To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

[Limeyfellow]

The UK gun control is a perfect example of what happens when someone use fear of the bogeyman of the week (in this case it was the communists, followed by gang members years later) to spread gun control because the evil foreigners who are different are out to get you.

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

John Stossel did a good piece on 20/20 explaining how gun control increases crime. But I think the most important part of the first video about gun control in Britain, is if we don't fight gun control together we are less likely to stop it. Whether we are members of Gun Owners of America or the National Riffle Association, we need to stand together.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

[wildcat]

Watching that make me want to buy more, If feel sorry for the brits, My family lives there, I moved to the USA in 96, I could never go back. I just love my freedoms, and hell will I ever give them up, I just cannot. Hope it never happens here. I will keep on voting for freedom, its getting tougher. I glad bush let the Bradey Ban relapse on assault rifles. I will never get a license, because I own my firearms, they are mine, and I will not give that right up, it is my property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-Thomas Jefferson

[orionhawk]

no, no, no, you don't understand. The U.S. Government doesn't want to ban all guns, even though they are evil and scary and hurtful, they just want to Protect the Children. It's For The Children(tm) You don't hate children, do you?

[wildcat]

no, no, no, you don't understand. The U.S. Government doesn't want to ban all guns, even though they are evil and scary and hurtful, they just want to Protect the Children. It's For The Children(tm) You don't hate children, do you?

Just the children of those that want to take my firearms...LOL

[orionhawk]

I suspect at some point someone will take my evilscaryninjatacticalblack rifle(s) away from me. They will be receiving the bullets, first, though.:bash:

[wildcat]

I suspect at some point someone will take my evilscaryninjatacticalblack rifle(s) away from me. They will be receiving the bullets, first, though.:bash:

Sure, I am willing to part with my ammo, one round at a time, just remember to make it count.

[Connaught Ranger]

Gunmen face life for boy's murder.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080617/tuk-gunmen-face-life-for-boy-s-murder-6323e80.html

Two gunmen are facing life sentences for killing an innocent schoolboy as he slept in his bed.

http://row.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=K.68Ylf4aiuka9HJSFdycQHZTmCkYUhYHpsAA04L&T=145rlr3vf%2fX%3d1213734555%2fE%3d2022435296%2fR%3dukie_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dHR%2fY%3dUKIE%2fF%3d2030169722%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d6D060CD9&U=13osvh8r4%2fN%3dbMXUkdkMBWA-%2fC%3d200101456.201663715.202894854.200222684%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d200784479%2fV%3d1
Michael Dosunmu, 15, died after being sprayed with bullets from a Mac-10 sub-machine gun.

He had been sleeping under a duvet in the bedroom he shared with his older brother Hakeem when the two gunmen burst in.

Mohammed Sannoh and Abdi Omar Noor had gone to the house in Diamond Street, Peckham, south-east London, to kill Hakeem and left without realising they had killed Michael by mistake.

Michael was hit by four bullets - one of them fatally piercing his heart - in the early hours of February 6 last year.

Hakeem, 26, who had fallen into bad ways after finding life difficult when he left the Army, had been out at a club where he was trying to sell drugs (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/drugs.html) when his church-going brother perished.

Sannoh, 19, of Peckham, and Abdi Omar Noor, 22, of Camberwell, were found guilty of murder and will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on Wednesday.

Hakeem's links to a robbery gang and the murder of one of the crooks led the gunmen to his door.

Hakeem was sentenced to two years jail in April for his part in the security van robberies.

The judge reduced the sentence from five years after hearing that he blames himself for Michael's death.:roll:

Connaught Ranger

[gaijinsamurai]

Good clip, Jesse, and an important lesson to those of us who want to keep our guns and pass them, and our freedom, on to the next generation. Thanks!

[tonyant9999]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.

That video is blatent propaganda.

A ban on guns works for us here, I don't care for having a gun. It's pointless. You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.

I went to the states and got a gun pulled on me twice in a year. It's never happened to me in the UK, nor have I ever had a knife pulled on me. There goes your safety argument.

I don't see it as an infringement of my rights. If people legitimately need a weapon then they can still get one through the proper channels. If not then tough.

You americans need to see how little people care over here for having a weapon before you pity us for not having the right to bear arms. Our society is a free one but we've never prided ourselves on being the free-est nation on earth. We don't need those rights, keep them to yourselves.

[delio]

I tend to be in agreement with Tony. Had the U.K not have such a ban, they would certainly be much more deadly violence on the streets of Great Britain and Northern Ireland than what you actually see today.


The crap I can't comprehend is the logic of having so many UK police officers go on their beat unarmed.

[Alpheus]

Some government officials here are trying the same thing. In Toronto, after a steep increase in gun deaths over the last couple years, the major is trying to use zoning laws to prohibit gun stores and ranges. Of course, the fact that the overwhelming proportion of gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms doesn't seem to matter. I'm just glad I live in redneck country.

[wildcat]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.

That video is blatent propaganda.



yes an so what, sound like you believed all the BS propaganda, spoon feed to you, with all that Harry Potter trend.




A ban on guns works for us here, I don't care for having a gun.

no it did not, gun crime has increased and so has the police carrying them.



It's pointless. You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.
That because you don't have any rights. the government does what the hell it wants to.



I went to the states and got a gun pulled on me twice in a year. It's never happened to me in the UK, nor have I ever had a knife pulled on me. There goes your safety argument.
never had a gun pulled on me in the USA (only in Iraq), but been stabbed twice, once in Manchester, once in Liverpool.



I don't see it as an infringement of my rights.
Name me some of your rights? do you know any?, where are they written so you know you have rights?



If people legitimately need a weapon then they can still get one through the proper channels.
what is a legitimately need, I think self defense is, but in the UK don't do not have the right to self defense. The UK does not recognize natural law anymore, that's the right to property, life, liberty, and self preservation .



You americans need to see how little people care over here for having a weapon before you pity us for not having the right to bear arms. Our society is a free one but we've never prided ourselves on being the free-est nation on earth. We don't need those rights, keep them to yourselves.You don't have freedom, just look at what the government forces upon the people, you don't even get a vote in it. It a poor democratic system, political diverseness seems to no existent.

[Macs.]

A video "From: NRAVideos".

I am neither really pro or anti gun ownership, but a video from NRAVideos... You can guess it is pretty biased...


I just love my freedoms, and hell will I ever give them up, I just cannot. Hope it never happens here. I will keep on voting for freedom, its getting tougher.

What is freedom ?

Having a bunch of firearms is freedom ? And for a nation that is constantly bragging about "freedom" I don't see what is the great difference between most countries in the EU and the US. Hence there are towns/communities within the US that tell you what you may dress like or not, some tell you that you are only allowed to carry alcohol in friggin bags and in others you are not allowed to be "drunk in public", there is a general speed limit... Freedom is relative.


John Stossel did a good piece on 20/20 explaining how gun control increases crime.


Reaaaally ? Now that is strange, because here where I live there is a pretty harsh gun control, meaning that you can get all kinds of rifles/guns but it will take you alot of paper work and mandatory training - And still where I live is one of the safest nations on this planet and my neighbourhood/city is extreme safe.

[smalandian]

"Freedom" "Rights" - Abused slogans in my opinion

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

The idea that we cannot allow law abiding citizens to have guns is nothing less than collectivism. No one will ever convince me collectivism is a good thing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0&feature=related

[Macs.]

The idea that we cannot allow law abiding citizens to have guns is nothing less than collectivism.

Why can you not allow a law abiding citizen to drive his car as fast as he wants ?

Why can you not allow a law abiding citizen to smoke weed ?

Is that not collectivism ?

[wildcat]

Macs,

I will say that the 4 years I spent living in Germany, when I was stationed there, was safe, my wife used to run a lot, with out all the worry of some crazy mad man attacking her. Here in the US we don't have that nice feeling, and it not anything to do with firearms, people are different and there are to many crazy people. There is a lot of meth done here.

The freedoms I am talking about is more than surface freedoms I found in Europe, it have rights written into law, rights like the government not getting involved in you private life, with out due process and reasonable doubt. Like have the right to protect your self, not to self incriminate yourself, not have you property taken with out due process.

I saw some firearms for sale in the local gun store in the German city I lived in, it was a Ruger mini-14 223, I have one of those, the prices was double but I was shocked to see for sale there. In the UK it is illegal for any military caliber in a firearm, and no semi-automatics. The bureaucratic system in Germany for Gun ownership is not easy. I did have friends (American) that did hunt there, went though the process and courses.


A video "From: NRAVideos".

I am neither really pro or anti gun ownership, but a video from NRAVideos... You can guess it is pretty biased...



What is freedom ?

Having a bunch of firearms is freedom ? And for a nation that is constantly bragging about "freedom" I don't see what is the great difference between most countries in the EU and the US. Hence there are towns/communities within the US that tell you what you may dress like or not, some tell you that you are only allowed to carry alcohol in friggin bags and in others you are not allowed to be "drunk in public", there is a general speed limit... Freedom is relative.



Reaaaally ? Now that is strange, because here where I live there is a pretty harsh gun control, meaning that you can get all kinds of rifles/guns but it will take you alot of paper work and mandatory training - And still where I live is one of the safest nations on this planet and my neighbourhood/city is extreme safe.

[wotsnext]

Why can you not allow a person to drink until they are 21?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

In the UK it is illegal for any military caliber in a firearm,This is untrue as 9mm, .223 and 7.62 rifles and carbines are all sold in these chamberings.

[smalandian]

"The idea that we cannot allow law abiding citizens to have guns is nothing less than collectivism."

Really? I have NEVER felt that way. A lot of "value-charged" word used in a way that prove nothing, imho.

[wildcat]

It hard to explain the America freedoms, because there do not really exist on paper anywhere else in the world, and with out having experienced, both sides of the equation.

When freedom is written on paper, it more real than a status quo. And the idea of having those written freedoms is great. So the whole gun ownership in the USA, is more to do with freedoms and less to do with self protection. But interestingly the augment made in the videos is that taking guns from law abiding citizens does not make the streets safer. The anti-gun movements likes to say it does, but there has never been any evidence it does, in fact the opposites happens.

[wildcat]

Why can you not allow a person to drink until they are 21?

I know i does not make sense, but why in the UK is it legal to give anybody over the age of 5 an alcoholic drink.

[IDF_TANKER]

Reaaaally ? Now that is strange, because here where I live there is a pretty harsh gun control, meaning that you can get all kinds of rifles/guns but it will take you alot of paper work and mandatory training - And still where I live is one of the safest nations on this planet and my neighbourhood/city is extreme safe.

Would you say, that if you had more liberal gun laws your country would be less safe? Canadians have, AFAIK, one of the most liberal fire arms legislations, and yet they are one of the safest countries out there. Vast majority of killings in Israel are so called "passion crimes", which would happen with or without guns - the most available weapon is the kitchen knife (BTW, the fire arms legislation in Israel is very restricting too). And all the "regular" killings are done by illegally acquired weapons (as in any country). Let's face it, the only reason governments are not allowing more liberal fire arms policies, that's because if they were, they would be automatically blamed in every crime with gun use. At the end of the day it's all about politics...

[wildcat]

This is untrue as 9mm, .223 and 7.62 rifles and carbines are all sold in these chamberings.

I stand corrected

[Backwoodshunter]

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence.
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida
United States

homicide rate
-36%
-0.4%
firearm homicide rate
-37%
+15%
handgun homicide rate
-41%
+24%

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

[wildcat]

Would you say, that if you had more liberal gun laws your country would be less safe? Canadians have, AFAIK, one of the most liberal fire arms legislations, and yet they are one of the safest countries out there. Vast majority of killings in Israel are so called "passion crimes", which would happen with or without guns - the most available weapon is the kitchen knife (BTW, the fire arms legislation in Israel is very restricting too). And all the "regular" killings are done by illegally acquired weapons (as in any country). Let's face it, the only reason governments are not allowing more liberal fire arms policies, that's because if they were, they would be automatically blamed in every crime with gun use. At the end of the day it's all about politics...

You seem to hit the nail on the head, it more to do with politics than anything else. if you look at most murder in the US, most are not done with guns.

[pascalywood]

That because you don't have any rights. the government does what the hell it wants to.




and tell me it works differently in your great country

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

Macs:

"Why can you not allow a law abiding citizen to drive his car as fast as he wants?"

Individualism is not libertinism or do what ever you feel likeism. The foundation of individualism is your rights end where another's begin. Me driving as fast as I want constitutes a very real physical danger to other individuals. Me owning a gun and abiding by the law posses no threat to other individuals. Banning guns only takes them away from law abiding citizens. The black market will always supply the markets demands, always. This is very evident with the war on drugs. The war on drugs makes sure the drugs get to market in the most dangerous way possible. The alcohol prohibition gave power to people like Al Capone.

"Why can you not allow a law abiding citizen to smoke weed? Is that not collectivism ?"

I don't believe that is constitutional. At least when we had prohibition the federal government understood they had to change the constitution to make it lawful. Telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body is an example of collectivism.

The fundamental principle of individualism is that one individual's rights end where another individuals begin. The idea that you can do whatever you feel like isn't really anarchy so much as it is libertine. Maybe libertine isn't the best word?

In any case, I do genuinely believe that if you watch the videos I posted you will appreciate the ideas, but more importantly you'll have a better understanding of the philosophy of individualism.

[wildcat]

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence.
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida
United States

homicide rate
-36%
-0.4%
firearm homicide rate
-37%
+15%
handgun homicide rate
-41%
+24%

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

The concealed permit has reduce crime in all state that passed allow it.

[Power_serj]

Would you say, that if you had more liberal gun laws your country would be less safe? Canadians have, AFAIK, one of the most liberal fire arms legislations, and yet they are one of the safest countries out there.

That's not a fair comparison. There are already millions of people who have firearms. If you take those firearms away from the law-abiding citizens (as felons cannot purchase legal firearms), the only one left with firearms are A.) criminals and B.) the government....not to mention the difference in demographics and population size. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Who's going to break into a house, or hijack a car when they very well know there's a good chance the occupant has a firearm?

[IDF_TANKER]

That's not a fair comparison. There are already millions of people who have firearms. If you take those firearms away from the law-abiding citizens (as felons cannot purchase legal firearms), the only one left with firearms are A.) criminals and B.) the government....not to mention the difference in demographics and population size. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Who's going to break into a house, or hijack a car when they very well know there's a good chance the occupant has a firearm?

I don't get your point. Are you saying that Canada is safe only because they have guns and if they adopted the same laws as in Germany, they would have a sharp increase in the crime?

[wildcat]

and tell me it works differently in your great country

sure does, because it is written it is can be earlier to fight in court. Take the 1st amendment, the right to free speech , religion and assembly, when a hating political group wants to march or even have a sign posted on the freeway like the "adopt a freeway"(keep it clean), and the local government say no, then there rights are defended in court. What it means Government just cannot shut you up because you don't fit in, it sure tries too. I remember when Austria elected a right wing official and party there was uproar in Europe including ignoring politically Austria, the said individual had to step down. In Germany if there is a right wing party, they just ban them and outlaw them.

in a lot of European nations denying the Holocaust is a crime, in Austria a British writer got 3 years. That French woman, in her seventies just got fined for speaking an opinion. Regardless of whether you like what is being said or not, does not justify for the rights of the individual beliefs/opions to be taken.

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

Packing in public: Gun owners tired of hiding their weapons embrace 'open carry'

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-opencarry7-2008jun07,0,849912.story

[Tokamak]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.

[wotsnext]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.
x2.........

[Faheywitane]

As far as Im aware the gun laws (and laws in general) in the UK are pretty similar to the laws here(Republic of Ireland), except for the fact that pistols can be licensed here.

In my opinion, I think that people should be allowed to own whatever firearms they want (within reason) provided they prove competent to use them and they only use them for sporting purposes etc. I think that the Americans here fail to realize that, in effect with the legal system we have here and in Britain, Firearms could very rarely be used for personal defense, if they were so used, in all but the most extreme circumstances you would find yourself going to jail.
Here's a case for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padraig_Nally
Can I ask some of the US posters what would have happened in a similar case in the US ?

[Macs.]

Macs,

I will say that the 4 years I spent living in Germany, when I was stationed there, was safe, my wife used to run a lot, with out all the worry of some crazy mad man attacking her. Here in the US we don't have that nice feeling, and it not anything to do with firearms, people are different and there are to many crazy people. There is a lot of meth done here.

The freedoms I am talking about is more than surface freedoms I found in Europe, it have rights written into law, rights like the government not getting involved in you private life, with out due process and reasonable doubt. Like have the right to protect your self, not to self incriminate yourself, not have you property taken with out due process.

I saw some firearms for sale in the local gun store in the German city I lived in, it was a Ruger mini-14 223, I have one of those, the prices was double but I was shocked to see for sale there. In the UK it is illegal for any military caliber in a firearm, and no semi-automatics. The bureaucratic system in Germany for Gun ownership is not easy. I did have friends (American) that did hunt there, went though the process and courses.

The system we have here for guncontrol is heavily bureaucratic (But that's not only with Firearms the case here, pretty much with all aspects of life.) and obviously also not the best solution.

But you can get a wide variety of firearms here. From 9mm's to AK, M16, G36 clones to .50 BMG sniper rifles. All legally, but you have to be prepared to do alot of paperwork and tests.


