(UK) Crime Down - BUT WE HAVE NO GUNS???

[CMNot]

The number of murders and manslaughters has dropped by 17% to a 20-year low of 648, the annual crime figures for England and Wales show.

There were 136 fewer killings in 2008/9 compared with a year earlier, according to the Home Office figures.



Theft-related crime has risen in the last year, with domestic burglary up by 1% and shoplifting rising by 10%.



But overall crime is down by 5% and violent crime has fallen by 6%, and gun crime has seen a 17% fall.


LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm)


But we are an unarmed sheep people, what is this?

[Xaito]

I see where you're coming from - although I don't care too much about having a gun (I don't have one and I don't need one in Germany), in general I'd rather live with the risks then without the freedom of choice.

[California Joe]

If you all had guns you'd have even less.

You'd also have less chavs. :)

[RIPTIDE]

If you all had guns you'd have even less.

You'd also have less chavs. :)

Golden! :D:D woot

[Alpheus]

(US) Crime Down - BUT THEY HAVE MORE GUNS???


U.S. crime rates have defied conventional wisdom by falling at a time when law enforcement officials had braced themselves for a surge because of the recession and joblessness.

A report in January said a survey of U.S. police chiefs saw the economic downturn sparking a rise in crime -- a view echoed by many commentators. The current recession, considered one of the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s, began in December 2007.

But violent crime in the United States fell 2.5 percent last year as cities and towns across the country reported fewer murders, rapes and other incidents for a second straight year, the FBI said earlier this week.

In 2008, the number of murders fell by 4.4 percent, aggravated assaults by 3.2 percent, rapes by 2.2 percent and robberies by 1.1 percent. Property crimes, including auto theft, were also down, falling 1.6 percent from 2007 levels, although burglaries rose 1.3 percent.
http://www.*******.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03430836

See, it's not just the UK. The recession has hit every sector of the economy, even criminals. I just hope it also hits the stupidity factory.

[Skutatos]

Switzerland has in excess of 400,000 military issued assault rifles stored in private homes, and their crime is pretty low. That number doesn't include privately purchased firearms.

[Geezah]

The British Crime Survey suggests the risk of being a victim of crime has risen from 22% to 23%.

Killings are lowest in 20 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8153392.stm)

So the risk of being a victim has risen, but as noted all that has changed really is the way the numbers presented.

On the idea of not having firearms, well that wouldn't be the case for the criminals that have no problem in getting their hands on them.

Taken from the Home Office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf),

• The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell by 17 per cent between 2007/08 and 2008/09 and has decreased by 26 per cent since peaking in 2005/06.
There was a large reduction in the number of firearm offences resulting in injury (down
by 46% in 2008/09) mostly due to reductions in slight injuries and associated with large
reductions in the use of imitation weapons (down 41%). There was a small rise in the
use of shotguns and handguns (both up 2%).

So firearms still seem to be an issue!

[Connaught Ranger]

So firearms still seem to be an issue!

I believe more people get knifed than shot.

[Geezah]

I believe more people get knifed than shot.

Which I would agree to, as I was stabbed when I was 16, but not shot. But for a country that responded to amok killings with knee jerk laws, it did nothing to stop firearms falling into the wrong hands.

There were less firearm related crimes when the laws regaring firearm ownership for the law abiding were alot more liberal.

[RIPTIDE]

I believe more people get knifed than shot.
...and also in the article posted...


The Conservatives said it seemed the government was trying to cover up the extent of knife crime by broadening what crimes are included in the category.
Shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "It looks like the government is trying to cover up the scale of the problem we face with knife crime, little wonder given its policies have failed to get to grips with the challenge.
"Massaging the figures on knife crime twice in two years is just an insult to the families of those who have been tragically murdered in knife attacks and who are campaigning for real action to get knives off our streets."

[dudski]

In Israel a country under the constant threat of war and terrorism, where nearly every household has a firearm including fully auto military assault rifle's. Gun crime is nearly nonexistent.

thank you, point made.

[Mordoror]

See, it's not just the UK. The recession has hit every sector of the economy, even criminals. I just hope it also hits the stupidity factory.

true in some way

strangely analysis of social behaviour has shown that there is paradoxally more crimes when a nation is healthy in term of economy or in a powerful state (winner after a war for example)

it is all a matter of testosterone (a war winner is always full of it) and frustration of a part of a population in regards of the health of another part
when everybody or almost is in the crap, the frustration is not directed internally to fellow citizens (it can be directed to minorities or external foes anyway, but there we are not talking about crimes anymore ....)

[Eagle The Lightning]

I think in the UK to let everyone have guns, where the Drinking culture is to go out get pissed and fight, there would be chavs with guns trying to shoot people instead of shanking them so murders would rocket

[Geezah]

I think in the UK to let everyone have guns, where the Drinking culture is to go out get pissed and fight, there would be chavs with guns trying to shoot people instead of shanking them so murders would rocket

Because when the law abiding were able to purchase them, murders skyrocketed?

Just curious, what are you using to back up your logic?

[Red-Phos]

Because when the law abiding were able to purchase them, murders skyrocketed?

Just curious, what are you using to back up your logic?
He is right.Where i live there is at least a shooting a week.And the current culture is to go out at night get as pissed as you can and scrap with another group of lads,get locked up for the night and do it all again the next weekend.Suppose you would have to live here to understand.Whilst people are using all other weapons from Street signs,bottles,knifes,slabs etc etc etc etc adding Firearms to the mix would be Fannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnntastic.

[ando]

like chaos cheat on GTA !!

[Eagle The Lightning]

Because when the law abiding were able to purchase them, murders skyrocketed?

Just curious, what are you using to back up your logic?
I,ll give you one example of chavs in the UK getting hold of guns,Rhys Jones (LINK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3701020/Rhys-Jones-Shot-dead-as-he-walked-home-from-football-practice-in-Liverpool.html). so I think if guns where more excusable there would be lots more people shot from chavs

[ando]

I,ll give you one example of chavs in the UK getting hold of guns,Rhys Jones (LINK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3701020/Rhys-Jones-Shot-dead-as-he-walked-home-from-football-practice-in-Liverpool.html). so I think if guns where more excusable there would be lots more people shot from chavs



There no point Egale its like talking to a brick wall mate

[Red-Phos]

i,ll give you one example of chavs in the uk getting hold of guns,rhys jones (link) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3701020/rhys-jones-shot-dead-as-he-walked-home-from-football-practice-in-liverpool.html). So i think if guns where more excusable there would be lots more people shot from chavs


etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

[CMNot]

In Israel a country under the constant threat of war and terrorism, where nearly every household has a firearm including fully auto military assault rifle's. Gun crime is nearly nonexistent.

thank you, point made.

By jove, yes, you are right, I have seen the light, you have totally convinced me.

[Red-Phos]

In Israel a country under the constant threat of war and terrorism.
Oh and we do not have that either do we? LETS ARM UP MOTHER ****ERS!

[Eagle The Lightning]

Oh and we do not have that either do we? LETS ARM UP MOTHER ****ERS!
I want a 50cal sniper to kill some squirrels in the park

[2495]

Oh and we do not have that either do we? LETS ARM UP MOTHER ****ERS!

Inner cities would never be the same again. Most of the UK would be a mix of 'Escape from New York, Death race 2000 and some psychotic mad max on speed' mash up.

Hahahaha that would be some thing else to see.

[Red-Phos]

What ever we say lads its not as bad as Isreal...................


IT NEVER ****ING IS

[ando]

Inner cities would never be the same again. Most of the UK would be a mix of 'Escape from New York, Death race 2000 and some psychotic mad max on speed' mash up.

Hahahaha that would be some thing else to see.

Its bad enough with exploding mc'd milkshakes being thrown out of nova's and corsa's :)

[ando]

what ever we say lads its not as bad as isreal...................


it never ****ing is


wheres that ?

[2495]

What ever we say lads its not as bad as Isreal...................


I was in Yates in Blackpool when the RM and Paras had a set to outside. Lancashire Police didn't have enough blokes to deal with it, and just picked up the bodies afterwards.

Chairs, tables, people, everything that could be flung, used, abused and weaponised was.

All started when one lad look across and went 'fvck me mate, your mums got a set of curtains just like your shirt'.

made an evening in israel look decidedly peaceful.

[ando]

I was in Yates in Blackpool when the RM and Paras had a set to outside. Lancashire Police didn't have enough blokes to deal with it, and just picked up the bodies afterwards.

Chairs, tables, people, everything that could be flung, used, abused and weaponised was.

All started when one lad look across and went 'fvck me mate, your mums got a set of curtains just like your shirt'.

made an evening in israel look decidedly peaceful.

Erm id question what ya doing b'pool and especially in yates :).The only time i'm there is for the lights ,chippy tea and feck off home in 50 mins.Sounded fun thaugh

[2495]

Erm id question what ya doing b'pool and especially in yates :).The only time i'm there is for the lights ,chippy tea and feck off home in 50 mins.Sounded fun thaugh

I was working up that way mate and after yates hit Syndicates. Mega night out, and the street entertainment was awesome.

[Mu-Meson]

But violent crime in the United States fell 2.5 percent last year as cities and towns across the country reported fewer murders, rapes and other incidents for a second straight year, the FBI said earlier this week.

In 2008, the number of murders fell by 4.4 percent, aggravated assaults by 3.2 percent, rapes by 2.2 percent and robberies by 1.1 percent. Property crimes, including auto theft, were also down, falling 1.6 percent from 2007 levels, although burglaries rose 1.3 percent.

And this is at a time when gun and ammo sales in the states are going through the roof. Go figure.

[ando]

I was working up that way mate and after yates hit Syndicates. Mega night out, and the street entertainment was awesome.

Yeah usually pissed up slagets on hen nights slaughterd puking up on the kerb wile im sat chewing chips n gravy on the sea front. Its time like that when you look at it properly and you think you know i just love this land :)

[Red-Phos]

Where is Geezah with his wisdom? After speaking to P_Unit on the blower he told me his freind came down to the City where i live,to a nightclub and almost got stabbed by a group of lads for bumping into them on a ****ing dance floor thats the level of **** thats here.And 2 weeks before this a lad was killed after having his face stamped into a tram track.LOVELY! and also a few weeks ago some bloke got tazerd 9 times and kicked to **** by the police LOVELY! I love my City hahahaha

[Red-Phos]

Yeah usually pissed up slagets on hen nights slaughterd puking up on the kerb wile im sat chewing chips n gravy on the sea front. Its time like that when you look at it properly and you think you know i just love this land :)
If you go to pull a hen night with say 3 mates you are guaranteed a to nob the minimum of 2 birds......each.

[ando]

If you go to pull a hen night with say 3 mates you are guaranteed a to nob the minimum of 2 birds......each.

Na its a 3/3 in b'pool

[ando]

And this is at a time when gun and ammo sales in the states are going through the roof. Go figure.


What this got to do with anything?

[Red-Phos]

Im a selfish **** i dont like to share with my mates!
And i forgot some lad was shot and killed the other day to!

[IDF_TANKER]

In Israel a country under the constant threat of war and terrorism, where nearly every household has a firearm including fully auto military assault rifle's. Gun crime is nearly nonexistent.

thank you, point made.

This is simply not true. Only relatively small percent of Israelis have firearms - these living in territories, being in regular service etc. In fact, for an average Israeli to get a fire arm is practically impossible, and those having the permit, can only acquire semi-automatic pistols (and, AFAIK, only one). Those households having automatic weapons, you were referring to, are usually settlers getting their weapons from state regulated local armories for self-defense.

Yes, the violent crime is relatively low in Israel, but not because of this. In fact, I suspect, given that the majority of the murders are the "passion" ones, more available firearms will only increase this statistics.

[PUG]

Oh it's all fun and games until some **** shoots you in the ****ing face isn't it.

[ando]

This is simply not true. Only relatively small percent of Israelis have firearms - these living in territories, being in regular service etc. In fact, for an average Israeli to get a fire arm is practically impossible, and those having the permit, can only acquire semi-automatic pistols (and, AFAIK, only one). Those households having automatic weapons, you were referring to, are usually settlers getting their weapons from state regulated local armories for self-defense.

