PDA

View Full Version : Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired



Pages : [1] 2

budanski
09-03-2004, 08:04 PM
Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired

Wall Street Journal Europe (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109416390461308573,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Feurope%5Fasia)
September*3,*2004
By John R. Lott, Jr

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

•*Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

•*Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.

Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly.

Mr. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Presss, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).

moughoun
09-03-2004, 08:06 PM
So the theory is every one has gun's and there will be less violence, ok :roll:

ShadowNeo
09-03-2004, 08:08 PM
Im not going to ramble on about why I support the current gun laws, but to be honest, there have been ads banned for less things (for example, an advert for a fizzy drink which had a genie slap a guy in the face) but the ad was kind of out of place, seeing as the woman had a gun of course, it was also set out as if the woman was going to murder the guy in the car. To be honest it didn't really make any sense for her to go outside and use it as a starters pistol O_o.

GrantT
09-03-2004, 08:51 PM
The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't

Wow, what genius. :cantbeli:

I support current gun laws here in the UK and believe guns have no part in everyday life. I've never been burgled or robbed in the street and subsequently have never felt I need a gun to protect myself or my property. I can't speak for other UK members but I personally wouldn't feel at all safe to know that a person passing by me in the street could legally have a 9mm pistol under his coat.

Old Dominion
09-03-2004, 09:06 PM
Let's see, what's that cliche`...o yeah. When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. Personally I wouldn't carry a 9mm under my coat, I'd have my .40 cal. I've gotta go clean my guns. :lol:

Deuterium
09-03-2004, 09:12 PM
The issue of banning weapons for me has always been about whose responsibility it is to protect my life and property from the criminal element. Ultimately, for me, that has always rested with myself. I can't and don't expect the police to be by my side 24 hours a day. Even in a low crime country, the criminal element exists. When that day comes, when I'm attacked or my family is, the police will not stop the attack, they will investigate the crime and THEN catch the criminal, hopefully. That is why I am a trained and armed citizen. Luckily I live in the US and can do this.

FallenAngel
09-04-2004, 02:06 AM
What Duet said. Some of the safest cities in the US are also the most heavily armed. By that, I mean registered firearms whether that be a single 9mm for home defense, or a gun locker full of assault rifles. Depending on the time of day in LA, you can get a pizza delivered faster police can arrive- and that's if you don't get put on hold when calling "911".

Maybe the situation is different in the UK, but seeing as how gun-related crimes have gone UP in both the UK and Australia since gun-bans have gone into effect, it should make one stop and think "maybe we goofed?"

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 02:25 AM
A criminal is less likely to shoot at someone, who can/will shoot back.

n.ignomo
09-04-2004, 06:33 AM
To me, banning guns laws are made, fisrtly because some owner will just shot out anybody because he did that or this which requires 1 year un jail. I take the examples of the number of children who die or kill because they saw this or that today. Of crouse children don't have a gun (and should never have to carry one) but finding one is something you can't expect.
On the other side, banning guns is to prevent vendettas. I ask you on the foum : you got robbered of your car stolen and you catch the guy on the moment. What do you do : call cops even if he will be gone when they arrive, and shot him (maybe kill him) just because he did it to you (oh dear!). I don't think everybody on the streets are aware enough of the meaning of having a weapon, many people panic when they are in danger, and panic plus gun is no good thing.

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 06:53 AM
The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't

Wow, what genius. :cantbeli:

I support current gun laws here in the UK and believe guns have no part in everyday life. I've never been burgled or robbed in the street and subsequently have never felt I need a gun to protect myself or my property. I can't speak for other UK members but I personally wouldn't feel at all safe to know that a person passing by me in the street could legally have a 9mm pistol under his coat.

Wrong, you make one very big mistake...
Yup guns aren't for protection in toodays world, but people use them for sporting, relax same as with kitchen knife when they use it they rarelyseriously think about protection with it, esspecialy most of uss live in safe hoods. but with guns criminals have one more factor to consider. Knife isn't very intimidating factor gun is. Chance that attacked can use his gun instead of kitchen knife for defense make criminals to avoid contact with means less violent crimes. That make people safer not actualy using guns in shootouts... Do you know why thiefs did masterplans 20 years ago and now they take ak go to muesum and take what they want? Because there is no even hipotetical threat that someone will shot back...

marktigger
09-04-2004, 07:22 AM
The major recent additions to UK gun law were Knee Jerk reactions to the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents where mentally unstable gun owners went on the rampage with legally owned firearms. The law even at that stage was easy to understand and mental instability was actually grounds for Firearms licences to be revoked.
Now any move to get the law altered get the Dunblane survivors all over the press trying to smear all gun owners as potential child killers and the left wing media calling for even more stringent laws.
There has been a surge in firearms related crime in recent years and the usual Home Office reaction is to ban even more. Yes there has been 2 cases where an Airsoft metal revolver was converted to fire .22lr and was sold to a Rapper from so solid crew who was caught in posession of it. And 2 there was 2 girls killed at a party by automatic fire from machine pistols probably inrgrams or Uzis both banned in pre hungerford days!
2 Gunsmiths were recently jailed for deactivating weapons and giving parts/information on how to reactivate them. So the law in the UK is tight enough already.
The net effect of the Knee jerk reactions of various shades of government showed up in the recent olympics the UK usually was quite successful at the range but not this year.
In the UK there needs to be a sensible adult discussion on gun ownership with the shooting community and the pressure groups kept out of the picture completley. The media need to be made to understand that you cannont legislate for nutters and that a nutter will use any available weapon eg the Playground machette attack in London some years ago.
Illegal firearms are the firearms primarilty used in Crime and criminals will always try to obtain firearms so why not concentrate on criminals and leave law abiding gunowners alone.

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 08:02 AM
On the other side, banning guns is to prevent vendettas.

Sorry excuse #29461. Take the gun away, and they will use a knife. Take the knife away, and they will use a baseball bat, etc, etc, etc. Pretty much anything can be, and probably already has been, used as a weapon. I don't see bannings of these countless other types of conventional weapons, much less the unconvetional types. Banning something because of the potential use in confrontations/vendettas is idiotic. I've been hit with a 27 inch TV set in a fight. Broke an arm and 2 ribs. Does that mean all 27 inch or bigger TVs should be banned?

This of course ignores the obvious fact that, as previously stated, that the criminals don't give a f*** if it's banned. They will use it anyways - as all these statistics show.

Say what you will now, but when that day comes(and it almost certainly will) when a man pulls a gun on you and threatens you or a loved one knowing full well that(because of the laws) you pose no retaliatory threat, I guarantee your opinion will change.

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 08:06 AM
axe also gas pipe(gasrurka) is here very popular not TVs :) ...

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 08:34 AM
Maybe so, but you get my point ;)

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 08:45 AM
Maybe so, but you get my point ;)
completly... I just don't get those who give that pseudoarguments. Guns are no worse tool thany any other...

Fargin
09-04-2004, 09:02 AM
I'm ok with living in a country where I don't have to arm myself to the teeth, in order to feel safe behind the threshold of my home.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is burried deep in most Americans, something that is very hard to understand for many Europeans. Guns are a big part of the culture, history and economy. Various strong lobbyist organisations use huge rescources to convince both the public and politicians from banning or restricting these basic rights and economical interests.

When I think about it I can't tell Americans to surrender their handguns, which their safety might rely on.

But

There's no way in hell, I'm going to transfere American conditions to Eurpoe, because it simply wont happen. When it comes to homesecurity and handguns our cultural heritage is totally different.

Buying rifles and ammunition in european supermarkets?

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 09:21 AM
And what would you say if i following your logic would say BAN ALCOHOL

Been there, done that. Was other case of laws banning something doing absolutely nothing but helping the criminal element.

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 09:25 AM
And what would you say if i following your logic would say BAN ALCOHOL

Been there, done that. Was other case of laws banning something doing absolutely nothing but helping the criminal element.

yup only thing should be baned is abuse of it :) and this is same to every part of human life with can inflict damage to ohers...guns cars boats drinks ....

DeltaWhisky58
09-04-2004, 10:09 AM
Speaking as a UK-based member and lifetime legal gun owner/user, I have to agree 100% with what Mark.Tigger has written.

The two major incidents - Michael Ryan/Hungerford & Thomas Hamilton/Dunblane - were both carried out by licensed firearms owners, but both were people who should never have been granted firearm Certificates in the first place. There have been very few such incidents thank goodness, and IMO neither were grounds for the widespread bans they produced (auto/pump rifles post-Hungerford; handguns/expanding ammo post-Dunblane).

The amazing factor is that Thomas Hamilton also legally held shotguns, if he had used one of those at Dunblane the results would have been far worse - the fact that he was such a poor pistol shot accounted for many survivors.

Pistol shooting as a sport in the UK has all but died, leaving air pistols and black powder weapons as the only legitimate means for the sport. Whilst I would in no way support the return of semi-automatic military-style weapons to private hands - there is no real need for them (IMO) - I am 100% behind the restoration of our right to own and posses handguns for legitimate sporting purposes.

ZeroPositive
09-04-2004, 10:12 AM
I live in the UK and like the fact I know when I walk down the street when I walk by houses there are not real guns in them.

cut
09-04-2004, 10:39 AM
This is a national issue, and therefore it should be kept out of foreign party political propaganda.

Until there is another dunblane the law is staying like it is. It works.

I feel safe, I've never seen a civilian with a gun. Shootings are rare.

The only area where gun violence is rife is black on black gang violence. A lot of public money goes into preventing that. And no matter how much right-wing or left-wing propaganda you believe, common sense dictates that legalising guns would only make that worse.

In the UK those who need guns have them.

What this boils down to is whether the government finds it easier to control gun use when it is legalised and licensed or when it is illegal. We've tried both and found that this system works best. Until the US has tried this system it is in no position to criticise it.

There is no gun argument in this country it is not a political issue, which leads me to believe that we have sorted this problem. Harsh but fair.

von_Moo142
09-04-2004, 10:51 AM
After vanishing from the internet for half a year I didn't expect people to still be debating UK gun control here ;-)

These are my observations. Whilst they are not really backed up by hard fact, they also aren't twisted to the agendas of the pro/anti-gun lobby as most gun related stats seem to be.


Well the original post raised the issue of a car advert, which probably shouldn't have been banned. It was an annoying ad though...



The issue of banning weapons for me has always been about whose responsibility it is to protect my life and property from the criminal element. Ultimately, for me, that has always rested with myself. I can't and don't expect the police to be by my side 24 hours a day. Even in a low crime country, the criminal element exists. When that day comes, when I'm attacked or my family is, the police will not stop the attack, they will investigate the crime and THEN catch the criminal, hopefully. That is why I am a trained and armed citizen. Luckily I live in the US and can do this.


I agree with this, at least in theory.

If we talk about trained, responsible and level headed people being able to legaly own and use firearms (and even use them in defence) it is one thing. If I lived in a country with less firearms regulations then I would almost certainly own a gun, if only for shooting at a range.


But there are plenty of people (in the UK at least) who can't be trusted to drive a car in a responsible way.

There are also evidently people who, although they have the right to buy a hot drink from a fast food outlet, cannot be truted with the responsibility of not burning themselves.

Those are slightly flippant examples, but I am trying to make a very real point. One can argue that such people shouldn't infringe on the rights of others, but it isn't that simple.

If they shoot themselves (or others) in accidents, or use their firearms unnecessarily in a defensive situation then there are consequences for many others.



Some of the safest cities in the US are also the most heavily armed.

That might be a conicidence in many cases, although even then it would show that legitimate gun ownership contributes little towards crime (which people should realise anyway of course).



Maybe the situation is different in the UK, but seeing as how gun-related crimes have gone UP in both the UK and Australia since gun-bans have gone into effect, it should make one stop and think "maybe we goofed?"

It's a bit more complicated than that though.

Firstly, even before the reactionary laws (and stigma) which followed the tragedies at Hungerford and Dunblane most people here didn't want to own guns, and didn't really feel there was a need to. That hasn't changed much as far as I can tell.

Secondly, most gun crimes in the UK would not be preventable if the victims could have been armed (even if they choose to be). Most gun crime is drug/gang related.

Thirdly, we have a very precise definition of self defence, which (rightly or wrongly) would not permit the use of firearms in most cases.

Now as MARK.TIGGER pointed out, you can't legislate against nutters. So these laws actually haven't changed anything for most people (who don't care about those who owned guns for fun and sport).

So, whilst I agree that the laws are daft, I don't think that even going to the opposite extreme and allowing CCW would change the crime stats much.



and the left wing media calling for even more stringent laws.

The right wing media are just as bad, in fact AFAIK the mail is the worse paper for this type of thing.



but when that day comes(and it almost certainly will) when a man pulls a gun on you and threatens you or a loved one knowing full well that(because of the laws) you pose no retaliatory threat, I guarantee your opinion will change.

So most people in the UK will be threatened by a criminal with a gun?

Are you quite sure about that?



completly... I just don't get those who give that pseudoarguments. Guns are no worse tool thany any other...

No, you are both missing something important here. Guns are the best tool in this context.

That’s why police and military types are in the habit of using them and not "TV sets" and "gas pipes".



I am 100% behind the restoration of our right to own and posses handguns for legitimate sporting purposes.

Couldn't agree more.

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 10:51 AM
This is a national issue, and therefore it should be kept out of foreign party political propaganda.

Funny, you people stick your noses into American politics all the time. God, I love hypocrites.

BarkingSquirrel
09-04-2004, 11:02 AM
Put your reading glasses on, I said "You people" not "You".

von_Moo142
09-04-2004, 11:05 AM
Funny, you people stick your noses into American politics all the time. God, I love hypocrites.

Well, I've responded (in other posts) to people from the US who think they know what's best for the UK a few times. And to a degree that might be happening here too.

I don't mind either, it's absoluty fine with me for foriegn people to have views about the domestic situation in the UK.


You will find people from all nationalities "stick their noses" into other nations politics. Don't you do it in the US?

cut
09-04-2004, 11:06 AM
Put your reading glasses on, I said "You people" not "You".

I'll have you know the world revolves around me ;)

point taken,

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 11:15 AM
completly... I just don't get those who give that pseudoarguments. Guns are no worse tool thany any other...

No, you are both missing something important here. Guns are the best tool in this context.

That’s why police and military types are in the habit of using them and not "TV sets" and "gas pipes".


You missed the point obviously :). guns often aren't the best tool and by all mine they arent only tool,... So what is your point? To crimes wasn't commited at all or wasn't commited by guns?
1) Hardcore criminals will have their guns with ban or without
2) Nuts will use anything they can so instead of gun they will use car trunk filled with ferlitizer and oil killing proly more people they would be able to kill with any type of gun, or he will take axe and bucher familiy in the same fashion as he would do with gun but in complete silence not alarming anybody... Method is different output is same....

oldsoak
09-04-2004, 11:45 AM
I have no objection to people owning a pistol or an automatic rifle in the UK. Before anyone gets excited, heres a suggestion - They should be held in a proper armoury on an approved range - not at home. The range will be open two weekends a month with a Police firearms officer plus RO's in attendance and you can turn up, sign out your weapon, shoot it on the range and hand it back in. Just like you do in the military. No turning up under the influence and it may not be taken off range. If you want to shoot on another rang, an RFD must transport the weapon too and from. The old bill get to put faces to the names and keep an eye on what goes on. It obviously costs and you pay for it and some of the fees go to the cops for their man time. Just a thought.

von_Moo142
09-04-2004, 11:48 AM
1) Hardcore criminals will have their guns with ban or without
2) Nuts will use anything they can so instead of gun they will use car trunk filled with ferlitizer and oil killing proly more people they would be able to kill with any type of gun, or he will take axe and bucher familiy in the same fashion as he would do with gun but in complete silence not alarming anybody

All very true.

There is nothing anyone can do about crazy people, and like you say they don't need guns. Sometimes they don't use guns even if they own them.


But guns are the best tool for killing in many (most) situations.

I should add that I am fairly pro-freedom, and I think people should be allowed to own guns for sport and fun (at least).


I don't really have a point ;-)

But I was trying to explain why things are as they are in the UK. I get the impression that some posters, espcially from the US, seem to think that we should feel oppressed by our restrictive gun laws. But most people here don't care about losing thier "right" to own guns.

I would like more people to understand why this is.


There are a lot of people in the UK who see firearms as being much more dangerous than other things, or just as things for killing.They don't like the idea of other people owning gun. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is how things are.

There are also lots of people who don't make the distinction between illegal and legal guns, they just think that all guns are bad.

Most people here will never see a gun unless they live in rural areas where pheasant shooting is common (for example), or it's in the hands of armed police officers. So we don't have a gun culture.

It's difficult to explain to people who don't live here, but the majority of people don't like guns, and so are fairly happy with the current laws.

cut
09-04-2004, 11:52 AM
completly... I just don't get those who give that pseudoarguments. Guns are no worse tool thany any other...

No, you are both missing something important here. Guns are the best tool in this context.

That’s why police and military types are in the habit of using them and not "TV sets" and "gas pipes".