Would you say, that if you had more liberal gun laws your country would be less safe? Canadians have, AFAIK, one of the most liberal fire arms legislations, and yet they are one of the safest countries out there. Vast majority of killings in Israel are so called "passion crimes", which would happen with or without guns - the most available weapon is the kitchen knife (BTW, the fire arms legislation in Israel is very restricting too). And all the "regular" killings are done by illegally acquired weapons (as in any country). Let's face it, the only reason governments are not allowing more liberal fire arms policies, that's because if they were, they would be automatically blamed in every crime with gun use. At the end of the day it's all about politics...

I agree with that, that's how I see it. I don't think that gun control/ownership really has that big of a effect on crime. I don't believe that if everyone and his dog have a gun crime will automatically decrease because somehow all criminals are suddenly afraid to get shot, neither in a society where no one has a gun. I believe there are atleast a dozen other aspects that have a great influence on wether crime is increasing or not.

It's a complex topic. Look at L.A. in the US. As far as I know California has one of the most strict gun law in all of the US, still L.A. has seen around 250 to 300 gun homicides if memory serves me right. Obviously majority of these have been done with a illegaly owned firearm.


The thing is, in my opinion, to get a well balanced out gun-control system, that allows both freedoms for the owner but also control from the goverment. That means that the gun owner should proof that he knows how to handle a gun, and that he will keep it safe from theft. Because a gun that turns "illegal" and into unknown hands is pretty much the worst case scenario imo.

[Hilbert]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.

Completely agree, we have our thing here in the states, I support it. You guys have yours, I may not particularly agree with it, but it's not my country or my business -- that's your deal; and, vise versa.

[wildcat]

Can I ask some of the US posters what would have happened in a similar case in the US ?

You can use a firearm in self defense.

[wildcat]

T

The thing is, in my opinion, to get a well balanced out gun-control system, that allows both freedoms for the owner but also control from the goverment. That means that the gun owner should proof that he knows how to handle a gun, and that he will keep it safe from theft. Because a gun that turns "illegal" and into unknown hands is pretty much the worst case scenario imo.

Gun control laws here are getting better, there is a back ground check on purchases, Most state require hunter safety classes for hunting. In California you have to pass a written hand gun safety test to purchase a hand gun. Most state have laws to insure firearms are store from minors.

[smalandian]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.

3x...You hitting the nail

[MrScruff]

Does anyone here actually from the UK want firearms legalised? Seems to be just people from other countries dictating on the internet what we should be doing in order to be more like them ('I love my freedoms')

The massive majority of people here have never held or seen a gun in their life, the idea that they could suddenly pick up a gun and start 'defending' themselves worries me more than kids with knives, especially when you consider how many people can't even drive properly.

I'd be much happier if they tackled the causes of crime, rather than just throwing guns guns guns at the problem in the infinitesimally small chance it would do any good

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

I wish to add some quotes, starting with one of my heroes.<br><br>

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government
- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into
two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all
powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify
themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as
the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public
interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where
they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call
them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories,
Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you
please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last
one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of
all.
~ Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While
this gives [only] 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 the constant companion to your walks.
- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then,
be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form
of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
-Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

Those who trade freedom for security do not have nor deserve either
-Thomas Jefferson

<br>I would rather be exposed
to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too
small a degree of it.
– Thomas Jefferson 1791 Dec. 23

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... 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

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in Government.
- Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson: Virginia State Constitution, 1776.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded
theater."
- Peter Venetoklis

...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people
against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are
extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse,
psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those
around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun
accidents."
- Don B. Kates

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden
to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms,
or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult
the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.
- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish
their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it
an offense to keep arms.
- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

The bearing of arms is the essential medium through
which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in
politics as a responsible moral being...
- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to
permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all
conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their
own downfall by doing so.
- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942

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

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any
government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one
guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny
which now appears remote in America,
but which historically has proved to be always possible.
- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

[Henry's Fork]

To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England

It leads to a knife ban?!!?!?!

Nooooo000000000OOOOOOOO

[Calanen]

I think that the Americans here fail to realize that, in effect with the legal system we have here and in Britain, Firearms could very rarely be used for personal defense, if they were so used, in all but the most extreme circumstances you would find yourself going to jail.


That's not what the law itself says, but it is certainly an interpretation of it adopted by CPS. That shouldnt be the case. If using a gun in self-defence is reasonable in the situation, then, it can be used.

The UK does not have castle laws for example. Both Australia and the UK should have castle laws. Once you break into my home, all bets should be off. None of this please have a cup of tea, dont brain me with your jemmy while I call the police who might turn up tomorrow if Im lucky.

[MrScruff]

That's not what the law itself says, but it is certainly an interpretation of it adopted by CPS. That shouldnt be the case. If using a gun in self-defence is reasonable in the situation, then, it can be used.

The UK does not have castle laws for example. Both Australia and the UK should have castle laws. Once you break into my home, all bets should be off. None of this please have a cup of tea, dont brain me with your jemmy while I call the police who might turn up tomorrow if Im lucky.
The law states you can respond like for like, and rightly so. The idea that someone could justifiably shoot me for stepping onto their land is retarded

[Calanen]

The law states you can respond like for like, and rightly so. The idea that someone could justifiably shoot me for stepping onto their land is retarded

No one is saying just shoot trespassers that take a shortcut on your lawn..and I doubt you thought that was what I meant either...but people who break into your home should forfeit their right to live after that point, just in my humble opinion. It shouldnt be for the homeowner to call a committee meeting to find out what the drug addict lurking in his home at night really wants to do to him and his family.

It's actually not accurate like for like..just what is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. But the CPS has adopted the view, that the use of firearms is NEVER reasonable. There is something of the same mindset in the Australian police forces and prosecutors.

[Backwoodshunter]

The law states you can respond like for like, and rightly so. The idea that someone could justifiably shoot me for stepping onto their land is retarded

Theres no law that says thats allowed, thats not even what gun owners want. Every man should have the right to bring force upon and unlawful entry into his home at 2am, and be free of penalties.

Same with the "stand your ground law", unlike here in NY we have to "retreat to the wall" or as far back as we can before self defense is justifiable. With the stand your ground law its felt that legal and licensed gun owners should be able to draw sidearms and either make it known that we're armed(which ordinarily resolves a confrontation non violently) or draw to defend ourselves or others in the face of threat of a violence/danger(certain level felony).

People don't realize most first responders on scene aren't cops, its average citizens. The news just doesn't air the stories of all the ccw holders doing right.

[Hilbert]

Does anyone here actually from the UK want firearms legalised? Seems to be just people from other countries dictating on the internet what we should be doing in order to be more like them ('I love my freedoms')

The massive majority of people here have never held or seen a gun in their life, the idea that they could suddenly pick up a gun and start 'defending' themselves worries me more than kids with knives, especially when you consider how many people can't even drive properly.

I'd be much happier if they tackled the causes of crime, rather than just throwing guns guns guns at the problem in the infinitesimally small chance it would do any good

You keep things in your country the way you want, we keep things in our country the way we want. Personally, I distrust the people from both sides (whether be UK or US) who feel the need to impose their will on the other.

[Hilbert]

The idea that someone could justifiably shoot me for stepping onto their land is retarded

As others have said, that would not be a justified use of force.

[Zathras]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.

Damn right, am sick of people from other countries trying to dictate what is best for the UK.

[tonyant9999]

yes an so what, sound like you believed all the BS propaganda, spoon feed to you, with all that Harry Potter trend.

no it did not, gun crime has increased and so has the police carrying them.

That because you don't have any rights. the government does what the hell it wants to.

never had a gun pulled on me in the USA (only in Iraq), but been stabbed twice, once in Manchester, once in Liverpool.

Name me some of your rights? do you know any?, where are they written so you know you have rights?

what is a legitimately need, I think self defense is, but in the UK don't do not have the right to self defense. The UK does not recognize natural law anymore, that's the right to property, life, liberty, and self preservation .

You don't have freedom, just look at what the government forces upon the people, you don't even get a vote in it. It a poor democratic system, political diverseness seems to no existent.


You could've just said that you disagree rather than showing your woeful ignorance of everything that you've just spoken about.

Our rights are enshrined in the Magna Carta, look it up rather than gobbing off.

You are allowed to protect your home with reasonable force actually.

Finally, might i say that if you've been stabbed twice, you're clearly a tool.

[wildcat]

You could've just said that you disagree rather than showing your woeful ignorance of everything that you've just spoken about.

Our rights are enshrined in the Magna Carta, look it up rather than gobbing off.

You are allowed to protect your home with reasonable force actually.

Finally, might i say that if you've been stabbed twice, you're clearly a tool.

Have you ever read the Magna Carta, and Common law granted in it is no longer recognized in the UK.

[WarriorMonk]

You are happy with you "freedom", I am happy with mine let's leave it like that.

Then everyone BETTER promise to leave each other alone.

[Hilbert]

Damn right, am sick of people from other countries trying to dictate what is best for the UK.

The feelings mutual; I can say the same for people in Europe who think they know whats best for us in the States and try to enlighten us with their holy flood of knowledge.

[Flagg]

just what is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. But the CPS has adopted the view, that the use of firearms is NEVER reasonable. There is something of the same mindset in the Australian police forces and prosecutors.

So, does that mean a 100 pound woman could sue a 250 pound offender entering her home for discrimination as it clearly wouldn't be a fair fight?

Although a .45 ACP would equalize things a bit, and eliminate said discrimination

[LtVacan]

As far as Im aware the gun laws (and laws in general) in the UK are pretty similar to the laws here(Republic of Ireland), except for the fact that pistols can be licensed here.

In my opinion, I think that people should be allowed to own whatever firearms they want (within reason) provided they prove competent to use them and they only use them for sporting purposes etc. I think that the Americans here fail to realize that, in effect with the legal system we have here and in Britain, Firearms could very rarely be used for personal defense, if they were so used, in all but the most extreme circumstances you would find yourself going to jail.
Here's a case for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padraig_Nally
Can I ask some of the US posters what would have happened in a similar case in the US ?

If the facts in the article are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they are not), he would be convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life. Even with good behavior he would serve 18 years. In some states he may get life without parole, but he would probably not get the death penalty.

Self defense means that you reasonably believe that you or some other innocent party is about to receive serious physical harm or are about to be killed. It is not lawful to kill over property, even under the so-called castle doctrine. You must believe your life (or someone else's life) is in jeapordy.

I know that in Britain self defense is not legally justified with or without a firearm. I know nothing of the laws in Ireland.

[noname]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.



You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.

.


You are a subject. We are citizens. Big difference. We were born with inalienable rights. You were not. Sorry play again next time. :)

[tonyant9999]

You are a subject. We are citizens. Big difference. We were born with inalienable rights. You were not. Sorry play again next time. :)


what has that got to do with anything? If you look at what the brits on the board are saying, we don't care for this right. It's only you yanks who seem to think we should.

[tonyant9999]

Have you ever read the Magna Carta, and Common law granted in it is no longer recognized in the UK.

Yes I have and you're wrong, it is still recognised in the UK, despite what your right wing nonsense tabloid news will tell you.

[wildcat]

Yes I have and you're wrong, it is still recognised in the UK, despite what your right wing nonsense tabloid news will tell you.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was upheld by Lord Reid [Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke; 1 AC 645, 723] in 1969:
"It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."

This is how you lost all your rights, including the 1689 bill of rights.

[tonyant9999]

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was upheld by Lord Reid [Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke; 1 AC 645, 723] in 1969:
"It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."

This is how you lost all your rights, including the 1689 bill of rights.

Oh god you're a conspiracy nut, you can read whatever you like into that quote. It's useless arguing with you.

[little icebear]

The freedoms I am talking about is more than surface freedoms I found in Europe, it have rights written into law, rights like the government not getting involved in you private life, with out due process and reasonable doubt. Like have the right to protect your self, not to self incriminate yourself, not have you property taken with out due process.


And which of these rights can´t be found in Germany?

[CMNot]

So can you carry a minigun onto a 747 in the US?

I guess if you can't then you just aren't free :roll:

[Backwoodshunter]

So can you carry a minigun onto a 747 in the US?

I guess if you can't then you just aren't free :roll:

Hahah no offense but theres no need for stupid remarks like that, alot of the people posting are actually contributing intelligent material.

[wildcat]

So can you carry a minigun onto a 747 in the US?

I guess if you can't then you just aren't free :roll:

if you have class III FFL you can check it into luggage.

[CMNot]

Dead useful if someone goes Allah Akhbar all over the shop :roll:

[wildcat]

And which of these rights can´t be found in Germany?

The German rights are based on the Universal declaration of Human rights and the European Convention on Human rights. And if you have ever read these rights, there are some many limitation placed on them.

If you have ever read the US bill of rights and then compare the basic rights in Europe you can see that the powers that created Europe did not want you to have such rights, as it may limit government.

as Thomas Jefferson (one of the founding fathers of the USA)said:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."

[PeterRJG]

Damn right, am sick of people from other countries trying to dictate what is best for the UK.

Now you know what the average American goes through every day when they see opinions on the Internet.

[little icebear]

The German rights are based on the Universal declaration of Human rights and the European Convention on Human rights. And if you have ever read these rights, there are some many limitation placed on them.

If you have ever read the US bill of rights and then compare the basic rights in Europe you can see that the powers that created Europe did not want you to have such rights, as it may limit government.



I´ve read both of them but don´t wanna claim that I can repeat them off-hand.

First of all: The German Constition with its declaration of human rights are certainly not based on the European Convention on Human rights.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity#German_Constitution
Would you give me an example where the Grundgesetz provides less freedom or civil liberty than the American Constiturion, apart from the fact that we don´t have a second amendment?

Actually I just felt the urge to reply because you listed some rights as if they were not part of the rights the average European enjoys. In fact, all of them are held in high regard.
Especially when I read something like this: "rights like the government not getting involved in you private life, with out due process and reasonable doubt" the patriot act comes to my mind and I wonder why many "gun-nuts" (no offense, I think law-abbinding citizens should be allowed to buy guns) have no problem with that but on the other hand they start to cry about freedom and liberty when someone´s thinking about gun-control...

[Hilbert]

Especially when I read something like this: "rights like the government not getting involved in you private life, with out due process and reasonable doubt" the patriot act comes to my mind and I wonder why many "gun-nuts" (no offense, I think law-abbinding citizens should be allowed to buy guns) have no problem with that but on the other hand they start to cry about freedom and liberty when someone´s thinking about gun-control...

I own firearms and they've always been one of my passions, if that qualifies my as a gun nut, then so be it. Personally, I have just as little love for the Patriot Act as I do for anything else that goes against the United States Constitution in any shape or form.

-Hilde

[little icebear]

I own firearms and they've always been one of my passions, if that qualifies my as a gun nut, then so be it.

It does. But I do not think that this is a bad thing. I like shooting and if I had more time and money at my disposal right now, I´d fulfill myself some little wishes. ;)


Personally, I have just as little love for the Patriot Act as I do for anything else that goes against the United States Constitution in any shape or form.


Good for you.

[Calanen]

Have you ever read the Magna Carta, and Common law granted in it is no longer recognized in the UK.

That my friend is, incorrect. The right to habeus corpus...still there, and what about procedural fairness provided in clause 29, this is still very much a part of English common law. This is the 1297 Charter. Still very much part of English and Welsh common law.

[wildcat]

That my friend is, incorrect. The right to habeus corpus...still there, and what about procedural fairness provided in clause 29, this is still very much a part of English common law. This is the 1297 Charter. Still very much part of English and Welsh common law.

You are correct, I went and Wikipedia it, such a good place for information.

[Lambert58]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.

That video is blatent propaganda.

A ban on guns works for us here, I don't care for having a gun. It's pointless. You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.

I went to the states and got a gun pulled on me twice in a year. It's never happened to me in the UK, nor have I ever had a knife pulled on me. There goes your safety argument.

I don't see it as an infringement of my rights. If people legitimately need a weapon then they can still get one through the proper channels. If not then tough.

You americans need to see how little people care over here for having a weapon before you pity us for not having the right to bear arms. Our society is a free one but we've never prided ourselves on being the free-est nation on earth. We don't need those rights, keep them to yourselves.

You're not free. You can't even defend yourself, or say what you want to. You're a ward of the state. But you're a good example for us. So... thanks? And good luck.

[Bushranger]

When i was in the UK (2000-02) there was a massive increase in gun crime & most of the guns being used for were backyard modified replicas (dont tell me you cant modify a replica either),all the Yardies & Africans were going nuts on each other & living in north london, some 1 being shot each week was a regular accurance.

[ex Strathcona]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.

That video is blatent propaganda.

A ban on guns works for us here, I don't care for having a gun. It's pointless. You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.

I went to the states and got a gun pulled on me twice in a year. It's never happened to me in the UK, nor have I ever had a knife pulled on me. There goes your safety argument.

I don't see it as an infringement of my rights. If people legitimately need a weapon then they can still get one through the proper channels. If not then tough.

You americans need to see how little people care over here for having a weapon before you pity us for not having the right to bear arms. Our society is a free one but we've never prided ourselves on being the free-est nation on earth. We don't need those rights, keep them to yourselves.
speak for yourself
i have more guns than most Americans, and i care very much if people like you try and take them away. just like every other wanker with a cause you blame guns instead of the criminals who would still have them, gun ban or not.
criminals misuse guns, they do not care if they are being stored safe, have legal magazines, kept out of the hands of children... they will get them and they will kill people even if they are banned completely.
look at you! what a self richeous load of rubbish you just spewed out of your cake hole...

[tonyant9999]

The level of intelligence on this forum never ceases to amaze me. It's like talking to 12 year olds, eloquent, but still 12 year olds.