Yes, the violent crime is relatively low in Israel, but not because of this. In fact, I suspect, given that the majority of the murders are the "passion" ones, more available firearms will only increase this statistics.

DEVO'D !!! -dudski

cheers idf for clearing something up

[Red-Phos]

This is simply not true. Only relatively small percent of Israelis have firearms - these living in territories, being in regular service etc. In fact, for an average Israeli to get a fire arm is practically impossible, and those having the permit, can only acquire semi-automatic pistols (and, AFAIK, only one). Those households having automatic weapons, you were referring to, are usually settlers getting their weapons from state regulated local armories for self-defense.

Yes, the violent crime is relatively low in Israel, but not because of this. In fact, I suspect, given that the majority of the murders are the "passion" ones, more available firearms will only increase this statistics.
I thaught that was the case in Isreal with Weapons.

[2495]

Na its a 3/3 in b'pool

and you get second dabs on their mates too.

Fecking awesome during summer. Winter time however, its like a ghost town and you watch sandy tumbleweeds travelling through the streets .

However, winter times the locals fight each other lol.

[2495]

Yeah usually pissed up slagets on hen nights slaughterd puking up on the kerb wile im sat chewing chips n gravy on the sea front. Its time like that when you look at it properly and you think you know i just love this land :)


Also known as '3am rich pickings' lol.

[RIPTIDE]

Also known as '3am rich pickings' lol.
Or the 'Golden Goal'. :D

[Red-Phos]

Also known as '3am rich pickings' lol.
Yesssss you use the ancient technique of ''Alright love shall i hold your hair'' whoooooohahahahahah allways works allllllllllllways.

[Laworkerbee]

Oh it's all fun and games until some **** shoots you in the ****ing face isn't it.

God I hate when that happens.

[Red-Phos]

God I hate when that happens.
Tell me about it.

[Euroamerican]

Yesssss you use the ancient technique of ''Alright love shall i hold your hair'' whoooooohahahahahah allways works allllllllllllways.


I've found they're ever so grateful when you help them hold their face and hair up out of their own vomit!

[Eagle The Lightning]

Oh it's all fun and games until some **** shoots you in the ****ing face isn't it.
That's what she said :)

[brainplay]

All started when one lad look across and went 'fvck me mate, your mums got a set of curtains just like your shirt'.

Erm id question what ya doing b'pool and especially in yates :-).The only time i'm there is for the lights ,chippy tea and feck off home in 50 mins.Sounded fun thaugh

Yeah usually pissed up slagets on hen nights slaughterd puking up on the kerb wile im sat chewing chips n gravy on the sea front. Its time like that when you look at it properly and you think you know i just love this land :-)

If you go to pull a hen night with say 3 mates you are guaranteed a to nob the minimum of 2 birds......each.

Na its a 3/3 in b'pool

and you get second dabs on their mates too.

Wait..what?

Didn't I see this in a National Lampoon movie?

[Geezah]

I,ll give you one example of chavs in the UK getting hold of guns,Rhys Jones (LINK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3701020/Rhys-Jones-Shot-dead-as-he-walked-home-from-football-practice-in-Liverpool.html). so I think if guns where more excusable there would be lots more people shot from chavs



Your response was an emotional one, there is no logic to it what so ever.

You did not answer my question.

Maybe I should repeat the question,



Because when the law abiding were able to purchase them, murders skyrocketed?

Just curious, what are you using to back up your logic?

How does giving the law abiding access to firearms increase the number of firearms that Chavs get their hands on?
Do the law abiding once they have access to firearms turn into chavs?

Criminals already have access to firearms, alot more so than prior to the restrictions that were imposed on the law abiding. So how do you go about reducing the number of arms in the hands of the crims?

Just an FYI, I'm from West London and moved here 13yrs ago, so I'm well aware of what's what in the UK and London!

[Geezah]

Where is Geezah with his wisdom? After speaking to P_Unit on the blower he told me his freind came down to the City where i live,to a nightclub and almost got stabbed by a group of lads for bumping into them on a ****ing dance floor thats the level of **** thats here.And 2 weeks before this a lad was killed after having his face stamped into a tram track.LOVELY! and also a few weeks ago some bloke got tazerd 9 times and kicked to **** by the police LOVELY! I love my City hahahaha

I just got back from JC Penney's having a couple of links removed from my Lamretta watch, and before that I had to mow the yard, so been busy.

What point are you trying to make?

[PeterRJG]

What point are you trying to make?

Jeez, heaven help anyone other than you trying to make a point on this forum. All hail Crusader Geezah, the sky is falling.

[Geezah]

In fact, I suspect, given that the majority of the murders are the "passion" ones, more available firearms will only increase this statistics.

I'm not sure I understand the above, so greater access to firearms for the law abiding is bad because of lovers tiffs?

[Geezah]

Jeez, heaven help anyone other than you trying to make a point on this forum. All hail Crusader Geezah, the sky is falling.

Well, so far alot of people in this thread have agreed that criminals are bad, but have also lumped the law abiding into that group.

I will say this, I am passionate about firearms and the law abiding having access to them...........

[MaverickCowboy]

LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm)


But we are an unarmed sheep people, what is this?

are you making an argument against gun ownership?

[Red-Phos]

I'm from West London and moved here 13yrs ago, so I'm well aware of what's what in the UK and London!
I dont think you are.

[matthew.manhorn]

I think in the UK to let everyone have guns, where the Drinking culture is to go out get pissed and fight, there would be chavs with guns trying to shoot people instead of shanking them so murders would rocket

British football hooligans are like American rednecks on steroids

I certainly won't want these guys to own guns 0-0

[Red-Phos]

British football hooligans are like American rednecks on steroids

I certainly won't want these guys to own guns 0-0
Yeah because everyone who has a scrap on a night out is a ''Hooligan''.

[wigon]

Your response was an emotional one, there is no logic to it what so ever.

You did not answer my question.

Maybe I should repeat the question,



How does giving the law abiding access to firearms increase the number of firearms that Chavs get their hands on?
Do the law abiding once they have access to firearms turn into chavs?

Criminals already have access to firearms, alot more so than prior to the restrictions that were imposed on the law abiding. So how do you go about reducing the number of arms in the hands of the crims?

Just an FYI, I'm from West London and moved here 13yrs ago, so I'm well aware of what's what in the UK and London!


If you look at firearm related murders in the United States a very large number of them occur using weapons that were stolen from good law abiding citizens. Those that weren't were purchased by people without felonies. Yet they get into the hands of criminals in the same way that such weapons could get in the hands of Chavs.
Also, it should be said that most of the gun crime in the United States occurs between individuals (or groups) with criminal records. The killing of people not involved in criminal activity is relatively uncommon. The same would hold true with Chavs. Also most likely domestic violence firearm homicides by previoiusly law-abiding citizens has a potential of occuring but is most common amongst certain cultures and ethnic groups who have a more patriarchal history.
So the UK could become like Canada, or they could end up like the United States. One way to solve the dilemma is by simply testing legal gun usage in one section of the the U.K. to see whether violent crime increases or decreases. But honestly I think most UK citizens would be against that. I rarely here a Brit complain about worrying that his country is becoming a tyrannical state or that their democracy is being dismantled. Most seem fairly content. But keep in mind that they also have a VASTLY different history then the United States. History and culture make a big difference. America was BORN with GUNS!!! The firearm was a intimate part of the founding of this nation and of its growth from the East Coast to the West Coast. Its a savage story of genocide of native peoples, but also one of bravery, ruggedness, and independence. I wrote a long paper many years ago on the history that firearms played in the colonization of the Western United States and I surprised myself at how important guns were back then. It gave me a profound appreciaton for the role of guns in American culture....one that is very different from what I've seen in other cultures. Unfortunately the tendency to want to solve things with violence is still very prevalent in American culture. But its something we gotta figure out for ourselves. In the UK, you all need to figure it out for yourselves. Until then, set up weapons ranges with rental weapons, and that should be good enough to get your "blasting" or "Sniper" groove on. That or take your vaction in my area over here in Texas and we'll take ya all out for some proper hunting (feral hog using pit bulls to pin down with close range shotgun slug or .357 dispatch of boar at point blank range). You'll never go fox hunting the same again after that.

:)

Wigon

[ando]

British football hooligans are like American rednecks on steroids

I certainly won't want these guys to own guns 0-0

Whats football and hooligan got to do with chavs? and the topic of this thread?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Before the advent of firearms there was no police and next to nothing crime.

Just saying.

[Alfacentori]

Before the advent of firearms there was no police and next to nothing crime.

Just saying.

So there was no crime and bandits in Rome or the empire or full time police force established by the first emperor Augustus?

Not to mention crime in every empire, kingdom or settlement since the beginnings of organised society p-)

Alfa

[2495]

FISH & CHIPS.


Says it all.

[Lazarou]

Déjà vu.

August 26, 2007
Ministers 'covered up' gun crime

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

...

Extract from letter by David Davis, shadow home secretary, to Jacqui Smith, home secretary, August 24, 2007

Dear Jacqui, We are all concerned at the rising tide of violent crime that has manifested itself this week in a spate of shocking killings, including the tragic death of young Rhys Jones. You told GMTV this morning that “statistics aren’t a help but gun crime is down”. That is an extraordinary claim.

According to Home Office figures, gun crime (excluding air weapons) has almost doubled since Labour took office. The annual crime figures, released by the Home Office in July, suggest a 13% decrease on the previous year, which neglects the 18% increase in firearm homicides.

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

In light of this information, your claim that gun crime is down is both inaccurate and misleading. One clear fact on gun-related violence is that if you don’t count it, you won’t be able to tackle it. Your predecessors opted for spin over substance. I hope that is a path you will avoid and would be grateful for an explanation of what action you plan.

Yours sincerely, David Davis
source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece)

[Lazarou]

Before the advent of Latex clothes there was no police and next to nothing crime.

Just saying.
Fix'd.

......

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Switzerland has in excess of 400,000 military issued assault rifles stored in private homes, and their crime is pretty low. That number doesn't include privately purchased firearms.

They do have the highest rate of 'domestic' shootings in Europe though (usually with military issue weapons) :roll: which taken together with what IDF Tanker said about Israel rather discredits the frequent use of Israel and Switzerland as examples of 'good practice' by the US gun lobby.

[Briggs]

LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm)

The number of murders and manslaughters has dropped by 17% to a 20-year low of 648, the annual crime figures for England and Wales show.

But we are an unarmed sheep people, what is this?

Perhaps a stupid remark but: Since when does the UK only consist of Wales & England? Where are the figures for Scotland & Northern Ireland?

[big_les]

Scotland at least has a different legal system.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Perhaps a stupid remark but: Since when does the UK only consist of Wales & England? Where are the figures for Scotland & Northern Ireland?

Separate jurisdictions within the UK.

[Eagle The Lightning]

Your response was an emotional one, there is no logic to it what so ever.

You did not answer my question.
No it was based on logic

[CMNot]

are you making an argument against gun ownership?

No, I'm having a laugh at others expense.

[Connaught Ranger]

Before the advent of firearms there was no police and next to nothing crime.

Just saying.

Sword crime, Knife crime? cudgel crime? :roll:

Crime has always been an integral part of humanity.

[Connaught Ranger]

Before the advent of firearms there was no police and next to nothing crime.

Just saying.