You missed the point obviously :). guns often aren't the best tool and by all mine they arent only tool,... So what is your point? To crimes wasn't commited at all or wasn't commited by guns?
1) Hardcore criminals will have their guns with ban or without
2) Nuts will use anything they can so instead of gun they will use car trunk filled with ferlitizer and oil killing proly more people they would be able to kill with any type of gun, or he will take axe and bucher familiy in the same fashion as he would do with gun but in complete silence not alarming anybody... Method is different output is same....

hardcore criminals will find harder to get the guns in the first place. If guns are bad it makes it easier for the police to confiscate any that they come across without needing bureaucracy and tons of paperwork.

for nuts a gun is an easy option it's easier to fire a trigger then to make a bomb. The hasn't been a bombing by a nut since combat 18

oldsoak
09-04-2004, 11:56 AM
Years ago I was in a pub in a place called Castle Hedingham having a pint when a local walked in with a shotgun and some pheasants. He was greeted by the publican who poured him a pint. He handed his shotgun over the counter to the publican and sat down to drink. After he finished, he collected the shotgun and left, leaving two pheasants for the publican.
No one batted an eyelid. Do that now and you'd have a pretty situation to say the least.

vampireuk
09-04-2004, 12:10 PM
This is my current weapon, strange how we can still have crossbows

http://www.vampireuk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bow.JPG

Spot the error with the bow and you win a cookie, I was too lazy to take it apart straight away and fix the problem :lol:

von_Moo142
09-04-2004, 12:14 PM
Years ago I was in a pub in a place called Castle Hedingham having a pint when a local walked in with a shotgun and some pheasants. He was greeted by the publican who poured him a pint. He handed his shotgun over the counter to the publican and sat down to drink. After he finished, he collected the shotgun and left, leaving two pheasants for the publican.
No one batted an eyelid. Do that now and you'd have a pretty situation to say the least.

Indeed.

Some of my family lived in a part of Somerset where shooting is still common, but its mainly tourists now. I certainly couldn't imagine anyone bringing a shotgun into the village pub.

Dennis G
09-04-2004, 12:18 PM
Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired

Wall Street Journal Europe (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109416390461308573,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Feurope%5Fasia)
September*3,*2004
By John R. Lott, Jr

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

•*Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

•*Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.

Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly.

Mr. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Presss, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).

Firearm confiscation from the perspective of govenment, both the visible and invisible, is not about crime or accidents with firearms. There are sufficient numbers of the timid and the ignorant who have swallowed the lies that guns 'cause' crime and if guns are eliminiated the result will be a utopia filled with security until now unknown. This hype masks the genuine reason for *****ping the civilian population of the best means of offense and defense yet devised. But confiscation is simply about power....power....and more power and control over the 'masses'. We never seem to learn from history. It replays over and over and over ad nauseum. You see, already you have been *****ped of the means to stand against government and say loudly and clearly, "We want our guns back! Crime is worse now than ever and we can't defend ourselves." Are 'they' rushing to return your firearms to bring the crime they said would be eliminated to a screeching halt? Don't hold your breath until they do. They have disarmed you and that was their intention from the beginning. Here in America ,too, the real intention never has to mentioned. The gun will ALWAYS exist. The real issue is in whose hands will it be. It is a fearful thing England and Australia has done. I saw a video of the Austrailian gun relinquishment and it was painful to watch. All those fine firearms being destroyed by press and torch. And I am watching, wondering how could the people allow their govenrment to relegate them to become victims of every thug and home invader and rapist and robber and every other type of vermin that pray upon the weak and defenseless? You don't think the elite few (their self-essessment) talk about the new world order and one world government just for table chatter. That is the goal and with that goal is control. Total and absolute control of everyone in the entire world. But to make the transition far easier for these fine gentlemen, they first must render as much of the world as they can defenseless. A good sales staff appealing to the unthinking members of society and laws are enacted to accomplish that very thing. If the existance of firearms 'causes' the criminal behavior and the commission of crimes, shouldn't the police and armies and governments melt down their firearms as well? Not going to happen. While it is far easier to control a defenseless people, it is far easier to control them with firearms. Shoot a few here and there and ten times that number will be compliant. Of course, this is all a fairytale. And it can't be the Dark Ages are fast returning. But it sure does appear history is desperately trying to repeat itself.

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 12:19 PM
[

hardcore criminals will find harder to get the guns in the first place. If guns are bad it makes it easier for the police to confiscate any that they come across without needing bureaucracy and tons of paperwork.

for nuts a gun is an easy option it's easier to fire a trigger then to make a bomb. The hasn't been a bombing by a nut since combat 18

We have many nut bombers and no gun nuter, just saying...
But we are poor society so making bombs is much cheaper than buying guns... Also guns aren't hard to make, hardcore nuts who plan their acts(not to bucher their families in madnes) have very large time and possibility and ussualy determination to make guns collect everything they need and go killing. You must also know one thing: making full auto submachineguns is easiest to achieve....

As for taking gun by police it second to most sensless argument I heard today..who say that if guy have permit police can't take his guns and send him for nut examination or whatever else before giving his weapon back?

Hydro
09-04-2004, 12:35 PM
I have no objection to people owning a pistol or an automatic rifle in the UK. Before anyone gets excited, heres a suggestion - They should be held in a proper armoury on an approved range - not at home. The range will be open two weekends a month with a Police firearms officer plus RO's in attendance and you can turn up, sign out your weapon, shoot it on the range and hand it back in. Just like you do in the military. No turning up under the influence and it may not be taken off range. If you want to shoot on another rang, an RFD must transport the weapon too and from. The old bill get to put faces to the names and keep an eye on what goes on. It obviously costs and you pay for it and some of the fees go to the cops for their man time. Just a thought.

Fantastic idea. I've been pondering an idea similar to this for a while myself. It's not so much the problem of guns, it's guns in the home that's the problem. A dedicated range/armoury would be so secure, no-one could complain about it, as the military hold weapons everywhere in secure armouries.

Mr Gently Benevolent
09-04-2004, 02:20 PM
Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired

They have banned them! Lordy what was that long metal thing I had in my hands a couple of weeks ago. Clueless subject title as usual. :P

Mark Sman
09-04-2004, 02:52 PM
Spot the error with the bow and you win a cookie


Tension string from limbs drags across firing track in front of firing string?

Is it legal to own a regular compound bow in UK? Do people hunt with them? Hunting with a bow is common in my part of the US, though not everywhere. But I've also been hunting with a pistol, hat on sideways. "Take that pig!" Yes we were hunting boar.

Mr Gently Benevolent
09-04-2004, 03:02 PM
Is it legal to own a regular compound bow in UK Yep no problems with ownership here.


Do people hunt with them?
Not anymore bow hunting was banned in the 80's, the ban was supported by a large section of the game shooting community for their own obscure reasons. :cantbeli:

vampireuk
09-04-2004, 04:30 PM
Spot the error with the bow and you win a cookie


Tension string from limbs drags across firing track in front of firing string?


Spot on :D

I slapped myself around the back of the head after I put the damn thing together. There have been several occasions where a person has been attacked with a crossbow, so now I'm just waiting for the government to tell me I cannot have that either.

Mark Sman
09-04-2004, 04:54 PM
Donate my cookie to the Hurricane Frances relief effort.

Wow, banning bow hunting would chap me more than banning gun hunting. Bummer.

Bow hunting is usually safer when done right. Is bow hunting legal in most of the EU?

Herrmannek
09-04-2004, 04:57 PM
IN Poland is not..

vampireuk
09-04-2004, 06:31 PM
Donate my cookie to the Hurricane Frances relief effort.

Wow, banning bow hunting would chap me more than banning gun hunting. Bummer.

Bow hunting is usually safer when done right. Is bow hunting legal in most of the EU?

I'm not sure about other EU countries to be honest, people can hunt with packs of dogs to tear foxes to shreds but I can't shoot anything. Then again that thing on a squirrel would be a bit overkill rofl

Also broadheads are illegal in the UK.

ShadowNeo
09-04-2004, 06:40 PM
Well, I'm happy they can't have US style private safari gun hunts in which they buy exotic animals just to shoot :roll: .

vampireuk
09-04-2004, 06:44 PM
Do they eat them afterwards?

ShadowNeo
09-04-2004, 06:47 PM
The documentary I was watching about it didn't go that deep, but I don't think the guy who was shooting them would be able to eat 8 exotic african deer type things? He seemed more interested in mounting their heads.

Deuterium
09-04-2004, 07:25 PM
Well, I'm happy they can't have US style private safari gun hunts in which they buy exotic animals just to shoot :roll: .

Yeah pretty strange.

Mark Sman
09-04-2004, 07:31 PM
There is a place north of me where they have Impalas, Cape Buffalo and such for hunting. Silly.

Never done that.

I imagine when the Hurricane goes through knocking out rednecks freezers that if any of those critters get out they just might end up on the table.

Nobody I know hunts in places like that. Plenty of game on public land.

Geezah
09-04-2004, 09:17 PM
I live in the UK and like the fact I know when I walk down the street when I walk by houses there are not real guns in them.

And you know this how? while also walking around in your happy bubble no-one is doing Charley, Billy or Puff which are all major contributors to crime in the UK!
I tell you one thing I'm glad I have firearms in my house and my neighbour across the street and my In-Laws and...well the list goes on, but I know for a fact that it's a major factor as to why the crime executed on the individual is not higher over here!

Geezah
09-04-2004, 09:22 PM
In the UK those who need guns have them.

Those people being the crims and the POlice that have to combat the crims rofl



What this boils down to is whether the government finds it easier to control gun use when it is legalised and licensed or when it is illegal. We've tried both and found that this system works best. Until the US has tried this system it is in no position to criticise it.



If the current system works best, then please explain why crime has sky rocketed in the UK, if this system is so great why has th UK gone past the US as far as percentages show?

I will give as much money as I have to, to make sure that the US nevers ends up like the UK. The UK is struggling and the only thing the guberment can do is apply bandaids to a seeping wound and they have no clue how to sanatize said wound! :cantbeli:

Geezah
09-04-2004, 09:27 PM
hardcore criminals will find harder to get the guns in the first place. If guns are bad it makes it easier for the police to confiscate any that they come across without needing bureaucracy and tons of paperwork.


Could please provide stats or some form of proof to back up your statement about crims finding it harder to arm themselves?

ShadowNeo
09-04-2004, 10:15 PM
You always seem to paint a picture of the UK that is completely alien to me Geezah.

von_Moo142
09-04-2004, 10:30 PM
He does have a very strange view of things in the UK.

Ouch_Taser
09-04-2004, 10:47 PM
I must say I'm really glad that Australia has such strict gun laws. I think the point that most pro-gun lobbyists miss is this; your "average law-abiding citizen" is a complete retard. People are stupid. Fact. Your average law-abiding citizen has neither the training, predisposition or experience to properly assess and react to the kinds of situations that involve the use of firarms. Moreover, I believe that no such situation exists for civilians. I find the whole self-defense argument quite ridiculous; 1) civilians are too incompetent to handle these situations and 2) the average ciminal is interested only in getting in and getting out of the situation with minimal fuss. You might lose your car/wallet/stereo/etc. etc. but this is always prefereable to *any* sort of bullet wound.

cut
09-04-2004, 10:55 PM
Sorry Geezah but these guys are right, you are out of touch with the UK. I don't know what you base your logic on but it's always in complete contrast with the Brits that live in the UK.

Mark Sman
09-04-2004, 11:23 PM
For me it comes down to this. I chose to be armed. I live in a country where it is legal. I could make a temple with my fingers and speak of contentment now, but I won't.

Thats pretty much it. You take all the stats and chuck them out the window for me.

If you live in country where you want to change the law go for it. Or move to one that matches your desires more closely. Whatever.

Dennis G
09-05-2004, 07:18 PM
I must say I'm really glad that Australia has such strict gun laws. I think the point that most pro-gun lobbyists miss is this; your "average law-abiding citizen" is a complete retard. People are stupid. Fact. Your average law-abiding citizen has neither the training, predisposition or experience to properly assess and react to the kinds of situations that involve the use of firarms. Moreover, I believe that no such situation exists for civilians. I find the whole self-defense argument quite ridiculous; 1) civilians are too incompetent to handle these situations and 2) the average ciminal is interested only in getting in and getting out of the situation with minimal fuss. You might lose your car/wallet/stereo/etc. etc. but this is always prefereable to *any* sort of bullet wound.


Chances are when some passive aggressive, whines about civilians beings "too incompetent to handle these situations" what he is really saying is that he is too incompetent to handle these situations. When he spews such garbage he is projecting his own fears of impotence, inadequacy and self imposed limitation on you!!! This being the case, we have every right to be offended.

If you guys want some facts to counter this ignorant and dumb ass assertions then check out Gun Control Around the World (http://lizmichael.com/world.htm) for endless accounts of the utter failure of gun prohibition in curbing criminal violence. While you're at it check out Firearms Fact Sheet (http://lizmichael.com/factshee.htm) for some documented stats and figures.

SwissGrenadier
09-05-2004, 07:24 PM
ULTIMATELY everyone is responsible for his OWN security. If guns are banned like in GB, you won't be able to defend yourself against an ARMED criminal. Criminals will always find ways to get guns even if they are banned so why give them an edge over you, by prohibiting law abiding citizens to own and use guns?

http://www.svre.ch/bilder/links/protell.jpg
http://www.wagc.com/graphics/logo-nra.gif

woot

Dennis G
09-05-2004, 07:31 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/goalogox.gif

I prefer the GOA!


"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

cut
09-05-2004, 07:40 PM
ULTIMATELY everyone is responsible for his OWN security. If guns are banned like in GB, you won't be able to defend yourself against an ARMED criminal. Criminals will always find ways to get guns even if they are banned so why give them an edge over you, by prohibiting law abiding citizens to own and use guns?

http://www.svre.ch/bilder/links/protell.jpg
http://www.wagc.com/graphics/logo-nra.gif

woot

ultimately? it takes a lot to get to ultimately... when was the last time you were attacked by an armed criminal?

BarkingSquirrel
09-06-2004, 01:13 AM
Three weeks ago. He pulled a Glock on me, I pulled my Norinco 1911 clone on him. He ran like a *****. Not a shot fired. Peace by superior firepower.

ShadowNeo
09-06-2004, 04:24 AM
Maybe if armed criminals were hiding in houses and prowling the streets, as Geezah seems to imply, I wouldn't mind having a gun, but I don't live in this fantasy version of the UK, I have seldom been the victim of crime, I have NEVER personally been confronted by or even seen an illegally armed person in all my life.

We aren't Americans, we're British. We don't want guns to be such a part of our culture. We're happy with things how they are.

Steve Andrews
09-06-2004, 06:07 AM
Whilst I would in no way support the return of semi-automatic military-style weapons to private hands - there is no real need for them (IMO) - I am 100% behind the restoration of our right to own and posses handguns for legitimate sporting purposes.

You say there is no need for semi-auto rifles. What real need do you have for a handgun?

Herrmannek
09-06-2004, 06:11 AM
Whilst I would in no way support the return of semi-automatic military-style weapons to private hands - there is no real need for them (IMO) - I am 100% behind the restoration of our right to own and posses handguns for legitimate sporting purposes.

You say there is no need for semi-auto rifles. What real need do you have for a handgun?
Sporting, bith pistols and rifles!!! Those damn sad Brits, guns are funn to shot , having guns is even better funn...

Steve Andrews
09-06-2004, 06:13 AM
Yes, but why not semi-auto rifles?

It's like saying "why do you need a cricket bat when you can play football instead?"

cut
09-06-2004, 07:04 AM
Three weeks ago. He pulled a Glock on me, I pulled my Norinco 1911 clone on him. He ran like a *****. Not a shot fired. Peace by superior firepower.

If you're not making that up, I'm so glad I live in the UK.


Law abiding citizen can flip, saw this in off-topic

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23833

von_Moo142
09-06-2004, 07:54 AM
Three weeks ago. He pulled a Glock on me, I pulled my Norinco 1911 clone on him. He ran like a *****. Not a shot fired. Peace by superior firepower.

That doesn't seem to ring true, but I'm not trying to cause offence. I just seek clarification :-)


Why did this person "pull a Glock" on you?

What does that mean, anyway?

What did your training teach you to do in that kind of situation?

I thought that you should really only unholster your weapon in that kind of situation if you think you will be shot (which is a reasonable assumption if someone is threatening you with a gun). So surely this would have forced you to shoot him.

marktigger
09-06-2004, 08:20 AM
I live in the UK and like the fact I know when I walk down the street when I walk by houses there are not real guns in them.

You can be happy ther is NO LEGALLY HELD pistols, semiauto and Pump Rifles. But who says the house isn't owned by a Yardie or Albanian Mafia with a whole arsenal of ILLEGAL fully automatic assualt weapons of some Gangsta nut with his Illegal converted replica. Or some former soldier who brought home a souviner or two.

The UK firearms laws are a complete ass with law abiding citizens discriminated against and placed under more scrunity than their neighbours because they have legally held firearms. And the Police tying up manpower that could be used to remove some of the illegal weapons from our streets. Check the Home office stats friearms crime is rising. And are there any plans raise the penalties for illegal use/posession being increased as a deterrant? NOPE just more legislation to prevent guns mainly now deactivated and replicas from being available to law abiding citizens!!!! And much of the new legislation is hiddedn in anti social behaviour acts which actually are a good idea buut the govt knows that any opposition to the firearms provisions in thease acts by groups/the opposition can be turned straight round as them being soft on Anti social behaviour.

BarkingSquirrel
09-06-2004, 08:26 AM
To von_Moo142:

Why did this person "pull a Glock" on you?

What does that mean, anyway?
It means he walked up to me, and pulled out a Glock (http://www.port-orange.org/police/images/glock.jpg) and demanded my wallet, wanting the cash/credit cards within. Being relatively poor, my livelyhood depends on what's in that wallet.


What did your training teach you to do in that kind of situation?
Heh...What training ;)

To be honest, I don't have the guts to shoot someone - He would have to shoot me first. I'd much rather go into a "Well mine's bigger than yours", and have him chicken out and run away, than to get into a shoot out. While criminals aren't exactly smart, most of them have the brains to know that a handful of cash, and a few cards aren't worth the potential of loosing their life - But you gotta show them that's a possiblity before they start to think of that.

If you guys don't want guns, then so be it. Good for you guys. I've already stopped debating it with you folks, I was just answering a question that was posed.