If the majority of people in the UK wanted guns then there would be some kind of movement to get the ban repealed. There is no movement therefore one can summise that there is no popular will for change.

Fair enough the hardcore criminals will get hold of guns but in the vast majority of cases they use them on other gun holders, not your average guy in the street.

Think how many crimes of passion are avoided just by not having a gun in every home, how many accidents.

You claim your right to free speech, as far as care, you can keep your right to incite racial hatred. It's disgusting walking down an american street being told that I'm the scum of the earth for being white. If that's freedom then you can keep it.

I'm sorry but having guns in the US suits them and not having them suits us. We are completely different societies so there is no point trying to compare us just because we both speak English.

[Calanen]

speak for yourself

criminals misuse guns, they do not care if they are being stored safe, have legal magazines, kept out of the hands of children... they will get them and they will kill people even if they are banned completely.
look at you! what a self richeous load of rubbish you just spewed out of your cake hole...

Exactly.

People tell me, but there is no gun crime in Australia because of the fantastic gun laws...come down to the Downing Centre Courts in Sydney on any day, look at the charge sheets. Possess prohibited firearm, possess magazine, possess ammunition. Every single day.

The thing about gun laws is, criminals dont give a flying proverbial what they say.

[wotsnext]

It may be hard to understand, but the vast, vast majority of UK folks don't want guns.

[little icebear]

Think how many crimes of passion are avoided just by not having a gun in every home, how many accidents.


This is hardly a valid argument since crimes of passion in a gun-free household are simply committed with knives... in rural areas the good old axe or a hammer are popular tools as well.

But there is actually another argument the anti-gun faction could come up with: Illegal handguns don´t appear out of thin air or get smuggeled into the country.
They used to be legal but found their ways into the hands of people who where not intended to have them.
The more liberal the gun-laws are and the more guns are around in a society, the easier it is to get access to guns illegaly.

[Curtis E. Bear]

You're not free. You can't even defend yourself, or say what you want to. You're a ward of the state. But you're a good example for us. So... thanks? And good luck.

You sir, are what's called an idiot.

[Calanen]

It may be hard to understand, but the vast, vast majority of UK folks don't want guns.

That's fine they can have whatever they want. I do want guns.

Most people live in dreamland about the way in which they would deal with a hostile situation or an intruder in the household. That's because most people live a sheltered protected life. Having a weapon makes sense. Being unarmed, does not.

It is better for the state that the populace is unarmed and a few each year are killed and raped by intruders. But is it better for the homeowner? I say its not better for me.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I know that in Britain self defense is not legally justified with or without a firearm.

You have been misinformed. I can remember several cases in recent years in which victims of crime have killed or seriously injured criminals in self defence and in which it was judged to have been reasonable force. I am sure if I could be arrsed to do a proper search I could come up with many more.

What isn't judged to be reasonable force is if you stab a burglar in the back (or shoot him for that matter) while he's running away (and therefore no longer deemed to be a threat). I may be wrong but I think those same principles operate in the USA as well.

[Creampuff]

Exactly.

People tell me, but there is no gun crime in Australia because of the fantastic gun laws...come down to the Downing Centre Courts in Sydney on any day, look at the charge sheets. Possess prohibited firearm, possess magazine, possess ammunition. Every single day.

The thing about gun laws is, criminals dont give a flying proverbial what they say.

I cant verify this but my cousin works for NSW police, and was saying that they are to be armed with automatic pistols i believe in July of this year.

[Curtis E. Bear]

I cant verify this but my cousin works for NSW police, and was saying that they are to be armed with automatic pistols i believe in July of this year.

Um, I was under the impression that EVERY state police force already use semi-automatic Glocks. Well I know for a fact that Queensland Police have been using them for some years.

[Bushranger]

I cant verify this but my cousin works for NSW police, and was saying that they are to be armed with automatic pistols i believe in July of this year.

NSW have had Glocks since 2000 atleast.

[big_les]

I stand corrected

Not to mention .50 BMG, .338 Lapua etc etc.

I would love firearms to be more freely available, but that's a wholly selfish PoV on my part - my only use for them would be recreational. I live in a basically crime-free area, and in any case guns have never been seen as self-defence weapons in this country, not by the authorities, and not by citizens.

Whilst I feel that the laws are overly proscriptive and emotion-based, I can see the argument that its better to err on the side of caution. It has to be a cost/benefit thing - for most people here, even a handful of lives lost due to legal gun ownership is not acceptable. I disagree, but recognise that we have never been a gun-owning country. It was always a minority, and minorities with politically unfashionable attributes always lose out in democratic societies. It's a shame, but people and politicians decided that they never wanted to have to hear about a school shooting again. I can understand that, even if the same argument could be made about lots of less-obviously lethal tools.

At least the police have finally admitted that (knife) amnesties don't work - there have been calls in the past to ban even kitchen knives over a certain length. Gun amnesties are no better. Anyone with the will to use an illegally held gun will keep it. The vast majority of guns turned in are in fact legally-held; air weapons and more tragically, antiques - which all get melted down unless the local firearms officer happens to contact a museum. We've gone so far anti-gun that people are afraid of anything that even looks like a gun. Most recently replicas were banned too. Anyone who sells, buys or makes a lookalike of a gun is liable for prosecution (in theory).

[dava]

That's fine they can have whatever they want. I do want guns.

Most people live in dreamland about the way in which they would deal with a hostile situation or an intruder in the household. That's because most people live a sheltered protected life. Having a weapon makes sense. Being unarmed, does not.

It is better for the state that the populace is unarmed and a few each year are killed and raped by intruders. But is it better for the homeowner? I say its not better for me.

You only have to watch murders per capita to see how effective free gun ownership is!

United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 peopl
Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people

[Backwoodshunter]

You only have to watch murders per capita to see how effective free gun ownership is!

United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 peopl
Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people

You're an idiot. These countries are culturally different in alot of ways. Of course Japan is going to have the least number of murders, they could all be armed to the teeth and they still would have the lowest murder rate around.

Plus most countries don't have Americas population or melting pot of culture, which also contributes to it.

If you wanted to look at gun violence related statistic, look at Florida and DC. Florida enacted the stand your ground law and saw roughly 35-40% crime reduction in the first year. Meanwhile DC banned handguns and saw almost twice that in increased crime.

[Backwoodshunter]

Plus we have roughly 4 times the population of the UK. So with a bigger population by that much, how could a population not have a higher murder rate.

[MrScruff]

You're an idiot. These countries are culturally different in alot of ways. Of course Japan is going to have the least number of murders, they could all be armed to the teeth and they still would have the lowest murder rate around.
So how the * do you know that legalising firearms is best for us?


Plus we have roughly 4 times the population of the UK. So with a bigger population by that much, how could a population not have a higher murder rate.
Per capita numbnuts

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Plus we have roughly 4 times the population of the UK. So with a bigger population by that much, how could a population not have a higher murder rate.

The UK is much more densely populated than the USA AND also has what could be called a melting pot of different races and cultures. So why is the murder rate apparently higher in the USA?

[Backwoodshunter]

So how the * do you know that legalising firearms is best for us?


Per capita numbnuts

Yea I'm familiar with the definition, if we have 4 times your population mixing and intermingling, we will probably have more murders per thousand people.

And I never said that its in Englands best interest, So if you read any of my posts you'd see that I never said anything about England needing to have guns, or being less free because of it.

I was just posting supporting information which ordinarily indicates that gun ownership usually leads to less crime. Hoping that people will see the numbers.

[Backwoodshunter]

The UK is much more densely populated than the USA AND also has what could be called a melting pot of different races and cultures. So why is the murder rate apparently higher in the USA?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html Us

http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/ UK

Our population per city seems to be larger by quite a bit and alot of our gun and criminal violence comes from our citites. (I know this doesn't have much to do with the pop density but we have alot of inner city violence that could be attributed to being overcrowded.) '

Plus the US has always had a history or racial tension or violence, especially when it comes to gang crime. I mean lets look and the immigration in the southwest, we have a larger Latin American population coming over and coming at odds with the residents already there I know other countries have immigration problems, but that many and at that rate?

[Eoin666]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html Us

http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/ UK

Our population per city seems to be larger by quite a bit and alot of our gun and criminal violence comes from our citites. (I know this doesn't have much to do with the pop density but we have alot of inner city violence that could be attributed to being overcrowded.) '

Plus the US has always had a history or racial tension or violence, especially when it comes to gang crime. I mean lets look and the immigration in the southwest, we have a larger Latin American population coming over and coming at odds with the residents already there I know other countries have immigration problems, but that many and at that rate?

Mate you can't quote city populations like that, they are way off target, here we have urban sprawl, so for instance Birmingham may be 1.3 million, but within less than an 8 mile radius around it you've got at least another 2 million, same for Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Glasgow etc etc, yes I know that spawl also occurs in all cities we we have far less space to "sprawl" than you do. The way I once saw it presented was 61 000 000 people in an area the size of the state of Illinois, that will give you a truer idea of UK population density, the US is more like Europe as a whole. So I'd also hazard a guess that we have a lower firearm-murder rate than Chicago.

[Backwoodshunter]

Yea thats the point I was trying to make. I mentioned it not being a population density reference but more making a point that we have highly crowded cities, and alot of our crime and violence comes from inner cities, and I was just posting those thats because the high built up urban areas(which ours are quite large) are where alot of our violence comes from.

Here's an example of what I was getting at, my city is pretty small comapred to most cities.
A population of 219,773 and heres our crime statistics.

http://rochesterny.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Yea thats the point I was trying to make. I mentioned it not being a population density reference but more making a point that we have highly crowded cities, and alot of our crime and violence comes from inner cities, and I was just posting those thats because the high built up urban areas(which ours are quite large) are where alot of our violence comes from.

I am fairly certain the same could be said about the UK. There is also a long history of immigration to the UK with all the attendant problems of intergroup conflict and crime that that brings to cities.

[Backwoodshunter]

But on the same level as the US? And the same economic levels too?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

But on the same level as the US? And the same economic levels too?

Not sure what you mean but if you are referring to levels of mass foreign immigration to British urban areas throughout history then you could start with the waves of Flemish and Huguenot immigration, then move on to Irish, Chinese and E.European Jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries, then post WW2 (E.Europeans, South Asians, Africans, Chinese, West Indians etc). Plenty of scope for problems throughout history there.

Economic levels I couldn't say but sure there were and still are huge economic disparities in the UK. In fact it's probably true to say the poor are relatively speaking getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

[Eoin666]

Yea thats the point I was trying to make. I mentioned it not being a population density reference but more making a point that we have highly crowded cities, and alot of our crime and violence comes from inner cities, and I was just posting those thats because the high built up urban areas(which ours are quite large) are where alot of our violence comes from.

Here's an example of what I was getting at, my city is pretty small comapred to most cities.
A population of 219,773 and heres our crime statistics.

http://rochesterny.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

I'm currently living in Nottingham which has got a bit of a reputation as the gun crime capital of the UK at the moment, and while there are shootings they are localised to 3 pretty shi**y areas, one of which unfortunately the wife has to work in......they alway put hospitals in shi**y areas!

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/nottingham.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5006852.stm
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/default.asp?region=8&force=5&cdrp=213&l1=0&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=24
It quotes a population of 280 000, the news reported 680 000 so I'm guessing one is city one is urban area. So while we're twice the national average on overall crimes we're still not quite as bad as you, except it seems on overall violent crimes and burgleries.....hmm nice. Interestingly, if you looked at the West Midlands figure where I'm from, a much larger, more racially diverse, more densly populated area but lower rate of crime per head of population....odd.....damn statistics :)

[Backwoodshunter]

I can agree on the hositals, I got plenty of nurses in the family and all of them work in pretty bad areas. Yea Rochester, isnt to pleasant because of the drug trade which is pretty prevelant in our area, and the neighboring to ****hole cities or Buffalo and Syracuse are pretty bad too. Drugs and guns, we used to be on the 10 most dangerous(highest crime per capita) city list for the US a few years back.

[Backwoodshunter]

Not sure what you mean but if you are referring to levels of mass foreign immigration to British urban areas throughout history then you could start with the waves of Flemish and Huguenot immigration, then move on to Irish, Chinese and E.European Jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries, then post WW2 (E.Europeans, South Asians, Africans, Chinese, West Indians etc). Plenty of scope for problems throughout history there.

How about in the last 2-3 decades? Id say those would probably be more comparative to the US immigration thats going on now. Just due to the economic situation and world affairs.

[dava]

You're an idiot. These countries are culturally different in alot of ways. Of course Japan is going to have the least number of murders, they could all be armed to the teeth and they still would have the lowest murder rate around.

Plus most countries don't have Americas population or melting pot of culture, which also contributes to it.

Hah, thanks for proving my point.
So why exactly do we need to look at England to see whether or not a ban works?
After all, every country on this earth is culturally different. And importing american 'freedom' will not bring the same results as in the USA. If we even want those kind of results here in Europe.
This whole thread has been based on this 'lets compare countries'-flaw.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

How about in the last 2-3 decades? Id say those would probably be more comparative to the US immigration thats going on now. Just due to the economic situation and world affairs.

Quite similar immigration situations in recent decades I think because of 'globalization' added on to the specifically British consequences of the end of Empire and all that.

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

So can you carry a minigun onto a 747 in the US?
I guess if you can't then you just aren't free :roll:


The 747 you reference is private property. You have to respect the property rights of the owner of the 747. They don't want you to carry guns onto their plane and they have every right to prevent you from doing so. The foundation of liberty is your rights end where another's begin.

[Backwoodshunter]

Hah, thanks for proving my point.
So why exactly do we need to look at England to see whether or not a ban works?
After all, every country on this earth is culturally different. And importing american 'freedom' will not bring the same results as in the USA. If we even want those kind of results here in Europe.
This whole thread has been based on this 'lets compare countries'-flaw.

No. You're missing the point. I was stating that your stats weren't applicable because there are so many variables that factor into the murder per capita. Especially two countries with alot of differences in population, immigration, culture, and economics, which plays one of the biggest parts of crime. So in no way are they an accurate representation of gun ownership and its effect on crime.

So in no way did I prove your point. If you check my previous posts I actually post info that points out that gun ownership can and does reduce crime. The reason England is in this discussion is because the video, happens to be about England.

And its not even a video about whether gun control works or not, its about a government passing laws. Which here in the U.S. is a constitutional right. I believe the fellow gun owners on here just don't want the govt making choices like that for us. I sure as **** know I don't. So Im not the one saying England is wrong, but if you'd like to start posting facts about why England is better without guns, or that guns(legally owned) are leading to more violence be my guest.

Otherwise me and Ex Stab were discussing the differences of our two countries and the factors that influence their similarities.

[Backwoodshunter]

Quite similar immigration situations in recent decades I think because of 'globalization' added on to the specifically British consequences of the end of Empire and all that.

Hmm I'll have to do some more googling, I'd like to see how similar the cultures and levels of immigration are.

[MrScruff]

No. You're missing the point. I was stating that your stats weren't applicable because there are so many variables that factor into the murder per capita. Especially two countries with alot of differences in population, immigration, culture, and economics, which plays one of the biggest parts of crime. So in no way are they an accurate representation of gun ownership and its effect on crime.

So in no way did I prove your point. If you check my previous posts I actually post info that points out that gun ownership can and does reduce crime IN AMERICA. The reason England is in this discussion is because the video, happens to be about England.
Fixed that for you

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No. You're missing the point. I was stating that your stats weren't applicable because there are so many variables that factor into the murder per capita. Especially two countries with alot of differences in population, immigration, culture, and economics, which plays one of the biggest parts of crime. So in no way are they an accurate representation of gun ownership and its effect on crime.

So in no way did I prove your point. If you check my previous posts I actually post info that points out that gun ownership can and does reduce crime. The reason England is in this discussion is because the video, happens to be about England.

And its not even a video about whether gun control works or not, its about a government passing laws. Which here in the U.S. is a constitutional right. I believe the fellow gun owners on here just don't want the govt making choices like that for us. I sure as **** know I don't. So Im not the one saying England is wrong, but if you'd like to start posting facts about why England is better without guns, or that guns(legally owned) are leading to more violence be my guest.

Otherwise me and Ex Stab were discussing the differences of our two countries and the factors that influence their similarities.

Personally from an English/British POV I firmly believe legal firearms ownership and crime involving firearms are two unrelated issues.

Has crime involving guns gone up in the UK? Yes (but from a very low baseline level compared to the USA). As legal handgun ownership was so low pre-1997 (<1 in 1000 of the population) I don't believe that increases in firearms-related crime can be attributed to the absence of legal handguns, or that a reversal of the ban to the pre-1997 situation would reduce firearms crime in the UK for the same reason.

IMO the reasons for increases in firearms crime are to do with the coming together of factors such as:
1. The international drugs trade fuelling demand for illegal firearms from criminals.
2. The collapse of communism/war in former Yugoslavia etc increasing supply from E.Europe.
3. Poorly controlled immigration exacerbating conflicts between inner city ethnic groups / and the rise of American style gang culture (because it is in someway seen as 'fashionable').

Having said all that much of the increase in firearms-related crime is down to use of replicas etc (or quite possibly no actual firearms at all as IIRC the definition of a firearms related incident in the UK stats is simply one where police armed response is called whether it is needed or not!)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Hmm I'll have to do some more googling, I'd like to see how similar the cultures and levels of immigration are.

Well we obviously have fewer 'hispanics' but even that is changing now. Lots of Latin Americans in London for example. In contrast, I would guess that the people from the Indian sub continent probably form a relatively higher percentage of immigrants in the UK than in the USA though.