Sword crime, Knife crime? cudgel crime? :roll:

The biggest part of felons shipped to the Colonies was not for gun crimesp-)

Crime has always been an integral part of humanity.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If you look at firearm related murders in the United States a very large number of them occur using weapons that were stolen from good law abiding citizens. Those that weren't were purchased by people without felonies. Yet they get into the hands of criminals in the same way that such weapons could get in the hands of Chavs.
Also, it should be said that most of the gun crime in the United States occurs between individuals (or groups) with criminal records. The killing of people not involved in criminal activity is relatively uncommon. The same would hold true with Chavs. Also most likely domestic violence firearm homicides by previoiusly law-abiding citizens has a potential of occuring but is most common amongst certain cultures and ethnic groups who have a more patriarchal history.
So the UK could become like Canada, or they could end up like the United States. One way to solve the dilemma is by simply testing legal gun usage in one section of the the U.K. to see whether violent crime increases or decreases. But honestly I think most UK citizens would be against that. I rarely here a Brit complain about worrying that his country is becoming a tyrannical state or that their democracy is being dismantled. Most seem fairly content. But keep in mind that they also have a VASTLY different history then the United States. History and culture make a big difference. America was BORN with GUNS!!! The firearm was a intimate part of the founding of this nation and of its growth from the East Coast to the West Coast. Its a savage story of genocide of native peoples, but also one of bravery, ruggedness, and independence. I wrote a long paper many years ago on the history that firearms played in the colonization of the Western United States and I surprised myself at how important guns were back then. It gave me a profound appreciaton for the role of guns in American culture....one that is very different from what I've seen in other cultures. Unfortunately the tendency to want to solve things with violence is still very prevalent in American culture. But its something we gotta figure out for ourselves. In the UK, you all need to figure it out for yourselves. Until then, set up weapons ranges with rental weapons, and that should be good enough to get your "blasting" or "Sniper" groove on. That or take your vaction in my area over here in Texas and we'll take ya all out for some proper hunting (feral hog using pit bulls to pin down with close range shotgun slug or .357 dispatch of boar at point blank range). You'll never go fox hunting the same again after that.

I hear what you're saying about the differences between UK/Europe and the USA in these respects BUT I think what it comes down to is that when we in the UK were in our 'wild west' phase the mass produced weapons of choice were longbows and swords/knives whereas in the USA it was firearms.

We have mostly moved from open carriage of longbows and swords for self defence and offence being regarded as being legitimate and in a century or so I have a feeling the USA will do the same when weapons that fire lead bullets etc are no longer the military weapon of choice.

Somehow I can't see there being a 'Right to Bear Laser Cannons or Plasma Rifles' :-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I will say this, I am passionate about firearms and the law abiding having access to them...........

Just wondering IIRC you mentioned in the past you mixed with some of the 'wrong crowd' were you not deemed to be sufficiently 'law abiding' to get an FAC here in the UK? It's not an arduous process if you have 'a clean sheet'

[IDF_TANKER]

I'm not sure I understand the above, so greater access to firearms for the law abiding is bad because of lovers tiffs?

Basically - yeas. Again, that's of course, given the assumption, that the aforementioned law abiding citizens do not need weapons for defending themselves from criminals.

[marktigger]

the line that guns in hands of UK citizens made it easier for criminals to acquire them has always been a red herring. The registration system was ment to make gunowners responsible and accountable for their weapons (rightly so). The owners could/can have their liscences withdrawn for minor infractions of the law or on the whim of a firearms officer. Not a consistant position. If Firearms officer is diligent there shouldn't be a problem if lazy or over officious it can cause problems. both Ryan and Hamilton had allegedelly been reported to the police before Hungerford and Dunblane.
BTW allegedelly anyone comming to the 2012 olympics for the shooting events espically those with prohibited firearms(IE Pistols) won't get their pistols until the day of the event.

[Geezah]

If you look at firearm related murders in the United States a very large number of them occur using weapons that were stolen from good law abiding citizens.

Could you provide a source for this?



Those that weren't were purchased by people without felonies.

Not thru legal channels they weren't as anyone with a felony canot be near a firearm let alone own one.


Yet they get into the hands of criminals in the same way that such weapons could get in the hands of Chavs.

Never happened when firearm laws were alot more liberal in the UK and the law abiding populace had access. So how have things changed, more criminals in the UK?



Also, it should be said that most of the gun crime in the United States occurs between individuals (or groups) with criminal records. The killing of people not involved in criminal activity is relatively uncommon.

Unless they are victimised, but with CCW now law in nearly every State(but two I think it is) crime against the individual has dropped drastically.



The same would hold true with Chavs.

Not true.



Also most likely domestic violence firearm homicides by previoiusly law-abiding citizens has a potential of occuring but is most common amongst certain cultures and ethnic groups who have a more patriarchal history.

So you're saying that with legal access to firearms, suddenly there would be a wave of domestic murder. DId not happen before, so I would not see it happening again.



So the UK could become like Canada, or they could end up like the United States. One way to solve the dilemma is by simply testing legal gun usage in one section of the the U.K. to see whether violent crime increases or decreases.

It's already been done and it did not increase but laws had been imposed since the early 20th century to reduce the number of legal arms in the populace.



But honestly I think most UK citizens would be against that. I rarely here a Brit complain about worrying that his country is becoming a tyrannical state or that their democracy is being dismantled. Most seem fairly content.

Death by a thousand cuts, it happens gradually so you never see a change.



But keep in mind that they also have a VASTLY different history then the United States. History and culture make a big difference. America was BORN with GUNS!!!

The Bill of Rights is based on the British Bill of Rights which was penned by William Blackstone and has a reference to a Right to Bear Arms for the British.



The firearm was a intimate part of the founding of this nation and of its growth from the East Coast to the West Coast. Its a savage story of genocide of native peoples, but also one of bravery, ruggedness, and independence. I wrote a long paper many years ago on the history that firearms played in the colonization of the Western United States and I surprised myself at how important guns were back then. It gave me a profound appreciaton for the role of guns in American culture....one that is very different from what I've seen in other cultures. Unfortunately the tendency to want to solve things with violence is still very prevalent in American culture. But its something we gotta figure out for ourselves. In the UK, you all need to figure it out for yourselves. Until then, set up weapons ranges with rental weapons, and that should be good enough to get your "blasting" or "Sniper" groove on. That or take your vaction in my area over here in Texas and we'll take ya all out for some proper hunting (feral hog using pit bulls to pin down with close range shotgun slug or .357 dispatch of boar at point blank range). You'll never go fox hunting the same again after that.

:)

Wigon

Were you aware that in the early 20th century in the UK, so long as you were not drunk you could go into the Post Office and get a license for a pistol?

There was a culture of wning firearms in the UK but over time they have bred it out of the populace.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Were you aware that in the early 20th century in the UK, so long as you were not drunk you could go into the Post Office and get a license for a pistol?

There was a culture of wning firearms in the UK but over time they have bred it out of the populace.

That is not generally the same as actually being able to go and buy a pistol or a rifle. In the past such items would have been quite expensive 'consumer durables' and I would imagine for working families trying to put food on the table and survive in Victorian/Edwardian industrial towns they would have been a wildly frivolous purchase.

I don't know why but when people start talking about 'breeding this and breeding that' I start to hear the sounds of goose stepping.:)

[Geezah]

No it was based on logic

Care to provide sources to show that giving the law abiding access to firearms would help increase the number of chavs that get hold of them.

[Eagle The Lightning]

Care to provide sources to show that giving the law abiding access to firearms would help increase the number of chavs that get hold of them.
I think it is common knowledge that if there is more of something it is easier to get

[Geezah]

I think in is common knowledge that if there is more of something it is easier to get

You think!

I asked for a source, not thoughts or asumptions, you made a case that if the law abiding were given greater access to firearms, then the gun toting chavs of the UK would increase.

I would like to know things would change from how they are now, criminals already have access to firearms and this is with heavy restrictions or bans on legal ownership.

[Geezah]

Just wondering IIRC you mentioned in the past you mixed with some of the 'wrong crowd' were you not deemed to be sufficiently 'law abiding' to get an FAC here in the UK? It's not an arduous process if you have 'a clean sheet'

While living in the UK I had no interest in firearms, blaming inanimate objects like many other for the ills of the World. It was only after living here for 5yrs that I pursued owning my first firearm and after reading up on the truth about firearm ownership.

[ando]

While living in the UK I had no interest in firearms, blaming inanimate objects like many other for the ills of the World. It was only after living here for 5yrs that I pursued owning my first firearm and after reading up on the truth about firearm ownership.

Blue peter badge on its way !

[Connaught Ranger]

There was a culture of wning firearms in the UK but over time they have bred it out of the populace.

Cool story bro!:roll:

[Eagle The Lightning]

You think!

I asked for a source, not thoughts or asumptions, you made a case that if the law abiding were given greater access to firearms, then the gun toting chavs of the UK would increase.

I would like to know things would change from how they are now, criminals already have access to firearms and this is with heavy restrictions or bans on legal ownership.
No one can predict the future, that's why I use assumptions mongface

[CMNot]

It was only after living here for 5yrs that I pursued owning my first firearm and after reading up on the truth about firearm ownership.

:roll:

So basically, whilst you lived in the UK firearms were as totally a non-issue to you as they are to the other 59 million people living here. It wasn't until you moved to a country with a homicide per-capita rate massively higher than the UK that you began to feel the need to arm yourself?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Let me be the first to say 'cnutflaps'

;-)

[California Joe]

No one can predict the future, that's why I use assumptions mongface

"mongface"? What are you, 10?

You better simmah don nah.

You too Stabby.

I have an AR sitting right next to me as we speak and it definitely makes my **** look bigger.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

"mongface"? What are you, 10?

You better simmah don nah.

You too Stabby.

I have an AR sitting right next to me as we speak and it definitely makes my **** look bigger.

My scoped-up AR is bigger than yours! Well bloody heavy that's for sure
;-)

[wigon]

I want to know how come swords haven't been legalized? I mean even in America we can't carry swords or knives longer then a certain length (in Texas I think its like 6 inches). I WANT MY RIGHT TO BARE SWORDS!!!!!

[PeterRJG]

I want to know how come swords haven't been legalized? I mean even in America we can't carry swords or knives longer then a certain length (in Texas I think its like 6 inches). I WANT MY RIGHT TO BARE SWORDS!!!!!

Unsheathe them, problem solved.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I want to know how come swords haven't been legalized? I mean even in America we can't carry swords or knives longer then a certain length (in Texas I think its like 6 inches). I WANT MY RIGHT TO BARE SWORDS!!!!!

I heard there's nothing longer than 6 inches in Texas

[Raptus_regaliter]

I heard there's nothing longer than 6 inches in Texas

PM with autographed pic inbound.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

PM with autographed pic inbound.


Will a microscope be required to view it :-)

[ando]

Ive felt nothing longer than 6 inches in Texas


Fixed it for ya p-)

[Raptus_regaliter]

Will a microscope be required to view it :-)

You really know how to break a guy's heart.

[seraosha]

Always **** jokes with you guys, sheesh.

[ando]

Always **** jokes with you guys, sheesh.

Thats because there plenty of them here

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Always **** jokes with you guys, sheesh.

Actually we Brits prefer toilet jokes.

It's the basis of our entire culture

[Geezah]

No one can predict the future, that's why I use assumptions mongface

But we can learn from the past. That is why I keep on asking the question, because your arguement is nothing more than an emotional one.

[Eagle The Lightning]

But we can learn from the past. That is why I keep on asking the question, because your arguement is nothing more than an emotional one.so is yours in that case :backhand:

[PeterRJG]

But we can learn from the past. That is why I keep on asking the question, because your arguement is nothing more than an emotional one.

And yours isn't? You quote marginal sources like the Daily Mail, etc, to back up your paranoia and Chicken Little crusading.

Sometimes I think you're a caveman in search of a tribe.

[seraosha]

so is yours in that case :backhand:

"I know you are but what am I?" has ceased working as an argument since around age 7. C'mon Egale...put up or shut up.

[Geezah]

Cool story bro!:roll:


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.


6. The Pistols Act of 1903 was the first piece of legislation to attempt some control on pistols. It required only that a prospective purchaser provide proof that he held a gun licence available on demand at a post office, or that he was a householder, or was to proceed abroad. Despite its apparent weakness, the Act did have an effect on sales of pistols, though that does not appear to have in any way influenced the low levels of misuse which existed.