Sabre
09-06-2004, 11:27 AM
BarkingSquirrel wrote:
Three weeks ago. He pulled a Glock on me, I pulled my Norinco 1911 clone on him. He ran like a *****. Not a shot fired. Peace by superior firepower.


So your handgun was more powerful and that's why he ran away?

Don't buy that mate.

He pulls a gun on you and you think he's going to shoot you, so you draw your weapon. Now reason would say that he would be thinking the same as you. If he did want to shoot you, i don't think he would have waited to assess the calibre of your weapon first. He would have dropped you while you drew down. The very fact that he let you draw and then ran away suggests that he never would have shot you. If he had wanted to, however, i don't think your being armed would have stopped him.

But that's all very academic, I just agree with Cut


If you're not making that up, I'm so glad I live in the UK.

oldsoak
09-06-2004, 12:49 PM
Problem is that there is an idea that by taking away weapons you will get a more peaceful or stable society. The reality is that people will still knife, bludgeon or strangle if they feel its ok to do it and they have no thought about their victim. We have helped create a society that watches violent movies, had violent PC games, excuses anti social behaviour in the name of freedom, allows its religious leaders to exhort or condone the murder of others ; - and we expect that by taking their weapons away, everyone is going to kiss and cuddle up.
Its total ****. It wont work.

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:06 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:

Argyll
09-06-2004, 01:18 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:


Navaro,I've been looking and reading a lot of your posts lately,and I'm bemused,to say the least,you open your mouth before engaging your brain quite a lot,are you by any chance in the 12-16 age group because your logic defies that of a thinking adult with lifetime experience.
You're not winning many friends here.

Do you realise the reasons behind the handgun ban?Try doing some research and work that grey matter between your ears.Stop acting like a fcuking jack off,and leave matters that don't concern you alone,your comments are crass at best.

Oh and do you know that in some countries people like you are in institutions................give it a break with your expert knowledge,and that goes for your idiotic comments about Breslan as well!

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:26 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:


Navaro,I've been looking and reading a lot of your posts lately,and I'm bemused,to say the least,you open your mouth before engaging your brain quite a lot,are you by any chance in the 12-16 age group because your logic defies that of a thinking adult with lifetime experience.
You're not winning many friends here.

Do you realise the reasons behind the handgun ban?Try doing some research and work that grey matter between your ears.Stop acting like a fcuking jack off,and leave matters that don't concern you alone,your comments are crass at best.

Oh and do you know that in some countries people like you are in institutions................give it a break with your expert knowledge,and that goes for your idiotic comments about Breslan as well!

Seriously though...if only you knew. I'm more qualified to speak then you'd think.

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:29 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:


Navaro,I've been looking and reading a lot of your posts lately,and I'm bemused,to say the least,you open your mouth before engaging your brain quite a lot,are you by any chance in the 12-16 age group because your logic defies that of a thinking adult with lifetime experience.
You're not winning many friends here.

Do you realise the reasons behind the handgun ban?Try doing some research and work that grey matter between your ears.Stop acting like a fcuking jack off,and leave matters that don't concern you alone,your comments are crass at best.

Oh and do you know that in some countries people like you are in institutions................give it a break with your expert knowledge,and that goes for your idiotic comments about Breslan as well!

Seriously though...if only you knew. I'm more qualified to speak then you'd think.

Do you know who Argyll is!!, hahahahah :roll: :cantbeli:




Jesus save us from the moronic :|

Argyll
09-06-2004, 01:31 PM
PM me with your credentials and I might believe you,other than that,you're running your mouth in this forum like a 14 year old kid on his 1st bottle of beer!.

I hardly doubt you are in any position to know the reasons for the gun ban,by making assinine comments like you posted earlier.

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:31 PM
I'll give you some examples of what makes me laugh:

The Brit TA....most of 'em have never fired a live round.
The British Army....how many live fire exercises do you do?

Imagine my surprise when I was told: son, here's your gun, that's your objective....happy 18th....

but...guns are naughty!

:lol:

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:34 PM
Dunblane for the handguns and Hungerford for the autos.

Yeah ok....

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:37 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:


Navaro,I've been looking and reading a lot of your posts lately,and I'm bemused,to say the least,you open your mouth before engaging your brain quite a lot,are you by any chance in the 12-16 age group because your logic defies that of a thinking adult with lifetime experience.
You're not winning many friends here.

Do you realise the reasons behind the handgun ban?Try doing some research and work that grey matter between your ears.Stop acting like a fcuking jack off,and leave matters that don't concern you alone,your comments are crass at best.

Oh and do you know that in some countries people like you are in institutions................give it a break with your expert knowledge,and that goes for your idiotic comments about Breslan as well!

Seriously though...if only you knew. I'm more qualified to speak then you'd think.

Do you know who Argyll is!!, hahahahah :roll: :cantbeli:




Jesus save us from the moronic :|

Argyll wouldn't be blackwatch? So what....elite? what do you think.

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:41 PM
Brits are scared of guns. They even use dogs to hunt.

You do realise that in some countries, conscript soldiers barely over the legal voting age are given assault rifles and put in a public place?

Gun go bang bang....scary. :lol:


Navaro,I've been looking and reading a lot of your posts lately,and I'm bemused,to say the least,you open your mouth before engaging your brain quite a lot,are you by any chance in the 12-16 age group because your logic defies that of a thinking adult with lifetime experience.
You're not winning many friends here.

Do you realise the reasons behind the handgun ban?Try doing some research and work that grey matter between your ears.Stop acting like a fcuking jack off,and leave matters that don't concern you alone,your comments are crass at best.

Oh and do you know that in some countries people like you are in institutions................give it a break with your expert knowledge,and that goes for your idiotic comments about Breslan as well!

Seriously though...if only you knew. I'm more qualified to speak then you'd think.

Do you know who Argyll is!!, hahahahah :roll: :cantbeli:




Jesus save us from the moronic :|

Argyll wouldn't be blackwatch? So what....elite? what do you think.

You'll piss him off now saying he was in the blackwatch ;) , and yes most people would call the blackwatch an "elite" regiment, I take it you don't serve, other wise you wouldn't be coming out with such utter bollocks ;)

vampireuk
09-06-2004, 01:50 PM
I'll give you some examples of what makes me laugh:

The Brit TA....most of 'em have never fired a live round.
The British Army....how many live fire exercises do you do?



Oh boy you are going to get owned

/me grabs some popcorn

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:51 PM
think most of us here have served or are serving in one form or another...otherwise what would be the point?

get ready for cuts in the Brit army. black watch? what black watch?

I have nothing against the Brit army....just Brit policy...soldiers do the best they can...

anyway...

oldsoak
09-06-2004, 01:51 PM
Funnily enough the TA do get to fire live rounds and we do live fire exercises. Sometimes HMG gets us to do it at live people as well.

Hydro
09-06-2004, 01:53 PM
The TA never firing a live round? Woah, you mean I once spent an entire day firing blanks on the range!? They must've hired some decent movie FX guys when I was there!!!

I'm writing to my MP!!

vampireuk
09-06-2004, 01:53 PM
I'm British and I am not afraid of guns, there your entire argument has gone out of the window.

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:54 PM
The TA never firing a live round? Woah, you mean I once spent an entire day firing blanks on the range!? They must've hired some decent movie FX guys when I was there!!!

probably the same guy's who did saving pvt Ryan, they are meant to be very good ;)

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:55 PM
let's not talk about the TA...please

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:55 PM
think most of us here have served or are serving in one form or another...otherwise what would be the point?

get ready for cuts in the Brit army. black watch? what black watch?

I have nothing against the Brit army....just Brit policy...soldiers do the best they can...

anyway...

that's avery vague statement, you either have or have not served, which is it and where?

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:56 PM
let's not talk about the TA...please
ah, you brought the TA up :roll:

Hydro
09-06-2004, 01:56 PM
let's not talk about the TA...please

What about them? Go on, Weekend Warriors? Chairborne Rangers? Saturday And Sunday soldiers? Heard 'em all...

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:57 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

moughoun
09-06-2004, 01:58 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

I make a mean doughnut

Novara
09-06-2004, 01:59 PM
think most of us here have served or are serving in one form or another...otherwise what would be the point?

get ready for cuts in the Brit army. black watch? what black watch?

I have nothing against the Brit army....just Brit policy...soldiers do the best they can...

anyway...

that's avery vague statement, you either have or have not served, which is it and where?

clues are there...

Hydro
09-06-2004, 02:00 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

When I was in, we had: Taxi drivers, bricklayers, bank managers, students, lawyers, financiers, you name it. All DAMN good blokes and DAMN good soldiers. A lot of ex-regulars...Paras, Engineers, Inf, Commandos...


Why don't you pull your head out of your **** sometime? The light'd do your eyes good.

moughoun
09-06-2004, 02:01 PM
think most of us here have served or are serving in one form or another...otherwise what would be the point?

get ready for cuts in the Brit army. black watch? what black watch?

I have nothing against the Brit army....just Brit policy...soldiers do the best they can...

anyway...

that's avery vague statement, you either have or have not served, which is it and where?

clues are there...

1st ******* reg, right?

oldsoak
09-06-2004, 02:03 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

When I was in, we had: Taxi drivers, bricklayers, bank managers, students, lawyers, financiers, you name it. All DAMN good blokes and DAMN good soldiers. A lot of ex-regulars...Paras, Engineers, Inf, Commandos...


Why don't you pull your head out of your **** sometime? The light'd do your eyes good.

...but we never fired live round, right ?
:)

Hydro
09-06-2004, 02:05 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

When I was in, we had: Taxi drivers, bricklayers, bank managers, students, lawyers, financiers, you name it. All DAMN good blokes and DAMN good soldiers. A lot of ex-regulars...Paras, Engineers, Inf, Commandos...


Why don't you pull your head out of your **** sometime? The light'd do your eyes good.

...but we never fired live round, right ?
:)

Oh no! Too dangerous. I mean, it's not as if we go to war, is it? ;)

moughoun
09-06-2004, 02:07 PM
being flanked by a bunch of bakers....scary proposition...

When I was in, we had: Taxi drivers, bricklayers, bank managers, students, lawyers, financiers, you name it. All DAMN good blokes and DAMN good soldiers. A lot of ex-regulars...Paras, Engineers, Inf, Commandos...


Why don't you pull your head out of your **** sometime? The light'd do your eyes good.

...but we never fired live round, right ?
:)

Oh no! Too dangerous. I mean, it's not as if we go to war, is it? ;)

Your soldier's, whats that got to do with war, I ask you? p-)

Novara
09-06-2004, 02:11 PM
as i said...don't have it in with the guys, i'm sure TA have their part. just think this world is going to ***** and we all poncing about clearing shaks in the desert. more cuts thats what we need.
maybe seeing kids die on telly made me stop caring a bit...never thought i'd hear something like that. and yeah....make sure you faf about in the desert while they blow up our schools. doesn't it make you wonder if what you're doing is all crap?

moughoun
09-06-2004, 02:15 PM
as i said...don't have it in with the guys, i'm sure TA have their part. just think this world is going to ***** and we all poncing about clearing shaks in the desert. more cuts thats what we need.
maybe seeing kids die on telly made me stop caring a bit...never thought i'd hear something like that. and yeah....make sure you faf about in the desert while they blow up our schools. doesn't it make you wonder if what you're doing is all crap?

soldier's go where they are told, desire has nothing got to do with it for us, it's what we signed on for, don't worry they'll keep on faffing, it's what they do best :roll:

oldsoak
09-06-2004, 02:18 PM
I agre ewith Moghoun, and no its not crap, - because we are here to be part of the manpower pool thats required to keep the UK and her interests safe. Without that pool the UK has fewer options when it comes to offence or defence.

Argyll
09-06-2004, 02:23 PM
What do they let 12-14 year old do in your country Novaro?

Just what are your credentials,cause you seem to be able to badmouth off a lot of people and countries,but offer nothing to prove who or what you did,most people here who are BTDT's don't shoot their mouths off about other countries units or tactics........because it's something that you lack.



RESPECT.........and proffesional courtesy!

cut
09-06-2004, 05:02 PM
as i said...don't have it in with the guys, i'm sure TA have their part. just think this world is going to ***** and we all poncing about clearing shaks in the desert. more cuts thats what we need.
maybe seeing kids die on telly made me stop caring a bit...never thought i'd hear something like that. and yeah....make sure you faf about in the desert while they blow up our schools. doesn't it make you wonder if what you're doing is all crap?

yes, I take it your country is fighting in chechnya then? :roll: Let's pretend you are russian for a split second, what makes you such on authority on the British armed forces?

martinexsquaddie
09-06-2004, 05:05 PM
scared of the SA80 maybe is it going to go bang this time :roll: oh what a surprise it has'nt :(
How can any true englishman own a crossbow and feel good about themselves rofl only fit for swiss and other undesireables rofl

cut
09-06-2004, 05:12 PM
scared of the SA80 maybe is it going to go bang this time :roll: oh what a surprise it has'nt :(
How can any true englishman own a crossbow and feel good about themselves rofl only fit for swiss and other undesireables rofl

quite, bring back the days of mandatory longbow practice

gilgoul
09-06-2004, 05:49 PM
As long as there is a proficiency tect and regular health supervision, in addition to the penal background (and then , what should prevent a non violent offender from carrying a gun after he served his time or fee), I see no objection to allow gun ownership and even concealed ownership.
Those anti gun laws are stupid, when firearms are illegal, only criminals have firearms.

Novara
09-06-2004, 06:00 PM
What do they let 12-14 year old do in your country Novaro?

Just what are your credentials,cause you seem to be able to badmouth off a lot of people and countries,but offer nothing to prove who or what you did,most people here who are BTDT's don't shoot their mouths off about other countries units or tactics........because it's something that you lack.



RESPECT.........and proffesional courtesy!

Brits are so defensive when you mention firearms. :roll: What I said before was more out of humor...cause you have to laugh. I once saw a documentary on TV showing trainee officers of the Brit army. Don't ask what unit etc...can't remember. They were on maneouvers, when an aspiring lieutenant (female) who was in her foxhole aiming her SA80 at the assaulting 'enemy' turns around to her CO asking him "..do I wait until they're a bit closer before I shoot?". :lol: C'mon...that is funny.

Do I sound Russian? :roll:

well anyway....it is true Brits have a trench warfare mentality....

anyone know what an M14 is?

moughoun
09-06-2004, 06:17 PM
What do they let 12-14 year old do in your country Novaro?

Just what are your credentials,cause you seem to be able to badmouth off a lot of people and countries,but offer nothing to prove who or what you did,most people here who are BTDT's don't shoot their mouths off about other countries units or tactics........because it's something that you lack.



RESPECT.........and proffesional courtesy!

Brits are so defensive when you mention firearms. :roll: What I said before was more out of humor...cause you have to laugh. I once saw a documentary on TV showing trainee officers of the Brit army. Don't ask what unit etc...can't remember. They were on maneouvers, when an aspiring lieutenant (female) who was in her foxhole aiming her SA80 at the assaulting 'enemy' turns around to her CO asking him "..do I wait until they're a bit closer before I shoot?". :lol: C'mon...that is funny.

Do I sound Russian? :roll:

well anyway....it is true Brits have a trench warfare mentality....

anyone know what an M14 is?

No brit's are defensive when you insult their military, that trainee Lieutenant may well havehappend, it happen's in every military, no need for letting that cloud your judgement on the whole military, he never said you were Russian where ever you got that, and no the brit's don't havea trench warfare mentality, they have a regimental mentality, which mean's they'll fight on in a lot worse condition's then most other armies, and what has an M-14 got to do with anything?

Novara
09-06-2004, 06:25 PM
Whenever did I insult the Brit army?

Novara
09-06-2004, 06:31 PM
Well if Dunkirk is meant by "...which mean's they'll fight on in a lot worse condition's then most other armies"...sorry, but I have to laugh.

Lets back up our facts here...

Royal
09-06-2004, 06:36 PM
Whenever did I insult the Brit army?

Here's a couple for starters...


I'll give you some examples of what makes me laugh:

The Brit TA....most of 'em have never fired a live round.
The British Army....how many live fire exercises do you do?


Well if Dunkirk is meant by "...which mean's they'll fight on in a lot worse condition's then most other armies"...sorry, but I have to laugh.

Now be a good little girl and piss off back to your dollies.

von_Moo142
09-06-2004, 06:37 PM
Well if Dunkirk is meant by "...which mean's they'll fight on in a lot worse condition's then most other armies"...sorry, but I have to laugh.

It was better, I think, than the BEF being wiped out or captured. The experienced troops who were evacuated proved invaluble in 1944.

Get your facts straight, and look up the Dunkirk spirit.

Novara
09-06-2004, 06:43 PM
You people are mistaking FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la-di-da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and outnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

p.s. Don't mention Burma... :roll:

moughoun
09-06-2004, 06:46 PM
You people are mistaking FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la-di-da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and outnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

p.s. Don't mention Burma... :roll:

What fact's, you've thrown out opinion's :roll:, oh but do tell us allabout Anzio and Burma, and Malaya, and Normandy and the Atlantic war, and the wolf pack's, ect you seem to know everything ;)

Royal
09-06-2004, 06:46 PM
You people are mistaken FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la di da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and ooutnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

1. Battle of Britian, Battle of Malta etc

2. In WWII tanks used petrol

da di da di da

moughoun
09-06-2004, 06:49 PM
You people are mistaken FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la di da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and ooutnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

1. Battle of Britian, Battle of Malta etc

2. In WWII tanks used petrol

da di da di da

German tank's were supirior for the entire war, the Russian's won the war

Novara
09-06-2004, 06:50 PM
1) Battle of Britain could be considered a draw at best....
2) Nope...you are wrong. Shermans used kerosene, Japanese used diesel and so did the Germans my friend.
3) Battle for Greece
4) Operation Market garden

...care to discuss?

oh...and the fact you got bogged down at Caen after Overlord..

moughoun
09-06-2004, 06:58 PM
1) Battle of Britain could be considered a draw at best....
2) Nope...you are wrong. Shermans used kerosene, Japanese used diesel and so did the Germans my friend.
3) Battle for Greece
4) Operation Market garden

...care to discuss?

oh...and the fact you got bogged down at Caen after Overlord..