[Backwoodshunter]

Fixed that for you

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html
Denmark and Finland

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/11/22/shooting-down-the-argument-for-gun-availability-second-amendment/
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm
Isreal, Switzerland,

More Swiss
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch2.pdf
Latvia

So is it just in America?

[wildcat]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html
Denmark and Finland

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/11/22/shooting-down-the-argument-for-gun-availability-second-amendment/
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm
Isreal, Switzerland,

More Swiss
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch2.pdf
Latvia

So is it just in America?

Good point, nice answer.

[Jesse Kantstopolis]

You only have to watch murders per capita to see how effective free gun ownership is!

United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 peopl
Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people


America's a different animal. Our population is unlike any other population in the world. While others have suggested that the enormous ethic diversity in America might play all role in our higher rates of gun violence, I think one important factor we are overlooking is the war on drugs. When you make something like drugs or alcohol illegal you give power to the most ruthless individuals and ensure the substances will get to the market in the most dangerous way possible. Prohibition gave Al Capone power. I think a large percentage of gun crime victims are people involved in the drug trade. I live in Los Angeles and don't partake in criminal activities, I therefore am not subject to dangerous scenarios. I've seen some people talk here of how dangerous America is, but I have never experienced anything dangerous to my health. Gangs are not going to bother you if you don't bother them. But they will shoot and kill their rivals. It's a post hoc fallacy to compare Americas crime rates with Europe and declare America has higher crime rates because people are free to have guns. I believe if the war on drugs was ended, crime would plummet. I also believe that we are on the verge of a currency collapse with the dollar, and those who don't own guns now, will wish they did when the dollar goes off a cliff.

[MrScruff]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html
Denmark and Finland

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/11/22/shooting-down-the-argument-for-gun-availability-second-amendment/
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm
Isreal, Switzerland,

More Swiss
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime

http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch2.pdf
Latvia

So is it just in America?
None of those links show a reduction in gun or any crime as a result of legal firearm possession. One of the links even states the opposite, I'll let you find out which one and for which country as I doubt you even read them before posting ;)

[Backwoodshunter]

None of those links show a reduction in gun or any crime as a result of legal firearm possession. One of the links even states the opposite, I'll let you find out which one and for which country as I doubt you even read them before posting ;)

Wrong again champ.
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch2.pdf
-This link states and shows, that not only the UK, US, and Australia saw increases in crime with major gun bans, but also supports that Norway and Finland both have low crime due to gun ownership. Unlike its European neighbors Sweden and Holland, which both have a lower Gun ownership, and a higher murder rate. Also it shows that easily available guns does not equal more crime, Economics do. Plus is also shows that Latvia has a high murder rate(not involving guns) and due to banning and restricting them, has a much higher crime rate.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html
This one states
International Evidence.
The experience of other nations also provides little support for the notion that guns causecrime:7
Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings.8
Israel, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to enemies including terrorists, depends on the defensive value of widespread civilian gun possession.
Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates.

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm
Here we see to Governments with restrictive/formerly restrictive(Thailand and Isreal) gun laws, allowing teachers to carry weapons. And according to my eyes they speak of success.

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/11/22/shooting-down-the-argument-for-gun-availability-second-amendment/
-This one while showing alot of anti gun remarks, actually shows that violence has increased due to banning of handguns, as well as showing counter stats that need to be looked at too. Both sides are crucial to determine success in this arguement. Plus it points out that alot of deaths due to firearms, are either fatal accidents or suicide(in my opinion thats not gun violence), also countering that arguement it shows that accidental falls, and accidental poisoning are more deadly than guns.
-Again it points out that Isreal has a higher gun ownership rate than the US, and far fewer homicide rates.
-It also points out Switzerland has a extraordinarily low crime rate, and a large gun ownership population which leads me to posting these two, which I felt were some helpful side info.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime
Swiss crime

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
And a comparsion of murder and firearm ownership to population

So, if my statements are wrong in any way I welcome your info, but please read the articles in full before telling me I'm wrong or that I don't read before I post.

[Backwoodshunter]

Has crime involving guns gone up in the UK? Yes (but from a very low baseline level compared to the USA). As legal handgun ownership was so low pre-1997 (<1 in 1000 of the population) I don't believe that increases in firearms-related crime can be attributed to the absence of legal handguns, or that a reversal of the ban to the pre-1997 situation would reduce firearms crime in the UK for the same reason.

IMO the reasons for increases in firearms crime are to do with the coming together of factors such as:
1. The international drugs trade fuelling demand for illegal firearms from criminals.
2. The collapse of communism/war in former Yugoslavia etc increasing supply from E.Europe.
3. Poorly controlled immigration exacerbating conflicts between inner city ethnic groups / and the rise of American style gang culture (because it is in someway seen as 'fashionable').

Having said all that much of the increase in firearms-related crime is down to use of replicas etc (or quite possibly no actual firearms at all as IIRC the definition of a firearms related incident in the UK stats is simply one where police armed response is called whether it is needed or not!)

I highly agree with you on the economics of crime being a huge root to the problem, and that guns are just a tool. I posted some info just a bit ago that states that available guns don't lead to crime, so I agree there.

I'm a big fan of trying to fix the root rather than just band aiding the end result. Unfortunately alot of countries don't think that way and would rather not fine tune their politics. But until then, just do the the economics of the gun industry and all the benefits of legal gun ownership, and just my own belief in armed civilians I carry on in defense of fire arms.

Btw, isnt Jesse Kantstopolis the guy from full house?

[Calanen]

I cant verify this but my cousin works for NSW police, and was saying that they are to be armed with automatic pistols i believe in July of this year.

They are already armed with automatic pistols. If you mean, autos liked MP5s, I cant see it happening for general duties.

In Victoria, they still have the old .38s, but area looking to upgrade, except their Commissioner doesnt want autos, thinks they are too 'dangerous'. Well der...

[Calanen]

You only have to watch murders per capita to see how effective free gun ownership is!

United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 peopl
Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people

What about Sweden and Israel. Lots of guns, low murder rates.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What about Sweden and Israel. Lots of guns, low murder rates.

These things are not always straightforward. In Switzerland (where military firearms are kept at home) the overall murder rate is low (in European terms) but they have relatively speaking a high rate of domestic shootings (often with military issue weapons).

[MrScruff]

So, if my statements are wrong in any way I welcome your info, but please read the articles in full before telling me I'm wrong or that I don't read before I post.
At best you are proving an incidental link between overall murder/crime rates and gun ownership, but with no evidence that gun ownership is a contributing factor. You're also correlating gun ownership with murder and crime statistics, not murder and crime statistics involving firearms which some of your links show increase with gun ownership

[Caraway]

Maybe the level of multiculturism in a society and violence in that society can be linked? No need for gun control when everything is out of control? The only guns you'd need is for...a civil war.

EU will break like the "Europe" did in 1918. It will be violent and full of massmurder.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Maybe the level of multiculturism in a society and violence in that society can be linked? No need for gun control when everything is out of control? The only guns you'd need is for...a civil war.

EU will break like the "Europe" did in 1918. It will be violent and full of massmurder.

Don't you mean 1914?

Maybe multiculturalism and violence are linked but in relation to my own country I can say that England was monocultural in the Middle Ages but it was a much more fcuking violent place than it is now!!

[Backwoodshunter]

At best you are proving an incidental link between overall murder/crime rates and gun ownership, but with no evidence that gun ownership is a contributing factor. You're also correlating gun ownership with murder and crime statistics, not murder and crime statistics involving firearms which some of your links show increase with gun ownership

The link where I quoted Latvia has plenty of evidence relating to guns, and how legal gun ownership does reduce crime, and how available legal firearms, doesn't increase nor turn normal people into criminals. Everything else was supporting details just to help prove my point. Not to mention I have already posted U.S. study statistics on how gun ownership reduced crime. And how in heavy crime areas in jumped up almost 100% due to banning hand guns. So I have shown that there are multiple countries, with high gun ownership, and low crime. Even in Isreal and Thailand, with high levels of violence, and terrorism, shown that arming teachers is a good idea, and led to stopping alot of potentially violent issues. So until you can prove me otherwise, rather than telling me I'm wrong, I more than welcome any information.

Btw most gun murder and crime rates are skewed, because they include suicides and fatal or non fatal accidents.

[Backwoodshunter]

Don't you mean 1914?

Maybe multiculturalism and violence are linked but in relation to my own country I can say that England was monocultural in the Middle Ages but it was a much more fcuking violent place than it is now!!

But were there Chavs back then? Maybe hes on to something.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

But were there Chavs back then? Maybe hes on to something.

Actually marauding gangs of 'hooded' youths causing trouble were a feature of mediaeval London.

[Backwoodshunter]

These things are not always straightforward. In Switzerland (where military firearms are kept at home) the overall murder rate is low (in European terms) but they have relatively speaking a high rate of domestic shootings (often with military issue weapons).

But wouldn't you consider that if they didn't have a firearms available they'd just use something else? The available firearms to others and that everyone is armed keeps people safer and criminals less likely to act. Fire arms are just a tool, and sometimes people with violent intentions plan on using them for the obvious advantages that they bring, but its better that most mature and responsible citizens are armed, just in case they're present at the scene of violence.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

But wouldn't you consider that if they didn't have a firearms available they'd just use something else?

Firearms make it easier (or perhaps I should say less hard)

[Backwoodshunter]

But they also allow us to defend ourselves as well.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

But they also allow us to defend ourselves as well.

To a certain extent. And they can also give you a false sense of security. If you're walking around with your head up your arrse because your carrying you're most likely only going to be providing a new addition to your mugger's trophy cabinet.


On balance if I lived in the USA. I would probably want to have a handgun on the premises in my house just in case. But I don't and even though I have lived in some 'rough' areas of the UK in my life (and had some very iffy neighbours) I have never felt the need.

[oldsoak]

Actually marauding gangs of 'hooded' youths causing trouble were a feature of mediaeval London.

No change there then. However, there was an open season on them, cant stick a clothyard arrow in the blighters anymore....

On a more mundane note, I'd rather we were allowed to keep non lethal means on premises. If you shoot someone it gets rather messy on the carpet as well as in the courts. A taser followed by accidental kicking of the miscreants head in the dark will raise fewer awkward questions and p*ss stains can be steamed out.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No change there then. However, there was an open season on them, cant stick a clothyard arrow in the blighters anymore....

On a more mundane note, I'd rather we were allowed to keep non lethal means on premises. If you shoot someone it gets rather messy on the carpet as well as in the courts. A taser followed by accidental kicking of the miscreants head in the dark will raise fewer awkward questions and p*ss stains can be steamed out.

Yes my missus would kill me if there was claret and brains all over her Indian carpets or our new wallpaper.

[CMNot]

But they also allow us to defend ourselves as well.

The discussion of firearms vis-a-vis the UK is a redundant argument; firearms allow you defence, the Law does not.

It is that simple.

[Backwoodshunter]

The discussion of firearms vis-a-vis the UK is a redundant argument; firearms allow you defence, the Law does not.

It is that simple.

Yea we weren't really discussing the law part at the moment, just what fire arms allow people to do.

[Backwoodshunter]

On balance if I lived in the USA. I would probably want to have a handgun on the premises in my house just in case. But I don't and even though I have lived in some 'rough' areas of the UK in my life (and had some very iffy neighbours) I have never felt the need.

I can agree on your feelings there, I've gone to school in a fairly bad area of my city, and never felt threatened or worried, just how I carry myself and am able to watch out and avoid trouble. Then again my friends weren't as lucky, a few almost rape/abductions, and a mugging. One of my colleagues actually had to draw a firearm once as well, not fire thankfully.

[Geezah]

Oh what a shock, this forum is pro gun ownership.

That video is blatent propaganda.

A ban on guns works for us here, I don't care for having a gun. It's pointless. You can bitch all you want about how I'm losing the right to defend myself but at the end of the day I'm not since no one else has got a gun.

I went to the states and got a gun pulled on me twice in a year. It's never happened to me in the UK, nor have I ever had a knife pulled on me. There goes your safety argument.

I don't see it as an infringement of my rights. If people legitimately need a weapon then they can still get one through the proper channels. If not then tough.

You americans need to see how little people care over here for having a weapon before you pity us for not having the right to bear arms. Our society is a free one but we've never prided ourselves on being the free-est nation on earth. We don't need those rights, keep them to yourselves.

Where do you think our Right to Bear Arms comes from?

[Geezah]

Fixed that for you

No, I've fixed it for you!


5. The evidence shows that, despite the existence of an absolute right to keep arms and the very widespread ownership of firearms as evidenced by the state of the gun trade at the time, the use of firearms in crime and disorder was extremely rare.

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm)

[Calanen]

No change there then. However, there was an open season on them, cant stick a clothyard arrow in the blighters anymore....

On a more mundane note, I'd rather we were allowed to keep non lethal means on premises. If you shoot someone it gets rather messy on the carpet as well as in the courts. A taser followed by accidental kicking of the miscreants head in the dark will raise fewer awkward questions and p*ss stains can be steamed out.

I'd agree with that, to some extent. It would certainly be better than at the present, which is, get killed in your home.

The courts are full every day with cases of housholders bashed to death in their own homes, who perhaps would be alive or not brain damaged if they had a firearm. Or at least some weapon. Taser might work.

[PeterRJG]

Where do you think our Right to Bear Arms comes from?

The English Declaration of Rights of 1689, apparently.

[Calanen]

The discussion of firearms vis-a-vis the UK is a redundant argument; firearms allow you defence, the Law does not.

It is that simple.

I'd rather be alive to have the argument however, rather than dead and concede it.

[Geezah]

Not to mention .50 BMG, .338 Lapua etc etc.

I would love firearms to be more freely available, but that's a wholly selfish PoV on my part - my only use for them would be recreational. I live in a basically crime-free area, and in any case guns have never been seen as self-defence weapons in this country, not by the authorities, and not by citizens.


That is incorrect, firearms at one point not so long ago were employed for self defence of the law abiding in the UK.

[Geezah]

The English Declaration of Rights of 1689, apparently.

Exactly, William Blackstones Bill of Right with a few changes here and there is an excellent piece of work.

[Backwoodshunter]

Good to have a well read man supporting the arguement

[stonecutter]

What confuses me is that Americans always say guns are for defending themselves against their government, when it's clear the prime reason is to defend themselves against each other...
Like others have said here, it's a cultural thing and it's difficult to compare different countries' situations. As with our UK friends, here in Canada I feel absolutely no need to own a gun for security reasons. However, while working in the States, my wife was shot at by some yahoos while working on public land; couldn't believe it. If we lived there, we'd be carrying for protection as well.

[Geezah]

What confuses me is that Americans always say guns are for defending themselves against their government, when it's clear the prime reason is to defend themselves against each other...
Like others have said here, it's a cultural thing and it's difficult to compare different countries' situations. As with our UK friends, here in Canada I feel absolutely no need to own a gun for security reasons. However, while working in the States, my wife was shot at by some yahoos while working on public land; couldn't believe it. If we lived there, we'd be carrying for protection as well.

Who has said that defending oneself against the Government i the primary reason for bearing arms?

Here are a couple of amendements from the Ohio Constitution.


Sec. 1. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.


Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defence and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Do you understand the above?

[wildcat]

What confuses me is that Americans always say guns are for defending themselves against their government, when it's clear the prime reason is to defend themselves against each other...
Like others have said here, it's a cultural thing and it's difficult to compare different countries' situations. As with our UK friends, here in Canada I feel absolutely no need to own a gun for security reasons. However, while working in the States, my wife was shot at by some yahoos while working on public land; couldn't believe it. If we lived there, we'd be carrying for protection as well.

The second Amendment is for the right to remain free from an oppressive government. In a lot of states the state constitutions expands that right to the natural law of self preservation, some states limited to the extent of what type of crime you can defend yourself. Castle law applies near the whole country, if somebodies breaks into your house, the question of deadly force is one that not often questioned. In my state you can use deadly force against any violent crime, whether being committed on you or some one you witness.

As for the mentality of the people here, there are some really stupid people that do not respect life. Also the gang and drug culture here is out of control. I have seen a change in the places in California, where I have lived, that the gang are become more race orientated. The city I moved from last year had there first homicide with firearm since 1889, and 1st homicide gang related.

[Lambert58]

What confuses me is that Americans always say guns are for defending themselves against their government, when it's clear the prime reason is to defend themselves against each other...
Like others have said here, it's a cultural thing and it's difficult to compare different countries' situations. As with our UK friends, here in Canada I feel absolutely no need to own a gun for security reasons. However, while working in the States, my wife was shot at by some yahoos while working on public land; couldn't believe it. If we lived there, we'd be carrying for protection as well.

Don't be confused. It's really simple: As an American, I have the right to arm myself to defend my family.

You. Don't.

I'll break it down Sesame Street for you: I would rather live in a dangerous world where I am free than a safe one where I'm not.

A lot of men have died to afford me that luxury, including my father, and I'll be goddamed if I'll give up the responsibility to defend that freedom for myself or my children.

[Backwoodshunter]

What confuses me is that Americans always say guns are for defending themselves against their government, when it's clear the prime reason is to defend themselves against each other...

Well as we've discussed earlier, unfortunately the U.S. has alot of reasons(crime and violence) to own firearms. Last year we had alot of gang violence on the west coast, primarily based on race, a few innocent kids died because of their skin color.

And dont get me wrong, to me gun ownership represents, sport(recreation shooting/hunting) Collecting/history, safety self defense, economic reasons, and hunting again because hunting has such an impact in areas due to ecological importance and the economic benefits.