7. Specific incidents during the early part of the 20th century prompted various calls for legislation, often supported by statistics which, though in some ways illuminating, are not comparable with modern statistics. Incidents like the Sydney Street Siege resulted in proposals to require licensing of aliens who possessed firearms. None of this legislation reached the Statute Book and, at the time of World War I, firearms were freely available and, for example, officers in the armed forces provided themselves with pistols which they retained when they left. By that time automatic weapons had become available. The Gatling gun had been available from the 1860s and the Maxim machine gun, essentially the same as machine guns in service until very recently, became available in the 1880s. Self loading pistols were available in large numbers including the Mauser, Luger, Colt and various Brownings. The revolvers of the day were, in essence, little different from the revolvers now available.


8. During the early part of this century anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted. The law prohibited sales to persons who were drunk at the time, and those wishing to buy a pistol would have been required to call first at a post office to obtain a 10 shilling gun licence. Despite that, statistics provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis showed that the use of firearms in crime was very rare indeed

THE FIREARMS ACT 1920

10. There was grave governmental concern about the vast quantities of arms and ammunition available at the end of World War I and a Committee under Sir Ernley Blackwell reviewed the situation both nationally and internationally. There was concern that arms might reach "savage or semi civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" or the "anarchist or intellectual malcontent of the great cities whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol". The Committee met in private and reported in confidence with no outside consultation save with the police. They proposed firearms legislation based, to some extent, on Home Office proposals of 1911 which had been shelved because of perceived parliamentary opposition. The Blackwell Committee recommended more stringent restrictions, proposing that the right to possess firearms be limited to persons holding a certificate.


11. In respect of shotguns, the Blackwell Committee report said, "Cases are rare in which they are used for any criminal or illegal purpose" and concluded that controls on shotgun would damage industry and cause unemployment. The Report does not provide any statistics to support that view and much of their supposed evidence is anecdotal or incomplete and would not have withstood careful scrutiny. The return from the Metropolitan Police cited above includes all classes of firearm but another return relating to the use of firearms against police over the period 1908 to 1912 indicated that "revolvers" were found to be involved in 34 of 47 cases reported. Wider statistics for crimes such as homicide were not examined yet it seems highly likely from later research that the shotguns would feature in a significant number of homicides.


12. The situation was exacerbated by revolution abroad and civil discontent at home. The diary of the Cabinet Secretary, Thomas Jones, published in 1969 reveals that the Cabinet was extremely concerned about a Bolshevik revolution arising from the industrial unrest and sought information about the numbers of troops and aircraft available for use against insurgents in this country. There was a demand for a Bill to license persons to bear arms. The Home Secretary pointed out that he had such a Bill ready but, "In the past there have always been objections". It was said that, "All weapons ought to be available for redistribution to friends of the Government".


13. It seems that the Blackwell Report would, like all other proposals, have found grave difficulties in Parliament but for the civil situation at the time. In the event, because of concern about revolution which was never publicly expressed, the 1920 Act was passed with hardly a voice raised against it. Its terms give some semblance of retaining the right to keep arms in the words used, "A firearms certificate shall be granted" etc, but the limitations on the discretion of the police and the burden of proof placed on an applicant effectively negated that requirement. For all practical purposes, firearm certificates were and are issued at the discretion of the police with an applicant being required to establish his case.


14. The definition of shotguns exempted from controls in the Firearms Act 1920 included any smooth bore gun without reference to barrel length and thus included shot pistols.


15. Within months of the 1920 Act coming into effect there were a number of complaints to the Home Office about over-zealous police enforcement. Deficiencies in the Act had to be remedied by amending legislation or some very strong action by the English Courts which the Scottish Courts refused to follow in some instances. In Cafferata v Wilson [1936] 53 TLR 34 the English Courts sought to remedy a perceived defect by deciding that something which could not discharge a missile could be a firearm if it had component parts. In Kelly v Mackinnon 1983 Scots Law Times 9, the Court in Scotland rejected that method of closing a supposed loophole and refused to follow the judgement on the ground that the English language could not properly be construed in that way.


THE 1934 DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE

16. A number of amending Acts had created a need for consolidating legislation and a Departmental Committee was convened in 1934 to consider the definition and classification of firearms. This Committee started a pattern in reviews of firearms legislation which has continued. There was no statement of the objectives of the legislation, or of whether the existing legislation had served any purpose. There was an assumption that control must be good and any defects would be remedied by further controls. There was certainly no attempt to go back to first principles and try to think through the problem, nor was there any real consultation with those who would be affected by further restrictions.


17. The Committee's report (Cmd 4758/34) recommended a number of changes which were later incorporated into a consolidating Act, the Firearms Act 1937, which preserved all the principles of the existing legislation and introduced only relatively minor corrections. A firearm certificate was required (effectively) for rifles and pistols but shotguns remained entirely outside the system of controls.


SHOTGUNS

18. In considering the question of shotguns in a little more depth the Departmental Committee proposed that any shotgun with a barrel less than 20 inches in length should be brought within the type of control which applied to rifles and pistols and this proposal was given effect in the Firearms Act of 1936 and incorporated into the 1937 Act.


19. In relation to ordinary sporting shotguns, the Committee could find no reason to differ from the view of the 1919 Committee. They noted, however, that shotguns were responsible for more suicides and accidents than any other class of firearm. They also noted that they were used more frequently than other classes of firearm in cases of murder, attempted murder and manslaughter, but they were not the favourite weapon of the bandit and burglar. Unfortunately, the statistics provide no comparison with those firearms subject to controls such as pistols.


20. In the three years ended 28 February 1934 police reported that shotguns of the type now subject to a shotgun certificate had been used in 378 suicides, 28 criminal fatalities, 18 cases of criminal use involving serious injury and 20 involving slight injury, 10 cases of criminal intimidation and 18 cases where the criminal was found in possession. They has also been involved in 161 fatal accidents, 111 accidents involving serious injuries and 101 involving slight injuries. Those figures lack credibility because of the absence of any base figure and because of the doubtful state of police record keeping at the time and may be regarded as anecdotal rather than as something which can be compared to current statistics. The most reliable figures will be those relating to suicide, and criminal fatalities and serious injuries.


21. The Committee commented on the widespread use and ownership of shotguns, particularly in rural areas and concluded that, ". . . the numbers in daily use by private persons far exceeds those of any other type of firearm, [and] the figures in the table are not surprising and cannot be regarded as excessive". They recommended that shotguns should remain outside the system of controls and the 1937 Act excluded shotguns with barrels exceeding 20 inches in length from certificate control.


AIRGUNS

22. The 1934 Committee also considered airguns in depth. They noted that police figures for the three years ended 28 February 1934 showed that air pistols had been used in 43 "criminal cases", six of which involved only intimidation, 36 possession on arrest and in one case "a lunatic shot and injured a baby before committing suicide by setting a house on fire". Air pistols were involved in 84 accidents with nine serious injuries and the remainder slight. Persons under 17 were involved in 70 of the 84 accidents. Airguns and rifles were involved in 4 cases of criminal use, one involving an airgun fired to resist arrest, one found on a person at the time of his arrest and two suicides (then a crime). They were involved in 303 accidents, 1 fatal, 63 involving serious injury and 239 slight injury. In 233 of those cases the person discharging the airgun was under 17.


23. Those figures are not comparable with statistics produced today and it seems highly likely that most of the cases classified as accidents at that time would be categorised as assaults in modern criminal statistics.


24. The Committee felt that the evidence did not justify imposing certificate controls on airguns except those declared "specially dangerous", but the 1937 Act did impose restrictions on the sale or supply of firearms or ammunition (including airguns and airgun ammunition) to those under 17.


25. The rate of armed crime and misuse of firearms had been very low when the legislation was first introduced and remained so. Statistics relating to crimes such as robbery involving firearms were not even collected, a clear indication of the absence of any significant problem. Police administration of the Act seems to have been generally liberal. The only figures available for the period were given in a Parliamentary Reply and showed that in the period 1 July 1936 to 31 December 1937, only 20 persons arrested in the Metropolitan Police District were found to be in possession of firearms and of these 12 had air weapons and one a toy.


POST WAR LEGISLATION

26. The end of World War II appears to have generated concerns similar to those at the end of World War I about firearms brought back by servicemen, but there were changes in the official approach which were illustrated by a number of Parliamentary questions. Despite the fact that almost every male and many female members of the population had considerable experience of firearms and the fact that many uncertificated firearms were in circulation, misuse of firearms in crime and otherwise remained remarkably low. In a debate in the House of Lords on 11 November 1952 it was said that the number of cases in which possession of firearms, whether used or not, had come to light in the Metropolitan Police District were 1948, 48; 1949, 28; 1950, 39; 1951; 14 and in the first nine months of 1952, 17.


27. The situation remained unchanged for many years and levels of crime involving all classes of firearms including uncontrolled shotguns remained so low that criminal statistics did not distinguish them from other classes of crime. In 1962, a Private Member's Bill was concerned with the use of shotguns and airguns by young people and created the provisions now found in Sections 22 to 24 of the 1968 Act. The Government of the day was lukewarm to the idea and had remained of the view expressed by the then Home Secretary in a reply in 1956, "It has been the view of successive governments that the responsibility for deciding, if at all, and on what conditions children should handle firearms must remain with the parents."


28. No evidence was produced to show that further legislation was needed or that the Bill had been targeted at a defined problem in a manner likely to produce beneficial results.


29. Late in 1960 a review of controls over shotguns and airguns was initiated by the Home Office and the Police and it is clear that this review concluded that no controls were necessary or appropriate though no such announcement was made.


30. A small number of cases involving firearms made newspaper headlines and some of these involved sawn-off shotguns. The matter was raised in Parliament early in 1965 when Sir Frank Soskice, the then Home Secretary, rejected any idea of controls on shotguns, saying, "The Government have considered carefully the possibility of extending to shotguns the firearm certificate procedure, but have decided against it. There are probably at least 500,000 shotgun in legitimate . . . the burden which certification would put on the police would not be justified by the benefits which would result." (The estimate of the number of shotguns was low by a factor of four or five).


31. The Firearms Act 1965 was clearly a panic reaction to the Abolition of the Death Penalty and dealt, amongst other things, with carrying firearms in public and trespassing. It increased penalties and made a number of small amendments. It was rushed through Parliament with considerable haste and was being amended by the Home Secretary right up to the Third Reading.


32. During the passage of the 1965 Act the conclusions regarding the potential benefit of controlling shotguns were repeated and those guns thus remained completely outside the system of controls except that a late amendment proposed by one Member changed the barrel length below which a shotgun became subject to certificate procedures from 20 to 24 inches. No reliable evidence was ever produced of the need for such a change other than the existence of a "shot pistol" with a barrel of 20.5 inches.


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)


57. The effect of reducing the types of firearm which may be licensed and tightening control on those which remain has been to make legal firearms ownership even more exclusive and expensive—and the process more onerous. The other side of this coin is that illegal firearms ownership, in certain quarters de rigueur,[103] is now by comparison markedly cheaper and less irksome. It is now more difficult to obtain a rifle legally than a pistol, semi-automatic centre-fire rifle or sub machine gun illegally. The news media report that since the 1997 Acts came into effect, illegal guns have become more widely distributed, and in unexpected quarters.[104]

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

While the idea that firearm ownership was bred out of the populace, it may be over the top on my part to write that, but restrictions were imposed at the start for no other reason than fear over what an armed populace could possible do.

[Geezah]

so is yours in that case :backhand:

Oh noes it's not. The facts speak for themselves.

Please click on the links and read the quotes provided to Connaught Ranger.

As more and more restrictions have been imposed on the law abiding, the illegal pool of firearms have grown, which was not the case when pretty much anyone could legally acquire a firearm.

[Eagle The Lightning]

"I know you are but what am I?" has ceased working as an argument since around age 7. C'mon Egale...put up or shut up.Thanks for your input :|

[ando]

Oh noes it's not. The facts speak for themselves.

Please click on the links and read the quotes provided to Connaught Ranger.