Where are you from?

von_Moo142
09-06-2004, 06:58 PM
You people are mistaking FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la-di-da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and outnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

p.s. Don't mention Burma... Rolling Eyes


What exactly are you trying to say?


The US and the Soviet Union also suffered major setbacks early in the war.

Are you going to list the US defeats too?


You have ignored the fact that most people (at least those who know anything about it) consider Dunkirk more a victory than a defeat. Like I said, you ought to read up on it.



No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

I'm not sure that either subject is funny.

Novara
09-06-2004, 07:02 PM
You people are mistaking FACTS with INSULTS. Get off your high horses! Before flipping El Alemian you didn't have 1 single victory....and la-di-da, that was also with the help of yank tanks and the Germs desperately low on diesel and outnumberd 6 to 1.

No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

p.s. Don't mention Burma... Rolling Eyes


What exactly are you trying to say?


The US and the Soviet Union also suffered major setbacks early in the war.

Are you going to list the US defeats too?


You have ignored the fact that most people (at least those who know anything about it) consider Dunkirk more a victory than a defeat. Like I said, you ought to read up on it.



No...let's talk about Anzio...trench warfare? haha

I'm not sure that either subject is funny.

So Dunkirk was won by a bunch of fisherman in trawlers?

Listen...Monty wasn't worth his salt and bomber Harris was a psycho....so what else is new?

Novara
09-06-2004, 07:03 PM
1) Battle of Britain could be considered a draw at best....
2) Nope...you are wrong. Shermans used kerosene, Japanese used diesel and so did the Germans my friend.
3) Battle for Greece
4) Operation Market garden

...care to discuss?

oh...and the fact you got bogged down at Caen after Overlord..

Where are you from?

Well I speak a few languages....so who knows? ;)

Novara
09-06-2004, 07:12 PM
I'm surprised you people've ever been in the 'thick of it'. You just get wound up way too easily.

Me...i'm laughing my freaking head off. :lol:

moughoun
09-06-2004, 07:14 PM
I'm surprised you people've ever been in the 'thick of it'. You just get wound up way too easily.

Me...i'm laughing my freaking head off. :lol:

And I'm not surprised you haven't

Novara
09-06-2004, 07:21 PM
Listen, this MB wont affect the outside world in the slightest. You can get all touchy about subjects but at the end of the day it'll have about as much impact as a gerbil breaking wind. So why not laugh a bit...silly to get all defensive... :backhand:

moughoun
09-06-2004, 07:23 PM
Listen, this MB wont affect the outside world in the slightest. You can get all touchy about subjects but at the end of the day it'll have about as much impact as a gerbil breaking wind. So why not laugh a bit...silly to get all defensive... :backhand:

I'm Irish, I laugh at everything and everyone including myself ;)

von_Moo142
09-06-2004, 07:24 PM
Monty wasn't worth his salt and bomber Harris was a psycho....so what else is new?

Monty had his good days too, but I accept that he was far from perfect. But he was just one man. I think he compares well to Nimitz myself.

As for Harris, he was responsible for some pretty distasteful stuff. But compare him to Curtis LeMay.



So Dunkirk was won by a bunch of fisherman in trawlers?

Partly, yes. They did a pretty incredible thing really. But the French and British soldiers who held out against the German divisions (including the 3rd SS) for long enough so the evacuation could take place were also responsible. As were the RN, and the Merchant Navy.

Novara
09-06-2004, 07:43 PM
...don't mention the French army... :lol:

Argyll
09-07-2004, 01:16 AM
86 posts and your arrogance is astonishing,go away come back in a few years when you're mature enough to post credible threads,considering this thread is about the handgun ban,which you seem to find humour over the murder of small children,my kinsmen you arrogant *****,then you don't belong here.

Why do you not answer to the question of your Nationality,are you too ashamed?,too embarrased just incase where ever you're from your Military might just be the lauhing stock of the Region.

**** breath,the Brits do more Operational tours of duty than any other European country,that means "LIVE AMMO" where people try to kill you.

Until you can offer credentials to back up that motormouth of yours people ,including me will see you as just another "irritating little fcuk!!"

Durandal
09-07-2004, 01:43 AM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.

Edit: Well crap. Maybe I should have read further before posting. This thread has to degraded to utter crap. Which was to be expected I suppose.

oldsoak
09-07-2004, 09:45 AM
1) Battle of Britain could be considered a draw at best....
2) Nope...you are wrong. Shermans used kerosene, Japanese used diesel and so did the Germans my friend.
3) Battle for Greece
4) Operation Market garden

...care to discuss?

oh...and the fact you got bogged down at Caen after Overlord..

I would if you were in any sense a historian. If you were, and if you have been to these places as I have, you'd understand just how difficult fighting in those areas is, especially when you are up against a well disciplined, well led army with superior weaponry. Take a look at the cemetaries -they'll show you how hard it was. You would also have enough background material to comprehend the magnitude of the taks involved.
All Shermans in UK army used petrol - its propensity to catch fire its it the name Tommy cooker . Diesel variants were passed to the USSR. Up until the 50's practically all UK tanks used petrol. The majority of German tanks used petrol as well - thats why they needed to get to US petrol dumps in the battle of the bulge.

Geezah
09-07-2004, 11:58 AM
Sorry Geezah but these guys are right, you are out of touch with the UK. I don't know what you base your logic on but it's always in complete contrast with the Brits that live in the UK.

Here's one example of the how out of control the UK is,


'Steaming gang' given 25 years


Five members of a "steaming" gang have been jailed for a total of 25 years for a two-week robbery campaign.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40024000/jpg/_40024992_micahel_onward203.jpg
Michael Onward, 21, is the eldest of the five sentenced

The self-styled Lords of Stratford Crew targeted people on London trains, Tubes and buses, Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court heard.

The jury was told that extreme violence was used yet they only stole items like small change and cigarettes.

The five were convicted of three counts of conspiracy to rob involving 12 victims last autumn.

Four of them were juveniles, but the judge, who described their "gratuitous violence" as "dreadful" and "beyond belief", ordered them to be identified.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40025000/jpg/_40025156_silverlink_203.jpg
Michael Onward, 21, from, Ilford, Essex
Dennis Barrette, 16, of Ilford
Jerry McPherson, 17, of Wood Green, north London
Michael Silcott, 17, of Stoke Newington, north London
Oshane Francis, 16, of Hackney Wick, east London

Other members of the gang are yet to be caught.

Steaming became the slang phrase used to describe attacks by gangs, usually involving excessive violence, on individuals on trains or buses.

Those involved had "street tags" like Killer, Packman and Driller and police believe they were in it "mainly for the kicks and thrills".

The court heard victims would suffer a "maelstrom" of fists and feet and some were even stamped on and left "virtually senseless" by what one witness branded as a "pack of wild animals".

One train passenger, builder John Tovey, told police he thought he was going to die as he was kicked in the head.

Mr Tovey is still unable to see properly and has had to give up work and move out of London.

Another victim, a lone woman was held in a headlock as several robbers took turns to hit her in the head, in front of dozens of other commuters.

She was then subjected to a "serious" *** attack.


Sentencing each to five years' custody, with the teenagers serving their terms in a young offenders institution, Judge Henry Blacksell, said: "It was, in my judgment, an aspect of this offending that you enjoyed the humiliation [of your victims].

"You picked on people who were weak and vulnerable ... and not content with taking their property you beat them up. You targeted them. It was gratuitous violence."

Outside court, British Transport Police's Detective Constable Gary Wildeman, said: "If this series of robberies had not been stopped when it was, I'm sure we would eventually have ended up with a murder inquiry.

"They have no morals, and no concept that others have feelings or rights. They are just totally ruthless ... and on their own, complete cowards."



Now please tell me how you've never heard pf STEAMING and it really doesn't take place!

I left London because of how ridiculous it got so please don't tell me I'm out of of touch:cantbeli:

Where were the heroes to stop that woman being assaullted ********, wheres the dterant to stop these types of crime?

Geezah
09-07-2004, 12:03 PM
Maybe if armed criminals were hiding in houses and prowling the streets, as Geezah seems to imply, I wouldn't mind having a gun, but I don't live in this fantasy version of the UK, I have seldom been the victim of crime, I have NEVER personally been confronted by or even seen an illegally armed person in all my life.

We aren't Americans, we're British. We don't want guns to be such a part of our culture. We're happy with things how they are.

Wow....well we hit the nail on the head, just because you haven't been a victim you seem to think it's ok to paint everyone with your brush :cantbeli:

Not everyone is as fortunate as you :|

ShadowNeo
09-07-2004, 12:06 PM
Wow....well we hit the nail on the head, just because you haven't been a victim you seem to think it's ok to paint everyone with your brush

Not everyone is as fortunate as you

And not every brit is a gun-nut like you.

I'm happy guns don't flow freely in my society, you obviously weren't which is why you live in the US.

Geezah
09-07-2004, 12:41 PM
Wow....well we hit the nail on the head, just because you haven't been a victim you seem to think it's ok to paint everyone with your brush

Not everyone is as fortunate as you

And not every brit is a gun-nut like you.

I'm happy guns don't flow freely in my society, you obviously weren't which is why you live in the US.

Wow.....again you try to paint as you see fit, when I moved here in 96, I wanted nothing to do with guns, it was after 9/11 and my freinds house being broken into that did it for me. MY friend found a guy standing over his 10yr old son who was asleep on the couch in the living room, what it came down to was a mistaken identity the guy broke into the wrong house :cantbeli:

Anyway, it was Jan 03 when I bought my first firearm(sorry tool) but one thing that strikes me as very weird, and I guess I can only put it down to the fact you may currently live in a very rural area?

Going back to your statement about guns not flowing freely in your society, any chance you provide stats to back this up? rofl

Geezah
09-07-2004, 12:47 PM
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Total_crime.gif
Source: The British Crime Survey (BCS)


How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.


The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales.

Note: The BCS does not include crimes against businesses or commercial property.


According to the BCS:

In 2002/03, the total number of crimes in England & Wales was around 12,308,000.

Total crime peaked in 1995, and has since fallen by 36%.

In 2002/03, 27% of the population were the victims of some type of crime.

This has fallen from a high in 1995 of nearly 40% of the population.



Welll it seems by the above table that crime has fallen 13%, but why is it we always here about crime rising? p-)
I guess Labour is getting tough on crime rofl



BCS (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp)

Geezah
09-07-2004, 12:54 PM
Britain: From Bad to Worse

Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen
Thursday, March 22, 2001


During the 19th century, and most of the 20th, Britain enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the United States or continental Europe. No longer.
To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world." Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness ... [but now] the U.K. has a crime problem ... worse than ours."

Not surprisingly to many observers, the violent crime rate has risen dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted. That's a trend seen wherever strict gun control laws have been implemented. And that's the part of the story British officials have tried to keep under wraps.

A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."

For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.

Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge. In January 2000, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before.

So what's a British politician to do when elections coincide with an out-of-control crime wave? Calling for "reasonable" gun laws is no longer an option. Handguns have been confiscated and long guns are very tightly restricted. So anti-gun demagoguery, while still popular, can't carry the entire load.

Conversely, the government would not find it acceptable to allow its subjects to possess any type of gun (even a licensed, registered .22 rifle) for home protection. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal, and considered an insult to the government, because it implies that the government cannot keep the peace. Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been repeatedly burglarized and had received no meaningful assistance from the police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into his home. The man was sentenced to life in prison.

The British authorities warn the public incessantly about the dangers of following the American path on gun policy. But the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."

So what's the government going to do to make voters safer? One solution came from the Home Office in April 1999 in the form of "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders" – special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew, or lead to a person's eviction from his home.

Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on the fears of their potential danger to society.

American anti-gun lobbyists have long argued that if America followed Britain's lead in severely restricting firearms possession and self-defense, then American crime rates would eventually match Britain's. The lobbyists have also argued that if guns were restricted in America, civil liberties in the U.S. would have the same degree of protection that they have in Britain. The lobbyists are absolutely right.

Dr. Paul Gallant practices optometry in Wesley Hills, N.Y. Dr. Joanne Eisen practices dentistry in Old Bethpage, N.Y. Both are research associates at the Independence Institute, where Dave Kopel is research director. Reprinted with permission of the authors.



Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml)

ShadowNeo
09-07-2004, 12:56 PM
Wow.....again you try to paint as you see fit, when I moved here in 96, I wanted nothing to do with guns, it was after 9/11 and my freinds house being broken into that did it for me. MY friend found a guy standing over his 10yr old son who was asleep on the couch in the living room, what it came down to was a mistaken identity the guy broke into the wrong house

Anyway, it was Jan 03 when I bought my first firearm(sorry tool) but one thing that strikes me as very weird, and I guess I can only put it down to the fact you may currently live in a very rural area?

Going back to your statement about guns not flowing freely in your society, any chance you provide stats to back this up?

So, 9/11 convinced you to own a firearm how exactly?

Also, no. I do not live in a rural area, I live pretty centrally in Aberdeen. As for shootings this side of the border:


In Scotland in 2001 serious shootings went up from 50 to 149 and almost all were a result of battles for control over drug supplies.


From 2003:
As a result of a gun-amnesty program and a ban on pistols, Scotland has reduced its rate of gun crime by nearly half in the past 10 years, the Scotsman reported Sept. 24.

According to the Scottish Executive, there was a 2-percent drop in the number of firearms offenses in 2002, and an overall 48-percent decline since 1992. In addition, crimes committed with shotguns reached the lowest level ever last year.

The report found that airguns were the most common type of weapon used in committing crimes in 2002, followed by imitation firearms.

Despite the drop in gun crimes, Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, said that there is much more that needs to be done.

"There is no need for complacency," she said. "There are still too many illegally-held firearms, but thanks to police initiatives locally, the national gun amnesty, and a significant tightening of the regulations on gun ownership, we have made progress."

Jamieson added, "Gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress and is a real problem in some areas. We are committed to removing guns from our streets. It is time to reduce the threat posed by guns and make Scotland a safer place."

Also, many figures on gun crime are also inflated as Air Weapons are included in the calculations. I am in no way in denial that there still is a gun crime problem, but introducing legally held firearms isn't exactly going to help in my opinion.

Royal
09-07-2004, 01:00 PM
Geezah - you left your mother country and moved to the states. And you love it. Great, I wish you luck.

Feel free to stay there and play with as many guns as you like. I joined the armed forces, in part, to stop people like you having to 'carry' - and I feel an awful lot safer that way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we really don't give a f**k what you think. Statistics and scare stories can prove anything to the gullible. Stay where you are and those of us who do want to play with guns can do it somewhere where we're of use - in the police or armed forces.

Geezah
09-07-2004, 01:08 PM
Howard's Way

Labour's electronic tagging programme, which lets prisoners out of jail early, would be scrapped under the next Tory government, Conservative leader Michael Howard has pledged.

Launching an attack on political correctness and Britain's "no blame" culture, Mr Howard condemned Labour's record on crime as "the politics of the madhouse".

Mr Howard said since the tagging scheme was introduced in 1999, 3,500 crimes have been committed by tagged offenders, including nine serious *** crimes.

"Conservatives will ... end the Government's dangerous early release scheme," said Mr Howard.

"I have had enough of the culture of political correctness.

"Conservatives will stand up for the silent, law-abiding majority who play by the rules and pay their dues.

"The clear distinction between right and wrong has been lost in sociological

mumbo-jumbo and politically correct nonsense."

He said the next Tory government would build more prisons and scrap Home

Secretary David Blunkett's plan to implement the last major recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

By April next year, Mr Blunkett plans to make it compulsory for police officers to give a receipt to all people they stop in the street in a bid to crack down on those who unfairly target blacks and Asians.

In a speech in Middlesbrough which echoed his tough stance as Home Secretary in the 1990s, Mr Howard said the Conservatives would also give local councils "real control" over licensing of pubs and clubs in a bid to tackle yob culture in Britain's towns and cities.

Mr Howard added: "Labour have downgraded prison as a punishment with the introduction of their early release scheme."

Pledging to end the scheme and increase prison capacity instead, he said:

"It's not a question of if we build new prisons - it is a question of how many new prisons we build and what kind of prisons they are."

More than 3,000 offenders were on the early release scheme at any one time.

Non-violent and non-dangerous prisoners can be freed up to 135 days early if the prison governor agrees to their application.

Mr Howard went on to dispute the accuracy of the British Crime Survey – which the Government claims gives the most accurate picture of crime trends in the UK.

The Tory leader noted that the survey excluded an estimated 12 million crimes a year.

Recorded crime statistics were "the most reliable", he suggested, and they showed crime in England and Wales had risen 85% in the last five years and violent crime had increased 83%.

He said there had been a "dramatic decline" in personal responsibility, and he disputed the use of the term "anti-social behaviour" for yobbish activities such as drunkenness, intimidation or overturning litter bins.

"That behaviour is not just anti-social - it's wrong ... and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it", he said.

"Many people now believe that they are no longer wholly responsible for their actions.

"It's someone else's, or something else's fault - the environment, society, the Government."

He said politicians had become "too frightened" to say that crime and disorder were partly caused by parents letting their children stay out late at night, being told they cannot discipline their children by smacking and teachers being unable to discipline disruptive pupils.

"All too often teachers cannot discipline pupils, let alone expel them from school," he said.