But also we've got a government that has the ability to warrantlessly wiretap us, and some states I believe have no knock warrants as well. As well as a few instances that force us to lose faith in our governing body such as these

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/02/far04005.html

1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans, which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for "the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA." Columnist Jack Anderson reports that FEMA's emergency "standby legislation" is meant to "suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
1984: The Rex-84 "readiness exercise" program is conducted by 34 federal departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan's directive. Reportedly established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of massive civil unrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

So we do have a few reasons to keep an eye on our own govt, albeit they might be dated. I still feel stronger in the belief that the government knowing that there are armed and capable citizens that could take matters into their own hands(god forbid) if it ever calls for it. Again the old quote goes, the government needs to be afraid of its people.

[wildcat]

Well as we've discussed earlier, unfortunately the U.S. has alot of reasons(crime and violence) to own firearms. Last year we had alot of gang violence on the west coast, primarily based on race, a few innocent kids died because of their skin color.

And dont get me wrong, to me gun ownership represents, sport(recreation shooting/hunting) Collecting/history, safety self defense, economic reasons, and hunting again because hunting has such an impact in areas due to ecological importance and the economic benefits.

But also we've got a government that has the ability to warrantlessly wiretap us, and some states I believe have no knock warrants as well. As well as a few instances that force us to lose faith in our governing body such as these

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/02/far04005.html

1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans, which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for "the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA." Columnist Jack Anderson reports that FEMA's emergency "standby legislation" is meant to "suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
1984: The Rex-84 "readiness exercise" program is conducted by 34 federal departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan's directive. Reportedly established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of massive civil unrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

So we do have a few reasons to keep an eye on our own govt, albeit they might be dated. I still feel stronger in the belief that the government knowing that there are armed and capable citizens that could take matters into their own hands(god forbid) if it ever calls for it. Again the old quote goes, the government needs to be afraid of its people.

Here is a good story that the supreme court has limited bushes power, yet he still ignores the court.

http://www.diatribune.com/supreme-court-delievers-a-shocking-blow-bush-obey-the-law

Use of military in the USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

President Bush lost all these powers this year, but he has a plan to get around this, by using companies like blackwater (These were used in New Orleans) and he also signed an agreement (mutual, works both ways) with Canada to use Canadian troops in state of emergency.

link to us Canada agreement
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d

link to blackwater in New Orleans

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/scahill

I need to find this final link, which gives us the people the power to disregard all illegal laws, which has been upheld in the supreme court a at least 10 times. The supreme court degrees that if a law is illegal the citizens do not have to obey.

If Black water or foreign troops try to police me in the USA, I do not recognize their authority, they are not sworn to uphold the constitution, and will take up arms to defend against the foreign oppressors.

I am so glade I have firearms, I love the second amendment, and the fore fathers did us good including these freedoms. The constitution is not a living system, and I am glade the supreme justices believe this too.

By the way the president does not have the power of law to suspend the citizens rights, including the bill of rights. the president power are not above the law. Executive order can not over ride the constitution.

Power be in the people.

[Backwoodshunter]

Very good info posted, thanks for the links. Its always good for Americans to be wary and prepared.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Very good info posted, thanks for the links. Its always good for Americans to be wary and prepared.


Be alert!
Your country needs lerts

[wildcat]

To a certain extent. And they can also give you a false sense of security. If you're walking around with your head up your arrse because your carrying you're most likely only going to be providing a new addition to your mugger's trophy cabinet.



There is some truth to that, because you may pack heat, you might place yourself in places/situations you would not normally go/be in. There is a say my mother (she lives in Manchester, UK) always quotes me "Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword", I just glade I have the option of the sword.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There is some truth to that, because you may pack heat, you might place yourself in places/situations you would not normally go/be in. There is a say my mother (she lives in Manchester, UK) always quotes me "Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword", I just glade I have the option of the sword.

Is it difficult to do concealed carry with a sword?

[wildcat]

Is it difficult to do concealed carry with a sword?

true, but I found some toy sword for action men very conceal able, I am able to conceal it next to my glock.

[CMNot]

I'll break it down Sesame Street for you: I would rather live in a dangerous world where I am free than a safe one where I'm not.

You do not live in a free society.

You live in a liberal democracy.

[KillerBD]

Gunmen face life for boy's murder.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080617/tuk-gunmen-face-life-for-boy-s-murder-6323e80.html

Two gunmen are facing life sentences for killing an innocent schoolboy as he slept in his bed.

http://row.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=K.68Ylf4aiuka9HJSFdycQHZTmCkYUhYHpsAA04L&T=145rlr3vf%2fX%3d1213734555%2fE%3d2022435296%2fR%3dukie_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dHR%2fY%3dUKIE%2fF%3d2030169722%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d6D060CD9&U=13osvh8r4%2fN%3dbMXUkdkMBWA-%2fC%3d200101456.201663715.202894854.200222684%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d200784479%2fV%3d1
Michael Dosunmu, 15, died after being sprayed with bullets from a Mac-10 sub-machine gun.

He had been sleeping under a duvet in the bedroom he shared with his older brother Hakeem when the two gunmen burst in.

Mohammed Sannoh and Abdi Omar Noor had gone to the house in Diamond Street, Peckham, south-east London, to kill Hakeem and left without realising they had killed Michael by mistake.

Michael was hit by four bullets - one of them fatally piercing his heart - in the early hours of February 6 last year.

Hakeem, 26, who had fallen into bad ways after finding life difficult when he left the Army, had been out at a club where he was trying to sell drugs (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/drugs.html) when his church-going brother perished.

Sannoh, 19, of Peckham, and Abdi Omar Noor, 22, of Camberwell, were found guilty of murder and will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on Wednesday.

Hakeem's links to a robbery gang and the murder of one of the crooks led the gunmen to his door.

Hakeem was sentenced to two years jail in April for his part in the security van robberies.

The judge reduced the sentence from five years after hearing that he blames himself for Michael's death.:roll:

Connaught Ranger

Well this just pissed me off a bit, was having a decent day otherwise... WTF do people have sooo much sympathy for these criminals. Their Fvcking murderers people! For fvcks sake, get a clue.

Sympathizer: "Aaahhh, he gave such a touching talk though. We should cut him a little slack. He's really, really sad and sorry about it."
:slap:
Boo f-ing hoo, whatever happend to punishing criminals (especially the murderous ones)?

Reminds me of those stupid specials they have on TV every once in awhile about how terrible prison life is (well, no ****); and how sorry your bleedin liberal heart should feel for them... They're criminals people. They made their own choices to get them into prison all on their own. I have no sympathy for them.

[Backwoodshunter]

^^ There will always be those standing with the criminals, whether they're right or not. RIP to the boy. We've had a few local cases, guy breaks into a mans home, gets shot, and just cause he was half in the window the family wanted an investigation then the arrest of the home owner for murder.


Is it difficult to do concealed carry with a sword?

I'm all for bringing back sword fighting.

[wildcat]

You do not live in a free society.

You live in a liberal democracy.

No, we live in a republic

[PeterRJG]

No, we live in a republic

Soviets lived in a republic too, so did the poor people of Cambodia during Pol Pot.

Republic is just a label.

[wildcat]

Soviets lived in a republic too, so did the poor people of Cambodia during Pol Pot.

Republic is just a label.

Here in the USA, we vote our officials, like most free countries, we vote in grand juries, and final we can vote in a jury case, not just on the whether the defendant is innocent or guilty but if the law itself is legal. It is the 3 vote system.

The united states is a Constitutional republic.

[Britboy]

Here in the USA, we vote our officials, like most free countries, we vote in grand juries, and final we can vote in a jury case, not just on the whether the defendant is innocent or guilty but if the law itself is legal. It is the 3 vote system.

The united states is a Constitutional republic.

USSR had a Constitution too.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html
(Doesn't mean to say it was always adhered to however!)


Edited to add: Meaning; any country could refer to itself a 'constitutional republic' without it being too much of a stretch. Whereas liberal democracy is a more objective and useful term for actually classifying how a state operates.

[Macs.]

Now I wanna look at this from a different view also:

Gun ownership is one thing, the other thing is what you do with a gun.

Are you gonna carry it around with you all day, or do you have it laying in a safe and use it every now and then on a shooting range ?

No way I could imagine carrying around a gun all day in my everyday normal life. Because packing a gun also means that I always except something terrible to happen. And if the only way to feel safe is to carry around a gun all day long, then I would invest the savings for the gun to save up some money and move to another place.


Don't be confused. It's really simple: As an American, I have the right to arm myself to defend my family.

You. Don't.

I'll break it down Sesame Street for you: I would rather live in a dangerous world where I am free than a safe one where I'm not.

Don't be so arrogant, the US isn't the only place where you are allowed to own a gun and defend yourself. I believe Canada has some pretty liberal gun laws.

Even here I can perfectly legally own a gun, and if someone is threatening my life I am allowed to use it in a defensive manner and kill the attacker.

[joe mama]

...Because packing a gun also means that I always except something terrible to happen...

Do you wear seatbelts because you "always expect something terrible to happen" when driving or because something might happen? Do you have a fire extinguisher at home because you expect something to happen? Do you have car/home/renter's insurance because you expect something to happen? Do you have a first aid kit at home and/or in your car because you expect something to happen?

A good number of people who carry a gun (or keep one at home) do so not because they expect something to happen, they have the gun because they want to have it available, even if it might not help, in case something terrible does happen.

One of the best answers I've heard for why someone carries was from a guy who started the answer with: "In case I'm wrong.". He went on to explain that he avoids bad neighborhoods, dangerous people, dangerous situations, etc. He lives his life caring for his friends and family and working hard and relaxing responsibly and obeying the law. He does, as much as is within his power, whatever he can to avoid any situation where he will need his gun. But what if, despite all his efforts, he's wrong? What if he ends up in a situation where a gun might help? Better to have it than to not have it.

[Macs.]

Do you wear seatbelts because you "always expect something terrible to happen" when driving or because something might happen? Do you have a fire extinguisher at home because you expect something to happen? Do you have car/home/renter's insurance because you expect something to happen? Do you have a first aid kit at home and/or in your car because you expect something to happen


But wearing a seatbelt is a tad bit different from walking around with a loaded gun on your belt. :lol:

The other problem is that I simply do not want every dork to walk around with a deadly weapon attached to his belt. Way enough people walking around on the streets who just get more dangerous with such a weapon, I am talking about people who think they are doing the "right" thing and according to the law.

Not to speak of accidental discharges, which do happen even to highly trained people once in a while.


I simply can't imagine living in a town where I know everyone could be packing a gun, as "good" and law abiding they think they are, this is just another factor that adds up to this Fear-Society. Self-Defence is good and okay, but walking around with a loaded gun all day ? If that's "Freedom", I am not fond of it. And maybe the time something like this is needed for a normal citizen it is time to invest more in Police/Law Enforcement.

Anyway, it really depends on where you live. I guess there are places where I would start packing a gun.

I just run through the murder statistic of my state (Baden-Württemberg) and we had 93 murders last year with a population of 11 Million people.

[Backwoodshunter]

It's certainly about where you live, alot of people that conceal carry usually neglect to do so on a daily basis. But instead its a good idea to have it near your bed, and are capable of immediately getting it if you're abruptly waken in the night.

Otherwise some people, and some instances do need it everyday and we are better off for it. I know guys that preferred to carry it as often as possible and have had to bring it to bear. Whether its because they live/work/ are in a bad neighborhood, theres plenty of news articles online about another school massacre stopped, or somebody with a gun or knife either disarmed or shot down, protecting alot of others.

When it comes to buying handguns, we just have to make sure we have stringent standards for the background checks, and maybe more of a training session, or even interview, to make sure the right people are armed, and not the crazies.

[joe mama]

But wearing a seatbelt is a tad bit different from walking around with a loaded gun on your belt. :lol:

Of course it's different, however my point is that according to you, carrying a gun means "I always except something terrible to happen" and while that might be how YOU would feel, that's simply not true for tons of people who legally carry. You're painting people who carry, and possibly people who'd keep a gun handy (ie loaded and easily reachable) at home, as people who always expect something terrible, which is a very stereotypical argument of American gun control advocates and is a very false argument. I own several guns, both rifles and pistols, mostly because they're fun to shoot, but they're also a tool that could save my life if something terrible happens. I don't think it will. I don't expect it to. But it might.

No matter how many cops there are, there will always be crime, just like no matter how many firemen there are, there will always be fires. Some people choose to posses some of the tools available that might help them if one of these bad things threatens them.

[Geezah]

It's like another form of insurance, you may not need it, but it's awful handy to have, if you ever do need it.

[Calanen]

The other problem is that I simply do not want every dork to walk around with a deadly weapon attached to his belt. Way enough people walking around on the streets who just get more dangerous with such a weapon, I am talking about people who think they are doing the "right" thing and according to the law.


The general public are morons, Macs is right about that. Regrettably though, this cannot be part of legitimate policy making. They dont like being told that. But there is a LOT of stupid out there....

[wildcat]

The USA is not just under attach from criminal in the US, but also Mexico.

The pulling of troops from the border alarms border patrol, drug cartel can over power patrols.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369761,00.html

[Smok]

In Poland there is similar gun licensing system as in UK, but our crime ratio is very low. Especially gun crimes are almost unknown. Most crimes are commited with airguns which can be buy without any licence. Black powder guns are also available without license, but they are not popular. "Normal" weapons are hardly ever used by criminalists.
Interesting thing is, that most gun crimes are in countries with common law system - UK and USA. Continental Europe isn't nuts about guns so gun violence isn't a problem here.
Currently I write doctorate about gun policy and gun control. I can tell you, that the worst and most crazy "gun system" exists in USA. Also in USA there are most gun crimes and murders per 100000 people. So this so called "freedom" is damaging to society and public safety. Wise gun control is necessary to keep crime ratio low.
Gun control doesn't stop criminalists, but it makes their life more complicated. It is not so easy to buy illegal gun. Gun control can stop some "hot blooded" murderers. For example in USA if you are drunk and went crazy you can take a gun from your chest and start killing within 5 minutes. In Europe you must find and buy a gun. It is difficult and it takes much time, so probably you will get sober again and you killing lust will disappear.
And remember, that most crimes are "hot blooded" crimes. Make without planning - just acting. Gun control can stop that kind of criminalists. "Cold blooded" ones will be able to ave guns, but "hot blooded" probably not (not enought time).

[Calanen]

Black powder guns are also available without license, but they are not popular.


Holding up a 7/11 with a musket. Possible, but there is an element of comedy to it.

[LaoSexMachine]

In Poland there is similar gun licensing system as in UK, but our crime ratio is very low. Especially gun crimes are almost unknown. Most crimes are commited with airguns which can be buy without any licence. Black powder guns are also available without license, but they are not popular. "Normal" weapons are hardly ever used by criminalists.
Interesting thing is, that most gun crimes are in countries with common law system - UK and USA. Continental Europe isn't nuts about guns so gun violence isn't a problem here.
Currently I write doctorate about gun policy and gun control. I can tell you, that the worst and most crazy "gun system" exists in USA. Also in USA there are most gun crimes and murders per 100000 people. So this so called "freedom" is damaging to society and public safety. Wise gun control is necessary to keep crime ratio low.
Gun control doesn't stop criminalists, but it makes their life more complicated. It is not so easy to buy illegal gun. Gun control can stop some "hot blooded" murderers. For example in USA if you are drunk and went crazy you can take a gun from your chest and start killing within 5 minutes. In Europe you must find and buy a gun. It is difficult and it takes much time, so probably you will get sober again and you killing lust will disappear.
And remember, that most crimes are "hot blooded" crimes. Make without planning - just acting. Gun control can stop that kind of criminalists. "Cold blooded" ones will be able to ave guns, but "hot blooded" probably not (not enought time).

I own many guns and got wasted many many many times. I never had an urged to go shoot people.

[LaoSexMachine]

I'm pro guns, and if someone comes in to your house and tries to kill you, you are allowed to protect yourself, but that doesn't every crazy motherf****r out there carrying a gun with them. Trained police officers can sometimes have a hard time evaluating when it is nessecary to use lethal force, so thinking that your average Joe can act as judge, jury and executioner is just stupid.
Heres a scenario for you: You and your friend are are out drinking. You are both pretty drunk, and your friend happens to spill his drink on someone, and gets into a fight. The guy he is pretty big and your friend is getting beat up pretty bad,so u pick up your 9mm and shoot the guy. Then you live happily ever after.

This is just a thought, and its propably not true, but could it be that people carrying guns could make crime more violent? They kill you first just to make sure you dont kill them..

Been there but I have never pulled a gun on someone. If you are "pro gun" then you should know the law about self defense. I love the "I'm pro gun BUT I don't want people to own one". :roll:

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

What he is suggesting is that by having strict gun control legislation in force it does prevent people that go off the deep end from doing something that they totally regret.

Also with strict gun control legislation the demand for black market/illegal weapons increases thus increasing the cost of getting such weapons. A $50 midnight special becomes a $200 luxury that many criminal elements can not afford thus making it harder for the spare of the moment illegal purchases shortly before a robbery result? a safer society.

Australia at present is going through a major binge drinking culture and with associated violence. This aside Australia is a very very safe place. Do we have CCW? Do we have CCV cameras all over the place? And can we walk down most streets in most places at all times of day and have to worry about something happening?

Answer is no to all the above.

Australia does have some very strict gun control legislation. But it's not that strict. You can still virtually own practically any conceivable firearm. You just need to be a member of registered gun club. (target or hunting). There is also no law that requires a person to actually have a license to go shooting provided you are with a licensed shooter. Always been the case.