As more and more restrictions have been imposed on the law abiding, the illegal pool of firearms have grown, which was not the case when pretty much anyone could legally acquire a firearm.

Well hellooooo

If they were legal then they wouldnt be illegal surely not cvntflap ?

[Red-Phos]

Could you provide a source for this?
.
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2264/wwwshowfileimage1241077.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/wwwshowfileimage1241077.jpg/)http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/wwwshowfileimage1241077.jpg/1/w325.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img33/wwwshowfileimage1241077.jpg/1/) Of course.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

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)



CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

While the idea that firearm ownership was bred out of the populace, it may be over the top on my part to write that, but restrictions were imposed at the start for no other reason than fear over what an armed populace could possible do.

Geezah

Simply copying and pasting a long history of the evolution of firearms legislation in the UK does not of itself prove that there was in the past some kind of 'golden age' of firearms ownership/gun culture akin to that which people in the US aspire to.

One of the first paragraphs you quote gives a hint to it when it talks about being a 'householder' being a necessary requirement for owning a pistol. What that is implying is that such things were expensive in relation to the earnings of large sections of the population and as such would have been a rarity. If we can assume that they were rare for legitimate uses then it is also unlikely that many would have been in circulation for criminal uses.

[ando]

Could you provide a source for this?





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00678/peter-andre-father-_678012c.jpg

Certainly, "Oh oh oh oh mysterious girl"

[Red-Phos]

Geezah you are going on like everyone is nicey nicey.Simply if Firearm laws were the same here as the States then Gun Crime would RISE a lot.

[Eagle The Lightning]

Could you provide a source for this?

http://i32.tinypic.com/24o7yfp.jpg

I like Tabasco the best myself

[Geezah]

Geezah

Simply copying and pasting a long history of the evolution of firearms legislation in the UK does not of itself prove that there was in the past some kind of 'golden age' of firearms ownership/gun culture akin to that which people in the US aspire to.

One of the first paragraphs you quote gives a hint to it when it talks about being a 'householder' being a necessary requirement for owning a pistol. What that is implying is that such things were expensive in relation to the earnings of large sections of the population and as such would have been a rarity. If we can assume that they were rare for legitimate uses then it is also unlikely that many would have been in circulation for criminal uses.

Or was a householder.

Not that it was the main ingredient to own a firearm.


Despite the fact that almost every male and many female members of the population had considerable experience of firearms and the fact that many uncertificated firearms were in circulation, misuse of firearms in crime and otherwise remained remarkably low. In a debate in the House of Lords on 11 November 1952 it was said that the number of cases in which possession of firearms, whether used or not, had come to light in the Metropolitan Police District were 1948, 48; 1949, 28; 1950, 39; 1951; 14 and in the first nine months of 1952, 17.

[Red-Phos]

https://hotpeppersauceshopping.com/cube/images/uploads/h120.jpg

[Geezah]

http://i32.tinypic.com/24o7yfp.jpg

I like Tabasco the best myself

Good job.

You are #3 at offering nothing more than tripe to this thread.

You made the claim that by the law abiding having greater access to firearms, this would lead to an increase to the number of chavs that gain access, when there are already something like 4 million illegal firearms in criminal circles in the UK.

Maybe you should read the sources provided to bring yourself up to speed.

[Eagle The Lightning]

http://i28.tinypic.com/35arpdz.jpg
Worcestershire sauce or GTFO

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Or was a householder.

Not that it was the main ingredient to own a firearm.


Well we will never know how many (or how few) uncertificated firearms were in circulation back then (because by definition uncertificated means unknown).

If there were fewer crimes it is also possible that in those days:
1. There were fewer things to steal than nowadays (a lot less portable 'wealth').
2. The punishments for those found guilty of crimes were much more severe (including the death penalty for murder) and prisons were not holiday camps.
3. A more militarized, disciplined society that had been through compulsory military service in war.
None of which have anything particularly to do with a culture of responsible civilian firearms ownership.

[Geezah]

Geezah you are going on like everyone is nicey nicey.Simply if Firearm laws were the same here as the States then Gun Crime would RISE a lot.

Why?

I curious why you think this way.
Do you believe that every street in the US has a gun fight at high noon?

[ando]

http://i28.tinypic.com/35arpdz.jpg
Worcestershire sauce or GTFO


Hehehe DADDY or CHIPS mofo

[Geezah]

http://i28.tinypic.com/35arpdz.jpg
Worcestershire sauce or GTFO

Thank you, you've proved my point...............

[ando]

Thank you, you're proved my point...............


Theres two sauces !! :|

[Eagle The Lightning]

Hehehe DADDY or CHIPS mofo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-glRfZPNbs

[Red-Phos]

Why?

I curious why you think this way.
Do you believe that every street in the US has a gun fight at high noon?
No i do not but most of them where i live do.So making weapons even easyier to get hold of is not going to improve any situation.You just seem to question everything everyone is saying.

[Red-Phos]

Put a bit of music in ya foood yaaaaa errrrrrrre mon
http://www.itzcaribbean.com/images/levi_roots_reggae_reggae_sauce.jpg
(Actually is realy good sauce this)

[Geezah]

Well we will never know how many (or how few) uncertificated firearms were in circulation back then (because by definition uncertificated means unknown).

If there were fewer crimes it is also possible that in those days:
1. There were fewer things to steal than nowadays (a lot less portable 'wealth').
2. The punishments for those found guilty of crimes were much more severe (including the death penalty for murder) and prisons were not holiday camps.
3. A more militarized, disciplined society that had been through compulsory military service in war.
None of which have anything particularly to do with a culture of responsible civilian firearms ownership.

I would agree with you on #2. I know someone that got 6mths hard labour for robbing banks at knife point. It changed their mind towards crime, I'm not sure what was involved but it worked. Now days the punishment does not fit the crime.

#3 would probably apply to why there was more experience with firearms as every almost every make and a large number of females had some type of experience with firearms, as cited in the information quoted.

[wigon]

Nothing beats Sriracha hot sauce. Found in almost every Chinese/Vietnamese/Tai resteraunt these days. It's like crack. Once you start using it you can't stop. It also has a big **** on it for those of you who like ****. It is sometimes refered to as "**** sauce".
http://travelogue.travelvice.com/postfiles/2008-04-02_sriracha_hot_chili_sauce.jpg

[2495]

A masked man lay in wait for a footballer to arrive at a training session before gunning him down in front of his horrified team-mates, police said today.
The gunman, wearing a mask and ski-goggles, hid in the bushes before emerging to shoot dead Ryan Musgrove, 36, as he arrived ready for the practice.

Mr Musgrove, an electrician, was shot more than six times in the attack at the Sparrow Den playing fields in West Wickham, South-East London, last night.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200345/Football-manager-shot-dead-training-session-gangland-execution.html

If guns were tena penny in the UK, there would be a fecking blood bath and make no mistake about it.

The Police would have to go round in Tanks and infantry dismount supporting them.

[Lov3ll]

Why?

I curious why you think this way.
Do you believe that every street in the US has a gun fight at high noon?

You assume that if guns were legal only the law abiding would have them and not all the chavs, chavs are idiots if they see one with a gun then they'll want one so they can be "hard" it's the same with knives and dogs. Would your family or any of your friends in the UK want a gun? I brought a BB gun home and my mum and dad went mental, the majority of people in the UK are anti-guns we currently don't need guns so why should we legalise guns so a few paranoid people can feel safe especially considering how much worse it will become when chavs are armed to the teeth?

[3rdMillhouse]

LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm)


But we are an unarmed sheep people, what is this?

Wait till you hear 'bout the statistics of knife-related injuries.

[CMNot]

Pfft, to admit to caring about knife crime is to admit that what dirt poor inner-city black kids do outside of school concerns you. Which is poor form, what with moats to clean and duckhouses to erect.

[Geezah]

You assume that if guns were legal only the law abiding would have them and not all the chavs,

I've made no such assumption.

I merely stated that giving the law abiding access to firearms does not mean this would increase the numbers of firearms that are already in illegal circles.

I found this interesting.


53. The 1997 Acts have established the illegal pool of firearms from which the criminal market is supplied as a public safety issue. Successive amnesties have shown that ever tightening `controls' appear to have had little effect upon the pool of unregistered guns.[97] It is likely that the firearms currently in unlawful circulation within the UK are sufficient to supply all conceivable criminal requirements into the foreseeable future and beyond.[98]Nor is it difficult to make guns clandestinely in quantity, even given brutally strict regulation.[99] The principal of the gun, which has been with us since the 14th century cannot be uninvented.

54. The horror of the Dunblane shootings diverted attention from issues central to public safety: from the conduct of the Central Scotland Police to the pistol Hamilton used; from the (frequent) criminal use of firearms to (infrequent) amok killings. The Dunblane legacy persists: the news media report that the police in London play down recent shooting incidents.[100]


55. The size of the illegal pool of firearms is unknown but Lord Cullen heard estimates which varied from over one million to four million or more (Cullen 1996, 107)—an indication of the degree to which there is uncertainty over its size. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that the licensing system is missing more than half the number of guns in unrestricted circulation within the UK.

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS
(http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

While I have said many times now(which none of you seem to get) is giving the law abiding access to firearms, not everyone.
All it would take is to go back to a licensing system which would monitor those that have them. If the standard requirements are met, why not allow those people access, fingerprints background checks.



chavs are idiots if they see one with a gun then they'll want one so they can be "hard" it's the same with knives and dogs.

They sound like they are the new criminal underground.
By all accounts it would sound like they are all well connected.



Would your family or any of your friends in the UK want a gun?

My old man purchased my air rifle for me when I was 13, and according to British law at the time I was not allowed to shoot it unsupervised until I was 14.



I brought a BB gun home and my mum and dad went mental, the majority of people in the UK are anti-guns we currently don't need guns

Don't need, or there may be some that want them?

And I will agree that I was anti-firearm when I moved here, it must have been something in the water over there.



so why should we legalise guns so a few paranoid people can feel safe

So being armed or owning firearms equals paranoia?



especially considering how much worse it will become when chavs are armed to the teeth?

You mean they won't get them through legal channels, just out of the cesspool that is the 4 miillion illegal firearms currently in the UK.

All I have seen so far is emotional arguements that have changed slightly over the years as to why the law abiding shouldn't gain access, the latest being "chavs would get them and go nutty".

[Connaught Ranger]

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)



CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

While the idea that firearm ownership was bred out of the populace, it may be over the top on my part to write that, but restrictions were imposed at the start for no other reason than fear over what an armed populace could possible do.

Nice copy and post but lets get back to the "bred out of them" comment :roll:

so, 4 million illegal weapons in the U.K. introducing a system of registration and gun license would only account for all new weapons being bought legitimately, or are you proposing we need legitimate gun owners to take on the illegitimate gun owners,:roll:

the days of the Wild West are over.

Connaught Ranger.

[CMNot]

While I have said many times now(which none of you seem to get) is giving the law abiding access to firearms, not everyone.

All it would take is to go back to a licensing system which would monitor those that have them. If the standard requirements are met, why not allow those people access, fingerprints background checks.

This is exactly what we have.

[ed316]

Nice copy and post but lets get back to the "bred out of them" comment :roll:

so, 4 million illegal weapons in the U.K. introducing a system of registration and gun license would only account for all new weapons being bought legitimately, or are you proposing we need legitimate gun owners to take on the illegitimate gun owners,:roll:

the days of the Wild West are over.

Connaught Ranger.

When a society is told that guns are bad and a gun free society is a safe one and generations after that will start having that belief. Banning inanimate objects will not stop murder and mayhem. Humans have been killing each other since we walked the earth.

[Geezah]

This is exactly what we have.

No it's not.

You have Curly, Larry and Mo who have this idea that chavs rule the World and are well connected.

[Geezah]

Nice copy and post

Thanks.


but lets get back to the "bred out of them" comment :roll:

OK, restrictions and bans have been imposed over a number of years, and for what? To do away with possible uprisings amoung a few. What have they achieved, apart from as referenced, quashing any future amok killings.