"We will introduce enforceable home-school contracts that spell out both parents' and pupils' responsibilities. And we will give heads complete control over expulsion.

"If they decide to expel a disruptive pupil, they will not be second-guessed by an outside panel."

So that children can benefit from a father's influence the Tories will introduce a "strong legal presumption" in favour of equal rights for parents in a child's upbringing, he said.

On policing, Mr Howard said: "We need a police force which intervenes, confronts and challenges very kind of crime and disorder - from graffiti and litter to burglary and robbery.

"In short we need zero tolerance policing."

The Tory leader made the announcements during a visit to Middlesbrough where he met elected mayor Ray Mallon, who in his former career as a police officer was nick-named "Robocop" for his championing of a zero tolerance approach.

Scrapping the Macpherson Inquiry's "Recommendation 61" that all police stops needed to be racially-monitored would save officers about seven minutes each time they stopped someone, said Mr Howard.

"Politicians in Whitehall need to stop second guessing the police at every turn," he said.

The Macpherson Inquiry recommendation has already been piloted in seven areas of the country and is due to go nationwide by April 1 next year.

It will record each person's skin colour, name and address.

At present records are only kept of people who are searched after being stopped.

It comes just a month after the police were accused of "Islamophobia" when figures showed the number of Asians targeted by stop and search powers had risen 302%.

Black people were also six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than a white person, the figures revealed.

Deputy Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair said in November 2002 that up to one million receipts a year would be issued in London alone when the Recommendation 61 scheme goes live.

One force which piloted the scheme, the West Midlands, used a form which required 77 pieces of information to be entered by officers about each stop.


Channel4 (http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/08/week_2/10_howard.html)

Geezah
09-07-2004, 01:19 PM
Geezah - you left your mother country and moved to the states. And you love it. Great, I wish you luck.

Thank you,


Feel free to stay there and play with as many guns as you like. I joined the armed forces, in part, to stop people like you having to 'carry' - and I feel an awful lot safer that way.

I'm not quite sure why you refer to it as "playing" but believe or not armed civilians can be just as safety conscious as the Military or the Police.
And I'm guessing by this "to stop people like you having to 'carry' - and I feel an awful lot safer that way" you must think I'm a ticking bomb waiting to go off, well just for the record if it helps, I've never been arrested/convicted of a crime, I have a family that I love and want to take care off, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at by that comment?

Also since when did the armed forces take of problems within? apart from the firemens strike, I always thought you took care of problems without?



I guess what I'm trying to say is that we really don't give a f**k what you think. Statistics and scare stories can prove anything to the gullible. Stay where you are and those of us who do want to play with guns can do it somewhere where we're of use - in the police or armed forces.

I look forward to the day when the Armed Forces/Police can be at my beck and call 24/7, then I may look at moving back to the UK.

Royal, please don't take any of the above the wrong way, as I have a hell of allot of respect for you ;)

Royal
09-07-2004, 01:37 PM
I'm not quite sure why you refer to it as "playing" but believe or not armed civilians can be just as safety conscious as the Military or the Police. And I'm guessing by this "to stop people like you having to 'carry' - and I feel an awful lot safer that way" you must think I'm a ticking bomb waiting to go off, well just for the record if it helps, I've never been arrested/convicted of a crime, I have a family that I love and want to take care off, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at by that comment?

What I'm getting at is that (IMHO) there is no need for a civilian to be armed. Far too many kids are maimed and killed and far too many idiots kill themsleves and others with firearms (not that that doesn't happen in the armed forces of most nations too). You assure me that you're a sane family man (I'm inclined to believe you) but there are plenty of people carrying who aren't.

Every country has it's good side and it's bad side - hell look at Stalingrad in Paris (a beautiful city, that I love) - indeed I've been alot more scared running in LA than I ever was on the streets of Pristina or Al Amara (to give a couple of examples)

[quote="Geezah"]Also since when did the armed forces take of problems within? apart from the firemens strike, I always thought you took care of problems without?[/qoute]

Op Nimrod, the Barlinnie siege, support to Customs and Excise interdictions, support to civil police surveillance operations, Foot & Mouth, Flood relief, Air Sea Rescue, Mountain Rescue, support to the NHS via embedded medical personnel and SF medic placements etc etc etc

Geezah
09-07-2004, 01:54 PM
I'm not quite sure why you refer to it as "playing" but believe or not armed civilians can be just as safety conscious as the Military or the Police. And I'm guessing by this "to stop people like you having to 'carry' - and I feel an awful lot safer that way" you must think I'm a ticking bomb waiting to go off, well just for the record if it helps, I've never been arrested/convicted of a crime, I have a family that I love and want to take care off, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at by that comment?

What I'm getting at is that (IMHO) there is no need for a civilian to be armed. Far too many kids are maimed and killed and far too many idiots kill themsleves and others with firearms (not that that doesn't happen in the armed forces of most nations too). You assure me that you're a sane family man (I'm inclined to believe you) but there are plenty of people carrying who aren't.

Every country has it's good side and it's bad side - hell look at Stalingrad in Paris (a beautiful city, that I love) - indeed I've been alot more scared running in LA than I ever was on the streets of Pristina or Al Amara (to give a couple of examples)

I'm not prepared to take chances where safety is involved, we have a 3yr old in the house all the time and I'm not prepared to see anything change that due to negligence on my part.

On LA, last time I was in there, I will say that I do agree with you, but the the State of Kommie-Fornia has some of the most restrictive gun laws out there and because of that the only people they affect are the law abiding!

I took my CCW training last weekend and in it the guy(currently serving Officer for Cederville PD, who teaches tactical training, and I'm going back for a tactical shotgun course, when available) who is is giving it, showed footage of a full auto Glock that was confiscated from Gang Bangers in LA, the guys downloaded the info on how to make it full auto off the net, this is the sort of thing that Law Abiding gun owners do not do.

Getting back to "there is no need for a civilian to be armed" the day that crime no longer exists is the day that I will comfortable with only owning my 10/22(fun plinking gun) but until then I'll enjoy all the others.
Legal gun ownership is like walking a tightrope, I do anything at all wrong and the next thing you know the media will be painting me as a gun nut.
Plus there are thousands of ex-Military and PO that love and enjoy owning guns, be it for home defense or plinking at the range.



Also since when did the armed forces take of problems within? apart from the firemens strike, I always thought you took care of problems without?

Op Nimrod, the Barlinnie siege, support to Customs and Excise interdictions, support to civil police surveillance operations, Foot & Mouth, Flood relief, Air Sea Rescue, Mountain Rescue, support to the NHS via embedded medical personnel and SF medic placements etc etc etc

Granted, I didn't mean to belittle anything they have done, but the armed forces have not been able to take care of crime in Great Britain, excluding NI.

ShadowNeo
09-07-2004, 03:18 PM
Sergey, you didn't highlight that the article also suggests that a shotgun and 9mm handgun were also used. These are legal right? So is it better to live in a society where it is hard for crackpots to acquire firearms, or one where they can legally own one?

Geezah
09-07-2004, 03:36 PM
Sergey, you didn't highlight that the article also suggests that a shotgun and 9mm handgun were also used. These are legal right? So is it better to live in a society where it is hard for crackpots to acquire firearms, or one where they can legally own one?

On the 9mm, you can't own magazines that can hold more than 10rnds unless(?) Grandfathered in when the law went into place, the thing is he stilled aquired an illegal firearm under current Californian law.
We would have to know all the specifics on the 9mm and shotgun to find out if at that point if they were legal or not, any shotgun with a barrel under 18-1/2" needs paperwork to go along with it supplied by the BATFE and I'm not even sure you could get said paperwork in Kommie-Fornia.

If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a knife, if it wasn't a knife it would have been a hammer, if it wasn't a hammer it oulw have been a screwdriver.....
You just don't get it do you, you can't keep on applying a plaster(bandaid) to a festering sore, you need to combat it at the source and I think this is where the UK has gone wrong. Everyone has become so PC over there it's got to the point where you have to be careful not to sneeze the wrong way for fear of upsetting someone.

ShadowNeo, any luck on those stats to prove that voilent crime isn't on the increase in the UK?

ShadowNeo
09-07-2004, 03:41 PM
I'll have a look for them Geezah, but if I recall correctly, there were too statistic sets released early this year which contradicted each other, I'll have a dig for both of them and post them and on what they are based if I find them.

sergey31
09-07-2004, 04:16 PM
Sergey, you didn't highlight that the article also suggests that a shotgun and 9mm handgun were also used. These are legal right? So is it better to live in a society where it is hard for crackpots to acquire firearms, or one where they can legally own one?

No need to mention as AK 47 is one PERFECT example....
Any Criminal can get a 9mm or a shotgun EVEN in your country....Are you that naive to thinks they are all gone and disappeared?
Trust me, if some criminal ones one he will acquire one or more..... It’s just regular normal people who can't obtain them.
Man, this is like talking to 10 year olds or one of those moms against guns.

von_Moo142
09-07-2004, 05:25 PM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.

Ok, that would be true if the population wanted less restrictive gun laws.

But if the majority want guns to be restricted, and most of the rest don't really care, is it still true?

Geezah
09-07-2004, 07:33 PM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.

Ok, that would be true if the population wanted less restrictive gun laws.

But if the majority want guns to be restricted, and most of the rest don't really care, is it still true?

The majority want the guns banned because they don't know what else to do, they think to solve a rising gun problem is to ban them, well we know that doesn't work!

Hell, after Jamie Bulger was murdered(God Rest His Soul) they banned the movie ChildsPlay, even after that young lad that died recently, they tried banning the PS2 game Manhunter(?), banning something does not cause the problem to go away!

I'm surpised after those ladies were attacked with hammers in that park they didn't try and heavily restrict purchasing hammers!

There was a shooting at a party after Carnival, where is this ban that everyone seems to thinks works?

Man shot dead at carnival party
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_3615000/3615686.stm)

Novara
09-07-2004, 08:00 PM
86 posts and your arrogance is astonishing,go away come back in a few years when you're mature enough to post credible threads,considering this thread is about the handgun ban,which you seem to find humour over the murder of small children,my kinsmen you arrogant *****,then you don't belong here.

Why do you not answer to the question of your Nationality,are you too ashamed?,too embarrased just incase where ever you're from your Military might just be the lauhing stock of the Region.

**** breath,the Brits do more Operational tours of duty than any other European country,that means "LIVE AMMO" where people try to kill you.

Until you can offer credentials to back up that motormouth of yours people ,including me will see you as just another "irritating little fcuk!!"

Calm down...stress isn't good for you. ;)

sergey31
09-08-2004, 04:12 AM
I really wish that they ban ALL guns of all types in UK, Americans will be happier with that...
I know I will, I'll be able to purchase more of these when more of them are making their way into this country.... hehe
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/Mk4.jpg

Thanks UK people for giving your guns and history away.

cut
09-08-2004, 07:27 AM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.



I find that a little insulting. My passport may say british subject (and european citizen) but we're citizens in all but name. Implying somekind of superior liberty because the states thinks it is right for people to play with lethal weapons.

If you honestly believe that then why not say that every law the government makes to protect it's citizens from harming themselves and each other is an infringement on civil liberty. If the right to guns make you more free, why not the right to take drugs or smoke cannabis. Why not say that it is not for the government to decide what is right and wrong altogether? Owning a gun is not what makes you a citizen.

Also the implication that we are somehow controlled by the government, because we made guns illegal or because of the admitedly archaic title we have choxen to keep, is insulting.

moughoun
09-08-2004, 07:38 AM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.



I find that a little insulting. My passport may say british subject (and european citizen) but we're citizens in all but name. Implying somekind of superior liberty because the states thinks it is right for people to play with lethal weapons.

If you honestly believe that then why not say that every law the government makes to protect it's citizens from harming themselves and each other is an infringement on civil liberty. If the right to guns make you more free, why not the right to take drugs or smoke cannabis. Why not say that it is not for the government to decide what is right and wrong altogether? Owning a gun is not what makes you a citizen.

Also the implication that we are somehow controlled by the government, because we made guns illegal or because of the admitedly archaic title we have choxen to keep, is insulting.

Yes, and most European's like the fact we don't have group's of gun nut militia's roaming around the backwood's, the military excepted ;) , waiting for the UN black helo's and the fed's to come take their gun's away :lol:

sergey31
09-08-2004, 07:52 AM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.



I find that a little insulting. My passport may say british subject (and european citizen) but we're citizens in all but name. Implying somekind of superior liberty because the states thinks it is right for people to play with lethal weapons.

If you honestly believe that then why not say that every law the government makes to protect it's citizens from harming themselves and each other is an infringement on civil liberty. If the right to guns make you more free, why not the right to take drugs or smoke cannabis. Why not say that it is not for the government to decide what is right and wrong altogether? Owning a gun is not what makes you a citizen.

Also the implication that we are somehow controlled by the government, because we made guns illegal or because of the admitedly archaic title we have choxen to keep, is insulting.

Once again... You people don't deserve these deadly tools, ship them to us and we shall have them.....
BTW, when the whole population is unarmed then it's a ......Hmm 1935, Nazi Germany comes to mind.... Oh wait, former Soviet Union
With this repeating mentality you guys have it's easy to see why we have USA and not UK #2.

Here's another fine HISTORICAL piece that helped your counrty in WW2. And now I have it..... It will not be making it's way back to it's motherland....Like I said, just keep sending them more and more over here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/mk4c.jpg

cut
09-08-2004, 08:00 AM
I don't care, the UK is not the Soviet Union or pre-war Germany. It would take a nuclear strike for us to get anywhere near that kind of situation.

sergey31
09-08-2004, 08:18 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

ShadowNeo
09-08-2004, 08:20 AM
I could go to a museum to look at an Enfield if I wanted to, I don't need to own one and fire it off to experience history rofl .

Royal
09-08-2004, 08:23 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

sergey31
09-08-2004, 08:26 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

Fee Fi Fo Fum
09-08-2004, 08:27 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

sergey31
09-08-2004, 08:29 AM
I could go to a museum to look at an Enfield if I wanted to, I don't need to own one and fire it off to experience history rofl .

O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of your history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?
In you wet dreams you can do that, ONLY in your dreams, well maybe in some video games too..... rofl

Fee Fi Fo Fum
09-08-2004, 08:31 AM
I could go to a museum to look at an Enfield if I wanted to, I don't need to own one and fire it off to experience history rofl .

O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?
In you wet dreams you can do that, ONLY in your dreams, well maybe in some video games too..... rofl

we can go to a shooting range too, you would think we cant fire guns 'Peroid' the way your speaking, its not illegal for us to own guns you know, my uncle collects them, has many ww2 guns... they just cant be active

ShadowNeo
09-08-2004, 08:31 AM
O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?

rofl , trying to impose gun-nut logic on me won't work, I don't want to have one in my house, I don't need to fire it off to think i'm somehow reliving history.

I could go out and shoot rifles every weekend if I want (which I do), no need for me to own one.

sergey31
09-08-2004, 08:33 AM
I could go to a museum to look at an Enfield if I wanted to, I don't need to own one and fire it off to experience history rofl .

O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?
In you wet dreams you can do that, ONLY in your dreams, well maybe in some video games too..... rofl

we can go to a shooting range too, you would think we cant fire guns 'Peroid' the way your speaking, its not illegal for us to own guns you know, my uncle collects them, has many ww2 guns... they just cant be active


rofl That is what I thought...

sergey31
09-08-2004, 08:35 AM
O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?

rofl , trying to impose gun-nut logic on me won't work, I don't want to have one in my house, I don't need to fire it off to think i'm somehow reliving history.

I could go out and shoot rifles every weekend if I want (which I do), no need for me to own one.


Aha.... The truth finaly comes out..
Please read my exaple again.
Example.... someone would argue that Porsche 911 are way too expensive and it's unpractical and ugly etc.... but deep down they want one. So to comfort themselves in lies the pretend to believe those lies

American Patriot
09-08-2004, 08:37 AM
"they just can't be active" rofl

ShadowNeo
09-08-2004, 08:39 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

cut
09-08-2004, 09:02 AM
O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?

rofl , trying to impose gun-nut logic on me won't work, I don't want to have one in my house, I don't need to fire it off to think i'm somehow reliving history.

I could go out and shoot rifles every weekend if I want (which I do), no need for me to own one.


Aha.... The truth finaly comes out..
Please read my exaple again.
Example.... someone would argue that Porsche 911 are way too expensive and it's unpractical and ugly etc.... but deep down they want one. So to comfort themselves in lies the pretend to believe those lies

so everyone should have a gun in the same way that everyone should have a porsche 911? I don't want a gun, why is it so bad for me to say that. I don't need a gun otherwise I would try and get one. Why is it gun laws are such an issue in the states and not in the UK?

sergey31
09-08-2004, 09:04 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

mack pl
09-08-2004, 09:11 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg

second from right-shotgun with optic sights :roll: hmmm, interesting :)

great stuff :)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 09:12 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

BarkingSquirrel
09-08-2004, 09:13 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Non-Biased statistical information to back your claim up please?

cut
09-08-2004, 09:39 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Non-Biased statistical information to back your claim up please?


Yeah right, you try and find non-biased statistical information backing up your belief that you are safer. Good luck! And I mean non-biased not some party political crap you try and pass off as non-biased.


It may not be possible to conclusively say that no guns means less danger, but here are the stats Royal was talking about.

Murders with firearms

1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)
13. Costa Rica 126 (1999)
14. Slovakia 117 (2000)
15. Spain 97 (2000)
16. Uruguay 84 (2000)
17. Portugal 84 (2000)
18. Lithuania 83 (2000)
19. Bulgaria 63 (2000)
20. United Kingdom 62 (1999)
21. Australia 59 (2000)





Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Murders with firearms: per capita (only 3 s.f.)