As for self defense. I agree that everyone has the right to self defense. However during my time working as a cashier at a University where I would walk in public carrying a suitcase filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars I did have to undergo armed hold/prevention training.

The New South Wales police service time and time again during this training that the most tried and perfected method of self defense is to simply go along with in a calm manner. The Sgt's actual words were "Money and property can always be replaced. Your life and the life of your friends and family can not."

[LaoSexMachine]

What's to prevent them from using a knife instead of a gun. A knife is more accessible then a gun. If people want to do harm no matter what you have in place they will find a way. Reminds me when Texas allowed conceal carry. Anti and some law enforecement were saying there was going to be blood in the streets and OK corral type shootouts. Never happened.

[LaoSexMachine]

Ezekiel, just because you havent pulled a gun on someone doesn't mean there are some dodgy people out there that would. I allso want to point out that it can be hard to evaluate when it is justified to use lethal force. Is it right to kill a unarmed person just because he tries to rob you? In most situations it's best just to run away. I got nothing against people having guns, and around here a lot of people have them. Im pretty happy with our gun legislation as it is. Maby one day i will buy a ak-based semi-auto for reservist shooting.


Your pro gun but you say "someone else might" that seems like a line straight from the anti-gun folks.How do you know the robber is unarmed? Do you ask him? "Mister Robber, are you armed? If you are not I will run away. OK?". I don't know what country you live in but in America each state has differing laws. I live in Texas and I know the self defense laws here.

[Geezah]

In Poland there is similar gun licensing system as in UK, but our crime ratio is very low. Especially gun crimes are almost unknown. Most crimes are commited with airguns which can be buy without any licence. Black powder guns are also available without license, but they are not popular. "Normal" weapons are hardly ever used by criminalists.
Interesting thing is, that most gun crimes are in countries with common law system - UK and USA. Continental Europe isn't nuts about guns so gun violence isn't a problem here.
Currently I write doctorate about gun policy and gun control. I can tell you, that the worst and most crazy "gun system" exists in USA. Also in USA there are most gun crimes and murders per 100000 people. So this so called "freedom" is damaging to society and public safety. Wise gun control is necessary to keep crime ratio low.
Gun control doesn't stop criminalists, but it makes their life more complicated. It is not so easy to buy illegal gun. Gun control can stop some "hot blooded" murderers. For example in USA if you are drunk and went crazy you can take a gun from your chest and start killing within 5 minutes. In Europe you must find and buy a gun. It is difficult and it takes much time, so probably you will get sober again and you killing lust will disappear.
And remember, that most crimes are "hot blooded" crimes. Make without planning - just acting. Gun control can stop that kind of criminalists. "Cold blooded" ones will be able to ave guns, but "hot blooded" probably not (not enought time).

I'm not sure if you knew this, but it is illegal for criminals to own or possess firearms in the USA.


Now when you wrote this doctorate, did you take into account that if someone if hot blooded enough to go on a rampage and they do not have access to hot weapons, cold will do the job just as well.

A recent case in point!!!!

Seven dead in Tokyo knife attack

A man armed with a knife has killed seven people and injured 10 others in central Tokyo, Japanese media say.

The incident occurred in the Akihabara district, a busy shopping area known as Electric Town that is popular with young people and tourists.

A suspect, said to be 25-year-old Tomohiro Kato, has been arrested.

Police spokesman Jiro Akaogi told reporters: "The suspect said he came to Akihabara to kill people. He said he was tired of life".

The dead include six men, ranging in age from 19 to 74, and a 21-year-old woman, Kyodo News said.

Reports say the suspect drove a rented truck into a crowd in the early afternoon and then began stabbing people at random.

James Slaymaker, a British man working in Japan, got to the area shortly after the stabbings. He described the scene to BBC News:

"As I walked down the street, I noticed there were a lot of police cars. I noticed there was a guy literally just lying there with tape on his eyes and blood pouring out of the side of him. I was appalled.

"I could see carnage - bodies everywhere. Some were conscious, some were not, lying by the side of the road and on the road. There were people everywhere, a lot of onlookers."

Another eyewitness told Kyodo News: ''The man jumped on top of a man he had hit with his vehicle and stabbed him with a knife many times. Walking toward Akihabara station, he slashed nearby people at random.''

Crime increase[/b[

The Akihabara district specialises in electronic gadgets and video games and is especially popular with people interested in comic books and distinctive fashion.

It is also home to one of the first shops to sell personal robots and robotics. The area is often crowded on weekends.

Once rare in Japan, there has been an increase in knife crime in recent years.

In January, [b]a 16-year-old school boy armed with two kitchen knives injured several people on a crowded shopping street in Tokyo's Shinagawa Ward.

The Akihabara attack occurred on the same date that a man with a history of mental illness went through a primary school in 2001, stabbing children at random.

Eight children died and 15 pupils and teachers were injured in that attack, in a school in Ikeda, in the city of Osaka.

Early reports suggested Mr Kato could have been a gangster, though these were later played down.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7442327.stm)

What should we do here, ban breaking the law?

The pressence of a thing does not cause someone to break the law, the intent to break the law does.

[Geezah]

Been there but I have never pulled a gun on someone. If you are "pro gun" then you should know the law about self defense. I love the "I'm pro gun BUT I don't want people to own one". :roll:

I was thinking the same thing.

Now, I used to be anti-gun when I first moved here, but I grew up and realized an inanimate object is not the problem here.

[LaoSexMachine]

You dont know if the robber is unarmed. The question is, when can you be justified to use lethal force? Someone hitting you doesn't give you the right to kill them.. I'm from Finland btw. We have one of the highest rates of guns per capita, but gun related crime is low. It might be kinda pointless to compare countries, because of cultural differences. I'm guessing crime is much more brutal over there.


People who shoot robbers in Texas get the benefit of a doubt.

[CMNot]

...but I grew up...

Sweet, belittle anyone who doesn't tow your line, that'll take this 'discussion' to new heights...:roll:

[Geezah]

Ezekiel, just because you havent pulled a gun on someone doesn't mean there are some dodgy people out there that would. I allso want to point out that it can be hard to evaluate when it is justified to use lethal force. Is it right to kill a unarmed person just because he tries to rob you? In most situations it's best just to run away. I got nothing against people having guns, and around here a lot of people have them. Im pretty happy with our gun legislation as it is. Maby one day i will buy a ak-based semi-auto for reservist shooting.

If someone chooses to break the law and try and rob me, my Wife or another member of my family, I'm not going to think about whether or not they are armed. My first thought will be that they wish me or mine harm, and I hope I would do the right thing to eleminate that threat.

[Geezah]

Sweet, belittle anyone who doesn't tow your line, that'll take this 'discussion' to new heights...:roll:

No, I grew up and stopped projecting my fears onto others and started reading up on the facts. Take that however you feel, but considering I moved here when I was 26 and I'm now 38, I would say I grew up, wouldn't you!?

[Alfacentori]

What he is suggesting is that by having strict gun control legislation in force it does prevent people that go off the deep end from doing something that they totally regret.

There are around 6-700000 registered firearms owners in Australia, thats about 1 in 12 adults and yet no epidemic of shootings and murders? Isn't that a bit odd? The FACT is that crimminals and junkies etc committ crime with firearms, not registered owners. Having a firearms licence means that
1) You cannot have a serious conviction of any type
2) That you cannot have affilliation with bikie gangs or crimminal elements (they can deny you a licence)
3) That you must be of good character and have no history of mental illness (They can deny you a licence on both counts)
4) That if you are even charged with an offence or have a restraining order taken out against you that your firearms will be seized.

Also with strict gun control legislation the demand for black market/illegal weapons increases thus increasing the cost of getting such weapons. A $50 midnight special becomes a $200 luxury that many criminal elements can not afford thus making it harder for the spare of the moment illegal purchases shortly before a robbery result? a safer society.

Experience has shown that attacks with edged weapons have always been more common than firearms, the fact that illegal prices have gone up is irrellevent, the fact is they are still there and still responsible for 99.99% of firearm crime. The argument of a safer society be restricting registered gun owners is laughable and is pure politics because they have no solution to the real problem, illegal firearms.

Australia at present is going through a major binge drinking culture and with associated violence. This aside Australia is a very very safe place. Do we have CCW? Do we have CCV cameras all over the place? And can we walk down most streets in most places at all times of day and have to worry about something happening?

I'm not sure I agree, just look at the near epidemic levels of car theft, robberies, assaults, home invasions and drug related problems. There are several places in Adelaide CBD that have 24hr CCTV and if you talk to anyone, excepting the upper class big wigs in their plush suburbs, crime is a very real and common concern.

Answer is no to all the above.

Australia does have some very strict gun control legislation. But it's not that strict. You can still virtually own practically any conceivable firearm. You just need to be a member of registered gun club. (target or hunting). There is also no law that requires a person to actually have a license to go shooting provided you are with a licensed shooter. Always been the case.

Ummm........NO! That's not correct, you can't own almost any conceivable firearm at all. You have to be a rural land owner with a certain size property to even own a Semi auto .22cal rifle or a pump action shotgun and even then strict magazine capacity limits apply. Ordinary citizens with an A or B class can't own any Semi Auto rifle or pump action shotgun.....Period! To own a pistol you have to be a cub member for 1 year, then you can purchase a .22 or air pistol and its another year before you can own a centerfire, hardly a 'liberal' firearms policy.
You have to have a written letter of authority to shoot, even on private property and shooting in public land is banned. You are also not allowed to possess more than '1 years' ammuntion (whatever that means!).


As for self defense. I agree that everyone has the right to self defense. However during my time working as a cashier at a University where I would walk in public carrying a suitcase filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars I did have to undergo armed hold/prevention training.

I have walked in plain clothes armed and uniformed armed/unarmed carrying several million dollars before and your quite right the law makes no allowance to use force to protect property (money included). But that doesn't stop criminals or addicts killing/maiming/attacking people does it?

The New South Wales police service time and time again during this training that the most tried and perfected method of self defense is to simply go along with in a calm manner. The Sgt's actual words were "Money and property can always be replaced. Your life and the life of your friends and family can not."

I always worked under a differen't motto that my instructor taught me, "It's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6" because at the end of the day I'm going home, even if its via court.

Alfa

[LaoSexMachine]

The background on my PC sums up my views.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/eh1656/SS1.jpg

And I'm out of this thread.

More
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/eh1656/1166989821562.jpg

[wildcat]

The background on my PC sums up my views.


Sweet...
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/eh1656/1166989821562.jpg

What kind of sweetness is that...

[Calanen]

What he is suggesting is that by having strict gun control legislation in force it does prevent people that go off the deep end from doing something that they totally regret.

Also with strict gun control legislation the demand for black market/illegal weapons increases thus increasing the cost of getting such weapons. A $50 midnight special becomes a $200 luxury that many criminal elements can not afford thus making it harder for the spare of the moment illegal purchases shortly before a robbery result? a safer society.


If people can buy drugs, they can buy guns. And drugs finance guns. Drug dealers dont have any shortage of cash.



Australia at present is going through a major binge drinking culture and with associated violence. This aside Australia is a very very safe place. Do we have CCW? Do we have CCV cameras all over the place? And can we walk down most streets in most places at all times of day and have to worry about something happening

Hmmm. Depends where and depends how. There are some places that are no go.

There are a lot of dangerous places in Sydney. I dont know about the rest of the place, but I hear that Perth is dangerous in the CBD after dark now.



Australia does have some very strict gun control legislation. But it's not that strict. You can still virtually own practically any conceivable firearm. You just need to be a member of registered gun club. (target or hunting). There is also no law that requires a person to actually have a license to go shooting provided you are with a licensed shooter. Always been the case.


What have you been smoking. You can own bolt action rifles, and pistols up to .40 calibre, in NSW that is. And then only with a genuine reason. Self-defence is not a genuine reason. Target shooting is the main one.



As for self defense. I agree that everyone has the right to self defense. However during my time working as a cashier at a University where I would walk in public carrying a suitcase filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars I did have to undergo armed hold/prevention training.


The New South Wales police service time and time again during this training that the most tried and perfected method of self defense is to simply go along with in a calm manner. The Sgt's actual words were "Money and property can always be replaced. Your life and the life of your friends and family can not."


That's fine if the intruder wants cash, give them cash. But if they want your daughter, that analogy falls over. And who knows what they want, and are you going to be able to have a convo with them about it? Armed robberies of banks or cash rich places are a very different circumstance to the break in to your home.

Insurance companies insist on guards being armed. If not for their muscle, arms for guards would have gone along time ago. But security guards should be armed. There have been a number of occassions where security guards have had shoot outs with criminals, and either shot or killed them. The guards normally come out on top because they have to practice all the time, whereas the criminal just buys a gun and thinks he knows how to use it.

And Min, you live in dreamland. Come down to the Downing Centre with me for a coffee one day, and we can go through all the firearm offences that are on that day. Just because its not on the news, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

From here

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/133134/GR_TABLE2.pdf

As I said it is POSSIBLE but I never said that it was easy though man.

:)

Oh and NSW are being relaxed to.

[Calanen]

As I said it is POSSIBLE but I never said that it was easy though man.


Yeah its possible, but as I said, its only low capacity magazine bolt actions and up to .40 calibre low capacity mag pistols, while being in a target shooting club, where you have to go in competitions every month.

So its a big restriction on the ownership of firearms. You also cant own an SKS, or an M1, or an AK47.

[LRPV]

Yeah its possible, but as I said, its only low capacity magazine bolt actions and up to .40 calibre low capacity mag pistols, while being in a target shooting club, where you have to go in competitions every month.

So its a big restriction on the ownership of firearms. You also cant own an SKS, or an M1, or an AK47.


In WA its a 9mm calibre limit. Unless you are in Metallic Silhouette competition.

[Alfacentori]

In WA its a 9mm calibre limit. Unless you are in Metallic Silhouette competition.

In SA its .38cal unless for metallic silhouette you can get up to .45cal

Alfa

[LRPV]

In SA its .38cal unless for metallic silhouette you can get up to .45cal

Alfa


Pssst....is .38inch anything like 9mm?p-)

[Alfacentori]

Pssst....is .38inch anything like 9mm?p-)

I know, just don't tell the purists and ze germans that p-)

It's like someone complaining when to make 9mm bullets you give them a mould that's for 38/.357 :)

Alfa

[INAT]

A Well-armed Populace Is the Best Defense against Tyranny





http://www.xlarge.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/monkey-gun.jpg

[Calanen]

Here is what you can and cant have in New South Wales....in brief. There are a few others

Can have:

Firearms (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) to which the licence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#licence) applies:

• self-loading rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds

• self-loading shotguns with a magazine capacity of no more than 5 rounds

• pump action shotguns with a magazine capacity of no more than 5 rounds.
Cant Have:

51E Possession (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4a.html#possession) or use of pistols (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol) fitted with magazines of more than 10 round capacity

A person who is the holder of a category H (sport/target shooting) licence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#licence) must not possess or use a pistol (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol) fitted with a magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds.


Section 4 (1))
1

Any machine gun, sub-machine gun or other firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) capable of propelling projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.
2

Any self-loading rimfire rifle (including any such firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) described elsewhere in this Schedule).
3

Any self-loading centre-fire rifle (including any such firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) described elsewhere in this Schedule).
4

Any self-loading or pump action shotgun (including any such firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) described elsewhere in this Schedule).
5

Any self-loading centre-fire rifle of a kind that is designed or adapted for military purposes.
6

Any self-loading shotgun of a kind that is designed or adapted for military purposes.
7

Any firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) that substantially duplicates in appearance (regardless of calibre or manner of operation) a firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) referred to in item 1, 5 or 6.
8

A firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm), not being a pistol (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol), of the Uberti or Armi-Jager brands, or any similar firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) fitted with a revolving ammunition (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#ammunition) cylinder (other than a firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) manufactured before 1920).
9

A shotgun fitted with or designed to be fitted with a drum magazine of the “Striker 12” assault shotgun type or any similar weapon.
10

Any firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) to which there is attached any article or device capable of muffling, reducing or stopping the noise created by firing the firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm).
11

A firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm), not being a pistol (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol), fitted with a stock that is specially designed so as to be readily detachable, or to operate on a swivel, folding or telescopic basis.
12

A firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) made up in the form of a stylographic or propelling pen or pencil, capable of being used for the discharge of gas, bullets, shot, dye or pyrotechnic flares.
13


A firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) capable of discharging by any means:

(a) any irritant matter in liquid, powder, gas or chemical form, or

(b) any pyrotechnic flare or dye, or

(c) any article known as a “paint-ball”.
14


A firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) that:

(a) substantially duplicates in appearance some other article (such as a walking stick, walking cane or key ring), and

(b) disguises or conceals the fact that it is a firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm).
15

A cannon or other weapon by whatever name known of a type which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#explosive) or other propellant, and which has a barrel with a bore in excess of 10 gauge, not being a firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) of the Very or rocket type designed and intended for use for life saving or distress signalling purposes, an antique muzzle loading firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm), or a rifle or shotgun manufactured before 1920.
16

Any firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) which, or part of which, has a dimension less than the minimum dimension prescribed for the firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) or part by the regulations.
17

Any imitation or replica of any firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm) (including any imitation or replica pistol (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol), blank fire pistol (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#pistol), shortened firearm (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#firearm), machine gun or sub-machine gun) unless it is of a type approved by the Commissioner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#commissioner).
18

Any device known as a “powerhead” that can be attached to the end of a spear gun and that is designed to propel a projectile by means of an explosive (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4.html#explosive).