You now have a mentalility amoungst the younger crowd in the UK that "guns are bad mkay". What has changed since the early 20th century, apart from firearms being either harder to get hold of ?.




so, 4 million illegal weapons in the U.K. introducing a system of registration and gun license would only account for all new weapons being bought legitimately,

My point is that giving the law abiding greater access to firearms would not drastically increase the numbers of illegally held firearms as some have tried to imply.



or are you proposing we need legitimate gun owners to take on the illegitimate gun owners,:roll:

Do what?

No, I would say you are proposing that.



the days of the Wild West are over.

Connaught Ranger.

Which was never really that Wild.

Maybe you could also make a reference to the streets running red with blood once the law abiding have greater access, like the emotional few over here.

[CMNot]

No it's not.

The system I participate in on an annual basis sure sounds an awful lot like your suggestion. But thanks for putting me right from thousands of miles away.

[Geezah]

The system I participate in on an annual basis sure sounds an awful lot like your suggestion. But thanks for putting me right from thousands of miles away.

OK.

Were you saying that you have been suggesting the same thing I have, or that you have the system I am talking about in place over there?

[CMNot]

What I'm saying is that the system we have in place is, essentially, what your suggestion was.

[Connaught Ranger]

When a society is told that guns are bad and a gun free society is a safe one and generations after that will start having that belief. Banning inanimate objects will not stop murder and mayhem. Humans have been killing each other since we walked the earth.

B o l l o x! guns have been available to the British Public down through the years pre WW1, post WW2, that includes hunting rifles, shotguns and hand guns, it was only post Hungerford (August 19 1987) and Dunblane (13 March 1996) that a major ban's was introduced, and legitimate gun owners forced to get rid of semi-automatics. So where do you get the generations from. :roll:

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

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

Connaught Ranger.

[Connaught Ranger]

Thanks.



OK, restrictions and bans have been imposed over a number of years, and for what? To do away with possible uprisings amoung a few. What have they achieved, apart from as referenced, quashing any future amok killings.

What uprisings :roll:

You now have a mentalility amoungst the younger crowd in the UK that "guns are bad mkay". What has changed since the early 20th century, apart from firearms being either harder to get hold of ?.

Hence more young people packing knives as they are easier to obtain than guns!:roll:

My point is that giving the law abiding greater access to firearms would not drastically increase the numbers of illegally held firearms as some have tried to imply.

Your thinking is flawed, it just increase the chance of more weapons ending up in the hands of criminals which has always been where most weapons the criminals use come from.

Do what?

No, I would say you are proposing that.

You are the one with the mentality that the only way to solve the problem is to allow more guns in circulation, as implied by your posts.


Which was never really that Wild.

If it was never that wild why were gun restriction imposed then. :roll:

Maybe you could also make a reference to the streets running red with blood once the law abiding have greater access, like the emotional few over here.

So anybody that does not follow your line of thinking is emotionally flawed. :cantbeli:

[Geezah]

B o l l o x! guns have been available to the British Public down through the years pre WW1, post WW2, that includes hunting rifles, shotguns and hand guns, it was only post Hungerford (August 19 1987) and Dunblane (13 March 1996) that a major ban's was introduced, and legitimate gun owners forced to get rid of semi-automatics. So where do you get the generations from. :roll:

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

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

Connaught Ranger.

Restrictions started being imposed at the beginning of the 20th Century, which in my case would be 5 generations ago.

[Geezah]

OK, restrictions and bans have been imposed over a number of years, and for what? To do away with possible uprisings amoung a few. What have they achieved, apart from as referenced, quashing any future amok killings.

What uprisings :roll:


THE FIREARMS ACT 1920

10. There was grave governmental concern about the vast quantities of arms and ammunition available at the end of World War I and a Committee under Sir Ernley Blackwell reviewed the situation both nationally and internationally. There was concern that arms might reach "savage or semi civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" or the "anarchist or intellectual malcontent of the great cities whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol". The Committee met in private and reported in confidence with no outside consultation save with the police. They proposed firearms legislation based, to some extent, on Home Office proposals of 1911 which had been shelved because of perceived parliamentary opposition. The Blackwell Committee recommended more stringent restrictions, proposing that the right to possess firearms be limited to persons holding a certificate.

12. The situation was exacerbated by revolution abroad and civil discontent at home. The diary of the Cabinet Secretary, Thomas Jones, published in 1969 reveals that the Cabinet was extremely concerned about a Bolshevik revolution arising from the industrial unrest and sought information about the numbers of troops and aircraft available for use against insurgents in this country. There was a demand for a Bill to license persons to bear arms. The Home Secretary pointed out that he had such a Bill ready but, "In the past there have always been objections". It was said that, "All weapons ought to be available for redistribution to friends of the Government".

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)

Rather than comment on what I cut and paste, why not click on the links provided.




You now have a mentalility amoungst the younger crowd in the UK that "guns are bad mkay". What has changed since the early 20th century, apart from firearms being either harder to get hold of ?.

Hence more young people packing knives as they are easier to obtain than guns!

Harder for the law abiding to get hold of. That was in reference the idea that guns are bad being indoctrinated into all members of British Society.
What has changed since the early 20th Century when it was acceptable to own a firearm legally?





My point is that giving the law abiding greater access to firearms would not drastically increase the numbers of illegally held firearms as some have tried to imply.

Your thinking is flawed, it just increase the chance of more weapons ending up in the hands of criminals which has always been where most weapons the criminals use come from.

Supply and Demand, while there are bans or restrictions currently in place, this has done nothing to reduce the number, make or model or arms currently in criminal hands.


6. That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception; but firearms control is more complicated a subject than at first sight it might appear. Whereas "banning" removes the opportunity to regulate (and is tacit acknowledgement that the police cannot be relied upon to enforce the law), control requires regulation.[59] Those who would legislate with the aim of reducing firearms crime should be aware that prohibition is not the same as control; indeed, prohibition and control are mutually exclusive. Striving to take guns `out of circulation' is probably a waste of effort and money, for illegal supply may be expected always to fulfil criminal demand.

15. Inevitably, a small number of legally-held firearms will find their way into the illegal pool. The number will be smaller than the total of legally-held firearms which are stolen: some stolen arms are recovered, others discarded. Of those that remain unlocated, not every one will be used for criminal purposes.

The illegal pool of firearms


52. In 1996, the Home Affairs Committee concluded: `It is obvious that panic legislation, which might be seen at its outset to bear the seeds of failure, should be avoided. What would be the point of a total ban on the lawful holding of handguns if there remained easy access to unlawful handguns . . . ?' (HAC 1996, 59). Whether the 1997 Acts prove this monitory observation to have been prophetic will take time to establish; but the signs are not encouraging.


53. The 1997 Acts have established the illegal pool of firearms from which the criminal market is supplied as a public safety issue. Successive amnesties have shown that ever tightening `controls' appear to have had little effect upon the pool of unregistered guns.[97] It is likely that the firearms currently in unlawful circulation within the UK are sufficient to supply all conceivable criminal requirements into the foreseeable future and beyond.[98]Nor is it difficult to make guns clandestinely in quantity, even given brutally strict regulation.[99] The principal of the gun, which has been with us since the 14th century cannot be uninvented.

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

Again it would help you if you clicked on the links provided.





Do what?

No, I would say you are proposing that.

You are the one with the mentality that the only way to solve the problem is to allow more guns in circulation, as implied by your posts.

Giving access to the law abiding, does not equal every Tom, **** or Harry. Remove previously imposed restrictions which were either knee jerk reactions or poorly thought out.




Which was never really that Wild.

If it was never that wild why were gun restriction imposed then. :roll:

What gun restrictions are you talking about?

NFA?




Maybe you could also make a reference to the streets running red with blood once the law abiding have greater access, like the emotional few over here.

So anybody that does not follow your line of thinking is emotionally flawed

The reference to the streets running red with blood is the first thing most anti-gunites come out with over here, similiar to the wild west comments. Toby Hoover being a prime example in Ohio.
We were supposed to see this take place 5yrs ago going on 6, still waiting. Their goal is to use fear mongering, scare tactics and lump the law abiding in with the criminal element, who already have no regard for the laws already in place.

[3rdMillhouse]

When a society is told that guns are bad and a gun free society is a safe one and generations after that will start having that belief. Banning inanimate objects will not stop murder and mayhem. Humans have been killing each other since we walked the earth.

Exactly, the most propper tool to fight gun-related crimes is to have an efficient police, laws though and unforgiving on criminials, and a judicial system hellbent of locking up scum that breaks the law. Restricting the sacred right of citizen to possess a firearm to ensure the protection of his family and his property is just wrong.

[deagle]

maybe they'd sold them.

[Connaught Ranger]

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)

Rather than comment on what I cut and paste, why not click on the links provided.

Na its easier when you do it for us!:roll:



Harder for the law abiding to get hold of. That was in reference the idea that guns are bad being indoctrinated into all members of British Society.
What has changed since the early 20th Century when it was acceptable to own a firearm legally?

Well you have to admit that some form of control is necessary otherwise it has the potential for weapons to be used for nefarious means including anarchy.

What has the restriction on military grade weapons in far flung corners of the Empire got to do with the Islands of the United Kingdom?:roll:

Most WW1 veterans had souvenir weapons, I cant recall reading abywhere that they were planning on an uprising in the U.K.:roll:




Supply and Demand, while there are bans or restrictions currently in place, this has done nothing to reduce the number, make or model or arms currently in criminal hands.

But traditionally criminal have targeted legally owned weapons regardless of make for years, prime examples being farmers shotguns stolen then having the butt and barrel cropped down.



CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

Again it would help you if you clicked on the links provided.:roll:

Giving access to the law abiding, does not equal every Tom, **** or Harry. Remove previously imposed restrictions which were either knee jerk reactions or poorly thought out.

In your opinion!

What gun restrictions are you talking about?

NFA?

The reference to the streets running red with blood is the first thing most anti-gunites come out with over here, similiar to the wild west comments. Toby Hoover being a prime example in Ohio.

American example! :roll: we were talking about GB here.

We were supposed to see this take place 5yrs ago going on 6, still waiting. Their goal is to use fear mongering, scare tactics and lump the law abiding in with the criminal element, who already have no regard for the laws already in place.

You seem to think that if the U.K. were to adapt a U.S. style system regarding the buying and selling of firearms, all will be honky dory in the U.K.
It's never going to happen.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What I'm saying is that the system we have in place is, essentially, what your suggestion was.

That is correct!

It's always fun when someone tries to lecture you about what's going on on your own doorstep from an ivory tower 3000+ miles away isn't it ;-)

[Red-Phos]

Geezah why dont you just shut the up.You do not live in this country so stop going on like a smart arse know all.

[Eagle The Lightning]

Geezah unless you live here then you don't know what people are like so you can't compare country's

[Arfah]

Latest news! A disenchanted 19 year old student stormed into a branch of McDonalds in the University town of Cambridge, England today without shooting anyone as he doesn't have access to an AR15. A police spokesmen stated, "Despite the threat of him having too much teenage angst, the situation was resolved peacefully after he purchased a Big Mac meal and a McFlurry and skulked away."

[Eagle The Lightning]

Greggs the bakers is way better than maccy d's

[Geezah]

Rather than comment on what I cut and paste, why not click on the links provided.

Na its easier when you do it for us!

It would be easier for the pair of us if you read the information provided by the Home Office!




Harder for the law abiding to get hold of. That was in reference the idea that guns are bad being indoctrinated into all members of British Society.
What has changed since the early 20th Century when it was acceptable to own a firearm legally?

Well you have to admit that some form of control is necessary otherwise it has the potential for weapons to be used for nefarious means including anarchy.

So based on fear, this is reason enough to enact poorly thought out bans or restrictions.



What has the restriction on military grade weapons in far flung corners of the Empire got to do with the Islands of the United Kingdom?

They looked to apply it to the Isles and the Colonies.



Most WW1 veterans had souvenir weapons, I cant recall reading abywhere that they were planning on an uprising in the U.K.