1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people
11. Slovakia 0.02 per 1000 people
12. Czech Republic 0.02 per 1000 people
13. Estonia 0.01 per 1000 people
14. Latvia 0.01 per 1000 people
15. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.01 per 1000 people
16. Bulgaria 0.00 per 1000 people
17. Portugal 0.00 per 1000 people
18. Slovenia 0.00 per 1000 people
19. Switzerland 0.00 per 1000 people
20. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
21. Germany 0.00 per 1000 people
22. Moldova 0.00 per 1000 people
23. Hungary 0.00 per 1000 people
24. Poland 0.00 per 1000 people
25. Ukraine 0.00 per 1000 people
26. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
27. Australia 0.00 per 1000 people
28. Denmark 0.00 per 1000 people
29. Spain 0.00 per 1000 people
30. Azerbaijan 0.00 per 1000 people
31. New Zealand 0.00 per 1000 people
32. United Kingdom 0.00 per 1000 people
Weighted Average 0.09 per 1000 people



that's out of 32 countries, the UK is the lowest muders

Geezah
09-08-2004, 09:41 AM
For me it comes down to this VERY simple principle:

A people without guns are subjects.

A people with guns are citizens.



I find that a little insulting. My passport may say british subject (and european citizen) but we're citizens in all but name. Implying somekind of superior liberty because the states thinks it is right for people to play with lethal weapons.


I love the way you try to justify your stance by saying that we "PLAY" with guns, owning a gun is just like owning a car if you follwo strict guidelines then no-one gets hurt.

Also if you think we "PLAY" with firearms, then what do you call what the crims with firearms over there are doing? :cantbeli:

Geezah
09-08-2004, 09:47 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Actually I would say that by percentage the UK is ahead of the US now as far as violent crime goes(with firearms), now if we're talking accidental death, then accidental death by firearm pales in comparison to accidental death by lawnmower.

Royal,

Do you believe that serving/retired-Military/Police should be allowed to carry concealed, as they have had(in your eyes) experience/training with firearms?

BarkingSquirrel
09-08-2004, 09:48 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Non-Biased statistical information to back your claim up please?


Yeah right, you try and find non-biased statistical information backing up your belief that you are safer. Good luck! And I mean non-biased not some party political crap you try and pass off as non-biased.

My bad, let me rephase that. The source should be the government only, the only statistics I've seen are from 3rd party sources.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 09:50 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

Actually, he is correct, as more and more States make CCW law, crime is decreasing, while on the other hand crime in the UK is rising.
Percentages have proven that you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in the UK than the US now.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 09:57 AM
The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

You know what, I love going to the range to shoot, I love *****ping firearms down and putting them back together, I love shooting different calibers, for me it's a hobby(which my Wifes hates, not becuase she hates guns but because I pay more attention to them)plus it's also part of my life now.

While you have the chance, you should enjoy shooting and don't view it as a hardship, if you continue to view it this way you may carry that attitude over into your Military life?

cut
09-08-2004, 09:58 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

Actually, he is correct, as more and more States make CCW law, crime is decreasing, while on the other hand crime in the UK is rising.
Percentages have proven that you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in the UK than the US now.

no actually he's wrong the UK does have a higher total crime rate per capita but only by 5 crimes per thousand people. That is not WAY higher, anyway new zealand has the second highest total crime rate per population what a rowdy place that is.

1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people
11. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people
12. Germany 76.02 per 1000 people
13. Norway 72.60 per 1000 people
14. France 62.67 per 1000 people



1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)
2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)
3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)
4. France 3,771,849 (2000)
5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)
6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)
7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)
8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)
9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)
10. India 1,764,629 (1999)
11. Korea, South 1,543,219 (2000)
12. Chile 1,409,939 (2000)
13. Mexico 1,363,709 (2000)
14. Netherlands 1,305,635 (2000)

Geezah
09-08-2004, 09:59 AM
O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?

rofl , trying to impose gun-nut logic on me won't work, I don't want to have one in my house, I don't need to fire it off to think i'm somehow reliving history.

I could go out and shoot rifles every weekend if I want (which I do), no need for me to own one.


Aha.... The truth finaly comes out..
Please read my exaple again.
Example.... someone would argue that Porsche 911 are way too expensive and it's unpractical and ugly etc.... but deep down they want one. So to comfort themselves in lies the pretend to believe those lies

so everyone should have a gun in the same way that everyone should have a porsche 911? I don't want a gun, why is it so bad for me to say that. I don't need a gun otherwise I would try and get one. Why is it gun laws are such an issue in the states and not in the UK?

Cut,

Who exactly are the current UK guns laws affecting?

And as you show no desire to own a firearm should your ideas and thoughts affect others?

Geezah
09-08-2004, 10:01 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

Actually, he is correct, as more and more States make CCW law, crime is decreasing, while on the other hand crime in the UK is rising.
Percentages have proven that you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in the UK than the US now.

no actually he's wrong the UK does have a higher total crime rate per capita but only by 5 crimes per thousand people. That is not WAY higher, anyway new zealand has the second highest total crime rate per population what a rowdy place that is.

1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people
11. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people
12. Germany 76.02 per 1000 people
13. Norway 72.60 per 1000 people
14. France 62.67 per 1000 people



1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)
2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)
3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)
4. France 3,771,849 (2000)
5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)
6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)
7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)
8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)
9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)
10. India 1,764,629 (1999)
11. Korea, South 1,543,219 (2000)
12. Chile 1,409,939 (2000)
13. Mexico 1,363,709 (2000)
14. Netherlands 1,305,635 (2000)

Link?

I said nothing about way higher, any links to info that is less than 4yrs old?

Geezah
09-08-2004, 10:03 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Non-Biased statistical information to back your claim up please?


Yeah right, you try and find non-biased statistical information backing up your belief that you are safer. Good luck! And I mean non-biased not some party political crap you try and pass off as non-biased.


It may not be possible to conclusively say that no guns means less danger, but here are the stats Royal was talking about.

Murders with firearms

1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)
13. Costa Rica 126 (1999)
14. Slovakia 117 (2000)
15. Spain 97 (2000)
16. Uruguay 84 (2000)
17. Portugal 84 (2000)
18. Lithuania 83 (2000)
19. Bulgaria 63 (2000)
20. United Kingdom 62 (1999)
21. Australia 59 (2000)





Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Murders with firearms: per capita (only 3 s.f.)

1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people
11. Slovakia 0.02 per 1000 people
12. Czech Republic 0.02 per 1000 people
13. Estonia 0.01 per 1000 people
14. Latvia 0.01 per 1000 people
15. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.01 per 1000 people
16. Bulgaria 0.00 per 1000 people
17. Portugal 0.00 per 1000 people
18. Slovenia 0.00 per 1000 people
19. Switzerland 0.00 per 1000 people
20. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
21. Germany 0.00 per 1000 people
22. Moldova 0.00 per 1000 people
23. Hungary 0.00 per 1000 people
24. Poland 0.00 per 1000 people
25. Ukraine 0.00 per 1000 people
26. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
27. Australia 0.00 per 1000 people
28. Denmark 0.00 per 1000 people
29. Spain 0.00 per 1000 people
30. Azerbaijan 0.00 per 1000 people
31. New Zealand 0.00 per 1000 people
32. United Kingdom 0.00 per 1000 people
Weighted Average 0.09 per 1000 people



that's out of 32 countries, the UK is the lowest muders

Any chance you COULD supply independent numbers, not supplied by the UN who is trying to push their own agenda?

BarkingSquirrel
09-08-2004, 10:07 AM
Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Non-Biased statistical information to back your claim up please?


Yeah right, you try and find non-biased statistical information backing up your belief that you are safer. Good luck! And I mean non-biased not some party political crap you try and pass off as non-biased.


It may not be possible to conclusively say that no guns means less danger, but here are the stats Royal was talking about.

Murders with firearms

1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)
13. Costa Rica 126 (1999)
14. Slovakia 117 (2000)
15. Spain 97 (2000)
16. Uruguay 84 (2000)
17. Portugal 84 (2000)
18. Lithuania 83 (2000)
19. Bulgaria 63 (2000)
20. United Kingdom 62 (1999)
21. Australia 59 (2000)





Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Murders with firearms: per capita (only 3 s.f.)

1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people
11. Slovakia 0.02 per 1000 people
12. Czech Republic 0.02 per 1000 people
13. Estonia 0.01 per 1000 people
14. Latvia 0.01 per 1000 people
15. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.01 per 1000 people
16. Bulgaria 0.00 per 1000 people
17. Portugal 0.00 per 1000 people
18. Slovenia 0.00 per 1000 people
19. Switzerland 0.00 per 1000 people
20. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
21. Germany 0.00 per 1000 people
22. Moldova 0.00 per 1000 people
23. Hungary 0.00 per 1000 people
24. Poland 0.00 per 1000 people
25. Ukraine 0.00 per 1000 people
26. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
27. Australia 0.00 per 1000 people
28. Denmark 0.00 per 1000 people
29. Spain 0.00 per 1000 people
30. Azerbaijan 0.00 per 1000 people
31. New Zealand 0.00 per 1000 people
32. United Kingdom 0.00 per 1000 people
Weighted Average 0.09 per 1000 people



that's out of 32 countries, the UK is the lowest muders

The first one isn't running a percentange population-wise. The second one, the last 16 countries show 0.00 percent, so being last doesnt mean squat when the other 15 have the same amount. C'mon, I'm trying to give you the benefit of doubt here.

cut
09-08-2004, 10:07 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

Actually, he is correct, as more and more States make CCW law, crime is decreasing, while on the other hand crime in the UK is rising.
Percentages have proven that you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in the UK than the US now.

no actually he's wrong the UK does have a higher total crime rate per capita but only by 5 crimes per thousand people. That is not WAY higher, anyway new zealand has the second highest total crime rate per population what a rowdy place that is.

1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people
11. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people
12. Germany 76.02 per 1000 people
13. Norway 72.60 per 1000 people
14. France 62.67 per 1000 people



1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)
2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)
3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)
4. France 3,771,849 (2000)
5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)
6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)
7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)
8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)
9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)
10. India 1,764,629 (1999)
11. Korea, South 1,543,219 (2000)
12. Chile 1,409,939 (2000)
13. Mexico 1,363,709 (2000)
14. Netherlands 1,305,635 (2000)

Link?

I said nothing about way higher, any links to info that is less than 4yrs old?

nope but then gun laws havn't changed in the past 4 years. And crime rates in the UK are lower now then they were 4 years ago so if anything you're better off with these figures.


Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)


total crime link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri)

Firearm murders link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir)

Geezah
09-08-2004, 10:07 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 10:08 AM
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Total_crime.gif


Where is the increase in crime?

Hint, the restrictive gun laws were passed after the tragedy at Dunblane, in 1997.

cut
09-08-2004, 10:08 AM
One's proffesional the other one isn't

Shake n Bake
09-08-2004, 10:16 AM
I really wish that they ban ALL guns of all types in UK, Americans will be happier with that...
I know I will, I'll be able to purchase more of these when more of them are making their way into this country.

Thanks UK people for giving your guns and history away.


exactly

They want to forfeit their rights thats fine by me.

I'am more than happy to take all those eeky nasty horrible guns off their hands.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 10:21 AM
i would rather live in a country that has a ban on guns, than the USA anyday, if you wanna fire a gun you go to a shooting range.. too many ppl are off there heads these days to handle guns, i would rather have the plessure of feeling safe anyday




Read what the tread...
I was refering to these people who think they are safer because their goverment would not allow firearms....etc

No.

I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

I don't think so..... U.K has WAY higher crime then U.S by population.

hahaha you are kidding right? oh lord, sort that out now!

Actually, he is correct, as more and more States make CCW law, crime is decreasing, while on the other hand crime in the UK is rising.
Percentages have proven that you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in the UK than the US now.

no actually he's wrong the UK does have a higher total crime rate per capita but only by 5 crimes per thousand people. That is not WAY higher, anyway new zealand has the second highest total crime rate per population what a rowdy place that is.

1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people
11. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people
12. Germany 76.02 per 1000 people
13. Norway 72.60 per 1000 people
14. France 62.67 per 1000 people



1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)
2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)
3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)
4. France 3,771,849 (2000)
5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)
6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)
7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)
8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)
9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)
10. India 1,764,629 (1999)
11. Korea, South 1,543,219 (2000)
12. Chile 1,409,939 (2000)
13. Mexico 1,363,709 (2000)
14. Netherlands 1,305,635 (2000)

Link?

I said nothing about way higher, any links to info that is less than 4yrs old?

nope but then gun laws havn't changed in the past 4 years. And crime rates in the UK are lower now then they were 4 years ago so if anything you're better off with these figures.


Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)


total crime link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri)

Firearm murders link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir)

You forgot to mention that this,


1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people
11. Canada 76.89 per 1000 people
12. Germany 76.02 per 1000 people
13. Norway 72.60 per 1000 people
14. France 62.67 per 1000 people


represents "Total crimes (per capita)", and that info is 4yrs old so we now need to find out how much of a gap there is between the two Countries in question?

cut
09-08-2004, 10:22 AM
I really wish that they ban ALL guns of all types in UK, Americans will be happier with that...
I know I will, I'll be able to purchase more of these when more of them are making their way into this country.

Thanks UK people for giving your guns and history away.


exactly

They want to forfeit their rights thats fine by me.

I'am more than happy to take all those eeky nasty horrible guns off their hands.

so am I but make sure you go postal and exerce your full rights

moughoun
09-08-2004, 10:26 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

I don't know about that, there are plenty of woman in our military ;)

Hydro
09-08-2004, 10:26 AM
Strange thing is, most of the rifles in the pictures shown (that we CAN'T have!!!) are in fact, perfectly legal in the UK on an FAC...

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 10:32 AM
Good point hydoquip!


Sergey31

http://www.leeenfieldrifleassociation.org.uk/

Durandal
09-08-2004, 10:36 AM
Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)


No offense, but I would not rely on the U.N. for their numbers when it came to firearms control since they are so RABIDLY anti-gun...get some direct sources. The British government and American government for example have agencies that provide this data.

cut
09-08-2004, 10:41 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Steve Andrews
09-08-2004, 10:44 AM
I could go to a museum to look at an Enfield if I wanted to, I don't need to own one and fire it off to experience history rofl .

O.K you go to your museum and I'll own peice of you history at my own house.... YES, I can go to the range and shoot it too...HOW COOL IS THAT?
In you wet dreams you can do that, ONLY in your dreams, well maybe in some video games too..... rofl

we can go to a shooting range too, you would think we cant fire guns 'Peroid' the way your speaking, its not illegal for us to own guns you know, my uncle collects them, has many ww2 guns... they just cant be active


rofl That is what I thought...

You can own a Lee Enfield in the UK if you want. Bolt action full-bores are legal.
Semi-auto rifles and pistols are legal in Jersey, where I live.

Durandal
09-08-2004, 10:48 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Danzer
09-08-2004, 10:57 AM
This whole discussion reminds me of this.



This is an exact replication of a National Public Radio interview between a female broadcaster and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL: I don't see why. They'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle
discipline before they even touch a firearm.

INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL: Well, you're equipped to be a **********, but you're not one, are you?

Geezah
09-08-2004, 10:58 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

I don't know about that, there are plenty of woman in our military ;)

And there are plenty of woman gun owners, so again your logic is beyond me :cantbeli:

moughoun
09-08-2004, 10:58 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:00 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

I don't know about that, there are plenty of woman in our military ;)

And there are plenty of woman gun owners, so again your logic is beyond me :cantbeli:

Did they remove your sense of humour when you emigrated

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:01 AM
This whole discussion reminds me of this.



This is an exact replication of a National Public Radio interview between a female broadcaster and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL: I don't see why. They'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle
discipline before they even touch a firearm.

INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL: Well, you're equipped to be a **********, but you're not one, are you?

rofl

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:07 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

I don't know about that, there are plenty of woman in our military ;)

And there are plenty of woman gun owners, so again your logic is beyond me :cantbeli:

Did they remove your sense of humour when you emigrated

Not at all, but I didn't realize you were joking, now I understand you were only joking, I can see the funny side of it ;)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:09 AM
rofl rofl rofl

Now you try and prove your point as your somehow a psychology expert somehow know that I really want to own guns because I go out and fire them at weekends?

rofl

The only reason I go out and fire rifles right now is not as a hobby but to improve my ability with them before I join the military.

Yes I can read right trough you...
Anyone smart enough will....
As a human being (I) you always want something your own.
A vehicle, a house, a boat etc and a rifle or firearm is no exeption.
It's tool and just like any-tool you would still want it to be yours.
We humans are selfish by nature.... you just can't beat around the bush anymore..... You are for the ban becasue you can't do nothing about it you and the rest of your comrades live in deep lies.

Now... here some guns for you guys to look at..
Please feel free to mastrubate so you won't have any wet dreams afterwards.
It's good to live in this FREE and Blessed country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/guns1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/sergey25/Stuff45/A.jpg

Oh I get it now, because you get "excited" around "gun's", you think everyone else does, well we just join the military,we're not into all the slightly ********** militia gun loving stuff, but feel free yourself to carry on ;)

If I used the same logic as you, then we could say the same about joining the Military to be around a bunch of men?