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Ah I posted all that from the NSW Police site in PDF form.

[wotsnext]

A Well-armed Populace Is the Best Defense against Tyranny





http://www.xlarge.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/monkey-gun.jpg
Lol, A picture is worth a thousand words p-)

[Calanen]

Ah I posted all that from the NSW Police site in PDF form.

Chill out man. You didnt post what was prohibited....

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Meh doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out whats not allowed!

:)

[Smok]

I own many guns and got wasted many many many times. I never had an urged to go shoot people.

But I'm not against guns! I think, that every mentally healthy and not addicted person should be able to have a gun. But I'm against completely free gun policy - without control and registries. Gun yes, but only for responsible people!


I'm not sure if you knew this, but it is illegal for criminals to own or possess firearms in the USA.

In some states there is almost no control about buying guns. You could buy a gun like a Cola. Just enter the shop and buy. No licenses, no mental tests, no certificates of not being a criminal.
For example
Alabama - no licenses, no registration, no permit to purchase
Pennsylvania - no licenses, no permit to purchase, no registration, no license to carry gun outside cities.



Now when you wrote this doctorate, did you take into account that if someone if hot blooded enough to go on a rampage and they do not have access to hot weapons, cold will do the job just as well.

A recent case in point!!!!


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7442327.stm)


Of course. But we should try to hinder criminal attempts of these people. We can't stop them, but we can make some difficulities to they.
In this case - just imagine what would he do with AK and box of grenades! 30 killed? 40? 100?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Just compare number of victims



What should we do here, ban breaking the law?

The pressence of a thing does not cause someone to break the law, the intent to break the law does.

Sometimes we can't stop disaster, but we can try to minimise it. I preffer crazy guy with a knife, then crazy guy with machine gun and grenades.
Guns should be available for people. But not for all people. Honest, mentally healthy person should be able to have a gun. But young dresiarz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dres) not.

[wildcat]

In WA its a 9mm calibre limit. Unless you are in Metallic Silhouette competition.

Do you have a reference on that never come across any limits in WA.

[wildcat]

But I'm not against guns! I think, that every mentally healthy and not addicted person should be able to have a gun. But I'm against completely free gun policy - without control and registries. Gun yes, but only for responsible people!

There are registries of criminals and mentally challenged, that is all the registries needed.



In some states there is almost no control about buying guns. You could buy a gun like a Cola. Just enter the shop and buy. No licenses, no mental tests, no certificates of not being a criminal.
For example
Alabama - no licenses, no registration, no permit to purchase
Pennsylvania - no licenses, no permit to purchase, no registration, no license to carry gun outside cities.


Not true anymore, all purchases, unless private have to go though the National Instant Criminal System(NICS) which has all the mental and criminal listed.

[Smok]

There are registries of criminals and mentally challenged, that is all the registries needed.



Not true anymore, all purchases, unless private have to go though the National Instant Criminal System(NICS) which has all the mental and criminal listed.

1. How do you know if someone isn't mentally ill, but not diagnosed yet?
2. Private purchases are out of this system? So that system is useless. DOn't go to shop. Buy a gun from your friend!

[wildcat]

1. How do you know if someone isn't mentally ill, but not diagnosed yet?
2. Private purchases are out of this system? So that system is useless. DOn't go to shop. Buy a gun from your friend!


Well if he is not been diagnosed then he is not mental ill, There has to be process of the Law.

As for point 2, it is a crime to sell a firearm to any body that does not meet the requirements, meaning if sell to the insane or criminals that make you one.

[Backwoodshunter]

What major or concentration are you writing this doctorate for? And you do know that there have been many cases of a concealed carrying student or teacher running to their car, getting their gun and stopping school shootings.

[Britboy]

What major or concentration are you writing this doctorate for? And you do know that there have been many cases of a concealed carrying student or teacher running to their car, getting their gun and stopping school shootings.

Sounds more dangerous to me to have guns left unattended where someone with ill intent could get at them - such as in a car. And are people of likely student age, say 17-22, allowed firearms, or part of the demographic likely to obtain them?

Don't campuses have no-firearms, or firearms-to-be-kept-in-the-Shooting-Team's-armoury rules?

Regards
BB

[Smok]

Well if he is not been diagnosed then he is not mental ill, There has to be process of the Law.

As for point 2, it is a crime to sell a firearm to any body that does not meet the requirements, meaning if sell to the insane or criminals that make you one.

1. Not diagnosed means not diagnosed, not healthy. In Poland we don't need to ask court if someone is mentally ill or not.
2. How do you know if buyer isn't insane or criminalist?


What major or concentration are you writing this doctorate for? And you do know that there have been many cases of a concealed carrying student or teacher running to their car, getting their gun and stopping school shootings.

I write about gun law and gun control in Poland with comparision to other countries.
Tell me - why schools schootings are almost unknown in Europe? We have just 2-3 causes every year. In Poland there wasn't a school shotout since 1945! More! We almost don't have gun crimes, and our murder ratio is far lower then in USA.
Poland - ~720 murders per 38000000 people (1 murder per 53000 people)
USA ~16000 murders per 303000000 people (1 murder per 19000 people)

Of course it is not only guns fault, but numbers are clear - to many guns = raise of crime. Gun control is strongly advised if you want to live in peaceful country. But as I said - wise gun control. I have nothing against possesion of HMG in house. But prove, that you are responsible person.

[orionhawk]

normally, a school parking lot is considered "school grounds", and thus, a "gun-free zone". in some states, that specifically includes college campuses. in a few others, (MI included, if I understand correctly), it specifically excludes college campuses, and/or does not include parking lots.

I appreciate the campus exclusion, since U of M pretty much includes the entire city of Ann Arbor in its campus grounds.

[orionhawk]

1. Not diagnosed means not diagnosed, not healthy. In Poland we don't need to ask court if someone is mentally ill or not.
2. How do you know if buyer isn't insane or criminalist?
so, a diagnosis of mental illness (PTSD, for example) by a doctor should deprive somebody of a constitutional right, without a court being involved? NO.

and, if you sell a firearm to a complete stranger, A) you are screwing up. and B) there is a NICS hotline for background checks for private sales.

also, several states require either a purchase permit, even for private sales, or that both buyer and seller have CCW/CPL licenses.



We have just 2-3 causes every year.
that sounds rather high, actually.

[Smok]

so, a diagnosis of mental illness (PTSD, for example) by a doctor should deprive somebody of a constitutional right, without a court being involved? NO.

and, if you sell a firearm to a complete stranger, A) you are screwing up. and B) there is a NICS hotline for background checks for private sales.

also, several states require either a purchase permit, even for private sales, or that both buyer and seller have CCW/CPL licenses.



that sounds rather high, actually.

1. In Poland we have different law. If you are diagnosed, that you are mentally ill that doesn't means that you are incapacitated. That only means, that you are ill. You can't have a gun then, but if you think that it is unfair you can ask court about opinion. In Poland every decision make by administration can be sued to court. (Sorry, if I don't use proffesional English words - it is very difficult to translate polish law words to English).
2. OK, but as You said - in some states it isn't so restricted.
3. I remember 1 shooting in Finland and 1 in Germany last year. Nothing more.

[marius]

....
I write about gun law and gun control in Poland with comparision to other countries.
Tell me - why schools schootings are almost unknown in Europe? We have just 2-3 causes every year. In Poland there wasn't a school shotout since 1945! More! We almost don't have gun crimes, and our murder ratio is far lower then in USA.
Poland - ~720 murders per 38000000 people (1 murder per 53000 people)
USA ~16000 murders per 303000000 people (1 murder per 19000 people)

Of course it is not only guns fault, but numbers are clear - to many guns = raise of crime. Gun control is strongly advised if you want to live in peaceful country. But as I said - wise gun control. I have nothing against possesion of HMG in house. But prove, that you are responsible person.

You may want to revisit the line of thought that drove you to that conclusion - some countries have more guns per capita than the US without having an increased crime rate (for instance Switzerland or Finland).

I find that you by stating that some citizens can be trusted, you accept the logical fallacy of gun ownership in itself links to violence or criminal behavior.

Since you seem open to the idea that some citizens can have rights while others cannot be trusted it would be interesting if you would elaborate on the type of prerequisites you would find suitable for a citizen to become a state approved gun owner.
Especially I would find it interesting if you could apply your ideas on a multiracial and inhomogeneous community such as the US rather than confine your ideas to Poland.

[Smok]

You may want to revisit the line of thought that drove you to that conclusion - some countries have more guns per capita than the US without having an increased crime rate (for instance Switzerland or Finland).

I find that you by stating that some citizens can be trusted, you accept the logical fallacy of gun ownership in itself links to violence or criminal behavior.

Since you seem open to the idea that some citizens can have rights while others cannot be trusted it would be interesting if you would elaborate on the type of prerequisites you would find suitable for a citizen to become a state approved gun owner.
Especially I would find it interesting if you could apply your ideas on a multiracial and inhomogeneous community such as the US rather than confine your ideas to Poland.

Of course there are countries with big amount of guns and low crime. But problem is not "how much guns do we have" but "who have a gun". For example in Poland there are ~500000 registered guns and about ~50000 legal, unregistered guns (historical and black powder), but gun crime is very low.

And about your question about gun possesion. In Europe people think, that having a gun is not a law, but a privilege.
IMHO every non criminal, mentally healthy person, who passed exam and psychological tests (agression control, etc) should be able to have a gun.
It is nothing special that some people have less privileges. For example privilege to drive a car - you need to pass an exam and medical tests. Also addicted people can't have driving licence in Poland. No pass - no drive. Is it strange for you?
Blind person can't be a driver and agressive person can't have a gun. For me it is obvious.

[Calanen]

1. Not diagnosed means not diagnosed, not healthy. In Poland we don't need to ask court if someone is mentally ill or not.
2. How do you know if buyer isn't insane or criminalist?


Criminals dont buy their guns from gun dealers. That makes the weapon, and them, traceable. Better to buy it on the street, no one knows you have, no witnesses to tie you to the weapon.

In the US, Federal databases keep a record of all people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or have a criminal record, and neither can buy guns.

[Geezah]

I'm not sure if you knew this, but it is illegal for criminals to own or possess firearms in the USA.

In some states there is almost no control about buying guns. You could buy a gun like a Cola. Just enter the shop and buy. No licenses, no mental tests, no certificates of not being a criminal.
For example
Alabama - no licenses, no registration, no permit to purchase
Pennsylvania - no licenses, no permit to purchase, no registration, no license to carry gun outside cities.

Goes to show how little you really know.

There is a a Yellow Form(not yellow anymore) that has to be filled out prior to purchasing a firearm legally.
There are 3 pooible response the firearm dealer will get when he phone sin your form on the instant background check. Proceed(good to sell the consumer the firearm),Delayed(the purchase is delayed for further checking on the FBIs side) and Denied(bang out of luck, you ain't leaving with any firearm).

This is a Federal Law, so it applies to all States.




Now when you wrote this doctorate, did you take into account that if someone if hot blooded enough to go on a rampage and they do not have access to hot weapons, cold will do the job just as well.

A recent case in point!!!!

Of course. But we should try to hinder criminal attempts of these people. We can't stop them, but we can make some difficulities to they.
In this case - just imagine what would he do with AK and box of grenades! 30 killed? 40? 100?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Just compare number of victims

There were things done that causedhim to slip trough the cracks, this has changed and hopefully this will never happen again, but if it were there is a movement where more and more college students are wanting to pursue their CCW to protect themselves and innocent third parties, if someone goes nuts with anything.



What should we do here, ban breaking the law?

The pressence of a thing does not cause someone to break the law, the intent to break the law does.

Sometimes we can't stop disaster, but we can try to minimise it. I preffer crazy guy with a knife, then crazy guy with machine gun and grenades.
Guns should be available for people. But not for all people. Honest, mentally healthy person should be able to have a gun. But young dresiarz not.

You just don't get it do you, while you think about minimising it, you can never remove someones intent to break the law, but you can make it easier for the law abiding to protect themselves and other innocents around them.

Now on machine guns, there have only been two cases where legally held machine guns have been used to commit crime in the US, and one of them was by a Police Officer who used a department held Mac-10 to shoot and kill his informant.

Criminals will always break the law no matter what, but while they continue to break the law, I prefer along with 80 million other law abiding US firearm owners to pursue ownership of boom sticks.

[Geezah]

Sounds more dangerous to me to have guns left unattended where someone with ill intent could get at them - such as in a car. And are people of likely student age, say 17-22, allowed firearms, or part of the demographic likely to obtain them?

Don't campuses have no-firearms, or firearms-to-be-kept-in-the-Shooting-Team's-armoury rules?

Regards
BB

We can supply the instances where heroes have made it to their firearms to stop a crime from escalating, can you provide proof to back up your opinion?

[Backwoodshunter]

Of course there are countries with big amount of guns and low crime. But problem is not "how much guns do we have" but "who have a gun". For example in Poland there are ~500000 registered guns and about ~50000 legal, unregistered guns (historical and black powder), but gun crime is very low.

If you look back acouple pages I provided research that indicated a high number of available guns doesn't lead to crime, especially in the hands of citizens. It takes a certian economic and social conditions that leads to high crime, and guns are just an available tool. So we've already established that Europe and the US are different. But we've also established that more legally owned firearms leads to less crime, in multiple European countries.

Its an idiotic statement to make that illegally owned firearms are going to decrease crime, or not increase it. You should have your doctorate for a statement like that. All countries have to work towards removing illegal weapons from their streets. But is an undeniable fact that educated responsible ccw holders lead to less crime.

School shootings? There are tons of kids with issues, and kids who have issues are the ones that are commiting these acts. Not everyday mentally healthy individuals. I will say again. A high number of available weapons to citizens does not lead to an increase of crime or violence, guns don't magically turn students into killers. Its up to parents and teachers to recognize the signs leading up to it.

[Smok]

Goes to show how little you really know.

There is a a Yellow Form(not yellow anymore) that has to be filled out prior to purchasing a firearm legally.
There are 3 pooible response the firearm dealer will get when he phone sin your form on the instant background check. Proceed(good to sell the consumer the firearm),Delayed(the purchase is delayed for further checking on the FBIs side) and Denied(bang out of luck, you ain't leaving with any firearm).

This is a Federal Law, so it applies to all States.


But is it used in private trade (friend to friend) or only in proffesional trade (shops)? If there is no gun register police won't be able to trace this gun after it left the shop.



There were things done that causedhim to slip trough the cracks, this has changed and hopefully this will never happen again, but if it were there is a movement where more and more college students are wanting to pursue their CCW to protect themselves and innocent third parties, if someone goes nuts with anything.


I can bet, that there will be at least 1 school shooting in the USA in next 12 months.



You just don't get it do you, while you think about minimising it, you can never remove someones intent to break the law, but you can make it easier for the law abiding to protect themselves and other innocents around them.

Now on machine guns, there have only been two cases where legally held machine guns have been used to commit crime in the US, and one of them was by a Police Officer who used a department held Mac-10 to shoot and kill his informant.

Criminals will always break the law no matter what, but while they continue to break the law, I prefer along with 80 million other law abiding US firearm owners to pursue ownership of boom sticks.

Of course - we can't stop crime. Wise gun control is made to make life safer. As I said I'm against forbiding guns. I just want to be sure, that my government will try to prevent irresponsible people from having guns.
As I said - pass an exam, make medical tests (aggresion control etc.) and buy every gun you want. But register it, and remember that it is not a toy. It is my view of wise gun control.

And of couse - criminals will break the law. Remember, that in Europe normal criminal won't have a gun. It is really difficult to buy illegal gun in Europe.


If you look back acouple pages I provided research that indicated a high number of available guns doesn't lead to crime, especially in the hands of citizens. It takes a certian economic and social conditions that leads to high crime, and guns are just an available tool. So we've already established that Europe and the US are different. But we've also established that more legally owned firearms leads to less crime, in multiple European countries.


But of course. Gun in hands of responsible person is completely safe. The problem is how to stop irresponsible ones. That is the goal of gun control.
Believe me - wise gun control doesn't want to ban guns. Wise gun control wants to stop some kind of people. It is like pilot or driving license. Not everyone should be able to fly a plane or drive a car. We must stop people, who aren't responsible enought to do some things.



Its an idiotic statement to make that illegally owned firearms are going to decrease crime, or not increase it. You should have your doctorate for a statement like that. All countries have to work towards removing illegal weapons from their streets. But is an undeniable fact that educated responsible ccw holders lead to less crime.


Illegal guns is a part of my doctorate. If we wan't to remove illegal guns we need to know which gun is legal. That is why every gun should be registered - just like every car has it's number.



School shootings? There are tons of kids with issues, and kids who have issues are the ones that are commiting these acts. Not everyday mentally healthy individuals. I will say again. A high number of available weapons to citizens does not lead to an increase of crime or violence, guns don't magically turn students into killers. Its up to parents and teachers to recognize the signs leading up to it.

But I agree! The problem is, that guns shouldn't be in possesion of irresponsible people. People should know, that guns are something special and dangerous. It is not a toy, and having a gun means that you are responsible in special way. Ihave nothing against high number of guns. I just want to be sure, that guns are for "good" people only.

[Geezah]

But is it used in private trade (friend to friend) or only in proffesional trade (shops)? If there is no gun register police won't be able to trace this gun after it left the shop.

And the issue here is what?

I have soid firearms legally to other lawful member of the public(I know because they showed me their CCW licenses.

Private sales are legal in the US, and I see no problem with them, and since there is no legal requirement to register your firearms it kills your complaint.


I can bet, that there will be at least 1 school shooting in the USA in next 12 months.

Thanks for that.........


Of course - we can't stop crime. Wise gun control is made to make life safer.

Since when does it make life safer???


Please give me an example of this perfect gun free/crime free Utopia?

It's a fallacy, as criminals do not obey the law and the only people gun control affects are the law abiding!



As I said I'm against forbiding guns. I just want to be sure, that my government will try to prevent irresponsible people from having guns.

When has big Government EVER done anything right???

It is not the responsibilty of the Government to look after the people!



As I said - pass an exam, make medical tests (aggresion control etc.) and buy every gun you want. But register it, and remember that it is not a toy. It is my view of wise gun control.

Well, you know what they say about opinions.



And of couse - criminals will break the law. Remember, that in Europe normal criminal won't have a gun. It is really difficult to buy illegal gun in Europe

Is that so, I have plenty of links to prove otherwise where firearms have been used over the years in the UK.
This is the same country where firearms are either heavily restricted in banned in the UK, but criminals still manage to get hold of them.

[Smok]

And the issue here is what?

I have soid firearms legally to other lawful member of the public(I know because they showed me their CCW licenses.

Private sales are legal in the US, and I see no problem with them, and since there is no legal requirement to register your firearms it kills your complaint.


But no register means that there is no way to trace a gun. So you can buy gun in shop and sell it to anyone. No one will be able to make any prosecution against you (because there is no trace of gun after it left shop).
In Poland private sales are also legal. But after that gun must be registered by buyer and unregistered by seller. So our police know who i where has a gun.



Since when does it make life safer???


Just compare crime ratio in USA and Europe. High number of guns makes obtaining illegal guns easier. No guns registration makes it absolutely easy.



Please give me an example of this perfect gun free/crime free Utopia?


There is no perfection.



It's a fallacy, as criminals do not obey the law and the only people gun control affects are the law abiding!


As I said gun control makes 2 things.
1. Stops hot blooded criminals.
2. Makes buying illegal gun much harder.
In USA there is not a problem to buy illegal gun. In Europe it is difficult.



When has big Government EVER done anything right???


Sometimes. For example when it forced people to go to schools.



It is not the responsibilty of the Government to look after the people!


So why do we need government?



Well, you know what they say about opinions.

Is that so, I have plenty of links to prove otherwise where firearms have been used over the years in the UK.
This is the same country where firearms are either heavily restricted in banned in the UK, but criminals still manage to get hold of them.

I agree. UK system is absolutelly stupid. I think that good gun control system exists for example in Finland. It is quite easy to have a gun there, but government controls gun possesions. Also Czech Republic has quite good system. Polish one is bad (not as bad as British).
To much restrictions give nothning good. We must make system which allows people to have guns, but stops irresponsible ones.

[Calanen]

As I said gun control makes 2 things.
1. Stops hot blooded criminals.
2. Makes buying illegal gun much harder.
In USA there is not a problem to buy illegal gun. In Europe it is difficult


BS...you can get guns. You think all your drug dealers have bamboo sticks to protect their stash?

Criminals dont give a flying f_k what gun laws there are. Did banning drugs make illegal drugs harder to get? If you can import a container load of drugs, you can import a container load of guns.

[T3ngu]

BS...you can get guns. You think all your drug dealers have bamboo sticks to protect their stash?

Criminals dont give a flying f_k what gun laws there are. Did banning drugs make illegal drugs harder to get? If you can import a container load of drugs, you can import a container load of guns.

I could jump in my car and get an illegal handgun within two hours, probably more than one.

If i were to do it legally, it would take months.

Gun licensing stops honest people getting guns without a bit of a wait.

At least once a year im offered illegal guns to "hold" for people for reasons ranging from they found it to they shouldn't have them. Simply put im not interested.

There are way more illegal guns about than the general public will ever know about.

Smok, from an Australian perspective you are wrong on those points.

[Holycrusader]

BS...you can get guns. You think all your drug dealers have bamboo sticks to protect their stash?

Criminals dont give a flying f_k what gun laws there are. Did banning drugs make illegal drugs harder to get? If you can import a container load of drugs, you can import a container load of guns.

Of course you can, but your possibilities are limited. Weapon black market in Poland is much smaller than in USA. Trying to get a weapon in Japan will be much harder in Japan than in USA. Thats are facts, your argumets are weak.

[T3ngu]

Of course you can, but your possibilities are limited. Weapon black market in Poland is much smaller than in USA. Trying to get a weapon in Japan will be much harder in Japan than in USA. Thats are facts, your argumets are weak.

Easy to get guns in the USA as their guns laws are compared to here very weak. Weapons have been banned in japan for years, so of course they are hard to get. Here, until the late 80's you didn't need a license for rifles. You should think out your reasoning a little more.

Calanens arguements from what i have seen are correct. The illegal gun trade is massive if you know where to look.

[Calanen]

Of course you can, but your possibilities are limited. Weapon black market in Poland is much smaller than in USA. Trying to get a weapon in Japan will be much harder in Japan than in USA. Thats are facts, your argumets are weak.

You kidding with the proximity to Romania, the Balkans and Russia? Im sure I could pick a lot more crates of AKs in Poland than I could in the states, and with far fewer questions asked.

You think that the Yakuza dont have guns in Japan? Less guns around the place in Japan because of less demand. You can get drugs everywhere, and they are illegal. If people want whatever, if there is demand, they'll get them.

[perdurabo]

Of course you can, but your possibilities are limited. Weapon black market in Poland is much smaller than in USA. Trying to get a weapon in Japan will be much harder in Japan than in USA. Thats are facts, your argumets are weak.
are we both living in same country? in my hometown criminals used granades and automatic weapons to escape out of court room(check for Jelenia Góra), or maybe you didn't heard about Magdalenka? those wheren't 80years old WWII antiques but new guns straight from factory.
I'm for mild gun control (license after background check for any semi auto and special colection license for auto) but psychological tests are ridiculus.

[Smok]

are we both living in same country? in my hometown criminals used granades and automatic weapons to escape out of court room(check for Jelenia Góra), or maybe you didn't heard about Magdalenka? those wheren't 80years old WWII antiques but new guns straight from factory.
I'm for mild gun control (license after background check for any semi auto and special colection license for auto) but psychological tests are ridiculus.

Yes, but these were incidents. In Poland we have around 100 murders with firearms every year. In USA around 10000! That means we have 1 firearm murder per 380000 persons and in USA there is 1 firearm murder per 30000 persons! Around 12 times more!
Every year in Poland police captures about 1000 illegal guns (excluding air guns, gas guns etc.). Is it big number? Mostly these are WW2 guns found by military fanatics. These guns aren't used for criminal purposes (mostly it is rusted and not working stuff).
Crime ratio in Poland is very low, and guns are used mostly by big mafia groups, not by "normal" criminalists.


BS...you can get guns. You think all your drug dealers have bamboo sticks to protect their stash?

Criminals dont give a flying f_k what gun laws there are. Did banning drugs make illegal drugs harder to get? If you can import a container load of drugs, you can import a container load of guns.

Yes. In Poland almost only "big gangsters" use guns. Average drug dealer has got a knife, baseball bat or pitbul dog.
My friend is a policeman in city near Wroclaw. During 2 years of service he had 1 gun crime - illegaly possesion of WW2 rifle. SInce the war that rifle was never used. It is gun crime in Poland.

Of course there are some big accidents like shooting in Magdalenka and so on. But it is not a common crime. It is special event.


I could jump in my car and get an illegal handgun within two hours, probably more than one.

If i were to do it legally, it would take months.

Gun licensing stops honest people getting guns without a bit of a wait.

At least once a year im offered illegal guns to "hold" for people for reasons ranging from they found it to they shouldn't have them. Simply put im not interested.

There are way more illegal guns about than the general public will ever know about.

Smok, from an Australian perspective you are wrong on those points.

But I live in Poland (Europe) not Australia. We have different culture, different society, different law system. In Poland you won't be able to get an illegal gun so easy.


You kidding with the proximity to Romania, the Balkans and Russia? Im sure I could pick a lot more crates of AKs in Poland than I could in the states, and with far fewer questions asked.


Please! We are not 3 world country! Go to Poland andtry to buy one illegal AK. p-)
You have absolutely wrong vision of central Europe.

[Holycrusader]

Smok is right. Perdurabo we are not living in wild east...
In Magdalenka one Belorusian and one Pole kill two policemen and wounded 16 other.
But it was in 2003!!! One case of such gun crime in many years...
From four years I do not remeber anything simmilar. We are really quaiet country in that regard...

[Holycrusader]

You kidding with the proximity to Romania, the Balkans and Russia? Im sure I could pick a lot more crates of AKs in Poland than I could in the states, and with far fewer questions asked.




You know nothing about my country...

[perdurabo]

Yes, but these were incidents. In Poland we have around 100 murders with firearms every year. In USA around 10000! That means we have 1 firearm murder per 380000 persons and in USA there is 1 firearm murder per 30000 persons! Around 12 times more!
Every year in Poland police captures about 1000 illegal guns (excluding air guns, gas guns etc.). Is it big number? Mostly these are WW2 guns found by military fanatics. These guns aren't used for criminal purposes (mostly it is rusted and not working stuff).
Crime ratio in Poland is very low, and guns are used mostly by big mafia groups, not by "normal" criminalists.


and what is the total number of murders? afaik we just happen to have lower gun crime but higher knife and other dangarous tools crimes.

[dava]

BS...you can get guns. You think all your drug dealers have bamboo sticks to protect their stash?

Drug dealers dont go around armed around here. Its fairly easy to get drugs, and i have known some people who dealt coke/xtc. They were regular blokes, didnt carry a weapon at all, not even a knife.

You really need some glasses, your vision on Europe with all the illegal arms and dangerous muslims is really out of touch with reality.

[cmc]

I don't know how is in other countries, but in Romania is next to impossible to get an AK. To your surprise, not even the mafia guys can't aquire such weapons... and... no I don't think they use bamboo sticks... but they don't have AKs either... :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I don't know how is in other countries, but in Romania is next to impossible to get an AK. To your surprise, not even the mafia guys can't aquire such weapons... and... no I don't think they use bamboo sticks... but they don't have AKs either... :)

Careful guys. You might go upsetting certain members' carefully nurtured prejudices and stereotypes.:)

[Smok]

and what is the total number of murders? afaik we just happen to have lower gun crime but higher knife and other dangarous tools crimes.

I posted it before (page 15).
Poland - ~720 murders per 38000000 people (1 murder per 53000 people)
USA ~16000 murders per 303000000 people (1 murder per 19000 people)

These numbers do not contain euthanasia (murder in Poland) and murders of babies just after they were born (so called "mother's murders"). Total number of all kind of murders in Poland is about 800 (I don't know number of "mother's murders" and euthanasias in the USA).

[Geezah]

And the issue here is what?

I have soid firearms legally to other lawful member of the public(I know because they showed me their CCW licenses.

Private sales are legal in the US, and I see no problem with them, and since there is no legal requirement to register your firearms it kills your complaint.

But no register means that there is no way to trace a gun. So you can buy gun in shop and sell it to anyone. No one will be able to make any prosecution against you (because there is no trace of gun after it left shop).
In Poland private sales are also legal. But after that gun must be registered by buyer and unregistered by seller. So our police know who i where has a gun.

Do you understand "infringed"?



Since when does it make life safer???

Just compare crime ratio in USA and Europe. High number of guns makes obtaining illegal guns easier. No guns registration makes it absolutely easy.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm)

Firearm crime has decreased over the years seeing a slight increase in 05, and the other thing is, legal firearm ownership has increased. So how do you explain that one away?

While you support registration, the only people that will obey the law are the law abiding. So while the can control the these people you offer no way of getting the criminals in check.



Please give me an example of this perfect gun free/crime free Utopia/

There is no perfection.

Then how can you tell me that what you suggest works, when I can show that more legally held firearms equals a decrease in violent crime?



It's a fallacy, as criminals do not obey the law and the only people gun control affects are the law abiding!

As I said gun control makes 2 things.
1. Stops hot blooded criminals.
2. Makes buying illegal gun much harder.
In USA there is not a problem to buy illegal gun. In Europe it is difficult.

1.BS, crime will happen no matter what,. did you just choose to ignore the knife wielding maniac that went on a rampage?
2.Are you kidding, again you have chosen to ignore the UK. Please explain the UK to me?



When has big Government EVER done anything right???

Sometimes. For example when it forced people to go to schools.

Well, that's a result, the only thing they have to show is making people go to school, so why exactly is big government good?


It is not the responsibilty of the Government to look after the people!

So why do we need government?[/quote]

Well, according to you, to force people to go to school.........

It is not the job of the Government to look after the individual.



Well, you know what they say about opinions.

Is that so, I have plenty of links to prove otherwise where firearms have been used over the years in the UK.
This is the same country where firearms are either heavily restricted in banned in the UK, but criminals still manage to get hold of them.

I agree. UK system is absolutelly stupid. I think that good gun control system exists for example in Finland. It is quite easy to have a gun there, but government controls gun possesions. Also Czech Republic has quite good system. Polish one is bad (not as bad as British).
To much restrictions give nothning good. We must make system which allows people to have guns, but stops irresponsible ones.

Then stop going on about the US as it is legal for the law abiding to own firearms, but people that have Federal convictions against them cannot.

Please refer back to the image above where crime is nowhere near the level it was in the early 90s.

[Smok]

Do you understand "infringed"?


But what is the point? I show you, that your system has a big hole. If you can't buy a gun in shop you can do this from private seller and there will be no trace of this transaction.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm)

Firearm crime has decreased over the years seeing a slight increase in 05, and the other thing is, legal firearm ownership has increased. So how do you explain that one away?


It is easy to explain. Gun isn't the only factor. Also having 1 gun is as dangerous as having 10 guns. BTW these numbers are horrible! 1 person per 300 was victim of gun crime!



While you support registration, the only people that will obey the law are the law abiding. So while the can control the these people you offer no way of getting the criminals in check.


You can't understand simple fact. Registered gun can't be secretely sold. SO number of illegal guns will be going down, because it will be not so easy to change legal guns into illegal. Gun register is like car register.



Then how can you tell me that what you suggest works, when I can show that more legally held firearms equals a decrease in violent crime?


I can't see that you show it. You just show one simple graphic. You can cheat someone stupid by this, but I'm making a doctorate about gun control. I have read hundreds of articles, books, statistics etc. And I can tell you one - check other factors. Check for example law changes, immigration changes, unemployment changes, social reforms etc.
And of course wise gun control can lower crime ratio. But wise gun control means "guns for responsible" not "guns for everyone". Do you really think, that if we allow drug dealers to legally have guns than crime ratio will go down?



1.BS, crime will happen no matter what,. did you just choose to ignore the knife wielding maniac that went on a rampage?
2.Are you kidding, again you have chosen to ignore the UK. Please explain the UK to me?


1. As I said - crime always exists. But this knife maniac killed las people than gun maniac from Virginia Tech.
2. You havn't read my posts. I said, that UK system is absolutely stupid, useless and bad.



Well, that's a result, the only thing they have to show is making people go to school, so why exactly is big government good?


Oh for example public fire safety, police, proffesional military, free public roads etc.



Well, according to you, to force people to go to school.........

It is not the job of the Government to look after the individual.


Gun control affects on society not only indyviduals.



Then stop going on about the US as it is legal for the law abiding to own firearms, but people that have Federal convictions against them cannot.

Please refer back to the image above where crime is nowhere near the level it was in the early 90s.

But this image is useless. It is "smoke screen" for ill educated persons. If you want to show some analysis you must include other factors. The question is what was level of unemployment these years, what social reforms were done, what criminal law policy was being made, what was the crime level, what about immigration etc. All these things affects on crime level. For example in Poland after 1989 gun law was changed into less strict, but crime ratio went up. In 1999 gun law was liberalized again, but crime ratio was constant. Also in 2003 gun law was liberalized again, but gun numbers dropped and crime ratio also dropped! But why effects were different? Check unemployment ratio in Poland and emmigration/immigration statistics. Also check changes of polish criminal law.
So as you can see changing guns law isn't the only reason of changing crime ratio. It is just a "spice" for main course.

[wotsnext]

Yet another reason why we don't want guns in the UK.

US factory worker in gun rampage


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44532000/gif/_44532666_breaking_226x170.gif

Police in the US state of Kentucky say a member of staff at a plant shot four people dead before killing himself.
The shooting, in the city of Henderson, happened after the employee at Atlantis Plastics had an argument with a supervisor, authorities said.
Police Lieutenant David Piller told AP news agency that two other people were injured in the killing spree and flown to hospitals in Evansville, Indiana.
Lt Piller said the employee used a handgun he got from home on his break. A police spokesman told the BBC News website the shooting happened at just after midnight on Wednesday at 1218 (0418GMT). He said one of the survivors

[Invisigoth]

Who's going to break into a house, or hijack a car when they very well know there's a good chance the occupant has a firearm?

Apparently a lot of people if you look at the U.S. Doesn't seem to be a deterrent?

[Henry's Fork]

Apparently a lot of people if you look at the U.S. Doesn't seem to be a deterrent?

Actually, you have to look at it by a state to state basis. The states that let you carry a firearm on your person or in your car do not have that problem. Now states, like my very own Kalifornia, doesnt let its population have that right, and the criminals all know this, so we indeed do have a mugging/carjacking problem. :-(