course, that's the solution to terror attacks.

Luckily the average person is fairly stupid, and not really looking to do violence anyways. As Monte said, they add stuff to fertilizer to inhibit its explosive potentual. Of course anyone with a decent chemistry background could get around that. I can think of at least a half dozen ways to build an explosive device using fairly easily available items (even in the UK, I looked), with just a few "straw man purchases" by people to cover the quantities needed to make a good "bang". Heck, they're always worried about busting into meth labs over a potential explosion - from fairly common household chemicals.

Ban guns, you get someone like the Defense Distributed guy posting plans for a 3D printed pistol. Ban that, but then the plans are all over the internet. Block things like bittorrent, there's vpn (bet there's a surge in VPN signups in NZ lately). I'm sure if they try and outlaw VPN someone will find a way around it. The USSR tried to stop "The Gulag Archipelago" , but it was around underground (with consequences if caught, but that didn't stop it). The more the government tried to censor/block/ban things, the more ways around it will pop up, and the more people will see them for what they are. Black markets will arise to fill the needs.

Quite honestly the hardest part of a gun to manufacture is a good rifled barrel. Just about everything else could be made with even hobbyist level lathe/milling machines. Look at the Sten gun, a horrible weapon but cheap/easy to make with even crap equipment.

Like I said, luckily the vast majority of people these days lack skills, knowledge, and ingenuity.
They better keep pumping that fluoride into the water.

[Smitty-48]

If they are better at it, then why is the UK the greatest victim of terror attacks?

No first nor second amendment, tyranny breeds civil disorder.

The Queen's Peace is paradoxical, it simply becomes a self licking ice cream cone of trying to stamp out dissent.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army incited martial law, and said regime has simply declined to demobilize itself.

Now it sees everybody as a terrorist. Everybody is PIRA naow.