I don't know about that, there are plenty of woman in our military ;)

And there are plenty of woman gun owners, so again your logic is beyond me :cantbeli:

Did they remove your sense of humour when you emigrated

Not at all, but I didn't realize you were joking, now I understand you were only joking, I can see the funny side of it ;)

Ya it's hard to get humour on forum's sometimes :|

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:18 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

I do not fear my fellow citizens! I am very prepared for criminals(I'm not talking petty crime here) who I do not consider to be fellow citizens.
As far as guns being part of British culture at one point they were but over a period of time those righs were slowly taken away. You have to remember US law is based on UK law ;)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:20 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

I do not fear my fellow citizens! I am very prepared for criminals(I'm not talking petty crime here) who I do not consider to be fellow citizens.
As far as guns being part of British culture at one point they were but over a period of time those righs were slowly taken away. You have to remember US law is based on UK law ;)

true, but they passed that stage of needing gun's along time ago, unless their worried about an invasion from Cornwall :lol:

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:23 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

You know what, I'm not quite sure if I would enjoy shooting a .50 Barrett, I whined when my In-Law made me shoot 5 rnds through his Mosin Nagant M44, although I do get a kick out of shooting slugs though my Mossberg which is similar, but again .50 is large enough that I don't know that I would enjoy the pain in pocket or shoulder ;)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:24 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

You know what, I'm not quite sure if I would enjoy shooting a .50 Barrett, I whined when my In-Law made me shoot 5 rnds through his Mosin Nagant M44, although I do get a kick out of shooting slugs though my Mossberg which is similar, but again .50 is large enough that I don't know that I would enjoy the pain in pocket or shoulder ;)

Try a 105 artillary piece for a big bang :D

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:25 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's are not, I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :( , the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership, but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US, wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

I do not fear my fellow citizens! I am very prepared for criminals(I'm not talking petty crime here) who I do not consider to be fellow citizens.
As far as guns being part of British culture at one point they were but over a period of time those righs were slowly taken away. You have to remember US law is based on UK law ;)

true, but they passed that stage of needing gun's along time ago, unless their worried about an invasion from Cornwall :lol:

I always feared an invasion from Leatherhead :P

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 11:29 AM
As far as guns being part of British culture at one point they were but over a period of time those righs were slowly taken away.

I wold say that guns weren't really a part of our culture in the same way that they are in the US. They were more a part of life in the rural parts of the UK, but we have seen massive changes in rural Britian since the industrial revolution (these changes are still continuing now).


Longbows, however, were part of the English culture ;-)

Durandal
09-08-2004, 11:33 AM
Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's aren't.

They are tools. It is how they are used. A crossbow, a sword, a spear, a sling shot. Are all designed for a a specific purpose. Does that mean all these things should be banned? Using your logic of course, yes.



I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :(

Don;t feel sorry for me. I live in a place full of freedom. I am am quite happy. Nor has there been a need during my life or my parents that someone, where I live has ever needed a gun to defend themselves against the government. In Northern Kentucky alone, though there have been 15 reported uses of of firearm (not all the firearms were discharged) used in the prevention of a crime.

However, I am also not naive enough to understand the very simple concept of "power corrupts absolutely". Maybe I am simply lacking the cry7stal ball you obviously have that shows that Western governments will never become corrupt and try to take away the freedoms of the people they rule.

I also guess it comes down to what role the government takes. Are the people the boss of the government or is the government the nanny that tucks you in late at night?


the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership

Actually, not was the United States a frontier nation it was also a nation built by people that were persecuted by a Church or a government. That when times got tough they made a tougher decision. Leave everything they were familiar with for something new. The founding forefathers, some elite, some common men, understood what kept a nation, its people, free, they saw what was happening in Europe and had an understanding of history and the corruption of governments over the last thousand years. They wanted a system that would avoid that, if at all possible. They might have succeeded. I am not too sure, time will tell, because the experiment isn't over yet.


but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US

Ahhh, so you determine what is excessive? that is walking a fairly dangerous line. Are you going to tell people how many beers they are allowed to drink in a single 24 hour period and make smoking tobacco illegal?

Let's correct something also. You do not want. I have talked with plenty of Brits that would love to see all bans removed. You do not speak for everyone in your nation.


wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,

Who determines what someone wants and what someone needs? But I'll avoid that argument for the mean time and ask you to site the number of crimes to justify banning a .50 caliber weapon.

Keep in mind that most black powder rifles are also .50 so I would suggest avoiding banning the caliber.


btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

And with what results?

cut
09-08-2004, 11:42 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

haha if guns are such a good means of safeguarding democracy is that why the US army is taking them away from Iraqis?

irrational fear and logic? the same could be said of the paranoia about being robbed by an armed assailant. This irrational fear prevolent in the states even spreads to you judgement of our country. We are not the ones that need guns to defend ourselves. That is not a choice we made because we fear guns but rather because a ban prevents the dunblane/columbine events which are otherwise hard to control out of our lives.

How can you argue with only 62 gun murders in a population of 60 million? And that is in a society otherwise equally as violent as in the United states.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:45 AM
I take it you didn't read my post on non-biased sources of statistical information. Taking national statistics is no less biased, government put alsorts of strange coefficients in to hide unpopular figures or exagerate change.


You can criticise every source but unfortunately this is the best you are going to get.

Well there ya go.

There are two reasons people want to ban guns.

A) Irrational fear and logic. Guns are scary and the cause deaths. What about all the other causes of death. Shouldn't me do something about them as well? No, why not.

B) To take power away from a population. Gun ownership (and there is NO argument against this) is a form of checks and balances.

So why control guns? Why rid a nation of guns?

The logical arguments to do so are in fact fallacies.

Nor am I arguing everybody should be armed either. If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine.

Hell, people have the right to vote and they give that right away even more.

haha if guns are such a good means of safeguarding democracy is that why the US army is taking them away from Iraqis?

Ok MM, and before we went in it was a Middle Eastern Paradise rofl, you have to instill a sense of law and order before you can go handing guns out to those that deserve to own them!

Geezah
09-08-2004, 11:48 AM
How do you tell the difference between*Democrats & Republicans

Answer:
Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted*street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous*looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are* carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you*do?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or Oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run*away?* What does my wife think?
What about the kids?*Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Gun have appropriate safety built into it?
Why*am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this*send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?* If I were to grab his knees and hold on,*could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I*call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and*try to come to a consensus.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican's* Answer:
BANG!

Just trying to add some comic relief, but this is so true.

Since when has it been cool to be victimised?

Shake n Bake
09-08-2004, 11:48 AM
haha if guns are such a good means of safeguarding democracy is that why the US army is taking them away from Iraqis?

Iraqis are allowd to keep small arms in their homes for
personal protection

Argyll
09-08-2004, 11:51 AM
Geezah,
We've been down this ame argument before in another topic,remember how a group of US gunownres were trying to lobby Parlaiment to change the laws?

Instead of arguing the toss,and constantly asking for figures,to subsatntiate YOUR argument you have to do the same.!
What I see here is a thread that's turned into a pissing contest,end it now,get back onto the topic otherwise this will be locked!!


Someone asked about ex servicemen carrying concelaed weapons.........why?What reason do you need to carry a concealed weapon?To what purpose?,please leave our Laws to our citizens,we do not interfere in your constitutional rights so,how about you respectfully do the same!!

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:55 AM
Gun's are specifically designed to kill these "other" thing's aren't.

They are tools. It is how they are used. A crossbow, a sword, a spear, a sling shot. Are all designed for a a specific purpose. Does that mean all these things should be banned? Using your logic of course, yes.



I'm sorry you have to live in a place where the only thing that make's you feel safe from the Government and fellow citizen's is a weapon :(

Don;t feel sorry for me. I live in a place full of freedom. I am am quite happy. Nor has there been a need during my life or my parents that someone, where I live has ever needed a gun to defend themselves against the government. In Northern Kentucky alone, though there have been 15 reported uses of of firearm (not all the firearms were discharged) used in the prevention of a crime.

However, I am also not naive enough to understand the very simple concept of "power corrupts absolutely". Maybe I am simply lacking the cry7stal ball you obviously have that shows that Western governments will never become corrupt and try to take away the freedoms of the people they rule.

I also guess it comes down to what role the government takes. Are the people the boss of the government or is the government the nanny that tucks you in late at night?


the US was based on a frontier mentality, gun's are a part of your cultural legacy, they are not a part of our's it's just the way it is, and your making the assumption that all gun's are illigal here, they are not, shotgun's and hunting rifles are legal in Ireland, and there are moves to soften handgun ownership

Actually, not was the United States a frontier nation it was also a nation built by people that were persecuted by a Church or a government. That when times got tough they made a tougher decision. Leave everything they were familiar with for something new. The founding forefathers, some elite, some common men, understood what kept a nation, its people, free, they saw what was happening in Europe and had an understanding of history and the corruption of governments over the last thousand years. They wanted a system that would avoid that, if at all possible. They might have succeeded. I am not too sure, time will tell, because the experiment isn't over yet.


but we do not want nor need the strange excess we see in the US

Ahhh, so you determine what is excessive? that is walking a fairly dangerous line. Are you going to tell people how many beers they are allowed to drink in a single 24 hour period and make smoking tobacco illegal?

Let's correct something also. You do not want. I have talked with plenty of Brits that would love to see all bans removed. You do not speak for everyone in your nation.


wtf do ppl need with a .50 sniper rifle for example,

Who determines what someone wants and what someone needs? But I'll avoid that argument for the mean time and ask you to site the number of crimes to justify banning a .50 caliber weapon.

Keep in mind that most black powder rifles are also .50 so I would suggest avoiding banning the caliber.


btw in Switzerland they take their military issue weapon's home :D

And with what results?

No weapon is nota tool like any other, it's a wepon designed to inflict harm, I don't know too many war fought with spatula's which is also a "tool", btw I use a weapon in my job, so I'm not "anti-gun", your freedom grow's from the barrel of a gun, that's your thing, if that's the way you look at US democracy then I do pitty you, but we have had experience of people fighting for "freedom" here, the IRA who just turned in to a band of armd thug's, so you have your idea we'll have our's of freedom, you also compared the situation to the US in the 17th century to now!, you don't need a crystal ball, ou need a calender, it's 2004 if those sentiment's still exsist in the US then your the one's with the problem's not us, how about you justify why the .50 is needed in the first place, do the rabbit's grow big there p-) , Switzerland is very bloody boring ;)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 11:56 AM
btw I'm Irish not English ;)

cut
09-08-2004, 11:57 AM
haha if guns are such a good means of safeguarding democracy is that why the US army is taking them away from Iraqis?

Iraqis are allowd to keep small arms in their homes for
personal protection

And small arms are what Durandal calls another form of checks and balances? Why bother with rifles other than hunting rifles then?

Iraqis are allowed small arms for personal protection but not rifles for the preservation of democracy? That's fair. But if they did have rifles they would use them against us doesn't that mean that we are with holding their freedom? Whilst Dubya appears on Iraqi TV to be told that they have been freed.

Now if the UK are doing the same thing (I pressume) at least we can tell them that now that they have democracy they should use their vote. They can have their small arms, after all, if the UK was such a security nightmare guns would be legal here too.

American Patriot
09-08-2004, 11:59 AM
They do have assault rifles. 1 per household.. what does that have to do with the topic?

moughoun
09-08-2004, 12:01 PM
They do have assault rifles. 1 per household.. what does that have to do with the topic?

because it got into people saying the only way US democracy is safeguarded is through force of arm's

Geezah
09-08-2004, 12:38 PM
Geezah,
We've been down this ame argument before in another topic,remember how a group of US gunownres were trying to lobby Parlaiment to change the laws?

Instead of arguing the toss,and constantly asking for figures,to subsatntiate YOUR argument you have to do the same.!
What I see here is a thread that's turned into a pissing contest,end it now,get back onto the topic otherwise this will be locked!!

I'm sorry you feel that way, I will provide numbers after lunch to show that British crime is sky rocketing as the original post mentioned.



Someone asked about ex servicemen carrying concelaed weapons.........why?What reason do you need to carry a concealed weapon?To what purpose?,please leave our Laws to our citizens,we do not interfere in your constitutional rights so,how about you respectfully do the same!!

That was me, I asked the following,





I know I am safer because of the restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and the fact that a CCW is nigh on impossible to get in the UK.

Do the math. How many are killed in the US by firearms. How many are killed in the UK. Divide by respective population size. The UK is safer.

Actually I would say that by percentage the UK is ahead of the US now as far as violent crime goes(with firearms), now if we're talking accidental death, then accidental death by firearm pales in comparison to accidental death by lawnmower.

Royal,

Do you believe that serving/retired-Military/Police should be allowed to carry concealed, as they have had(in your eyes) experience/training with firearms?

If they have had the training required to operate firearms then why would it be a problem for them to own them?
Also if that poor lad that was shot when he was mugged was able to carry maybe he might still be alive?

Argyll
09-08-2004, 12:59 PM
I know where you're coming from Geezah,but let's just say the guy pulled his 9mm and shot 3 people dead.........self defence or murder?

Rules of Engagement.........what is an acceptable level of force?

Remember the Farmer who shot and killed a burglar?........he was the one who broke the law and paid for it,by spending time in Prison.

Who is responsible for the supervision and training of the individual,just because he's carried a sidearm in the past doesn't mean he's able to use it effectively?We as CP operators train weekly,live firing ....under expert supervision,we also have to carry out TOET's,also on a weekly basis,as part of Health and Safety.

Who then would supervise these gun owners?Who would be responsible for them,a new weapon means new training!!.

I see no need for a civilian to carry a concealed firearm,lets say the soldier mentioned did fire his weapon,he fired say 12 shots or a magazine,but he missed with 4 of them that happened to hit a 5 year old child across the street at the icecream van,what then?
Was he right to discharge the weapon,killing his assailants,but in the process he killed a child.........who would be responsible?

Do you think that childs parents would find comfort knowing that this guy used "Extreme" force against his assailants...........but killed their child?
I don't think so Geezah,that's why the laws are there..........to protect the innocents.

It matters not what any non UK person in this thread thinks,you do not live here,my home town is not Downtown Baghdad..........I do not feel threatened.......until I set foot inside my door pissed as a fart,having blown one hundred quid on bevvy!!!!

American Patriot
09-08-2004, 01:25 PM
it's too easy to blame the gun and not the person. imo owning a gun is a right of a free person. govt should only impose minimal regulation such as background checks and increasing penalties for using firearm during commission of a crime.

shoot an innocent person? go to jail. hit an innocent person in a firefight with a criminal because your dumb ass didn't want to train with your firearm? go to jail for manslaughter. very simple.

of course none of this would work because people are by and large idiots. :)

moughoun
09-08-2004, 01:30 PM
of course none of this would work because people are by and large idiots. :)

I resemble that remark :P

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 01:45 PM
shoot an innocent person? go to jail. hit an innocent person in a firefight with a criminal because your dumb ass didn't want to train with your firearm? go to jail for manslaughter. very simple.

Should you allow people to shoot in built up areas, and only prosecute them when they cause damage or injury?

Should we allow people to drive at 150 mph, and only prosecute them if they cause an accident?

What about drink driving, is that OK untill you hit a pedestrian?

I don't think so.


So it's about how you limit what is acceptable risk in your society. In many societies, it is acceptable to carry guns in public or to own pistols or whatever. Fair enough, if thats what they want. But the converse is also true.

What about the situation in Belsan. The fact that most of the towspeople
owned guns didn't help there. An extreme example, but still a valid one.


of course none of this would work because people are by and large idiots.

Like most things in life...

sergey31
09-08-2004, 01:57 PM
I just realized something..... I'll make this very simple.
You British people gave up and let government control your choices.
If more people were honest and stood up for their case this ban would probably would never had happen.

Just to add: Man (male), has always been fascinated by guns... It's something that Man thinks is cool and would like to own/shoot.
whether you are a Brit or Russian or Mexican I don't care.... Its male instinct and you just can't deny it.
Man doesn’t feel good when their cool stuff is *****ped away, but hey MOST men still have their pride(ego) left.

moughoun
09-08-2004, 02:02 PM
I just realized something..... I'll make this very simple.
You British people gave up and let government control your choices.
If more people were honest and stood up for their case this ban would probably would never had happen.

Just to add: Man (male), has always been fascinated by guns... It's something that Man thinks is cool and would like to own/shoot.
whether you are a Brit or Russian or Mexican I don't care.... Its male instinct and you just can't deny it.
Man doesn’t feel good when their cool stuff is *****ped away, but hey MOST men still have their pride(ego) left.

It make's you feel like a big man right? :roll:

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 02:05 PM
Sergey31


You British people gave up and let government control your choices.

I don't think you understand what a government is.

They are the elected representitves of the people, i.e. public servants. Now, with nothing being perfect, government cannot work perfectly, especially with things like voter apathy being a factor. But the system should work fine for most things.




If more people were honest and stood up for their case this ban would probably would never had happen.

As I recall, there is no ban (see that Lee Enfield club, for example). But if you mean the recent restrictive firearms laws, then I belive that people did stand up and make thier case.

Unfortunately, the gun owning lobby didn't get their way because they were in minority. Most people supported more restrictive gun laws. That's democracy actually working for a change.

Durandal
09-08-2004, 02:23 PM
irrational fear and logic? the same could be said of the paranoia about being robbed by an armed assailant.

Nothing irrational or paranoid about it. I may never be robbed or assailed by a violent offender, but IF I am I will be armed.

Being prepared is not irrational.

I have a first aid kit and an emergency packet in my vehicle...just in case.

Besides, there thousands of examples EVERY year in the United States were a individual used their firearm, legally, to prevent a crime. It is not irrational when it works and there are plenty examples of it working.


This irrational fear prevolent in the states even spreads to you judgement of our country. We are not the ones that need guns to defend ourselves.

Again, not all of you want the ban. A majority maybe but not all.


That is not a choice we made because we fear guns but rather because a ban prevents the dunblane/columbine events which are otherwise hard to control out of our lives.

It is irrational. A single event changed your gun laws. You have an increase in violent crime. Other weapons replace the gun. How rational is it to try and ban air rifles? Come on now. You can dance around the subject all you want. In Austrailia they are banning blades. *snort*


How can you argue with only 62 gun murders in a population of 60 million? And that is in a society otherwise equally as violent as in the United states.