Yet you agree with the idea of banning or heavily restricting firearms based on the idea of fear.


12. The situation was exacerbated by revolution abroad and civil discontent at home. The diary of the Cabinet Secretary, Thomas Jones, published in 1969 reveals that the Cabinet was extremely concerned about a Bolshevik revolution arising from the industrial unrest and sought information about the numbers of troops and aircraft available for use against insurgents in this country. There was a demand for a Bill to license persons to bear arms. The Home Secretary pointed out that he had such a Bill ready but, "In the past there have always been objections". It was said that, "All weapons ought to be available for redistribution to friends of the Government".





Supply and Demand, while there are bans or restrictions currently in place, this has done nothing to reduce the number, make or model or arms currently in criminal hands.

But traditionally criminal have targeted legally owned weapons regardless of make for years, prime examples being farmers shotguns stolen then having the butt and barrel cropped down.

And those numbers were so small it had little affect on the large number of arms in criminals hands.
You have a large number or arms coming in from former comm-bloc countries.





Giving access to the law abiding, does not equal every Tom, **** or Harry. Remove previously imposed restrictions which were either knee jerk reactions or poorly thought out.

In your opinion!

And according to the papers published by the Home Office.



4. Research in support of legislation has been lacking: there are, for example, no meaningful records of the frequency with which legally-held guns occur in crime. In other words, no one knows whether the control regime works. Moreover, the manner of its administration suggests that in some quarters it is not given as high a priority as the public might expect.

6. That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception; but firearms control is more complicated a subject than at first sight it might appear. Whereas "banning" removes the opportunity to regulate (and is tacit acknowledgement that the police cannot be relied upon to enforce the law), control requires regulation.[59] Those who would legislate with the aim of reducing firearms crime should be aware that prohibition is not the same as control; indeed, prohibition and control are mutually exclusive. Striving to take guns `out of circulation' is probably a waste of effort and money, for illegal supply may be expected always to fulfil criminal demand.


CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)


THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

119. The regulation of firearms in Britain is now governed by a mass of primary and secondary legislation but of almost equal importance is the policy on administering the Act, particularly in those areas where it remains incomprehensible. As an example of the complexity of the legislation, Section 5 of the 1968 Act deals with prohibited weapons and, when brought into effect it consisted of 305 words. It now consists of 2,545 words and is beyond the grasp of most of those whom it affects and, indeed, most of those who must administer it.


120. This mass of law was based on intrinsically flawed panic legislation of 1920. It has been added to by one panic measure after another. It has never been the subject of rational consideration. The principles which should apply to all legislation are lost. No-one has ever stated a precise objective for the legislation or indicated how it will be measured against that objective to see whether or not it is working.


121. If past experience is any guide, Parliament, the police and the Government will now try to make this mass of unworkable legislation function in some way despite the cost, despite the bureaucracy and despite any injustice. Nothing will now happen until another major incident creates a period of panic and hysteria when more ill conceived legislation will be added to the heap. The real problems, and the real danger to society will remain unaddressed.

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)





What gun restrictions are you talking about?

NFA?

The reference to the streets running red with blood is the first thing most anti-gunites come out with over here, similiar to the wild west comments. Toby Hoover being a prime example in Ohio.

American example! we were talking about GB here.

Yes but it was you who made reference to the Wild West, and then you made reference to the fact that if it wasn't that Wild, why were restrictions put in place.
I'm just wondering what restrictions you are talking about, because I'm guessing you were talking about the US, not West London?




We were supposed to see this take place 5yrs ago going on 6, still waiting. Their goal is to use fear mongering, scare tactics and lump the law abiding in with the criminal element, who already have no regard for the laws already in place.

You seem to think that if the U.K. were to adapt a U.S. style system regarding the buying and selling of firearms, all will be honky dory in the U.K.
It's never going to happen.

And there we have it. You have knee jerk reactions and poorly thought out laws that have resulted in not making the general public any safer, but removed firearms out of the hands of the law abiding. All this while it has done nothing to stop the flow of illegal arms. It's all about supply and demand on the part of the criminals.

As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.

[Eagle The Lightning]

http://i42.tinypic.com/2mfdegl.jpg

[Geezah]

Geezah unless you live here then you don't know what people are like so you can't compare country's

I'm not comparing anything.

I'm pretty sure given your responses to this thread that I have more time in England than you have had on this planet.

Now rather than be a member of the peanut gallery, why not post something to back up your claim that if the law abiding are giving greater access to firearms then the chavs will also gain greater access than they probably already have.

[CMNot]

I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.

If you have any criminal conviction you will not be able to get a SGC or FAC until 5 years have elapsed since the original offense - any further offenses changes this naturally (I'm not sure if this also applies 100% to FACs or whether the tariff is longer). Any violent criminal offenses or firearms convictions and you can kiss goodbye to ever holding either. Sounds to me like the Law abiding are not paying the price there.

[Eagle The Lightning]

I'm not comparing anything.

I'm pretty sure given your responses to this thread that I have more time in England than you have had on this planet.

Now rather than be a member of the peanut gallery, why not post something to back up your claim that if the law abiding are giving greater access to firearms then the chavs will also gain greater access than they probably already have.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2s7xc82.jpg

[Geezah]

If you have any criminal conviction you will not be able to get a SGC or FAC until 5 years have elapsed since the original offense - any further offenses changes this naturally (I'm not sure if this also applies 100% to FACs or whether the tariff is longer). Any violent criminal offenses or firearms convictions and you can kiss goodbye to ever holding either. Sounds to me like the Law abiding are not paying the price there.

But they have in their access to firearms.

Semi-autos and pistol, while the events that caused the legislation to be pushed thru were tragic, both offenders were known to the Police at the time.
IMHO, I would suggest putting these back in the legal pool of firearms while applying the same standards applied to current available arms while creating a model that actually works rather than try and patch up the current version.

[Connaught Ranger]

It would be easier for the pair of us if you read the information provided by the Home Office!



So based on fear, this is reason enough to enact poorly thought out bans or restrictions. I don't call it fear, I see it as a legitimate responsible Government of the day putting in place a system of prevention.



They looked to apply it to the Isles and the Colonies.

The U.K. was not awash with weapons, however immediate post war there was open war in the streets of Germany, Hungary, etc..etc.. there was communist uprisings in Munich in Bavaria, and Budapest in Hungary. There was also the recently concluded Irish experience, so only fools would sit idly by and wait for the same to happen in the U.K. and the Colonies.

Yet you agree with the idea of banning or heavily restricting firearms based on the idea of fear.

Fear of more innocent deaths in the streets.

And those numbers were so small it had little affect on the large number of arms in criminals hands.

You have a large number or arms coming in from former comm-bloc countries.

We know there are weapons available, but why add more to the equation?


And according to the papers published by the Home Office.



CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)



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)




Yes but it was you who made reference to the Wild West, and then you made reference to the fact that if it wasn't that Wild, why were restrictions put in place.

Did the U.S. as in various states, over a period of time not bring in weapons restrictions, effectively disarming people, and forbidding the carrying of guns in public, when people were coming into towns and citys.


I'm just wondering what restrictions you are talking about, because I'm guessing you were talking about the US, not West London?

So the USA has not been a total free"I have a gun and can do as I like society, in the defence of my life, wife, property etc..etc..)



And there we have it. You have knee jerk reactions and poorly thought out laws that have resulted in not making the general public any safer, but removed firearms out of the hands of the law abiding. All this while it has done nothing to stop the flow of illegal arms. It's all about supply and demand on the part of the criminals.

Again you should insert "In my honest opinion" in the above.

As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.

No, but you are gradually leading up to it, if you think firearm restrictions are unfair in the U.K. then feel free to see how tough they made it in the Republic of Ireland from circa 1968 till about 2006, apart from shotguns, .22 caliber rifles and the odd 410 deer rifle everything else was (unlawfully) banned, handguns were totally banned, in the public sector, anybody who had WW1 & WW2 weapons, hunting rifles, etc..etc.. all legally held, had the weapons confiscated under the pretense of all weapons being forensically & ballistics tested. The reason being because the I.R.A. terrorists might steal and use them.:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No, but you are gradually leading up to it, if you think firearm restrictions are unfair in the U.K. then feel free to see how tough they made it in the Republic of Ireland from circa 1968 till about 2006, apart from shotguns, .22 caliber rifles and the odd 410 deer rifle everything else was (unlawfully) banned, handguns were totally banned, in the public sector, anybody who had WW1 & WW2 weapons, hunting rifles, etc..etc.. all legally held, had the weapons confiscated under the pretense of all weapons being forensically & ballistics tested. The reason being because the I.R.A. terrorists might steal and use them.:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

Yeah I shoot with an Irish guy who now lives here in the UK. He's over the moon about how easy it was for him to get an FAC here and get a range of rifles in different calibres.

[Geezah]

It would be easier for the pair of us if you read the information provided by the Home Office!




So based on fear, this is reason enough to enact poorly thought out bans or restrictions.

I don't call it fear, I see it as a legitimate responsible Government of the day putting in place a system of prevention.

That was poorly thought out and baseless.




They looked to apply it to the Isles and the Colonies.

The U.K. was not awash with weapons, however immediate post war there was open war in the streets of Germany, Hungary, etc..etc.. there was communist uprisings in Munich in Bavaria, and Budapest in Hungary. There was also the recently concluded Irish experience, so only fools would sit idly by and wait for the same to happen in the U.K. and the Colonies.

Are you for real, you're in favour of further restrictions based on what takes place in other countries?:roll:




Yet you agree with the idea of banning or heavily restricting firearms based on the idea of fear.

Fear of more innocent deaths in the streets.

The only deaths that will be prevented that way are amok killings, but if those in charge had done their job those amok killings should never have taken place.

Now on the subject of "more innocent deaths in the streets" what exactly have the bans and restrictions done to quash current shooting sprees in the UK with illegally held arms?


11. Whilst it may be politically uncomfortable to revisit recent legislation, consideration should be given to returning those firearms favoured by criminals to the control of licensing. Having ensured that would-be Thomas Hamiltons (Dunblane) will come to the notice of the police only after they have acted, the 1997 Acts have made research into the phenomenon of "amok" attacks an urgent priority. No control system can rule out deliberate misuse, nor can it stop a determined malefactor; but a well designed and diligently administered control system should be capable of giving appropriate warnings.


CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)




And those numbers were so small it had little affect on the large number of arms in criminals hands.

You have a large number or arms coming in from former comm-bloc countries.

We know there are weapons available, but why add more to the equation?

You do understand the difference between law abiding and criminals don't you?

Or do you prefer to see them as one and the same?





Yes but it was you who made reference to the Wild West, and then you made reference to the fact that if it wasn't that Wild, why were restrictions put in place.

Did the U.S. as in various states, over a period of time not bring in weapons restrictions, effectively disarming people, and forbidding the carrying of guns in public, when people were coming into towns and citys.

I dunno, why not tell me more, after all you're the one who brought it up?




I'm just wondering what restrictions you are talking about, because I'm guessing you were talking about the US, not West London?

So the USA has not been a total free"I have a gun and can do as I like society, in the defence of my life, wife, property etc..etc..)

In Ohio, you could defend yourself or your family in your home if you feared for your life. Now that Ohio has adopted the Castle Doctrine there is no requirement for me to try and retreat in my home. Laws towards legal firearm ownership have been favouring the law abiding for a long time now.

I carry a handgun pretty much every day concealed, I have now for close to 5yrs. I have gone through the required training and background check to be allowed to do so. If I wanted to, I could carry open with no license as it is allowed by Ohio's Constitution. But I prefer to carry concealed as people have no idea I am carrying.





And there we have it. You have knee jerk reactions and poorly thought out laws that have resulted in not making the general public any safer, but removed firearms out of the hands of the law abiding. All this while it has done nothing to stop the flow of illegal arms. It's all about supply and demand on the part of the criminals.

Again you should insert "In my honest opinion" in the above.

And according to the papers published by the Hoe Office. Should they also insert "IMHO"?

As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.[/quote]




As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.

No, but you are gradually leading up to it,

No I'm not. Unless you have your crystal ball out and can see into the future!




if you think firearm restrictions are unfair in the U.K. then feel free to see how tough they made it in the Republic of Ireland from circa 1968 till about 2006, apart from shotguns, .22 caliber rifles and the odd 410 deer rifle everything else was (unlawfully) banned, handguns were totally banned, in the public sector, anybody who had WW1 & WW2 weapons, hunting rifles, etc..etc.. all legally held, had the weapons confiscated under the pretense of all weapons being forensically & ballistics tested. The reason being because the I.R.A. terrorists might steal and use them.

Connaught Ranger.

So you want to get your own back on the British then, as you would prefer they remain the way they are now or see further restriction or bans imposed on the law abiding?

[Connaught Ranger]

That was poorly thought out and baseless.



Are you for real, you're in favour of further restrictions based on what takes place in other countries?:roll:

Its easy to see you have little or no understanding of how the civilised world operated back then, a major period of violence had just ended, the old systems of normality and control were being overthrown, a rational fear of anarchy and, the end of Imperialism in Russia etc..etc..



The only deaths that will be prevented that way are amok killings, but if those in charge had done their job those amok killings should never have taken place.

Blah! Blah! and just who are those in charge, give us some names, as for never should have taken place, I think you are the only one here who has been polishing his crystal balls for so long searching for reasons to legitimise your fantasy gun world.:roll:

Now on the subject of "more innocent deaths in the streets" what exactly have the bans and restrictions done to quash current shooting sprees in the UK with illegally held arms?

Post evidence that they have not achieved anything, there will always be a way to obtain and use weapons of many types not just gubs, but the people in charge owe it to the citizens to try and restrict the number of deaths.


CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)



You do understand the difference between law abiding and criminals don't you? Or do you prefer to see them as one and the same?

No but the two live i close proximity to one another. :roll:

I dunno, why not tell me more, after all you're the one who brought it up?

In Ohio, you could defend yourself or your family in your home if you feared for your life. Now that Ohio has adopted the Castle Doctrine there is no requirement for me to try and retreat in my home. Laws towards legal firearm ownership have been favouring the law abiding for a long time now.
Various American Gun Laws have no bearing on British situations.

I carry a handgun pretty much every day concealed, I have now for close to 5yrs. I have gone through the required training and background check to be allowed to do so. If I wanted to, I could carry open with no license as it is allowed by Ohio's Constitution. But I prefer to carry concealed as people have no idea I am carrying.

Does it give you a thrill?:roll:

And according to the papers published by the Hoe Office. Should they also insert "IMHO"?

No only you when you are pushing your rants.

As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.
By following a US Model I suppose, seeing you are harping on about Ohio, Dorothy click the heels of your red shoes and all will be right in the world. rofl

No I'm not. Unless you have your crystal ball out and can see into the future!

So you want to get your own back on the British then, as you would prefer they remain the way they are now or see further restriction or bans imposed on the law abiding?

Now why would I want to get my own back on anybody?, (you sound like a little kid:roll:) I was born in Nottingham, left the country when I was 10, lived in Ireland and served in the Irish Military for over 21 years including service with U.N.I.F.I.L., (Lebanon was a country with no civil infrastructure, swamped in civil war and under the rule of the gun for many years, its still not settled, so the gun is not the answer to all problems.)

We can see your agenda here in your posts, you are a "plastic yank" for the want of a better word, and like many of the fine inhabitants of the country you have emigrated too, you perceive to know the answers to all that ails the world, however it does come as a shock to find that in reality there are many situations where there are no clean cut answers to the problems, but life muddles on the best that it can.

Connaught Ranger.

[timetraveller]

I believe more people get knifed than shot.

Spot on .....


There is more chance of some ned pulling a blade on you than pulling a gun on you ..

Gun crime is minor league compare to knife crime ... in the uk

[timetraveller]

Why?

I curious why you think this way.
Do you believe that every street in the US has a gun fight at high noon?

Well how many Gun related crimes happen in America everyday ?


More than what happens in the UK be it a day week month or longer

[Geezah]

Are you for real, you're in favour of further restrictions based on what takes place in other countries?

Its easy to see you have little or no understanding of how the civilised world operated back then, a major period of violence had just ended, the old systems of normality and control were being overthrown, a rational fear of anarchy and, the end of Imperialism in Russia etc..etc..

So laws are passed based on paranoia, because given how freely available firearms were at the time for the British and the extremely low levels of firearm crime there was no need to pass such knee jerk legislation.

So you would rule based on being paranoid!




The only deaths that will be prevented that way are amok killings, but if those in charge had done their job those amok killings should never have taken place.

Blah! Blah! and just who are those in charge, give us some names, as for never should have taken place, I think you are the only one here who has been polishing his crystal balls for so long searching for reasons to legitimise your fantasy gun world.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/Geezah/461_1117979198_dunblaneCustom.jpg


On the subject of Michael Ryan, it has been questioned as to whether or not he should have been allowed to possess firearms in the first place.




Now on the subject of "more innocent deaths in the streets" what exactly have the bans and restrictions done to quash current shooting sprees in the UK with illegally held arms?

Post evidence that they have not achieved anything, there will always be a way to obtain and use weapons of many types not just gubs, but the people in charge owe it to the citizens to try and restrict the number of deaths.


9. As crime control measures, the amending Acts of 1988 (certainly) and 1997 (probably) will prove to have been counter-productive. The shootings at Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) brought a rush to legislate: an already ill-conceived system of firearms control was further misdirected. The 1997 Acts have reduced the likelihood of further `amok' shootings only in the sense that henceforth licensed pistols cannot be used for them—because the licence has been abolished. The cost to the taxpayer of removing from circulation those pistols at risk of being used for firearms crime (Firearms [Amendment] Acts 1997), has been disproportionately high—approaching 400 times their market value (Annex A); nor is it likely that the effect of the removal of so few will be noticed. Good governance demands that the failings of past legislation be identified by a thoroughgoing review, the `fundamental appraisal of firearms law' as called for by the Labour Party (Labour Party 1996, para 12).

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)



59. It was claimed that the Government had consulted widely. In fact, there simply had been no time for detailed consultation, though chief officers of police had been allowed ample opportunity to comment. Representatives of shooting organisations were simply told that the main pillars of the legislation were not subject to any sort of consultation. The 1988 Act was a panic re-introduction of proposals which had already been rejected, without the slightest attempt at analysing the problem and seeking solutions which were addressed to the problem. The legislation was intended to do no more than reduce political pressure on the Government of the day.


60. The 1988 Act had a very stormy passage through Parliament. If there had been full consultation, an Act which was essentially technical in its nature and for which great public support was claimed might be expected to pass almost on the nod. The first stumbling block arose when the House of Commons Committee refused to further consider the Bill until the Government agreed to pay compensation. Eventually, the Government was compelled to give way, though the compensation offered was derisory.

64. The 1988 Act had many different effects. The Home Office failed to produce a single case in which self loading rifles had been used in crime other than the Hungerford incident. In that case, the fact that the rifle was self loading was of no significance because the rate at which shots were actually fired was within the capability of any firearm including the most simple single shot weapon. Despite that, self-loading rifles were confiscated from some 8,000 people who possessed them lawfully and had done no harm with them. They were offered a level of compensation based on 50 per cent of the value at auction which was, effectively, less than one third the real value.


65. By far the greatest impact of the 1988 Act was on owners of ordinary shotguns. The 1973 Green Paper suggested at paragraph 61 that some chief officers of police believed that the imposition of a "good reason" requirement on shotguns would reduce the number of certificate holders by up to 20 per cent. The 1988 Act took effect on 1 July 1989 when the renewal cycle for certificates was of three years. Shotgun certificate numbers are reported at the end of each calendar year and in the four years which cover the first renewal cycle shotgun certificates in Britain were reduced from 971,102 in 1988 to 761,343 in 1992, a reduction of 21.6 per cent. A significant upward trend in shotgun certificate numbers over the previous six years was suddenly and markedly reverse.

Time Series Analysis of Firearms Crime in Britain


15. A time series study relating to Great Britain is a relatively simple process, but simplistic conclusions should not be drawn from it. However, if the thesis that more guns means more violent crime is correct, it must follow that fewer guns should mean fewer violent crimes. Home Office criminal statistics for England and Wales have given figures for the use of firearms in crime only for relatively modern times, prior to which the only information available was that from major cities, notably London, or from anecdotal and unreliable evidence. All the evidence that can be found from these sources shows that when there were no controls on firearms the rate of armed crime was very low and it remained so until the mid 1960s when it began to escalate. But the rate of legal firearms ownership was declining and has continued to decline whilst the rate of armed crime has grown.

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)

While firearms aren't as easily accessible to the law abiding criminals are still able to gain access.

I could go ahead and post the many numbers of links to news sotries from the UK where illegally held firearms have been used on the public, but given your response to this thread it is pointless!




You do understand the difference between law abiding and criminals don't you? Or do you prefer to see them as one and the same?

No but the two live i close proximity to one another.

And your point is what?

This dos not mean they are the same.

I know/knew people that choose/chose to break the law. Does that mean I am no different then them and should be held accountable for the crimes they have commited?




I dunno, why not tell me more, after all you're the one who brought it up?

In Ohio, you could defend yourself or your family in your home if you feared for your life. Now that Ohio has adopted the Castle Doctrine there is no requirement for me to try and retreat in my home. Laws towards legal firearm ownership have been favouring the law abiding for a long time now.
Various American Gun Laws have no bearing on British situations.

Yet you brought up American law which I gave a response to based on Ohio law.

If you're not interested in American law don't bring it up.




I carry a handgun pretty much every day concealed, I have now for close to 5yrs. I have gone through the required training and background check to be allowed to do so. If I wanted to, I could carry open with no license as it is allowed by Ohio's Constitution. But I prefer to carry concealed as people have no idea I am carrying.

Does it give you a thrill?

Again, if you're not intersted in American law, please do not make reference to it.





And according to the papers published by the Hoe Office. Should they also insert "IMHO"?

No only you when you are pushing your rants.

So, should I insert IMHO into the references to the Home Office information?




As far as adopting a US style system, I never once suggested that did I?
I just suggested they scrap the current one and rework it so that the law abiding are not the ones paying the price.
By following a US Model I suppose, seeing you are harping on about Ohio, Dorothy click the heels of your red shoes and all will be right in the world.

Again, I gave you an example of Ohio law, not an example of what I think the UK should use.




No I'm not. Unless you have your crystal ball out and can see into the future!

So you want to get your own back on the British then, as you would prefer they remain the way they are now or see further restriction or bans imposed on the law abiding?

Now why would I want to get my own back on anybody?, (you sound like a little kid) I was born in Nottingham, left the country when I was 10, lived in Ireland and served in the Irish Military for over 21 years including service with U.N.I.F.I.L., (Lebanon was a country with no civil infrastructure, swamped in civil war and under the rule of the gun for many years, its still not settled,

And it was you who made reference to the laws in Republic of Ireland based on the situation with the IRA and what ifs.




so the gun is not the answer to all problems.)

Firearms are the not the problem, it's people intent. It has been said many times that no matter what inanimate objects you ban peoples intent will never change.



We can see your agenda here in your posts, you are a "plastic yank" for the want of a better word, and like many of the fine inhabitants of the country you have emigrated too, you perceive to know the answers to all that ails the world, however it does come as a shock to find that in reality there are many situations where there are no clean cut answers to the problems, but life muddles on the best that it can.

Connaught Ranger.

While it reads very dramatic, plastic yank or not, banning a thing, does not make that thing go away. The only people that have suffered at the hands of ill thought out laws are the law abiding on both sides. They suffer at the hands of criminals and the Government.

[CMNot]

While firearms aren't as easily accessible to the law abiding criminals are still able to gain access.Point?

If ALL firearms were banned, criminals would still be able to get access.

If NO firearms were banned, criminals would still be able to get access.