It is not about gun related murders. It is about ALL violent crime. Murder (regardless of how), rape, and assault. All three have increased in Britain. Sure it may not be with a gun but who cares. Dead is dead. Raped is raped. Assaulted is Assaulted. Who cares how it was done, it was done. The increases were directly related to the gun ban. Nothing irrational about it. It happen in Australia. It happened in Britain. It happened in parts of the United States that have similar bans...a perfect example being the District of Columbia, with a COMPLETE gun ban, yet murders still happen...with guns in some cases. Some blame people getting pistols in other States....which is false since it is illegal to purchase a pistol in any state other than your own.

I am not saying YOU should be armed. I am saying your nation should allow responsible gun owners to be armed. It would reduce the violent crime in your nation.

ikurinturbiini
09-08-2004, 02:26 PM
Here's some food for thought.

Suppose I want to own and shoot big guns, a lot of really big guns. But by pinko government says I can't. So I'll just move to America where I have the freedom to own and operate loadsa big guns. Say, Arizona, for example.

But once there, I would be too scared to leave the house. Why?

Because in Arizona, even crackpots like PermskiiMORON are allowed to own guns.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

;)

Durandal
09-08-2004, 02:32 PM
I see no need for a civilian to carry a concealed firearm,lets say the soldier mentioned did fire his weapon,he fired say 12 shots or a magazine,but he missed with 4 of them that happened to hit a 5 year old child across the street at the icecream van,what then?
Was he right to discharge the weapon,killing his assailants,but in the process he killed a child.........who would be responsible?

Argyll, the person shooting is responsible for the injury or the death of the child. Period. It is one of the things that is taught here in the United States in the Conceal Carry courses. Having a conceal carry license is a massive responsibility.

To date, the scenario you mentioned above has never happened. Conceal Carry laws have been in existence in a majority of the the States in America for years now...some well over a decade or longer, most...three years or so.

They have deterred crime. There are more and more cases of individuals protecting themselves, not by shooting the gun, but by simply having it in their hand.

I am not saying Britain should adopted conceal carry laws. I am saying that the British people are no different than those in the United States when it comes to responsibility. If we can manage to have safe conceal carry in the United States I see no reason why you could not in England, Scotland, and Wales.

Just a thought...

Durandal
09-08-2004, 02:37 PM
Here's some food for thought.

Suppose I want to own and shoot big guns, a lot of really big guns. But by pinko government says I can't. So I'll just move to America where I have the freedom to own and operate loadsa big guns. Say, Arizona, for example.

But once there, I would be too scared to leave the house. Why?

Because in Arizona, even crackpots like PermskiiMORON are allowed to own guns.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

;)

Not really.

Because it isn't like that. If you were correct then there would be high gun crime in Arizona....or better yet, Nevada.

Guess were most of the gun crime is in the United States? Areas with high population densities, poor and poorly educated boroughs, and places that already have strict gun laws.

Your comments are a perfect example of "irrational fear" of firearms.

sergey31
09-08-2004, 02:37 PM
I just realized something..... I'll make this very simple.
You British people gave up and let government control your choices.
If more people were honest and stood up for their case this ban would probably would never had happen.

Just to add: Man (male), has always been fascinated by guns... It's something that Man thinks is cool and would like to own/shoot.
whether you are a Brit or Russian or Mexican I don't care.... Its male instinct and you just can't deny it.
Man doesn’t feel good when their cool stuff is *****ped away, but hey MOST men still have their pride(ego) left.

It make's you feel like a big man right? :roll:

Not really.... But it does make me think that I have nice/cool things and you don't.....
Lets get to the root of this.... This is Military photos site, Military is firearms and other things that carry or use firearms, big, small, flying or swimming or walking.... It all comes down to the same thing.... Obviously you like it that is why you are here.... If to some young men joining the military was not cool, Would they still join? Well you get the point.
Bottom line is You are NOT suppose to have certain things while I can and doo but we are both human beings. .. So, you have less freedom, just admit it.... No offence, just the truth.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 02:41 PM
I know where you're coming from Geezah,but let's just say the guy pulled his 9mm and shot 3 people dead.........self defence or murder?

Rules of Engagement.........what is an acceptable level of force?

I took my CCW class two weekends ago, constantly you cover what is and is not acceptable as far as pulling a firearm. If I even show an imprint on my clothes and someone sees it I stand the cahnce of going to jail, there is now a greater responsibilty for me to be on my toes, also I will be purchasing insurance through the NRA just incase I do defend myself or my Family and it leads to a civil case.

I'm not trying to say I'm ready to take on teh World but now I have the tools to take care of myself and a thrid part if needed, I'm also going to pursue tactical shotgun training.

As far as acceptable use of force, if someone pulls a gun on me, I will do my best to shoot first.




Remember the Farmer who shot and killed a burglar?........he was the one who broke the law and paid for it,by spending time in Prison.

Tony Martin, I think he did what he had too, and I cannot fault him for what happened, maybe if they hadn't broken into his house that night there would have been one less body being carried out in a big black bag.



Who is responsible for the supervision and training of the individual,just because he's carried a sidearm in the past doesn't mean he's able to use it effectively?We as CP operators train weekly,live firing ....under expert supervision,we also have to carry out TOET's,also on a weekly basis,as part of Health and Safety.

In the State of Ohio you have to meet certain guidelines to be able to carry, if I have any convictions or arrests for assault, drufg offences pretty much any felonys then it's a done deal, it ain't happening.
The guy that took our class is a Cederville PO,Brady Smith (http://www.ppctraining.com/instructors.html)



Who then would supervise these gun owners?Who would be responsible for them,a new weapon means new training!!.

That's why you have to take training and for any reason your license canbe revoked.



I see no need for a civilian to carry a concealed firearm,lets say the soldier mentioned did fire his weapon,he fired say 12 shots or a magazine,but he missed with 4 of them that happened to hit a 5 year old child across the street at the icecream van,what then?
Was he right to discharge the weapon,killing his assailants,but in the process he killed a child.........who would be responsible?

That's a very big IF, you can't live your whole life wondering what IF.

[quote=Argyll]
Do you think that childs parents would find comfort knowing that this guy used "Extreme" force against his assailants...........but killed their child?
I don't think so Geezah,that's why the laws are there..........to protect the innocents.


So the innocents have to be aware of the innocents, while no-one is able to keep the crims in check, it all sounds flawed to me. Again though it's a big what if.
You could also change the handgun fo a car, two yobs try to carjack him and he speeds away only to hit a younster that ran out from behind an icecream truck only to run her over and kill her.
What then is he still at fault?



It matters not what any non UK person in this thread thinks,you do not live here,my home town is not Downtown Baghdad..........I do not feel threatened.......until I set foot inside my door pissed as a fart,having blown one hundred quid on bevvy!!!!

I no longer live there, I was born in West Middlesex Hospital, lived in Twickenham, Isleworth/St Margarets, Whitton, Cobham, then Stamford Brook before moving out here, and seen quite allot for my time, if allot more innocents were armed I could see a decrease in violence across the board.

Durandal
09-08-2004, 02:52 PM
Remember the Farmer who shot and killed a burglar?........he was the one who broke the law and paid for it,by spending time in Prison.

Tony Martin, I think he did what he had too, and I cannot fault him for what happened, maybe if they hadn't broken into his house that night there would have been one less body being carried out in a big black bag.

I have to agree with Argyll on this one. Tony Martin was a nut. He lost his legal right to own a shotgun when he shot it at a car years earlier. People with mental problems should not own guns. Those diagnosed in the United States cannot and Mr. Martin had his share of "issues".

However, I will not support the criminals either. The got what they deserved and they know it.

Both broke laws though and that needs to be understood. just because someone has the right to OWN a gun, does not mean someone has the right to shoot someone.

Just because I disagree with Britain;s gun laws does not mean I would not abide by them, likewise here in the United States and the State I live in.

I am still confused as to why Martin became the poster child of "everything that is wrong with England's gun control" but he did and I find it troublesome. He in many ways was just as much a criminal as those that broke into his home.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 02:57 PM
Past present and future I've carried a concealed firearm,there is nothing fcuking macho about it,there is a deadly serious reason for doing so,and unless you're in a line of work that requires it then there is no need to do so.

And I am glad that our laws are preventing idiots like you from possesing guns in MY country!!

Why do you see it as a macho thing, one of the ladies I deal with in Springfield, Mo owns firearms, nothing macho about it, she was in an abusive relationship and rather than always be a victim she was able to take matters into her own hands, and is prepared to defend her life.

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 03:01 PM
I am still confused as to why Blair became the poster child of "everything that is wrong with England's gun control" but he did and I find it troublesome. He in many ways was just as much a criminal as those that broke into his home.

I guess you mean Martin :-)

Because the lobby groups, be they anti- or pro-gun, and the media, don't care about distroting reality to get thier point across.

You are spot on about him, BTW, and he only got such a light custodial sentance because he was crazy.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 03:01 PM
Remember the Farmer who shot and killed a burglar?........he was the one who broke the law and paid for it,by spending time in Prison.

Tony Martin, I think he did what he had too, and I cannot fault him for what happened, maybe if they hadn't broken into his house that night there would have been one less body being carried out in a big black bag.

I have to agree with Argyll on this one. Tony Martin was a nut. He lost his legal right to own a shotgun when he shot it at a car years earlier. People with mental problems should not own guns. Those diagnosed in the United States cannot and Mr. Martin had his share of "issues".

However, I will not support the criminals either. The got what they deserved and they know it.

Both broke laws though and that needs to be understood. just because someone has the right to OWN a gun, does not mean someone has the right to shoot someone.

Just because I disagree with Britain;s gun laws does not mean I would not abide by them, likewise here in the United States and the State I live in.

I am still confused as to why Blair became the poster child of "everything that is wrong with England's gun control" but he did and I find it troublesome. He in many ways was just as much a criminal as those that broke into his home.

Yes, Tony was a nut, but I in no way feel sorry for the Gypo that got shot, he shouldn't have been in someone elses home without an invite.

Argyll
09-08-2004, 03:09 PM
Past present and future I've carried a concealed firearm,there is nothing fcuking macho about it,there is a deadly serious reason for doing so,and unless you're in a line of work that requires it then there is no need to do so.

And I am glad that our laws are preventing idiots like you from possesing guns in MY country!!

Why do you see it as a macho thing, one of the ladies I deal with in Springfield, Mo owns firearms, nothing macho about it, she was in an abusive relationship and rather than always be a victim she was able to take matters into her own hands, and is prepared to defend her life.

So a man raises his fist's she pulls a gun shooots him dead,buddy in any court of Law she'll be the one facing a muder rap.....excessive force.The law should be dealing with her assailant........taking the law into your own hands will cost you a lot more than a $400 pistol!!

Why can't people in other countries just not respect other countries laws,no matter how stupid they are to them............this whole topic has got seriously off track............stop and think of what happened at Dunblane,and realise that we're actually happy that the whole country is not flooded with guys who carry for the sake of thinking he's some kind of secret agent!!!!

Argyll
09-08-2004, 03:22 PM
Yes and the local constabulary thought Thomas Hamilton was just a regular bloke too.

And Michael Ryan.............and there are more of those types out there,now it's harder for them to repeat the destruction they caused,and I'm glad of it!


Geezah.........who would be the authority to keep checks on those who did possess a CCW permit?The Police,or another agency that will have to be funded by the taxpayers money?There is no reason for anyone other than the Police/Military under certain situations to carry such weapons,what next doormen on pubs and clubs shooting people who are fighting inside/ outside........No lads the UK laws are fine............drop this matter,if I felt a place was so dangerous I had to sarry a firearm.....guess what I wouldn't go............it's called risk anylsis,and guess what,if we feel that there is a risk to our clints here in Baghdad..........yep that's right we don't go.


If you want to carry a gun in public.........join a LE agency,or the military!!

Durandal
09-08-2004, 03:30 PM
I am still confused as to why Blair...

I guess you mean Martin :-)



:cantbeli:

Editing,

Thanks for the catch.

Geezah
09-08-2004, 03:32 PM
Yes and the local constabulary thought Thomas Hamilton was just a regular bloke too.

And Michael Ryan.............and there are more of those types out there,now it's harder for them to repeat the destruction they caused,and I'm glad of it!


Geezah.........who would be the authority to keep checks on those who did possess a CCW permit?The Police,or another agency that will have to be funded by the taxpayers money?There is no reason for anyone other than the Police/Military under certain situations to carry such weapons,what next doormen on pubs and clubs shooting people who are fighting inside/ outside........No lads the UK laws are fine............drop this matter,if I felt a place was so dangerous I had to sarry a firearm.....guess what I wouldn't go............it's called risk anylsis,and guess what,if we feel that there is a risk to our clints here in Baghdad..........yep that's right we don't go.


If you want to carry a gun in public.........join a LE agency,or the military!!

Guns and alchohol do-not mix, you cannot carry in a bar/pub, you cannot carry into schools, daycares, courthouses, policestations and any establisment that posts a sign that you cannot carry in their store.

As far as funding, it costs up to $45 to get an Ohio CCW after you have completed 12hrs of training by a NRA certified teacher, this class cost me $125, all of this so far out of my pocket, if you don't want to carry then it won't cost the general public a penny.
The checks are all run by the Sheriffs, in yours or the County next to you, this is not run by the Local PD or State Troopers.

Going back to the original post, if "No lads the UK laws are fine............drop this matter" then we shoud see a sharp decrease in shootings, due to the fact that current gun laws in the UK seem to be working?

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 03:48 PM
Going back to the original post, if "No lads the UK laws are fine............drop this matter" then we shoud see a sharp decrease in shootings, due to the fact that current gun laws in the UK seem to be working?

But they weren't ment to reduce "normal" criminal gun crime. They were supposed to reduce the risk of spree killings, and were also a reflection on the general attitude that pistol ownership was outdated and unnecessary in our society. Nothing to do with the problem of kids shooting each other out of some distortion of pride or "respect", which is the main gun problem we have.

Durandal
09-08-2004, 03:57 PM
They were supposed to reduce the risk of spree killings

Which happened ALL the time.

Argyll
09-08-2004, 04:01 PM
These gun crimes are not being commited with legally owned handguns though,this is the whole point,it would be and probably is totally impossible to remove every single weapon on the ground,it's not the handgun Law that's fcuked it's the immigartion laws,failing Customs to stop such weapons coming into the country.......It's the same as the drugs coming into the USA from Columbia,you know it's happeneing,but there's not much happening to eradicate the drug culture.

A lot of your points guys are based on what you see and read,even the Police still don't feel they need to be armed to combat the rise in violent crime.........when you look at the UK,look at each seperate country,there are 4 of them,look at each individually,and not collectively.

You can preach the values and ethics of carrying a weapon,concealed or not,if it's not your country........simple.....it's not your problem,and like I said,if I thought there was an area with a higher threat,I'd simply not go to that area........you may argue that you perhaps have no choice as this is where you maybe employed,well then here in the UK the employer has what's called "Duty of care" to it's employess,and their welfare and safebeing comes under that remit.
There are literally thousand of BG's on the "circuit" in the UK,and not all of them are competent at handling a weapon,so let's arm them shall we,then comes the doormen........a lot of criminal records within that group,lets arm them too,all these guns have to be taken into a home,and there have been I'm sure hundreds of "accidents"involving the discharging of a firearm in a place of accomodation resulting in the loss of life,across the USA..........a no legally owned gun culture prevents this from happening,it really is simple guys,you don't have to like our laws,but you have to respect them,same way as I was expected to respect yours when I was in the US recently,did I question them,nope,did I have any issues with them........nope..........they werern't mine to have issues with!!

Geezah
09-08-2004, 04:03 PM
Going back to the original post, if "No lads the UK laws are fine............drop this matter" then we shoud see a sharp decrease in shootings, due to the fact that current gun laws in the UK seem to be working?

But they weren't ment to reduce "normal" criminal gun crime. They were supposed to reduce the risk of spree killings, and were also a reflection on the general attitude that pistol ownership was outdated and unnecessary in our society. Nothing to do with the problem of kids shooting each other out of some distortion of pride or "respect", which is the main gun problem we have.

Please explain "normal" criminal gun crime? I'm somewhat confused as to what you see as the norm?

Maj12
09-08-2004, 04:08 PM
Wow, the more posts I read from you emasculated, 'enlightened' European government subjects (I hesitate to call you citizens, as a citizen has inherent rights), the safer I feel here next to the big, bad USA. I'd sooner move there than to your pseudo-socialist Utopia where people are defenseless and are dependent upon the gov't for protection. Want to know why the American people will always be free? This is why:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

All you peaceniks and kneejerk reactionary anti-Americans, go choke on your self-righteousness.

von_Moo142
09-08-2004, 04:11 PM
Which happened ALL the time.

Of course not. But Dunblane was very bad. I think that most people would agree that if the new firearms laws just save one life then they are worth it, because the vast majority of people don't see the need to own any gun for any reason, especially if it's a pistol.

Dennis G
09-08-2004, 04:20 PM
Banning Guns Has Backfired

by John R. Lott, Jr.

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998–99 to 2002–03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.



*Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.


*Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.

Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly.


September 6, 2004

John Lott [send him mail], a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261146/lewrockwell/002-2039840-7054415) (Regnery 2003).

Copyright © 2004 John Lott

Maj12
09-08-2004, 04:22 PM
Which happened ALL the time.

Of course not. But Dunblane was very bad. I think that most people would agree that if the new firearms laws just save one life then they are worth it, because the vast majority of people don't see the need to own any gun for any reason, especially if it's a pistol.

Right, and by your logic we should ban cars, boats, bats, sticks, water, etc., because if it saves JUST ONE LIFE...
:roll: