Results are In on British Gun Laws

[Geezah]

by Dr. Michael S. Brown

Many advocates of gun control point to Great Britain as an example of a gun free paradise where violence and crime are rare.

Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights. How much did crime drop as a result of this sacrifice? It did not drop at all. In fact, according to the local newspapers, England is being swept by a wave of crime, including plenty of gun crimes.

The London Times published a story on January 16th that sums up the situation rather well. The headline reads, "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain". Armed crime rose 10% in 1998 and the numbers for 1999 may be even more dramatic. The British experiment with gun prohibition has resulted in the same outcome as other forms of prohibition. Since guns are banned, every criminal wants one and it is very profitable to smuggle them in. According to a police spokesman, weapons from Eastern Europe, some still new in their boxes, are turning up during investigations. Criminals now have unprecedented access to high quality guns at affordable prices.

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16/stinwenws02004.html?999

The Manchester Guardian, on January 14th, laments the fact that their city is being called "Gunchester". Police sources were quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals on the street. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons and the generally unarmed British police say that they risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine guns.

The Sunday Express sent a team of reporters out to investigate the problem and their story of June 20, 1999 said, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual."

The government is expected to respond by further tightening the laws on weapons of all sorts. Additional regulations controlling knives and air guns are said to be in the works, although this might be likened to beating a dead horse. The very act of armed self defense is already punishable by law. That right has been handed over to the government in return for a promise of protection.

Perhaps motor vehicles need to be more heavily regulated as well. According to a commercial security report titled "New Wave in Retail Crime", British bandits are using vehicles to smash storefronts in a type of crime called "ramraiding", which would be impractical if shopkeepers had the option of arming themselves. The report states that, "Many retailers have actually gone out of business because of the repeated attacks on their premises."

This recent rise in crime is part of an upward trend that correlates well with the gradual tightening of gun control over the last several decades. The relationship between increasing gun control and rising crime is well documented in a scholarly 1999 report by Olsen and Kopel, "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope - Gun Prohibition in England".

The traditional view of England as a low crime society has also been seriously damaged by the 1998 study titled, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales", which is available from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. This report concludes that English crime rates in the period from 1981 to 1996 were actually higher than in the United States due to differences in the way crimes are reported.

The negative result from gun control laws should not surprise us. American cities have had similar counterproductive results whenever gun control has been implemented locally and recent reports from Australia show similar effects from their gun confiscation.

It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government passes new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. There is no mystery here. Disarming law abiding citizens emboldens criminals.

Whenever people have given up their right to self defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control goes only one way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right to armed self defense.

Proponents of gun control in America have a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately, with the aid of their media allies, this new information will probably be ignored completely or brushed off with a few carefully chosen emotional sound bites.

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist in Vancouver, WA who moderates a large email list for discussion of gun issues in Washington State. You can reach the rest of his archive here. He may be reached at mb@e-z.net


Hmmmmm????

[martinexsquaddie]

not this old turkey again :roll:
fact self defense with a handgun was impossible from approx the 1950s
only reason to own a handgun was for target shooting FACT
Handguns were banned after a legaly registered shooter murdered a load of children in a school result legaly held handguns banned
it turned out llater he should have had his guns removed years earlier.

guns are now coming from eastern europe and forign gangsters rather than every crim wanting a gun

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I don't doubt Dr Michael Brown knows a thing or two about guns but when I saw the Dr before his name I thought criminologist or maybe social anthropologist but no he he is a American optician so he is about as qualified as a Burindian goat farmer when it comes to commenting on UK gun laws. :lol:

[Otsoa]

by Dr. Michael S. Brown


Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist in Vancouver, WA who moderates a large email list for discussion of gun issues in Washington State. You can reach the rest of his archive here. He may be reached at mb@e-z.net


Uhhhhh lads? That is Vancouver, WA as in Washington State, not Vancouver, British Columbia.

[cut]

We havn't had another dunblane since the laws were put in place, that's reason enough for me.

[Mark Sman]

We havn't had another dunblane since the laws were put in place, that's reason enough for me.

And a good and valid reason that is.

I, however, would choose to live differently. I am willing to accept a level of risk, in exchange for a level of responsiblity. To wit.

People where I live may own guns. They might shoot me. They might shoot my family. But I will trade that risk for my ability to own a gun.

It is a personal choice that I have made. I expect nobody to respect it. It simply is. I have my reasons. You have yours.

Cheers mate!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Its worth pointing out that some restrictions on firearms ownership are going to be lifted, free pistols will probally be allowed again and its not difficult to get a firearms certificate if you have a valid reason and target shooting is one of them I am in a rural area and firearm ownership is quite common loads of shotguns plus there are a lot of people with full bore rifles. The one local rifle maker is kept pretty busy just fitting suppressors or making suppressed rifles no great restrictions on those here, owning a fully suppressed .223 rifle with NV would not give the police any concern round here.

[GazB]

We havn't had another dunblane since the laws were put in place, that's reason enough for me.


And how many "Dunblanes" did you have on a regular basis before the gun laws were changed?

That would be like saying that completely banning all civilian airliners would be a great idea to prevent attacks like the 11/9 incident.

The realty is that that would inconvenience too many people so it won't happen. It seems banning sporting firearms didn't piss off enough people... or should I say the right people to prevent the change in laws that it seems have made no difference other than giving most a (false) sense of security.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The Hungerford Massacre was a shooting that occurred in Hungerford, Berkshire, England on August 19, 1987. A 27-year-old unemployed local labourer, Michael Robert Ryan, armed with several weapons including an AK-47 rifle, shot seventeen people dead, including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then shot himself.
The massacre led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act, 1988, which banned the use of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of other firearms with a capacity of more than two rounds. Ryan's collection of weapons was legally licensed. Many gun owners abroad will find this difficult to believe but many sporting shooters approved of the handgun ban as well as the ban on full bore semi-autos, I however did not but hell I am prevented from owning a firearm because I have a criminal record. Hunting in Scotland with firearms has largley been unaffected by recent firearms laws.

[martinexsquaddie]

i could own a full bore rifle if i wanted too but its a lot of money and hassle and the nearest range is hours away so can't really be arrsed.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Did they shut down any of the ranges down your way Martin the MOD shut down our local range years ago due to safety concerns, they now run it themselves but with no marked improvement in safety.

[cut]

We havn't had another dunblane since the laws were put in place, that's reason enough for me.


And how many "Dunblanes" did you have on a regular basis before the gun laws were changed?

That would be like saying that completely banning all civilian airliners would be a great idea to prevent attacks like the 11/9 incident.

The realty is that that would inconvenience too many people so it won't happen. It seems banning sporting firearms didn't piss off enough people... or should I say the right people to prevent the change in laws that it seems have made no difference other than giving most a (false) sense of security.

I need airliners to get around, I have no need for a gun.

[martinexsquaddie]

well as far as I know the nearest ranges are bisley or the folkstone/ hythe mod complex
there was is a small bore underground range on the seafront in brighton but if they are still running I don't think there taking any new more members.
doing an archery course anyway so might get a longbow and go looking for the real enemy the French :lol:

[Trident-za]

Maybe tighter requirements for owning a firearm are the answer rather than a total ban? No, too expensive to implement I guess (shrink fees etc.)

In South Africa gun laws are being severly tightened. I'm not sure how I feel about it... on the one hand, there are way too many guns in our society. On the other hand, most of them are illegal anyway. And - there are too many guns in our society so I don't want to arm myself with a breadknife :)

On an unrelated issue - what are your countries respective laws on "legal use of force"? In SA right now, if I woke up to find a "bad guy" standing over me with an axe, and I shot him, I'd go to jail unless I could PROVE that he intended to kill me or my family..... and the fact that he has broken into my house armed with an axe doesn't count as proof (especially if the bad guy happened to be of "african descent") :roll: :roll:

[Steve Andrews]

We are lucky here in Jersey, Channel Islands. I believe that our island is the only place left in the British Isles that allows semi auto rifles and pistols.
I own a Winchester M14, a IMI Galil ARM 7.62, a Glock 17, as well as a smattering of .22 rifles and pistols.
Ammo is quite expensive and I rarely get up to the range as we are a one-car-family and my wife likes to go shopping on a Saturday, when my club shoots!
Never mind. Hopefully I'll get to shoot more in the years to come - as long as the Laws aren't changed!!
I feel sorry for the UK mainland guys who had to give in their guns. I know how I'd feel.

It only takes one fruit-loop to spoil thousands of peoples' fun.

[GazB]

I need airliners to get around, I have no need for a gun.


That is the problem.

I don't own a dog. I dont' see the need for private ownership of dogs. Should dogs be banned? They can be dangerous.
Fast cars are dangerous. Should all cars that exceed the speed limit be banned too? How about private pilots licences? Just anyone can get a pilots licence, and even a cessna could be used to attack buildings etc if loaded with fuel. Or how about trucks... you could get a huge fertiliser bomb on a truck... that has happened before. Should just any civilian be allowed to get a truck drivers licence... I don't fly in private planes, nor drive trucks, I don't own a powerful car... why should I care if the government decides to ban these things?

Anyone can claim that the world is not safe because xyz is freely available.

Here in New Zealand you can buy a crossbow without a licence and there are no age limits. I can make a bow with a 75lb pull on it in about a day and a half with the right materials... and the right materials are all within 10km of my house.

As mentioned in the article if something is banned then you just create a black market... and the worst thing about that black market is that they are breaking the law so what do they care... lets get some C4 explosive and full auto weapons, machine pistols, or perhaps a rocket launcher, or mortar. But you feel safer cause they are now banned. Does the laws against theft stop your house from being burgled?

[cut]

I need airliners to get around, I have no need for a gun.


That is the problem.

I don't own a dog. I dont' see the need for private ownership of dogs. Should dogs be banned? They can be dangerous.
Fast cars are dangerous. Should all cars that exceed the speed limit be banned too? How about private pilots licences? Just anyone can get a pilots licence, and even a cessna could be used to attack buildings etc if loaded with fuel. Or how about trucks... you could get a huge fertiliser bomb on a truck... that has happened before. Should just any civilian be allowed to get a truck drivers licence... I don't fly in private planes, nor drive trucks, I don't own a powerful car... why should I care if the government decides to ban these things?

Anyone can claim that the world is not safe because xyz is freely available.

Here in New Zealand you can buy a crossbow without a licence and there are no age limits. I can make a bow with a 75lb pull on it in about a day and a half with the right materials... and the right materials are all within 10km of my house.

As mentioned in the article if something is banned then you just create a black market... and the worst thing about that black market is that they are breaking the law so what do they care... lets get some C4 explosive and full auto weapons, machine pistols, or perhaps a rocket launcher, or mortar. But you feel safer cause they are now banned. Does the laws against theft stop your house from being burgled?

I see what you mean and it is a thin line, but all these other things you've mentioned have other uses. A gun is a tool, yes but a killing tool, that's all it's used for, ok it's great fun to, but there are other ways to have fun. It's harsh but when it comes down to it the vast majority of people have no need for a gun, espesialy handguns.

And if your whole black market argument works, let's decriminalise all drugs, they have big black markets.

[martinexsquaddie]

plus crossbows are only used by the swiss the french and other ladyboys :lol:
be a man get a longbow :P
plus you can still shoot scots who are in the city of york after miday :lol:
argyl start running rofl

[Kampfhamster]

plus crossbows are only used by the swiss the french and other ladyboys :lol:
be a man get a longbow :P
plus you can still shoot scots who are in the city of york after miday :lol:
argyl start running rofl

We don't use crossbows anymore, since we keep stuff like that at home:
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/sig550-01.jpg

@cut: the cause of crime with guns is not the availability of firearms, but the problems of the community. If the availability would cause massacer like in Dunblane, Columbine, etc. Switzerland would be without any population.

greets from Switzerland from a gunowner, who owns guns because of his familytradition.

[kinghk]

plus crossbows are only used by the swiss the french and other ladyboys :lol:
be a man get a longbow :P
plus you can still shoot scots who are in the city of york after miday :lol:
argyl start running rofl

We don't use crossbows anymore, since we keep stuff like that at home:
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/sig550-01.jpg

@cut: the cause of crime with guns is not the availability of firearms, but the problems of the community. If the availability would cause massacer like in Dunblane, Columbine, etc. Switzerland would be without any population.

greets from Switzerland from a gunowner, who owns guns because of his familytradition.

Are the SIG's government property or is it private property? Sig 551/550 (semi only) are legal here in Norway as well, but restriction to firearms have tightened the last years.

[Kampfhamster]

The 550 is property of the army because it is my service rifle.

The 552 is my own.

[kinghk]

The 550 is property of the army because it is my service rifle.

The 552 is my own.

Full or semi auto? How can i obtain i Swiss citizenship by the way ? :D

[Kampfhamster]

the 550 is full auto of course. The 552 is semiauto.

To get swiss citizenship you have to swim over Lake Constanz. ;)

[cut]

plus crossbows are only used by the swiss the french and other ladyboys :lol:
be a man get a longbow :P
plus you can still shoot scots who are in the city of york after miday :lol:
argyl start running rofl

We don't use crossbows anymore, since we keep stuff like that at home:
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/sig550-01.jpg

@cut: the cause of crime with guns is not the availability of firearms, but the problems of the community. If the availability would cause massacer like in Dunblane, Columbine, etc. Switzerland would be without any population.

greets from Switzerland from a gunowner, who owns guns because of his familytradition.

I remember a swiss guy going into a local government office recentlyish and shooting it up a bit, for a population as small as switzerland, there are relatively more such incidents, despite such a good record with firearms.

[BlackRain]

I need airliners to get around, I have no need for a gun.

No offense Cut, but this is a totally uncomprehensible statement to an American.

Gun culture is part of our history as a country. Modern day gun laws now try to prevent individual citizens from owning them. However, without the guns, the USA would never have gained freedom from oppression.



John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, at 475. (1787-88)


Patrick Henry:
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 168, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)


Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson Papers at 344, J. Boyd, ed., (New York, N.Y.:Putnam, 1896)

Thus I am happily free. I am ultimately responsible for the security of my family, home and self and without arms I am defenseless.

[cut]

Ok, but this thread was about the situation in Britain. And whether it makes sense to americans or not I have no need to kill people or threten to do so.

Although the are a lot of guns on the black market here these tend to be used in gang war and not robberies. Having said that one guy was killed around christmas I think when he was shot & killed by robbers when he chaste them down the street. Although that made the national news I can't see that happening in the US. p-)

[Kampfhamster]

Yes, a guy killed 13 members of a Kantons-Parlament.

BUT This were illegal weapons. The guy had a crime record, the police knew that he owned guns and nobody took the guns away . So it was the fault of the Government and the police.

[BlackRain]

My point is that all men are entitled to defend themselves (in the USA or England).

Having a firearm does not mean that you will ever use it. I have had firearms since the age of six. I have never threatened or killed anyone.

The point of the firearm is the implied deterence factor it brings.

Example: States that have enacted concealed weapons permits in the USA have lower crime rates then states that don't have concealed weapon laws.

Washington, DC has the highest murder rate in the USA and it is illegal to own firearms there. However, in Virginia, just across the Potomac river a few yards away, the state has a very low murder rate and it has a concealed carry law.

Criminals are less willing to shoot innoccent civilians if they know there is a possiblity that the civilians may shoot back.

[cut]

My point is that all men are entitled to defend themselves (in the USA or England).

I disagree, for example I don't believe convicted criminals have that right. Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.


Having a firearm does not mean that you will ever use it. I have had firearms since the age of six. I have never threatened or killed anyone.

No, I agree, but you can't say the same for everyone.



The point of the firearm is the implied deterence factor it brings.

Example: States that have enacted concealed weapons permits in the USA have lower crime rates then states that don't have concealed weapon laws.

Washington, DC has the highest murder rate in the USA and it is illegal to own firearms there. However, in Virginia, just across the Potomac river a few yards away, the state has a very low murder rate and it has a concealed carry law.

Criminals are less willing to shoot innoccent civilians if they know there is a possiblity that the civilians may shoot back.

That may be the case in the States, but here it would make things worse, there next to no cases of a gunman wanting to shoot a normal person in the street in this country, and by normal I mean people not involved in gangs. So there is no need.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Gun culture is part of our history as a country.Running across the border into England and stealing sheep was part of my culture but times change.
However, without the guns, the USA would never have gained freedom from oppression.Without the help of the French the American's would never have gained freedom from oppression. You American's should think yourselves even more blessed for if you had not gained freedom you probably would have got the poll tax before Scotland.


:D

[Geezah]

We havn't had another dunblane since the laws were put in place, that's reason enough for me.

Maybe you should explain to the victims of Antoni Imiela why gun control is a good thing, now if maybe just one of those poor rape victims had been allowed to excercise their God given right to protect themslves and owned a hand gun, there might not have been as many victims?

Gun control works in the UK! that's why you have CCTV, that's why in Streatham you have bird nest voice boxess warning you to the potential of being mugged, that's why voilent crime has gone up, that's why the law abiding citizens of the UK no longer have any rights, that's why you have speed cameras every where even though, they're in areas with little to no car accidents just bringing in revenue for a Police force that can't protect the individual, the list goes on but the people of Britian are so brainwashed that they belive being a victim is good? ;)

There are close to 80 million guns owners in the US, there 4.3 million members of the NRA(me being one) the state of Michigan has had CCW for 2yrs now and their crime rates have gone down where as the state of Ohios has risen 5%(Ohio has only just made CCW law April 8th) private gun opwnership works even though there are a few bad apples your going to find that anywhere, unfortunetely Britain is not a utopia and until the Brits wake and smell the coffee and demand change you will always be a victim!

I'm sorry but no amount of Dunblane this and Hungerford that will ever turn me back to the vegatable I once was when I moved here!

Sheldon

[martinexsquaddie]

that rapist scumbag perferred 10 year old girls so I doubt even the NRA IS ADVOCATING arming of preteen girls :roll:
most of the violent crime is snatching of mobile phones or drunken mayhem niether of which concealed carry would do much to deter. mobile phone thefts are often on teenagers now most people belive 17yr olds should'nt be armed as a matter of course and alcohol and guns do not mix.
gunshots are still a rarity in the uk my brother should know he's an A and E nurse when not standing around in a hot sandy place.
stabbings yes he's worked in florida and new orleans in both places gunshots wounds were a daily occurance.

[GrantT]

Gun control works in the UK! that's why you have CCTV, that's why in Streatham you have bird nest voice boxess warning you to the potential of being mugged, that's why voilent crime has gone up, that's why the law abiding citizens of the UK no longer have any rights, that's why you have speed cameras every where even though, they're in areas with little to no car accidents just bringing in revenue for a Police force that can't protect the individual, the list goes on but the people of Britian are so brainwashed that they belive being a victim is good? ;)

What have CCTV and speed cameras got to do with gun laws?

[cut]

Geezah, looks like you've lost touch with your homeland, if you want to live like that fine stay in the states. But the fact of the matter is, what you are talking about would not work in Britain, and if it changed to that I'd move. I don't want to be around when the drunks fall out of pubs and clubs late at night pissed with a concealed weapon, even if the other guy has one what difference is it going to make?

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

[BlackRain]

My point is that all men are entitled to defend themselves (in the USA or England).

I disagree, for example I don't believe convicted criminals have that right. Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.



Wow. I am glad I live here. I rather deal with that possibility then live in fear of becoming a unprotected victim.

Since England it instituted a complete gun ban in 1997 crime has doubled.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/ngun17.xml

In 2002, your chances of being mugged in London were six times higher than in New York.

2001 Interpol statistics showing number of crimes per 100,000 people in:
9927 - England and Wales
8572 - Canada
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
4161 - United States

You should really give this article a good read http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/Brit%20Crime%20Myth.htm to examine this issues surrounding the failed experiment of restrictive gun laws in England and the correlating rising crime rates.

[cut]

hmmm, now let me see get mugged or get shot?

I'll go for mugged

Besides the numbers are counted diferently here which means the numbers are elevated. Care to put up the numbers of people shot in the US compared to the UK?


Interpol General Secretariat collates and reproduces statistical information sent to it by the National Central Bureaus. The information received is classified according to the main category of offence.

Warning: These statistics cannot be used as a basis for comparison between different countries. They do not take into account:

-national differences in the legal definitions of punishable acts
-the diversity of statistical methods used
-changes which may occur during the reference period affecting the data collected.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I rather deal with that possibility then live in fear of becoming a unprotected victim.There never were people using firearms for self defense before the handgun ban and if people in the UK had CCW I doubt that the crime figures would be any different.


Since England it instituted a complete gun ban in 1997 crime has doubled.There is only a ban on handguns and full bore semi auto rifles with restrictions on pump and semi auto shotguns, do some research.

[BlackRain]

[quote=BlackRain]I rather deal with that possibility then live in fear of becoming a unprotected victim.There never were people using firearms for self defense before the handgun ban and if people in the UK had CCW I doubt that the crime figures would be any different.


So you are stipulating that citizens of England never used firearms for self-defense. Sir, that is complete hogwash.

Since the British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The 1997 extermination of Britain's pitiful minority of handgun target shooters did not directly increase crime, since existing laws made it impossible for a lawful handgun owner (or any other lawful gun owner) to use a firearm for self-defense. Rather, the handgun confiscation of 1997 was the continuation of a trend that began in the 1950s that has resulted in the destruction of the law-abiding gun culture, and the suppression of every form of non-government use of force against criminals. As a result, criminal violence and a criminal gun culture are 50 times more prevalent than they were in the early 20th century, when there were no antigun laws, and no laws against the use of reasonable force against violent criminals.

If you choose to live this way, this is certainly your affair. I wish you and your family well.

[martinexsquaddie]

Society has completly changed since the 1950's
so thats a bit of a red herring
Blackrain admits there was only a SMALL NUMBER OF TARGET HANDGUN SHOOTERS who had there guns banned.
Either criminals were absoluetely terrified of meeting a target shooter on a dark night rofl
or the bann on handguns and the rise in violent crime have nothing to do with one another. I'd certainly argue the handgun ban was a bit of cosmetic law covering up the authorities Failure to apply the law as was due to the fear of a law suit but as for making the streets safer or unsafer
it had nothing to do with either of those

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

So you are stipulating that citizens of England never used firearms for self-defense. Sir, that is complete hogwash.Well they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so tell me when was the last time a UK citizen defended themselves with a legally held firearm?




Rather, the handgun confiscation of 1997 was the continuation of a trend that began in the 1950s that has resulted in the destruction of the law-abiding gun culture,What happened in the 1950's was firearm registration and there was an attempt to bring surplus W2 weapons out of the chicken sheds and attics, they did recover large amounts such weapons in the 1950's and 60's.

[obd]

Jeez what the hell is going on in England these days. First I hear about these "gatsos" (traffic cameras) being put out all over the place and shelling out about 500 tickets a day putting British drivers out of a living, the terrible state of British raods (this is important to me because I love sports cars and driving in general) and now I hear about these stupid anti gun laws.....of course I heard about them years ago as its famous for its strict gun laws but come on......

Here is a fact for everyone: Gun owners who are able to pass strict standards to get a license are statistically highly unlikely to use thier legally purchased firearms in an illegal fashion or even to have them used against them as many people try to say...which is of course a myth. Fact 2: making guns for defense illegal only puts the power in the hands of the criminals and takes it out of the hands of the citizen, hence the recent more brazen wave of robberies and such in England.

Clearly, these thugs know that a simple nine millimeter hand gun will put them at a far superior power advantage over anything they might find in the home, unless of course they happen to run into a family man that has dicided to illegally hide his gun to protect his family of course!!!!

Next, why in the hell dont British cops have firearms???!!! I even read a news article of some type of special British police force guarding a high value site after a threat and they were armed with the G-36c. They were told they couldnt hold a round in chamber and they could only fill magazines half full. HALF FULL!!!!! Dont they trust these men??? Arnt British Police trained to high standard?? Are American cops just trained better???? Several pictures were taken of them(with the clear brown magazines) only half full!!! This was posted on HKpro.com several times.......

I have read alot lately about the rise in violent and armed gangs in Britain. Do you Brits think its a good idea to start training and arming cops on a widescale basis like thier American counterparts?? Im not saying give them M 60's but at least give them some Kimber .45's with take down power!!!!! Am I right on this one or am I missing the picture here??????

[obd]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!!

Next you say "I dont want to be around when drunks start shooting eachother". I have a few questions:

Why are you still around when innocent people are being killed in thier homes by armed thugs and cant defend themselves because the government doesnt trust them with thier own defense???

Why are you still around when police are afraid and helpless to deal with armed thugs on mountainbikes and such??

Why are you still around when police feel they are at unfair disadvantage and wont even dare approach certain gangs and these gangs rome the streets multiplying and spreading crime and destruction??

Why are you still around when people are renaming thier town "Gunchester"

Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

[cut]

Jeez what the hell is going on in England these days. First I hear about these "gatsos" (traffic cameras) being put out all over the place and shelling out about 500 tickets a day putting British drivers out of a living, the terrible state of British raods (this is important to me because I love sports cars and driving in general) and now I hear about these stupid anti gun laws.....of course I heard about them years ago as its famous for its strict gun laws but come on......

Here is a fact for everyone: Gun owners who are able to pass strict standards to get a license are statistically highly unlikely to use thier legally purchased firearms in an illegal fashion or even to have them used against them as many people try to say...which is of course a myth. Fact 2: making guns for defense illegal only puts the power in the hands of the criminals and takes it out of the hands of the citizen, hence the recent more brazen wave of robberies and such in England.

Clearly, these thugs know that a simple nine millimeter hand gun will put them at a far superior power advantage over anything they might find in the home, unless of course they happen to run into a family man that has dicided to illegally hide his gun to protect his family of course!!!!

Next, why in the hell dont British cops have firearms???!!! I even read a news article of some type of special British police force guarding a high value site after a threat and they were armed with the G-36c. They were told they couldnt hold a round in chamber and they could only fill magazines half full. HALF FULL!!!!! Dont they trust these men??? Arnt British Police trained to high standard?? Are American cops just trained better???? Several pictures were taken of them(with the clear brown magazines) only half full!!! This was posted on HKpro.com several times.......

I have read alot lately about the rise in violent and armed gangs in Britain. Do you Brits think its a good idea to start training and arming cops on a widescale basis like thier American counterparts?? Im not saying give them M 60's but at least give them some Kimber .45's with take down power!!!!! Am I right on this one or am I missing the picture here??????

The figures that are proportionally high are violent crimes, a lot of drunk people brawling but also muggings, now the reason for so much violent theft is because house buglary figures very low, so criminals resort to more violent crime. This is a problem that needs to be fixed, yes, but there is no point in putting murders up to get muggings down.

So your whole gun in the house argument is irrelavent, that is not where the problem lies.

Any criticism of British armed police should be aimed at CX20 I'm sure he'll put you in your place.


Speed cameras have been around for over a decade here, it's in France that they are just introducing them, most of them don't have film in so it is done at random. Also which road in the UK did you drive down to make you think that the state of the roads here are poor?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Jeez what the hell is going on in England these days. First I hear about these "gatsos" (traffic cameras) being put out all over the place and shelling out about 500 tickets a day putting British drivers out of a living,Thats what happens when you break the law, you pay the price.





Next, why in the hell dont British cops have firearms???!!!They do not normally come up against armed criminals in a days work, oh and believe me they know how to handle themselves.


Am I right on this one or am I missing the picture here??????Yes you are missing the picture.

[cut]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!! wrong, depends where you live, the vast majority of breakings only happen if no-one is at home. Most burglars run away at the first sign of the occupant.

Next you say "I dont want to be around when drunks start shooting eachother". I have a few questions:


Why are you still around when innocent people are being killed in thier homes by armed thugs and cant defend themselves because the government doesnt trust them with thier own defense???
you have an example of this? they are incredibly rare.



Why are you still around when police are afraid and helpless to deal with armed thugs on mountainbikes and such??

wtf? armed thugs on mountain bikes?


Why are you still around when police feel they are at unfair disadvantage and wont even dare approach certain gangs and these gangs rome the streets multiplying and spreading crime and destruction??
that's when you call in the armed police



Why are you still around when people are renaming thier town "Gunchester"
I live in the south, the whole gun culture is in gangs prodominantly black ones. It is a problem but not enough to threaten most peoples lives. I have never heard it reffered to as gunchester other than in pro-guns american groups.



Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

I have been to america and I don't feel anymore safe then I do here. In fact probably less.

[obd]

The "thugs on mountain bikes" was taken from the news article published in this post. Police said they feared approaching teenagers even on bikes because many of them were armed.......Read it............


Everyone knows Britain has some of the worst roads of the major nations on Europe....This is a problem a great many people are aware of and there are huge interest groups in England that constantly lobby for improved roads to help with overcrowding and also just smoother surfaces....Why you dont know of this is beyond me........hmmmm

Next, these speed cameras are being set to give out tickets to people who go only a few miles over in some places. Not to mention there is no uniform speeding rate to get a ticket. For example, in some areas you can get away with 5 over and in others 3 and in others 7.........Dont you think getting a huge fine for 3 over is a little rediculous or driving through town at 3 over and getting 20 tickets and a suspended license?? Maybe its just an American thing, but over here we can go 10mph over and not worry about a ticket and we still have statiscally safer roads(that is per number of people on road) than most European nations....I think Ireland and Portugal are the worst with Italy coming after........ Its basically understood by everyone. Well, in most areas anyway. You do get the A-hole cop every ounce in awhile..........

They dont usually come up against armed thugs??? Recently, an American criminal involved in selling illegal steroids killed his buisness partner to try to take all the prophits but evidence pointned to him and SWAT tried to nab him but he had fled......Want to know where he fled?? England. He was an expert at changing identity so nobody suspected he was even in England. Well, turns out he was stopped for a license check by 3-4 British police. After initially cooperating, he struggled, pulled out a handgun, and shot them all dead as they helplessly ran for thier lives.....I guess you would also tell thier mothers they didnt need guns and shouldnt have them eh Cut????

You can say anything you like, but I just ran a search on BBC, Rueters, and AP on violent crime involving the use of firearms in UK and there's plenty to find....Im sorry mate, but if I hear you saying British cops dont need guns and British cops saying they DO NEED GUNS, Im gonna listen to them and not you. After all, they are the ones putting thier lives on the line to protect you and they deserve to be trusted to carry firepower to defend themselves.

Even if, as you say, armed crime is rare...it is on the rise by ALL ACCOUNTS...and I think its only right that British police should be able to defend themselves, even if things like the American body builder Cop killer event are rare. You can tell me "they know how to take car of selves and such" but tell me, what are they suppossed to do when they stop someone who then pulls out a handgun on them. In the case of the American who killed them all, I guess they didnt know just what to now did they....well nevermind they did know just what to do actually: RUN LIKE HELL.......Load of good it did them too!!!!!!!

By the way, I saw his case on America's Most Wanted.....As of the show British and American police were looking for him for murders in US as well as the police slayings in UK...hope they found hm by the time I type this....

[Sixgun Symphony]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

[cut]

The "thugs on mountain bikes" was taken from the news article published in this post. Police said they feared approaching teenagers even on bikes because many of them were armed.......Read it............

As things stand policemen don't need guns in general.



Everyone knows Britain has some of the worst roads of the major nations on Europe....This is a problem a great many people are aware of and there are huge interest groups in England that constantly lobby for improved roads to help with overcrowding and also just smoother surfaces....Why you dont know of this is beyond me........hmmmm

Nope, they are fine, I drive on them and I have no complaints they are hardly falling apart.


Next, these speed cameras are being set to give out tickets to people who go only a few miles over in some places. Not to mention there is no uniform speeding rate to get a ticket. For example, in some areas you can get away with 5 over and in others 3 and in others 7.........Dont you think getting a huge fine for 3 over is a little rediculous or driving through town at 3 over and getting 20 tickets and a suspended license?? Maybe its just an American thing, but over here we can go 10mph over and not worry about a ticket and we still have statiscally safer roads(that is per number of people on road) than most European nations....I think Ireland and Portugal are the worst with Italy coming after........ Its basically understood by everyone. Well, in most areas anyway. You do get the A-hole cop every ounce in awhile..........

Speeding cameras aren't perfect but then they do work, in terms of punishing people who break the law.



They dont usually come up against armed thugs??? Recently, an American criminal involved in selling illegal steroids killed his buisness partner to try to take all the prophits but evidence pointned to him and SWAT tried to nab him but he had fled......Want to know where he fled?? England. He was an expert at changing identity so nobody suspected he was even in England. Well, turns out he was stopped for a license check by 3-4 British police. After initially cooperating, he struggled, pulled out a handgun, and shot them all dead as they helplessly ran for thier lives.....I guess you would also tell thier mothers they didnt need guns and shouldnt have them eh Cut????

I've never heard of this story, and I read and watch the news everyday, and I have searched the BBC and there was no mention of it. This is one case.



You can say anything you like, but I just ran a search on BBC, Rueters, and AP on violent crime involving the use of firearms in UK and there's plenty to find....Im sorry mate, but if I hear you saying British cops dont need guns and British cops saying they DO NEED GUNS, Im gonna listen to them and not you. After all, they are the ones putting thier lives on the line to protect you and they deserve to be trusted to carry firepower to defend themselves.

How many times, we have armed police, not every cop on the street needs a gun. At the most those in bad areas but there is no need for guns.

I live here and you are trying to tell me what it's like living here. What is wrong with you? Do you honestly think that if what you said was true to the extent that you say, that the whole country is blind to it?


Even if, as you say, armed crime is rare...it is on the rise by ALL ACCOUNTS...and I think its only right that British police should be able to defend themselves, even if things like the American body builder Cop killer event are rare. You can tell me "they know how to take car of selves and such" but tell me, what are they suppossed to do when they stop someone who then pulls out a handgun on them. In the case of the American who killed them all, I guess they didnt know just what to now did they....well nevermind they did know just what to do actually: RUN LIKE HELL.......Load of good it did them too!!!!!!!

There is no need I have friends who are cops and they have never ever said anything about wanting a gun.



By the way, I saw his case on America's Most Wanted.....As of the show British and American police were looking for him for murders in US as well as the police slayings in UK...hope they found hm by the time I type this....

As I said there was no mention of it here so I am sceptical.

[cut]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

piss off sixgun, you are even more clueless than obd

[Sixgun Symphony]

You love big government and you don't believe in the RTKBA, so my post is right on the money.

[cut]

what does the K stand for?

and yes I do believe that right to bear a tool for the sole use of killing someone should be controlled

[Sixgun Symphony]

what does the K stand for?

and yes I do believe that right to bear a tool for the sole use of killing someone should be controlled

RTKBA = Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

This debate shows the different mindsets between citizens and subjects.

[martinexsquaddie]

we could pull out that hollywood shoot out to argue the fact that american police need M14s with AP bullets to do there job :roll:
having worked with lots of criminals I worked at a hostel full of drug addicts none of them had access to fire arms.
regardless of media it is still fairly difficult to get hold of an illegal firearm
as cx 20 will tell you we have a big problem with replica weapons.
speed cameras cut road deths the difference between 30 mph and 40 mph is 10 mph but if you get hit by a car at 30mph you live at 40 you don't. I have little sympthony for people who get speeding tickets its not beyond the wit of man to keep to a speed limit :roll:

[cut]

Are you incinuating a loss of freedom due to the fact that we a primarily subjects and then citizens?

my passport says, British citizen, European citizen as well as being a subject.

[Sixgun Symphony]

Are you incinuating a loss of freedom due to the fact that we a primarily subjects and then citizens?

You do not have have a bill of rights like we do.

We are a republic, while you guys cling to a monarchy and a much more rigid class system.

[cut]

bill of rights 1689

[Sixgun Symphony]

bill of rights 1689

So lets see what rights are listed in this document.

[cut]

you know what's listed on it, it is a bill of rights though. There is also the international laws which prevents the need for one as such.

[Sixgun Symphony]

you know what's listed on it, it is a bill of rights though. There is also the international laws which prevents the need for one as such.

I know that the magna carta was to protect the rights of the aristocracy rather than the common man. I think this is likly true for the bill of rights that preceeded our own declaration of independence.

That the UK is a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic leaves me suspicious about what rights you really do have. A monarchy is a medieval anachronism, I prefer republicanism.

International Law? Much of the UN general assembly is made up of representatives from petty despotisms. Col. Qaddafi's Libya chairs the UN human rights council, so my advise is that you do not put much faith in their laws.

When it comes right down to it, the world is a jungle and your security is your own responsibility.

[GazB]

A gun is a tool, yes but a killing tool, that's all it's used for, ok it's great fun to, but there are other ways to have fun.

There are also other ways to travel... ban all private car ownership and leave it to trained professionals in Taxis. Private pilots licences are not needed either.


It's harsh but when it comes down to it the vast majority of people have no need for a gun, espesialy handguns.


I don't know about your country but here in New Zealand we have an introduced species problem. New Zealand was a land of birds... some of the more impressive are extinct now... the Moa stood 3 metres tall... or the Haast Eagle... an eagle so big it hunted Moa!!! Introduced species like rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, rats, possums, deer, ferrets and stoats and foreign birds like Magpies are able to out reproduce our native species and need to be dealt with by other means to stop over population. They have no natural predators except each other and they prefer slower easier native prey most of the time. Poisoning is one option but I personally don't think cyanide paste on a walking track is safer than a responsible hunter... and a hunter is a more reliable killer.


And if your whole black market argument works, let's decriminalise all drugs, they have big black markets.


The legal use of firearms is not a threat to society. The legal use of LSD would not be so safe.


Having a firearm does not mean that you will ever use it. I have had firearms since the age of six. I have never threatened or killed anyone.


Indeed, the worst many guns do is punch holes in paper targets each weekend.


Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.

So someone prepared to commit a crime would obey any firearms laws?

Interesting suggestion... :-)


No, I agree, but you can't say the same for everyone.

There are no guarantees. I have heard someone comparing Stamp collectors with gun collectors... suggesting that if the stamp colectors went on a rampage then everyone would just get sticky. This is of course rubbish. Anyone can go beserk... rampage is no a new work and neither is Beserk or to run Amok. The latter term means run through the village and hack indiscriminately with a machette... ie it predates guns.

As I mentioned above I can make a silent weapon effective over a few hundred yards in less than 2 days. Do you really think that a gun ban will do anything other than annoy some law abiding citizens who get pleasure from using firearms legally?


or even to have them used against them as many people try to say...which is of course a myth.

Hahahaha... do you know how that myth started? It was based on statistics that showed gun related deaths where the shooter knew the victim. It was portrayed as little timmy finding a gun and shooting his mate while playing with it. When the figures were examined however it became clear that most of the stats were gangbangers killing members of rival gangs... which they knew. Ahhh Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.


as cx 20 will tell you we have a big problem with replica weapons.


Yeah, they kill people all the time... If someone pulls a replica weapon on someone who is armed and is shot in the process then whose fault do you think it should be? Caveat Emptor.

[cut]

you know what's listed on it, it is a bill of rights though. There is also the international laws which prevents the need for one as such.

I know that the magna carta was to protect the rights of the aristocracy rather than the common man. I think this is likly true for the bill of rights that preceeded our own declaration of independence.

That the UK is a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic leaves me suspicious about what rights you really do have. A monarchy is a medieval anachronism, I prefer republicanism.

yes but any idiot knows that laws are not as they were in medieval times



International Law? Much of the UN general assembly is made up of representatives from petty despotisms. Col. Qaddafi's Libya chairs the UN human rights council, so my advise is that you do not put much faith in their laws.

he can't change it though as in america, the real rights are in legislation but they are not written down in one place for me to post.



When it comes right down to it, the world is a jungle and your security is your own responsibility.

so you don't think I'm free?

[cut]

A gun is a tool, yes but a killing tool, that's all it's used for, ok it's great fun to, but there are other ways to have fun.

There are also other ways to travel... ban all private car ownership and leave it to trained professionals in Taxis. Private pilots licences are not needed either.


this is getting way to obscure, to make any valid points.




It's harsh but when it comes down to it the vast majority of people have no need for a gun, espesialy handguns.


I don't know about your country but here in New Zealand we have an introduced species problem. New Zealand was a land of birds... some of the more impressive are extinct now... the Moa stood 3 metres tall... or the Haast Eagle... an eagle so big it hunted Moa!!! Introduced species like rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, rats, possums, deer, ferrets and stoats and foreign birds like Magpies are able to out reproduce our native species and need to be dealt with by other means to stop over population. They have no natural predators except each other and they prefer slower easier native prey most of the time. Poisoning is one option but I personally don't think cyanide paste on a walking track is safer than a responsible hunter... and a hunter is a more reliable killer.

hunters /farmers can still do that.



And if your whole black market argument works, let's decriminalise all drugs, they have big black markets.


The legal use of firearms is not a threat to society. The legal use of LSD would not be so safe.

How about illegal use of legal weapons? After all that is what is stoping it

[marktigger]

In Northern Ireland due to terrorist activity firearms ownership has always been more restricted than on the mainland. Fullbore rifles generally had to be stored in a police station or army camp and Getting a Pistol certificate was prctically impossible except you could prove you needed one for personal protection from paramilitary threat.
The restrictions probably made it more difficult for terrorists/criminals to obtain firearms apart from the illegal ones they smuggled in or manufactured.
The chances of UK citizens ever owning handguns or Automatic rifles again is probably non-existant thought would be interesting to see what the european court has to say about private ownership of firearms across the EU. It doesn't stop criminals getting guns and it never has. Neither has it detered criminals either as the culture of 'reasonable force' that is enshrined in British law would always have seen the escalation to using firearms as overkill.
The United states constituion has enshrined ownership of firearms to balance the state and to try to prevent America getting despotic government that was widespread in europe in the 18th C. Is a despotic government likely ever to happen in the US? I would say no unless some of the F*&kwits that America appears (by the conetents of some of thease threads) to have form a political party and get elected and somehow I don't think Mr Or Mrs average American and definitly no the ethnic minorities would go for the crap they are peddling. So the need for the American public to rise up against its government is now a bit of an irrelevence and any way lawyers and the supreem court wuld probably emasculate an extremist government.
So maybe the time is right for America to have a grown up discussion on firearms law and not the type of childish mud slinging that i've seen in numerous magazines and web sites. I would sugest there is a need for some legislation to promote responsible gun ownership. And definitly the need for a crack down on crime and its causes in general and gun crime in particular. There was a programme on Channel 4 here about Texas and its attitude to crime and guns.
Crime and its causes are everyones problem and it needs solutions from the bottom to the top from citizen to central government. In Most European countries with low crime there isn't a huge gap between have and have nots and maybe some of the liberal social policies used by European governments may help sole some of the crime problems. Because the American dream is obviously a nightmare to those the dream fails.

[martinexsquaddie]

no its more like replica weapons are used to rob shops and banks most people can't tell the difference especailly if ones pointed at you :(
admitidly I had an hk mp5SD airsoft gun pointed at me by a drug addict
unfortunatly for him I know way to much about guns :lol: unfortunatly the police took it away :(.
we have an unwritten constitution but I don't feel any less free because of a lack of a written constitution I belive the soviet union had an impressive written constitution did'nt help its citizens.

[Sixgun Symphony]

In Northern Ireland due to terrorist activity firearms ownership has always been more restricted than on the mainland.

Those laws do nothing to disarm the paramilitaries and criminal elements.

Peaceful people ought to have the right to arms for their self defense.

A rifle for distance, a shotgun for the home, and a revolver or two for concealed carry about town. That is what I would consider reasonable.

[cut]

In Northern Ireland due to terrorist activity firearms ownership has always been more restricted than on the mainland.

Those laws do nothing to disarm the paramilitaries and criminal elements.

Peaceful people ought to have the right to arms for their self defense.

A rifle for distance, a shotgun for the home, and a revolver or two for concealed carry about town. That is what I would consider reasonable.

do you always carry a gun on you? and what is the reason for your paranoia?

[Sixgun Symphony]

do you always carry a gun on you?


Depends on where I am going. Some neighborhoods are better than others.

When I was riding the bus to work, I used to carry a .38 caliber Detective Special, a Spyderco clipit knife, and a blackjack.

I have only had to use the blackjack, righteous self defense mind, and never had to draw the gun or the knife. But it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

[SOG]

[quote="martinexsquaddie"]we could pull out that hollywood shoot out to argue the fact that american police need M14s with AP bullets to do there job :roll:

actually you couldnt. 1st of all the guns they used to take down the bad guys were m16/ar15 type. 2nd of all, if there was no gun store nearby then that may have resulted in dead people because the cops actually had to go to a gun shop that sold post ban AR's and borrow them to take out the bad guys and how did the bad guys get fully automatic ak 47's and full body armor? illegally! there is much conjecture as to how they obtained the weapons and supplies illegally including making them fully automatic and other supplies and there origins.

afterwords the lapd bought 500-600(?) used AR's from national guard(?) just in case of future incidences.

[martinexsquaddie]

well I can't think of anywhere in the UK I'd need to go armed :roll:

[Sixgun Symphony]

well I can't think of anywhere in the UK I'd need to go armed :roll:

Brixton?

Didn't you used to patrol Northern Ireland with full battle kit?

I also read somewhere that one is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. That is good reason to carry a small revolver concealed on ones person.

[cut]

well I can't think of anywhere in the UK I'd need to go armed :roll:

Brixton?

Oh yea, didn't you used to patrol Northern Ireland with full battle kit?

I've walked through brixton and I felt absolutely fine, it wasn't at night but then why would you go there at night. Going there with a gun is asking for trouble. I'd like to see you pull a gun out on a gang if that situation be possible.

[martinexsquaddie]

been to brixton its not a war zone
NI slightly diffrent but still less armed mayhem than say florida and much less than new orleans ( but I belive new orleans is a bit of a special case )
I was a uniformed member of the security forces much like the Lapd would'nt move around south central LA in uniform without a handgun
I should Have said as a civillian I can't think of anywhere I would consider I'd need to be armed for my own self protection

[Sixgun Symphony]

You say that you did not have to go there at night, but what if you had to live there?

Gang? Gangsters usually just kill other gangsters. But if you had to fight one or a dozen, then a knife is better than a fist, a gun is better than a knife.

It is not about wanting to fight, but of being prepared for when trouble comes for you.

[Sixgun Symphony]

I should Have said as a civillian I can't think of anywhere I would consider I'd need to be armed for my own self protection

So you are off duty in Northern Ireland and going out on the town. Do you leave your pistol at the barracks?

[martinexsquaddie]

have walked aound brixton at night came out of a concert its not a war zone. the estates where there is a problem its gang related fighting a battle against gang members you on to a loser as there gangs your going to be outnumbered thats not really self defense thats more a case of a failure of policing. those sort of people perferred targets are other teenagers women and old people targets eho are unlikely to put up a fight

[cut]

You say that you did not have to go there at night, but what if you had to live there?

If you live there you know the area so you feel safe.


Gang? Gangsters usually just kill other gangsters. But if you had to fight one or a dozen, then a knife is better than a fist, a gun is better than a knife.
The gangs are pretty much the only ones with the guns, that were the illegal weapons are next to no-one else has them. If you pull your poxy revolver out on them they'd have you out numbered and dead pretty quick, but then that never happens. And if you did come across them in the street and you don't have a gun just keep walking, nothings gonna happen.



It is not about wanting to fight, but of being prepared for when trouble comes for you.

Like what?

[Sixgun Symphony]

thats not really self defense thats more a case of a failure of policing.

So if you were being mugged by a few of these thugs, would you not defend yourself?

Police? When your back is to the wall, would you rather have a telephone or a revolver?

[Sixgun Symphony]

And if you did come across them in the street and you don't have a gun just keep walking, nothings gonna happen.


Most times yes, but be prepared for anything.

[martinexsquaddie]

getting involved in a fight when your outnumbered is not a good idea niether is fighting against someone armed with a knife .
although 6 foot tall blokes tend not to be the preferred target of muggers If i was ever as paranoid as you are I'd get myself a dog no need to worry about range practice :lol: would'nt even bet a .45 at close quater against a rottweiler :lol:

[cut]

And if you did come across them in the street and you don't have a gun just keep walking, nothings gonna happen.


Most times yes, but be prepared for anything.

like osama bin laden, jumping out in front of me?

[Elmo]

When I was riding the bus to work, I used to carry a .38 caliber Detective Special, a Spyderco clipit knife, and a blackjack.


What are you afraid of? That you lose your possessions you are carrying or your life?

If I get threatened with a knife I happily hand in my wallet, no problem.
Those who do that (robbing) propably have nothing to lose so I wouldn't want to play John Rambo with them.

I don't see why anyone would want to randomly take my life if I co-operate. Pulling a gun on them wouldn't do any good.

The state should have the monopoly to use violence. It considerably decreases the number of bodypacks. Oh, after all it is life we all value the most.

[martinexsquaddie]

actually out of uniform not on ops you don't get a pistol to carry
drunk squaddies with brownings thats my defination of terrorists :backhand:

[Sixgun Symphony]

actually out of uniform not on ops you don't get a pistol to carry
drunk squaddies with brownings thats my defination of terrorists :backhand:

In Northern Ireland?

Surely you had some armed patrols looking out for you when out on liberty?

[Sixgun Symphony]

Never submit, never put your life to the mercy of a criminal or enemy. A criminal may take far more than just your petty cash.

You should put greater value on your own life than the life of a criminal that assaults you.

Don't put too much trust in any government. Governments are the greatest mass murderers of all.





When I was riding the bus to work, I used to carry a .38 caliber Detective Special, a Spyderco clipit knife, and a blackjack.


What are you afraid of? That you lose your possessions you are carrying or your life?

If I get threatened with a knife I happily hand in my wallet, no problem.
Those who do that (robbing) propably have nothing to lose so I wouldn't want to play John Rambo with them.

I don't see why anyone would want to randomly take my life if I co-operate. Pulling a gun on them wouldn't do any good.

The state should have the monopoly to use violence. It considerably decreases the number of bodypacks. Oh, after all it is life we all value the most.

[Sixgun Symphony]

double tap :oops:

[cut]

Never submit, never put your life to the mercy of a criminal or enemy. A criminal may take far more than just your petty cash.

You should put greater value on your own life than the life of a criminal that assaults you.

Don't put too much trust in any government. Governments are the greatest mass murderers of all.



Not that I trust my government but you are very paranoid.

[Steve Andrews]

When you go out in NI, in your own time, you are unarmed. Can be a bit worrying sometimes as you stick out like a sore thumb.

[Elmo]

Never submit, never put your life to the mercy of a criminal or enemy. A criminal may take far more than just your petty cash.

You should put greater value on your own life than the life of a criminal that assaults you.

Don't put too much trust in any government. Governments are the greatest mass murderers of all.



In the end it is the government that protects you. It is the government that defines who is a criminal and who is not. Even in most basic societies there will be institutionalized behaviour or norms which dictate what is accepted and what is not accepted. This common will should protect us.
And when there is an anomaly in form of a criminal it should be the social contract that protects us.

You are some sort of social darwinist. You seem to think there is no solidarity or respect between individuals. You would prefer a state of nature...where life would be nasty, brutish and short. You wouldn't really want that, would you?

[marktigger]

sixgun
I have lived in Northern Ireland since I was born and right the way through the current troubles. I have never had any need to carry a firearm for normal civilian life and have only ever carried a firearm when I have been working with the military.
Northern Ireland actually had until recently a lower rate of 'normal' crime than the rest of the United Kingdom and certainly alot lower than the United states.
I have never knowingly been in any danger and have worked in my civilian Job in red areas and still not seen the need to carry a PPW. Infact it would probably have drawn more attention to me if I had a PPW.
If you were to visit Northern Ireland and see the areas that are portrayed on the News you would find they are very small areas and that 95%of Northern Ireland is actually quite a nice place to live.
I have actually felt less safe in larger towns in England and definitly was not comfortable in New Orleans when i visited there.

[Geezah]

that rapist scumbag perferred 10 year old girls so I doubt even the NRA IS ADVOCATING arming of preteen girls :roll:
most of the violent crime is snatching of mobile phones or drunken mayhem niether of which concealed carry would do much to deter. mobile phone thefts are often on teenagers now most people belive 17yr olds should'nt be armed as a matter of course and alcohol and guns do not mix.
gunshots are still a rarity in the uk my brother should know he's an A and E nurse when not standing around in a hot sandy place.
stabbings yes he's worked in florida and new orleans in both places gunshots wounds were a daily occurance.

I'm pretty sure there were only two 10yr old victim and only one of them were raped, you forgot to mention the victim who's cellphone he had used to call the victims mother and brag, now just maybe if the cellphone had been a gun again there would have been as many victims!

[Geezah]

Gun control works in the UK! that's why you have CCTV, that's why in Streatham you have bird nest voice boxess warning you to the potential of being mugged, that's why voilent crime has gone up, that's why the law abiding citizens of the UK no longer have any rights, that's why you have speed cameras every where even though, they're in areas with little to no car accidents just bringing in revenue for a Police force that can't protect the individual, the list goes on but the people of Britian are so brainwashed that they belive being a victim is good? ;)

What have CCTV and speed cameras got to do with gun laws?

I'm trying to make the Brits on here realize that CCTV and Speed cameras do next to nothing to stem crime but for some reason everyone just gets on with their lives!
When I lived in Stamford Brook I would travel up to Ladbroke Grove to visit friends, when you walk out of the tube station you would have 3 cameras pointing down at you but again this did nothing to stop crime!

The majority of criminlas are bullies that prey on the weak, if the weak become strong suddenly there's an equalizer! If the 75yr old lady that would have once been a victim is now carrying a 44mag sort of evens things out doesn't it!

I don't believe in just aimlessly arming everyone I believe it should be left down to the individual and then if they do decide to be armed to get the proper training!

[Geezah]

Geezah, looks like you've lost touch with your homeland, if you want to live like that fine stay in the states. But the fact of the matter is, what you are talking about would not work in Britain, and if it changed to that I'd move. I don't want to be around when the drunks fall out of pubs and clubs late at night pissed with a concealed weapon, even if the other guy has one what difference is it going to make?

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

CCW holders are some of the most law abiding citizen out there, you would rarly here of a CCW holders going to the pub let alone rolling out pissed because he is now a criminal!
To have your CCW there's certain rules you have to follow and going to a place that only sells alcohol is a big no no!

When you say " however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc..." but relaying on the Police to be there prior to the crime taking place doesn't work, it doesn't work anywhere but atleast the Police over here recognise that!

[Geezah]

So you are stipulating that citizens of England never used firearms for self-defense. Sir, that is complete hogwash.Well they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so tell me when was the last time a UK citizen defended themselves with a legally held firearm?




Rather, the handgun confiscation of 1997 was the continuation of a trend that began in the 1950s that has resulted in the destruction of the law-abiding gun culture,What happened in the 1950's was firearm registration and there was an attempt to bring surplus W2 weapons out of the chicken sheds and attics, they did recover large amounts such weapons in the 1950's and 60's.

I would like you to show where an unarmed citizen successfully defended themselves against a violent attack?

[Geezah]

Jeez what the hell is going on in England these days. First I hear about these "gatsos" (traffic cameras) being put out all over the place and shelling out about 500 tickets a day putting British drivers out of a living, the terrible state of British raods (this is important to me because I love sports cars and driving in general) and now I hear about these stupid anti gun laws.....of course I heard about them years ago as its famous for its strict gun laws but come on......

Here is a fact for everyone: Gun owners who are able to pass strict standards to get a license are statistically highly unlikely to use thier legally purchased firearms in an illegal fashion or even to have them used against them as many people try to say...which is of course a myth. Fact 2: making guns for defense illegal only puts the power in the hands of the criminals and takes it out of the hands of the citizen, hence the recent more brazen wave of robberies and such in England.

Clearly, these thugs know that a simple nine millimeter hand gun will put them at a far superior power advantage over anything they might find in the home, unless of course they happen to run into a family man that has dicided to illegally hide his gun to protect his family of course!!!!

Next, why in the hell dont British cops have firearms???!!! I even read a news article of some type of special British police force guarding a high value site after a threat and they were armed with the G-36c. They were told they couldnt hold a round in chamber and they could only fill magazines half full. HALF FULL!!!!! Dont they trust these men??? Arnt British Police trained to high standard?? Are American cops just trained better???? Several pictures were taken of them(with the clear brown magazines) only half full!!! This was posted on HKpro.com several times.......

I have read alot lately about the rise in violent and armed gangs in Britain. Do you Brits think its a good idea to start training and arming cops on a widescale basis like thier American counterparts?? Im not saying give them M 60's but at least give them some Kimber .45's with take down power!!!!! Am I right on this one or am I missing the picture here??????

SO19 is the Police organisation that came about because of the rise in gun violence and then you have operation Trident that combats violent crime which is primarily Black on Black, I listen to Capitla radio every day online and it amazes me how many commercials there are warning you to the posslbility of being attacked. When you around it evry day you don't pay it much mind but as soon as you're out of it man does it smack you in the mouth!
Why is it that burglars over here are less likely to break into your house for fear of being shot compared to their British counterpart who will often target the same house twice?

[martinexsquaddie]

the pro gun arguement is since handguns were banned in 1997 there has been a massive rise in armed crime.
BUT IN THE 1990S OR THE 1980S YOU COULD NOT LEGALY OWN A HANDGUN FOR SELF DEFENSE
so there must be another reason why armed crime went up

[Geezah]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!! wrong, depends where you live, the vast majority of breakings only happen if no-one is at home. Most burglars run away at the first sign of the occupant.




Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

I have been to america and I don't feel anymore safe then I do here. In fact probably less.

Burglars will break into your house anytime of day in the UK if your there or not why because there is no repercussion for there crime, in my mind if someone breaks into my house it's premedeted now for me my only concern is to protect my Family and do what ever it takes to do so.
Something my Father asked me when I became armed he asked if I could live with killing someone if they broke into my home, my response was "I could live with that a hell of allot easier, than if something happened to my Wife or the kid and the fact I could have done somehting to prevent it"
I'm not prepared to sit back and be a victim I'm not happy with that but at the same time I'm not a vigilanty out looking for trouble.

[Geezah]

Jeez what the hell is going on in England these days. First I hear about these "gatsos" (traffic cameras) being put out all over the place and shelling out about 500 tickets a day putting British drivers out of a living,Thats what happens when you break the law, you pay the price.

Then why allot of the cameras are coming down or the film being removed, combined woth these mobile speed cameras how much of an affect have they had on road acidents or have they been a nice little earner for the Met?

[Geezah]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

Makes me think of "1984" it took me nearly 7yrs to get out of that mindset.

[Geezah]

In Northern Ireland due to terrorist activity firearms ownership has always been more restricted than on the mainland.

Those laws do nothing to disarm the paramilitaries and criminal elements.

Peaceful people ought to have the right to arms for their self defense.

A rifle for distance, a shotgun for the home, and a revolver or two for concealed carry about town. That is what I would consider reasonable.

do you always carry a gun on you? and what is the reason for your paranoia?

CCW in Ohio goes live April 8th by then I hope to have 14hrs of training by a NRA certified instructor under my belt to comply with the required 12hrs, now I like the fact I can carry if I want, it doesn't mean I will on a daily basis but it's having that choice that's nice!

[Geezah]

do you always carry a gun on you?


Depends on where I am going. Some neighborhoods are better than others.

When I was riding the bus to work, I used to carry a .38 caliber Detective Special, a Spyderco clipit knife, and a blackjack.

I have only had to use the blackjack, righteous self defense mind, and never had to draw the gun or the knife. But it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

I have a can of German CS gas in my car(which I got hold of from the UK) and a stun gun that's my Wifes and she left it on the kitchen table after removing it from her car when she took it in for a service.

[Geezah]

actually out of uniform not on ops you don't get a pistol to carry
drunk squaddies with brownings thats my defination of terrorists :backhand:

In Northern Ireland?

Surely you had some armed patrols looking out for you when out on liberty?

"19 March 1988
Two British soldiers are killed
These two soldiers accidentally drive into the funeral procession of Kevin Brady in Andersonstown (he was one of the three IRA victims killed by the Milltown gunman two days earlier.) TV cameras record how the soldiers are dragged from their car, beaten by the crowd, and then shot dead by IRA. The footage is shown around the world."

From what I remember these two guys were armed and shot into the air but were mobbed and unfortunetly killed for their mistake.

[martinexsquaddie]

they were signallers made the mistake of going to sightsee a republican
funeral. if it had been a cop wagon.
there would have been ketchup everywhere :lol:
3 hk33 a remington 870 plus brownings and a few other unoffical guns
make bloody sunday look like a wet weekend :lol:
not that I belive muderous ira supporting mobs don't have full human rights and should always be frogiven due to 300 years of english oppersion or something like that :roll:

[cut]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

Makes me think of "1984" it took me nearly 7yrs to get out of that mindset.

and straight into another one, are you and sixgun somehow attached? at the brain perhaps?

[cut]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!! wrong, depends where you live, the vast majority of breakings only happen if no-one is at home. Most burglars run away at the first sign of the occupant.




Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

I have been to america and I don't feel anymore safe then I do here. In fact probably less.

Burglars will break into your house anytime of day in the UK if your there or not why because there is no repercussion for there crime, in my mind if someone breaks into my house it's premedeted now for me my only concern is to protect my Family and do what ever it takes to do so.
Something my Father asked me when I became armed he asked if I could live with killing someone if they broke into my home, my response was "I could live with that a hell of allot easier, than if something happened to my Wife or the kid and the fact I could have done somehting to prevent it"
I'm not prepared to sit back and be a victim I'm not happy with that but at the same time I'm not a vigilanty out looking for trouble.

That is complete bollocks and you know it, the vast majority of burglars will bolt at the first sign of the resident whether they are their or not. The people that get killed are the ones that chase them down the street or worse pull a gun out on them.

[Geezah]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

Makes me think of "1984" it took me nearly 7yrs to get out of that mindset.

and straight into another one, are you and sixgun somehow attached? at the brain perhaps?

Not quite but maybe as you believe that guns=death maybe we need to ban lawn mowers as there are more accidental deaths a year by lawnmowers than firearms.

As far as complete bllocks, I was born in West Middlesex hospital in Isleworth, lived in Old Isleworth then moved to Whitton went to school at Orleans Park School in Marble Hill then we moved out to Cobham Surrey. I eventually found my way back into West London with freinds in Barnes, Ladbroke Grove and High Barnet(North London). If your trying to tell me that the criminal element scarpers at the first sign of being disturbed you may want to get out a little bit more!
You really live on another planet, so please point out examples of a happy ending where a law abiding citizen has benefitted from being unarmed when faced with voilent crime?

[Geezah]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!! wrong, depends where you live, the vast majority of breakings only happen if no-one is at home. Most burglars run away at the first sign of the occupant.




Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

I have been to america and I don't feel anymore safe then I do here. In fact probably less.

Burglars will break into your house anytime of day in the UK if your there or not why because there is no repercussion for there crime, in my mind if someone breaks into my house it's premedeted now for me my only concern is to protect my Family and do what ever it takes to do so.
Something my Father asked me when I became armed he asked if I could live with killing someone if they broke into my home, my response was "I could live with that a hell of allot easier, than if something happened to my Wife or the kid and the fact I could have done somehting to prevent it"
I'm not prepared to sit back and be a victim I'm not happy with that but at the same time I'm not a vigilanty out looking for trouble.

That is complete bollocks and you know it, the vast majority of burglars will bolt at the first sign of the resident whether they are their or not. The people that get killed are the ones that chase them down the street or worse pull a gun out on them.

This is almost comical if it didn't sound so stupid, so bow down and pray that a burglar doesn't target your house tonight because if they do make sure you "don't chase them"?

[cut]

The whole deterent thing works internationally, because global politics is anarchic, there is no global government so in that case it works, and that's why we have wars and it's acceptable, however it doesn't translate into day to day lives of people because there is control, police, government etc...

As for the whole god given right thing that is an american belief which I don't buy into.

This is a good example of the socialist mindset that looks to big government to solve all of their problems. One look at the 20th century should be enough to show anyone that big government is the problem.

The last paragraph clearly shows that these socialists do not believe in a right to personal defense. They are comfortable where only the criminals have weapons, they do not believe that responsible, law abiding people should have weapons for defense.

Makes me think of "1984" it took me nearly 7yrs to get out of that mindset.

and straight into another one, are you and sixgun somehow attached? at the brain perhaps?

Not quite but maybe as you believe that guns=death maybe we need to ban lawn mowers as there are more accidental deaths a year by lawnmowers than firearms.

As far as complete bllocks, I was born in West Middlesex hospital in Isleworth, lived in Old Isleworth then moved to Whitton went to school at Orleans Park School in Marble Hill then we moved out to Cobham Surrey. I eventually found my way back into West London with freinds in Barnes, Ladbroke Grove and High Barnet(North London). If your trying to tell me that the criminal element scarpers at the first sign of being disturbed you may want to get out a little bit more!
You really live on another planet, so please point out examples of a happy ending where a law abiding citizen has benefitted from being unarmed when faced with voilent crime?

I know the areas where you have lived in London, lived near Earls Court and I went to school in Ealing, so I went past stamford brook, and at the time my aunt lived in barnet. I'm saying if you have the lights on in your house at night burglars aren't going to come, everyone knows that. Didn't you ever put a light on a timer switch when you went on holiday. If someone is at home burglars aren't intrested. It's not just here it's the same whereever you are.

[cut]

Hey Cut, I find your remarks interesting indeed. First you say "I have no need to own a gun because I have no need to kill". Well, have you ever thought that you just may have a need to kill to protect your family in case of a breakin. I mean you cant deny it, armed break-ins are on the rise in England these days!! wrong, depends where you live, the vast majority of breakings only happen if no-one is at home. Most burglars run away at the first sign of the occupant.




Maybe you should move to an American city where guns are legal and concealed carry is legal. I think you would find it a far safer place than Manchester where there are suppossed to be no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and machineguns in the hands of criminals!!!!

I have been to america and I don't feel anymore safe then I do here. In fact probably less.

Burglars will break into your house anytime of day in the UK if your there or not why because there is no repercussion for there crime, in my mind if someone breaks into my house it's premedeted now for me my only concern is to protect my Family and do what ever it takes to do so.
Something my Father asked me when I became armed he asked if I could live with killing someone if they broke into my home, my response was "I could live with that a hell of allot easier, than if something happened to my Wife or the kid and the fact I could have done somehting to prevent it"
I'm not prepared to sit back and be a victim I'm not happy with that but at the same time I'm not a vigilanty out looking for trouble.

That is complete bollocks and you know it, the vast majority of burglars will bolt at the first sign of the resident whether they are their or not. The people that get killed are the ones that chase them down the street or worse pull a gun out on them.

This is almost comical if it didn't sound so stupid, so bow down and pray that a burglar doesn't target your house tonight because if they do make sure you "don't chase them"?

if a burglar came to my house I'd call the police then, make sure he new someone was home. If he runs off, no, I won't chase him.

burglars aren't serial killers, people out to hurt you physically, in fact, when you hear them talking about their crimes they always say they put the person who's belongings they are stealing out of their mind. They are there because they are desperate for money, all this they're out to kill me **** is paranoia

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I would like you to show where an unarmed citizen successfully defended themselves against a violent attack? Yeah outside any local Kebab shop after the pubs close, no offense but you must be feeble or timid because most people I know fight back if they are being violently attacked even with weapons. Having been beaten into jam on more than a few occasions I still do not remember ever having backed down when cornered although I have legged it a few times your "scared of the day that will never happen attitude" makes my little sisters look hard.


Then why allot of the cameras are coming down or the film being removed, combined woth these mobile speed cameras how much of an affect have they had on road acidents or have they been a nice little earner for the Met? They have been proven to cut accidents at certain black spots, though there seems to be an amazing amount of people who ignore them and carry on speeding, the law is pretty strict on speeding as you well know and the cameras are only another tool of enforcement not some tool of oppression. The boy racers like to cut them down as it interferes with their fun.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

We are a republic, while you guys cling to a monarchy and a much more rigid class system.


That the UK is a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic leaves me suspicious about what rights you really do have. A monarchy is a medieval anachronism, I prefer republicanism.
All the stuff that you have said in the past has been misleading me Sixgun I thought you were a bit right wing but after reading through some of your posts I am beginning to think that you have been quoting Leon Trotsky my my you are full of surprises.


;)

[cut]

fvcking commies get everywhere!

[Geezah]

I would like you to show where an unarmed citizen successfully defended themselves against a violent attack? Yeah outside any local Kebab shop after the pubs close, no offense but you must be feeble or timid because most people I know fight back if they are being violently attacked even with weapons. Having been beaten into jam on more than a few occasions I still do not remember ever having backed down when cornered although I have legged it a few times your "scared of the day that will never happen attitude" makes my little sisters look hard.

No offense taken, as far as being feeble or timid to say contary would almost be like bragging and I'm not out to say I'm this or that so really you've backed me into a corner!
Sure I was bullied at school from time to time(as I'm sure allot of people have been) but I've never had a real problem, I'm 6'4" 220lbs have been studying KF for over 6yrs(really for the fitness side) I've always been into agressive sports, Ice Hockey in my teens then Skateboarding then went over to Extreme rollerblading playing chicken with the traffic in the West End, but just like you mentioned to look away when screwed at or back down when challanged would basically seal your fate as a victim.

Coming out of the pub and getting into a fight really isn't my idea of fun but maybe why you guys are so against private gun ownship is because of your own fears, the fact that maybe if you were able to carry you couldn't trust yourself???

I guess what you missed on that was please point out the success stories of the people that aren't able to fight back!

[martinexsquaddie]

10 pints and a ruck
squaddies paradise rofl
thank god i grew up :roll:

[CX20]

I was planning to reply to this discussion sooner, and I wish I had done if it had prevented some of the outrageous posts I've just caught up on.

For some of those on this thread that don't know me, I'm a British police officer with seven year's service, the last few on a specialist firearms unit in an inner city area with high gun crime.

There are some things in this thread that need addressing, which I will do based on my operational experience and that of my colleagues.

"SO19 is the Police organisation that came about because of the rise in gun violence"

You are very, very misinformed. SO19 was around for many, many years before the explosion in gun crime. The name SO19 is a new name which came about during the late 80's/early 90's, only as part of an internal restructure throughout the whole of Scotland Yard . Before that, the unit was called PT17, or the "Blue Berets" and goes back as far as the 70's. Unlike you, I have actually worked with SO19 and have contacts within that unit.

"then you have operation Trident that combats violent crime which is primarily Black on Black"

Thanks to Operation Trident, London is safer but the rest of the country has suffered. Yardies chased out of London by Op Trident have reformed and are now carrying out their activities in regional cities such as Nottingham and Birmingham, where the local forces have to play "catch-up" with little initial help from the Met. Prior to Op Trident, my city had relatively few shootings and "Black on Black" crime. After Op Trident had turfed them out of London, our crime levels soared and we started having drive-by shootings and the like. The increase in gun crime in the regional cities is largely as a result of this - fact.

Nomatter what the prophets on this forum say, replica weapons are a huge problem. There is a huge "cottage industry" in the UK in reactivating starting pistols, Brococks, blank firers and the like to fully fledged firearms. These account for the vast majority of armed incidents that ARVs nationwide attend - FACT, nomatter what the people on this forum say. BB guns, airsoft, etc are the favourite weapons of the street robbers, as at night in a dimly lit area, a visible outline of a weapon is all you need to convince a terrified student to surrender his/her mobile phone.

As I've said before, the actual weapon in the offence is not the pivotal factor in UK law. The perception of the victim to the weapon being pointed at them is key under current law. If the victim perceived the weapon to be real at the time of the offence, then the offender will be charged as if he had a real weapon, even if it was a replica. I have charged people numerous times with this, and seen them convicted at court.

"Arnt British Police trained to high standard?? Are American cops just trained better???? Several pictures were taken of them(with the clear brown magazines) only half full!!!"

Yes, a very high standard. I have trained with several US police departments and the training standards are very similar. In fact, the UK police standard surpasses some of those US standards. In the US, every department I worked at had a different policy and training standard on the use of firearms. In the UK, we have one standard, for all forces in the country. We operate a strict "Zero Miss" attitude in our training, where you cannot have a single shot miss you intended target. I found that attitude didn't exist in the US departments I visited, it was either "70% hit rate" or "85% hit rate" etc. With regards to the half full magazines, that depends on that force's policy. In my force we use two 30 round magazines, usually loaded with 25 rounds each. That force may just be stricter. However I also see that both of the officers in that picture were carrying carbines. Usual policy is for one officer to carry a carbine to cover their partner, who may just have a pistol and will be the one who goes forward to interact with offenders.

With regards to the ongoing argument over burglars, I would like to hear from anyone here was experience of actually dealing with burglars on a regular basis. I served on a specialist burglary unit and even I would not dare make the sweeping, ill-informed generalisations and speculations I have read here from others. Every burglar is different. Some will fight and some will flee. You cannot make generalisations about things you know nothing about. It depends on the individual burglar and is not dictated by what someone on an internet forum says.

Finally, with regards to the comments about British police officers needing guns. As a national rule, British police officers do not need firearms to carry out their duties. If anything, what is needed is more Armed Response Vehicles with officers trained to a very high standard, especially in the areas that have high levels of gun crime. This is the current national response that is being implemented. As little as four years ago, my force maintained only three ARVs for the whole county. I won't say exactly how many we have now, but it has now passed double figures.

Replicas aside, the main source of firearms into the UK is from Europe, the Balkans to be exact. At a recent firearms amnesty in my city, we had everything from Polish, Romanian and Soviet AK's and PPSH 43's to a huge quantity of Makarov and Tokerov handguns being turned in. I was involved in the amnesty and saw these weapons first hand Subsequent checks on these revealed that nearly all had come from the Balkans.

A little "final thought" to consider. In my force, we now have confirmed, factual intelligence reports that there are several Russian belt-fed general purpose machine guns in the possession of several inner city gangs on my area. These are forcing us to completely review our tactics, as we have nothing that can match those weapons.

[Geezah]

I was planning to reply to this discussion sooner, and I wish I had done if it had prevented some of the outrageous posts I've just caught up on.

For some of those on this thread that don't know me, I'm a British police officer with seven year's service, the last few on a specialist firearms unit in an inner city area with high gun crime.

There are some things in this thread that need addressing, which I will do based on my operational experience and that of my colleagues.

"SO19 is the Police organisation that came about because of the rise in gun violence"

You are very, very misinformed. SO19 was around for many, many years before the explosion in gun crime. The name SO19 is a new name which came about during the late 80's/early 90's, only as part of an internal restructure throughout the whole of Scotland Yard . Before that, the unit was called PT17, or the "Blue Berets" and goes back as far as the 70's. Unlike you, I have actually worked with SO19 and have contacts within that unit.

Prior to the creation of SO19 there were "Quick Response Armed Units"?? from what I remember in Barnes there are 3 Police stations(?)Met, Flying Squad/QRAU and Traffic?
I seem to remember the QRAU being in Merc vans with about 10-12 members constantly patrolling, one goes in another comes out(I stand corrected if this is blown out of proportion) but they were armed for any type of inncident?

CX20, what measures are there in place to take care of the individual 24/7? And do the Police in the UK promote the fact they can be there 24/7?

Sheldon

[marktigger]

CX20 speak to the PSNI or EX RUC officers in the Met they might give you a few pointers.
And BTW the rules on routine Arming of constables are not standard across the UK there are exceptions Northern Ireland being a major one.
I still say the RUC had a much higher standard of safety and weapon handling skill than SO19 and most mainland forces. And definitly trust them more with a firearm before the Met. ;)

[Geezah]

One thing I will agree on is the armed officers in the UK are trained to a much higher level(slightly biased) than it's US counterpart and this has only come from my experience(IMHO) of the officers over here only shoot their guns when they have to qualify, now this scares me seeing as I'm at the range atleast once a month and pretty much all day!

[Sixgun Symphony]

actually out of uniform not on ops you don't get a pistol to carry
drunk squaddies with brownings thats my defination of terrorists :backhand:

In Northern Ireland?

Surely you had some armed patrols looking out for you when out on liberty?

"19 March 1988
Two British soldiers are killed
These two soldiers accidentally drive into the funeral procession of Kevin Brady in Andersonstown (he was one of the three IRA victims killed by the Milltown gunman two days earlier.) TV cameras record how the soldiers are dragged from their car, beaten by the crowd, and then shot dead by IRA. The footage is shown around the world."

From what I remember these two guys were armed and shot into the air but were mobbed and unfortunetly killed for their mistake.

I recall another thread on this subject here on militaryphotos.net somewhere. The general consensus was that these troopers had minimal training in the use of their sidearms.

I also wonder why they were firing into the air. Could they have been worried about legal troubles for shooting into a hostile mob? If so, then it is the law that is as much to blame for their deaths as any lack of training with pistols.

Generally, one can shoot into a mob and the rest of them will run. Of course, these guys were in a vehicle and that in itself is a weapon too. That they did not plow through the crowd with their vehicle really makes me think they were more worried about a legal lynching than the mob that killed them.

[Geezah]

I was planning to reply to this discussion sooner, and I wish I had done if it had prevented some of the outrageous posts I've just caught up on.

For some of those on this thread that don't know me, I'm a British police officer with seven year's service, the last few on a specialist firearms unit in an inner city area with high gun crime.

There are some things in this thread that need addressing, which I will do based on my operational experience and that of my colleagues.

"SO19 is the Police organisation that came about because of the rise in gun violence"

You are very, very misinformed. SO19 was around for many, many years before the explosion in gun crime. The name SO19 is a new name which came about during the late 80's/early 90's, only as part of an internal restructure throughout the whole of Scotland Yard . Before that, the unit was called PT17, or the "Blue Berets" and goes back as far as the 70's. Unlike you, I have actually worked with SO19 and have contacts within that unit.

Prior to the creation of SO19 there were "Quick Response Armed Units"?? from what I remember in Barnes there are 3 Police stations(?)Met, Flying Squad/QRAU and Traffic?
I seem to remember the QRAU being in Merc vans with about 10-12 members constantly patrolling, one goes in another comes out(I stand corrected if this is blown out of proportion) but they were armed for any type of inncident?

CX20, what measures are there in place to take care of the individual 24/7? And do the Police in the UK promote the fact they can be there 24/7?

This is one thing that makes me think that private gun ownership is good,


Since some division of labor is necessary, some people choose to delegate the task of assuring personal safety to others. Such view is akin to saying: "I won't brush my teeth. That's what my dentist is for."

When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence." Right.

Sometimes avoiding a criminal attack is not possible. Fortunately, elementary precautions enable us not to become helpless victims of such attacks. Consider being armed a form of immunization.

In the event that you do manage to ask for help, your savior may be too long in coming. When the source of danger is right next to you and the police cruiser starts from ten miles away, it isn't likely that the cops would do more than take in evidence. Counting on your neighbors is far from certain, either. Kitty Genovese and many others have learned the hard way that bystanders dislike getting involved in confrontations between strangers.

Police officers know that they cannot protect us at all times. That is why most of them recommend that people get the training and the tools for protecting their own lives.

You do have a first aid kit in the house, don't you?

Reasonable people have smoke alarms, wear seat belts, buy insurance. They plan against the eventualities of life. No one looks forward to calamities, even if they would validate the necessity of the preparations. Likewise, people who get arms and training wish to avoid situations in which they would become necessary.

Some people wouldn't pick up arms to defend themselves even if presented with such a choice in the hour of need. They do not wish to use force because they feel that it makes them into barbarians just like the attackers. In my view, they are missing the difference between initiation of violence and using force to stop violence.

Some of the people who would be willing to perish rather than fight change their minds when the lives of other innocents are at stake. Parents have an obligation to their children, spouses and friends to each other. Yet efforts to protect family members are likely to fail if the protectors have neither tools nor training with which to save lives.

Some say: "I would not use a weapon even to protect my family." These same people have no problem with calling in police officers who carry guns; and who would shoot criminals to terminate attacks against innocent people. For some reason, they have no objection to deadly force so long as it is used by a uniformed agent of the state.

How many times have you heard: "If accosted by criminals, give them what they want and be a good witness"? Do you think you can be an observant, impassive witness if your family or friends are under attack? Wouldn't you rather have an option to render assistance?

Ironically, some people who loudly proclaim their self-sufficiency deliberately avoid being able to protect themselves. They regard that ability as a trait peculiar to their oppressors, weapons as a hallmark of uncivilized savages. Some even state that they consider being a mangled, abused corpse a more dignified state than resisting with a gun. Do you think that is a logical position?

Giving up, surrendering to evil is not a guarantee of safety. On the contrary, it encourages criminals to attack again. It is like throwing hamburger into shark-infested waters: conditioning predators to expect easy pickings at your expense.


Food for thought for those that are open minded enough to read it and pause before responding?

[Sixgun Symphony]

One thing I will agree on is the armed officers in the UK are trained to a much higher level(slightly biased) than it's US counterpart and this has only come from my experience(IMHO) of the officers over here only shoot their guns when they have to qualify, now this scares me seeing as I'm at the range atleast once a month and pretty much all day!

I think it depends on which police agencies that we are comparing against each other. There are many municiple, county, and state police agencies. Some have better training than others.

[Geezah]

One thing I will agree on is the armed officers in the UK are trained to a much higher level(slightly biased) than it's US counterpart and this has only come from my experience(IMHO) of the officers over here only shoot their guns when they have to qualify, now this scares me seeing as I'm at the range atleast once a month and pretty much all day!

I think it depends on which police agencies that we are comparing against each other. There are many municiple, county, and state police agencies. Some have better training than others.

The guy I replaced here joined the Police in Fairborn by Wright Patt Airforce base, anyway it was a comment he made to me when I asked if he wanted to go to the range but again not all Police are the same and some train(personal time) more than others.

[Sixgun Symphony]

That is complete bollocks and you know it, the vast majority of burglars will bolt at the first sign of the resident whether they are their or not. The people that get killed are the ones that chase them down the street or worse pull a gun out on them.

I am calling b/s on Cut.

A criminal breaking into an occupied home may be a rapist, kidnapper, and quite possibly a murderer. Even with mere thieves, some will get violent.

A homeowner will have a far greater chance of surviving the encounter if he or she is armed.

[Geezah]

actually out of uniform not on ops you don't get a pistol to carry
drunk squaddies with brownings thats my defination of terrorists :backhand:

In Northern Ireland?

Surely you had some armed patrols looking out for you when out on liberty?

"19 March 1988
Two British soldiers are killed
These two soldiers accidentally drive into the funeral procession of Kevin Brady in Andersonstown (he was one of the three IRA victims killed by the Milltown gunman two days earlier.) TV cameras record how the soldiers are dragged from their car, beaten by the crowd, and then shot dead by IRA. The footage is shown around the world."

From what I remember these two guys were armed and shot into the air but were mobbed and unfortunetly killed for their mistake.

I recall another thread on this subject here on militaryphotos.net somewhere. The general consensus was that these troopers had minimal training in the use of their sidearms.

I also wonder why they were firing into the air. Could they have been worried about legal troubles for shooting into a hostile mob? If so, then it is the law that is as much to blame for their deaths as any lack of training with pistols.

Generally, one can shoot into a mob and the rest of them will run. Of course, these guys were in a vehicle and that in itself is a weapon too. That they did not plow through the crowd with their vehicle really makes me think they were more worried about a legal lynching than the mob that killed them.

Unfortunetly it wasn't that easy for the two poor guys, from what I remember they had just come back from working out at the gym and took a wrong turn, before they knew it they were boxed in(taxi one end and lots of people the other) and the crowd scattered for a second when they shot into the air then rushed the car it was real sad, they caugth it on film and showed it on the news, next thing you know their bodies were being dumped in their underware in a field!

This and being exposed to the biggest bomb the IRA had used being planted under Hammersmith Bridge(detonator went off bomb did not?) then an IRA cell being exposed just off of Hammersmith Broadway, one guy was shot and killed, this made me a true believer in "Smash The IRA" even though it was something Screwdriver promoted(I'm not Racist)

Amazing what you get to see when you work for Zanussi as an Engineer and the everyday events that take place!

[Sixgun Symphony]

The guy I replaced here joined the Police in Fairborn by Wright Patt Airforce base, anyway it was a comment he made to me when I asked if he wanted to go to the range but again not all Police are the same and some train(personal time) more than others.

True about individual attitudes making a difference.

[California Joe]

One thing I will agree on is the armed officers in the UK are trained to a much higher level(slightly biased) than it's US counterpart and this has only come from my experience(IMHO) of the officers over here only shoot their guns when they have to qualify, now this scares me seeing as I'm at the range atleast once a month and pretty much all day!

I went to the Baltimore County police academy for 6 months. It was run in a paramilitary manner for the most part. The firearms training included 2 full weeks of instruction in handguns and shotgun and 350 rounds a day at the range in the last week. The range officer was a former Green Beret. No screwing around. Once I graduated we were required to be at the range at least once a month in my department. Just sayin.

[obd]

I have read your responses and I must say, you guys have made some pretty good points against legal firearms ownership in England.....

I think maybe there are several differences b/t America and England that allow for us to take different sides yet both be correct.....

For example, in America there are still vast tracks of land which are uninhabited and there are still many pristine areas where one can hunt all manner of big game......Americans in many areas have a long and honored tradition of hunting and for generations have grown up around the rifle as a tool of defense, sustenance, and even economic profit.

In fact, when I lived in the midwest, a huge number of British men vacationed there just so they could hire a guide and go hunting...something nearly impossible in Britain........

I think it is irresponsible to ask things like, "how likely is it Americans will have to take up arms against a despotic givornment?".

I ask you this: How often in history do events like that spring up unannounced and unnexpected? Few could have predected the rise to power of Hitler of Stalin only 20 years before and few could have predicted the Civil War only 20 years before. Hell, few could have predicted how bad the American Revolution became until it became full scale counter insurgency..........

To answer your question, one never knows and one must always prepare. It is not beyond the realm of possiblity. I think the real worry is that ounce you start altering the Constution, one of the greatest documents of governance in the history of mankind, it becomes easier to alter others..such as free speech, right to assembly, etc etc etc..... In short, it sets a dangerous precident and I dont know about you but I DONT WANT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MESSED WITH!!!!! I AM VERY PROTECTIVE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ANYTHING THAT THREATENS THEM!!!!!

Also, as Im sure you know and accept, making gun ownership illegal does nothing to stop criminals from attaining weapons and even creates a profitable black market for them..thus creating the opposite of the intended effect by flooding the area with weapons as mentioned in the article originally posted....

You say you havnt heard British cops ask for guns?? Well I guess you arnt listening to them very well then......

You say thier are special armed cops that can be called in when needed....Well isnt a a little late to call in the armed police after a criminal has already shot the unarmed ones?? Maybe instead they should carry body bags with them. That would make them more useful....

I repeat myself: What it does do is take all power of defense out of the hands of the innocent and puts all power of attack into the hands of the criminals!!!!

You doubt that my story about the American body builder who killed several British police is true? I saw it in the famous show "Americas Most Wanted". It is a very true story. I search right now for it...........It was on a recent episode just before Academy Awards....Ahah I just realized why I cant find much: The case is old but they were revisiting it in the hopes his story would spark someones memories or someone might recognize his face....... I just went to website www.amw.com and it is an old case in which the man has not yet been found.......too bad. I originally thought it was a new case but its years old. Oh well, it still proves my point though......

Also, I read that these anti gun laws made it ilegal to even own a hunting firearm and many old British gentlemen were forced to turn in thier prized rifles that they had grown up around thier whole lives and that thier fathers had handed down to them...These guns had never hurt anyone and often served a great sentimental value to the owners, such as bringing up memories of hunting quale and such when a young boy with dad.....I think its rediculous to make these men give up these family heirlooms......

[Geezah]

One thing I will agree on is the armed officers in the UK are trained to a much higher level(slightly biased) than it's US counterpart and this has only come from my experience(IMHO) of the officers over here only shoot their guns when they have to qualify, now this scares me seeing as I'm at the range atleast once a month and pretty much all day!

I went to the Baltimore County police academy for 6 months. It was run in a paramilitary manner for the most part. The firearms training included 2 full weeks of instruction in handguns and shotgun and 350 rounds a day at the range in the last week. The range officer was a former Green Beret. No screwing around. Once I graduated we were required to be at the range at least once a month in my department. Just sayin.

I think it comes down to how serious the individial is about their job to "Protect and Serve", it's a shame there aren't more officers with your mentallity over here but at the same time the "Police are here to protect Society not the Individual"!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

In fact, when I lived in the midwest, a huge number of British men vacationed there just so they could hire a guide and go hunting...something nearly impossible in Britain........Where do get your information obd please tell me, for its mostly pure pish, "hunting nearly impossible in Britain" WTF do you mean, there are no public hunting grounds that lets say you could buy a permit too shoot on, but there is hardly a farm, moor or mountain that is not shot on. Folks from the cities and large towns may have problems finding somewhere to shoot but by and large its easy to get good shooting for free round my area yep including deer which are a pest, game bird shooting does cost money but is easy to get into, these birds are reared or they are on managed moors so wages have to payed, shooting is not a preserve of the rich.



Also, I read that these anti gun laws made it ilegal to even own a hunting firearm and many old British gentlemen were forced to turn in thier prized rifles that they had grown up around thier whole lives and that thier fathers had handed down to them...These guns had never hurt anyone and often served a great sentimental value to the owners, such as bringing up memories of hunting quale and such when a young boy with dad.....I think its rediculous to make these men give up these family heirlooms......More pish owning a legal sporting weapon in the UK is easy if you are a person of sound character and mind, can provide proper security, have somewhere to use the weapon be it either land or range and you do not have a criminal record or associations.

[cut]

I

You doubt that my story about the American body builder who killed several British police is true? I saw it in the famous show "Americas Most Wanted". It is a very true story. I search right now for it...........It was on a recent episode just before Academy Awards....Ahah I just realized why I cant find much: The case is old but they were revisiting it in the hopes his story would spark someones memories or someone might recognize his face....... I just went to website www.amw.com and it is an old case in which the man has not yet been found.......too bad. I originally thought it was a new case but its years old. Oh well, it still proves my point though......



I did find something about this, and you are wrong he killed one policeman not 3 and although I think it's probably wrong to criticise them because one of them died there was more two it, such as not putting the guy in handcuffs when they should have.

[CX20]

such as not putting the guy in handcuffs when they should have.


They didn't put him in handcuffs before the incident as they weren't justified to do so. This is a prime example of the over-cautious civil liberties and over-politically correct garbage that puts our safety at risk. I wouldn't have put cuffs on him at the beginning, and none of my colleagues would have either - it is against Home Office guidelines and officer safety training. It is totally different from the policy of US forces. You can only apply handcuffs once the offender has committed an offence for which he can be arrested, and you are going to arrest him. Hence why they went to handcuff him when they did and not before. Handcuffing for searching or safety, US-style, is completely out of the question. If I handcuff someone before I have grounds to arrest them, even if it is for my own safety, I will have committed an unlawful assault for which I can be charged under criminal law and will probably be dismissed from the force.

Up until that point, as far as I can tell from the reports I have read, it was conducted as a routine stop, and if we handcuffed people on routine stops, we would get sued left right and centre.
,
Remember DC Steven Oake, the GMP Special Branch officer stabbed to death by a terrorist suspect during a raid? In all raids I have been on, even weapons related ones, the suspects have never been handcuffed during the search process. They aren't even handcuffed during a full ARV "hard stop" even if they are known to carry firearms. It is a huge Human Rights and civil liberties issue as you are unlawfully assaulting someone and depriving them of their freedom when at that stage they have committed no crime.

Our old method (pre-Human Rights Act) of dealing with armed offenders during an armed stop was to get them out of the vehicle, then walk towards us and kneel down facing us with their hands on their heads. An officer would then approach and handcuff the suspect prior to searching. The HRA eliminated all of that. I've mentioned the handcuffing already, but making people kneel down is also banned. Apparantly some solicitors somewhere decided that making offenders kneel down is too "execution-style" and previous offenders have sued forces for the "mental anguish" as they thought they were going to be executed whilst kneeling when the officer approached from behind to search them.

Incredible, but true.

[cut]

do you think those handcuffing guidelines should be changed?

[BlackRain]

This thread really has been a great read. It is interesting hearing the opposing views on firearm ownership. I never thought that people existed in the world that actually believed this nonsense. Anyway...

More Light Reading on British Gun Ownership and its Affects on Crime.

Harvard University Press and Bentley College historian Joyce Malcolm released a book entitled Guns and Violence: The English Experience, which addresses another English connection to American gun rights.

It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.

This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)

Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?

In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.

Despite these rates, which Malcolm is right to call astonishingly low, the British government decided at the turn of the 20th century to begin a program of gun control that would ensure "that nobody except a soldier, sailor, or policeman, should have a pistol at all." The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.

This effort was initially frustrated by popular resistance, but the first regulatory law in this campaign was passed in 1903, requiring a license for the purchase of a pistol. Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.

After World War I, the English government got serious. Though fear of crime was (again) claimed as a justification for much more intrusive gun controls despite no increases of any significance, the real motivation -- as historical records make very clear -- was the fear of armed labor unionists, and perhaps even Bolshevik revolution. Though Parliament in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had seen an armed citizenry as a valuable check on tyranny, by the 20th century the government was determined to disarm the citizenry so as to eliminate any threats to its power.

Because the 1903 act requiring firearm licensing had not resulted in strict limits on gun ownership, the populace was not much threatened by the 1920 Firearms Act. The act met with much less resistance than the early popular resistance to the 1903 law. But the 1920 Firearms Act began the trend toward the near-complete disarmament of the formerly well-armed English citizenry. This disarmament continued by gradual sub silentio changes in administrative policy. For example, in 1938 the government made the unannounced decision that pistol licenses would no longer be issued to individuals who wanted a gun to defend their homes. Additional legislation followed. As Malcolm puts it:

Parliament passed a comprehensive firearms statute that eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. It was the culmination of fifty years of effort by British governments of every political stripe. The announced rationale by the ruling coalition government was, as usual, an increase in armed crime, yet statistics in London show no such increase. . . . Private Cabinet papers make clear that the government was afraid not of crime but of disorder and even revolution, the same fears that had fuelled government control measures in the past.

By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed — and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.

In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well. As Malcolm notes:

The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. By opting to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep guns or to carry any article for defence, English government policy may actually be contributing to the lawlessness and violence afflicting its people.

Malcolm is commendably cautious when discussing the connection between stricter English gun laws and higher rates of crime. But at the very least, she has demonstrated that the history of English gun control does not support the commonly made claim that English crime rates were (formerly) lower in England because of stricter gun controls. The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. The history is entirely consistent with the findings of Lott and Kleck: that disarming honest citizens produces more crime, not less.

What's more, the English experience provides a concrete example of American gun owners' worst fear: A patient political establishment steadily whittling firearms rights away over a period of decades through means both open and covert as circumstances permitted, in order to bring the citizenry under more complete political control. These are lessons worth bearing in mind whenever the English experience is brought up as part of the American gun-control debate.


Some local American John Q Publics get the taste of liberty (this is an anathema to totalitarians everywhere)


Some unlikely candidates are ready to carry firearms

Beacon Journal staff writer


One is a fifth-grade teacher, another a stroke victim who walks with a cane.

Not exactly the folks you would expect to be packing heat.

But both recently took firearms training so they can become eligible to carry a concealed weapon come April.

That's when Ohio's new ``concealed carry'' law takes effect -- for those who qualify and are trained.

It's not surprising that some Ohioans want to carry guns. But it is surprising to shooting instructors just who some of those people are.

Bob Campbell is one of the unlikely students.

The 64-year-old Mantua man suffered a stroke five years ago. As a result, he walks with a cane and has weaker vision in his left eye.

``I can't run and I can't fight anymore,'' he said. ``If the state will let me carry a gun, it makes it a whole lot better.''

Campbell said his physical condition has not affected his ability to shoot a gun.

http://www.ohio.com/images/ohio/ohio/8134/66162540648.JPG

Sue Andrews hasn't told her students about her firearms lessons at A&A Shooting Club in Nelson Township. She and Campbell both trained at the range through Targething, a year-old firearms training company in Portage County.

Andrews, 52, said she won't shy away from the concealed- gun subject if her fifth-graders bring it up.

``I'm sure it's going to bring up a lot of issues, good and bad,'' said the James A. Garfield Intermediate School teacher. ``But that, to me, is what education is about.''

Ohio is the 46th state to permit carrying hidden guns.

Those who apply forconcealed-weapon permits must be at least 21 years old. They will have to pay a fee, undergo criminal background checks and take 12 hours of firearms training.

Hidden guns won't be allowed in school zones, on college campuses or in public places that serve alcohol.

``I really don't know if I will carry a concealed weapon,'' said Andrews. ``But I feel like the class has empowered me to know what to do in handling a gun responsibly.''

Another Targething student, Craig Wilson, 74, said he definitely intends to pack his gun when the law allows.

``A gun is an equalizer,'' said Wilson of Farmdale in Trumbull County. ``You've got too many people out here just shooting up people when they want... like this guy in Columbus who's shooting. In this world anymore, people just don't care.''

Campbell predicts criminals will think harder about pulling a gun on a victim who might be armed.

Targething Vice President Amanda Suffecool said interest in gun-safety classes has picked up, and the buzz seems directly related to the law.

She's noticed a large number of seniors, some with physical limitations.

``I've had three guys in wheelchairs,'' she said. ``I've had a multitude of guyswith canes.''

The firearms training, held on the weekends at various sites around the area, includes shooting drills and lectures on the law, consequences of shooting someone and gun safety in general. Instructors stress that drawing a gun is a last resort.

``My wish for every one of my students is that they will carry their guns and never have to use them,'' Suffecool said.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

This thread really has been a great read. It is interesting hearing the opposing views on firearm ownership. I never thought that people existed in the world that actually believed this nonsense. Anyway...

More Light Reading on British Gun Ownership and its Affects on Crime.

Harvard University Press and Bentley College historian Joyce Malcolm released a book entitled Guns and Violence: The English Experience, which addresses another English connection to American gun rights.

It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.

This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)

Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?

In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.

Despite these rates, which Malcolm is right to call astonishingly low, the British government decided at the turn of the 20th century to begin a program of gun control that would ensure "that nobody except a soldier, sailor, or policeman, should have a pistol at all." The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.

This effort was initially frustrated by popular resistance, but the first regulatory law in this campaign was passed in 1903, requiring a license for the purchase of a pistol. Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.

After World War I, the English government got serious. Though fear of crime was (again) claimed as a justification for much more intrusive gun controls despite no increases of any significance, the real motivation -- as historical records make very clear -- was the fear of armed labor unionists, and perhaps even Bolshevik revolution. Though Parliament in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had seen an armed citizenry as a valuable check on tyranny, by the 20th century the government was determined to disarm the citizenry so as to eliminate any threats to its power.

Because the 1903 act requiring firearm licensing had not resulted in strict limits on gun ownership, the populace was not much threatened by the 1920 Firearms Act. The act met with much less resistance than the early popular resistance to the 1903 law. But the 1920 Firearms Act began the trend toward the near-complete disarmament of the formerly well-armed English citizenry. This disarmament continued by gradual sub silentio changes in administrative policy. For example, in 1938 the government made the unannounced decision that pistol licenses would no longer be issued to individuals who wanted a gun to defend their homes. Additional legislation followed. As Malcolm puts it:

Parliament passed a comprehensive firearms statute that eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. It was the culmination of fifty years of effort by British governments of every political stripe. The announced rationale by the ruling coalition government was, as usual, an increase in armed crime, yet statistics in London show no such increase. . . . Private Cabinet papers make clear that the government was afraid not of crime but of disorder and even revolution, the same fears that had fuelled government control measures in the past.

By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed — and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.

In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well. As Malcolm notes:

The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. By opting to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep guns or to carry any article for defence, English government policy may actually be contributing to the lawlessness and violence afflicting its people.

Malcolm is commendably cautious when discussing the connection between stricter English gun laws and higher rates of crime. But at the very least, she has demonstrated that the history of English gun control does not support the commonly made claim that English crime rates were (formerly) lower in England because of stricter gun controls. The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. The history is entirely consistent with the findings of Lott and Kleck: that disarming honest citizens produces more crime, not less.

What's more, the English experience provides a concrete example of American gun owners' worst fear: A patient political establishment steadily whittling firearms rights away over a period of decades through means both open and covert as circumstances permitted, in order to bring the citizenry under more complete political control. These are lessons worth bearing in mind whenever the English experience is brought up as part of the American gun-control debate.


Some local American John Q Publics get the taste of liberty (this is an anathema to totalitarians everywhere)


Some unlikely candidates are ready to carry firearms

Beacon Journal staff writer


One is a fifth-grade teacher, another a stroke victim who walks with a cane.

Not exactly the folks you would expect to be packing heat.

But both recently took firearms training so they can become eligible to carry a concealed weapon come April.

That's when Ohio's new ``concealed carry'' law takes effect -- for those who qualify and are trained.

It's not surprising that some Ohioans want to carry guns. But it is surprising to shooting instructors just who some of those people are.

Bob Campbell is one of the unlikely students.

The 64-year-old Mantua man suffered a stroke five years ago. As a result, he walks with a cane and has weaker vision in his left eye.

``I can't run and I can't fight anymore,'' he said. ``If the state will let me carry a gun, it makes it a whole lot better.''

Campbell said his physical condition has not affected his ability to shoot a gun.

http://www.ohio.com/images/ohio/ohio/8134/66162540648.JPG

Sue Andrews hasn't told her students about her firearms lessons at A&A Shooting Club in Nelson Township. She and Campbell both trained at the range through Targething, a year-old firearms training company in Portage County.

Andrews, 52, said she won't shy away from the concealed- gun subject if her fifth-graders bring it up.

``I'm sure it's going to bring up a lot of issues, good and bad,'' said the James A. Garfield Intermediate School teacher. ``But that, to me, is what education is about.''

Ohio is the 46th state to permit carrying hidden guns.

Those who apply forconcealed-weapon permits must be at least 21 years old. They will have to pay a fee, undergo criminal background checks and take 12 hours of firearms training.

Hidden guns won't be allowed in school zones, on college campuses or in public places that serve alcohol.

``I really don't know if I will carry a concealed weapon,'' said Andrews. ``But I feel like the class has empowered me to know what to do in handling a gun responsibly.''

Another Targething student, Craig Wilson, 74, said he definitely intends to pack his gun when the law allows.

``A gun is an equalizer,'' said Wilson of Farmdale in Trumbull County. ``You've got too many people out here just shooting up people when they want... like this guy in Columbus who's shooting. In this world anymore, people just don't care.''

Campbell predicts criminals will think harder about pulling a gun on a victim who might be armed.

Targething Vice President Amanda Suffecool said interest in gun-safety classes has picked up, and the buzz seems directly related to the law.

She's noticed a large number of seniors, some with physical limitations.

``I've had three guys in wheelchairs,'' she said. ``I've had a multitude of guyswith canes.''

The firearms training, held on the weekends at various sites around the area, includes shooting drills and lectures on the law, consequences of shooting someone and gun safety in general. Instructors stress that drawing a gun is a last resort.

``My wish for every one of my students is that they will carry their guns and never have to use them,'' Suffecool said.

This thread really has been a great read. It is interesting hearing the opposing views on firearm ownership. I never thought that people existed in the world that actually believed this nonsense. Anyway....... ditto :roll:

[California Joe]

I own many guns, most of them in different stages of restoration or fabrication. I don't fear for my safety. But I live in the country anyways. Has anyone mentioned that the British are historically the premier gunsmiths in the world? Especially shotguns and big game rifles. I find it bizarre to ply a trade that your countrymen cannot utilize. English walnut is the finest walnut as far as stocks go. Easy Molli.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I own many guns, most of them in different stages of restoration or fabrication. I don't fear for my safety. But I live in the country anyways. Has anyone mentioned that the British are historically the premier gunsmiths in the world? Especially shotguns and big game rifles. I find it bizarre to ply a trade that your countrymen cannot utilize. English walnut is the finest walnut as far as stocks go. Easy Molli.
Most British gun makers only make sporting weapons and there is usually no problem getting hold of them, Accuracy International make sniping rifles and again no problem there either, its just repeating handguns and semi-auto rifles above .22 there is also restrictions on pump shotguns. My area is like hillbilly heaven at the weekends during the game bird season loads of old side by side scatter guns everywhere. :)

[BlackRain]

Cut wrote: Although the are a lot of guns on the black market here these tend to be used in gang war and not robberies.

Actually, according to your own government,

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence group and principal weapon, 2001/02 total was:

1) Robbery: 5,323 crimes*
2) Burglary: 459 crimes*
* All firearms excluding air weapon

CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS OTHER THAN AIR WEAPONS

There were 9,974 recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons. This was an increase of 35 per cent compared to 2000/01 (Table 2a). Half (53%) were robbery offences and a further third (35%) were violence against the person (Figure 2.2). Violence against the person includes homicide which made up one per cent of all crimes involving firearms other than air weapons.

Interesting tidbit: None of these recorded offenses involved legitimate firearms certificate holders.


Cut wrote: I disagree, for example I don't believe convicted criminals have that right. Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.

Again, this is a false statement. There have not been any police fatalities by firearms in almost ten years.

Injuries to police officers

No police officers were seriously injured on duty by firearms during 2001/02. Ten officers had slight injuries. There have been no fatal injuries to police officers by a firearm since 1995 (Table 2c).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf

[Geezah]

Cut wrote: Although the are a lot of guns on the black market here these tend to be used in gang war and not robberies.

Actually, according to your own government,

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence group and principal weapon, 2001/02 total was:

1) Robbery: 5,323 crimes*
2) Burglary: 459 crimes*
* All firearms excluding air weapon

CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS OTHER THAN AIR WEAPONS

There were 9,974 recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons. This was an increase of 35 per cent compared to 2000/01 (Table 2a). Half (53%) were robbery offences and a further third (35%) were violence against the person (Figure 2.2). Violence against the person includes homicide which made up one per cent of all crimes involving firearms other than air weapons.

Interesting tidbit: None of these recorded offenses involved legitimate firearms certificate holders.


Cut wrote: I disagree, for example I don't believe convicted criminals have that right. Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.

Again, this is a false statement. There have not been any police fatalities by firearms in almost ten years.

Injuries to police officers

No police officers were seriously injured on duty by firearms during 2001/02. Ten officers had slight injuries. There have been no fatal injuries to police officers by a firearm since 1995 (Table 2c).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf

Sorry Cut but blackrain is correct, I was at Richmond college with a guy that didn't come back for the 3rd year even though I had seen him in the Summer, turned out he got into a few side jobs robbing post offices while armed and was caught while going back to one of the places he had already robbed(greed isn't it amazing) also I knew quite a few geezers in Grove that were quite partial to robbery while armed!

[ShadowNeo]

I have had my home targetted by burglars a few times over the years, and I can safely say that I don't see the point of having gun to protect me from this.

Two out of the three times, the burglars have simply bolted, both times I wasn't at home. It was my neighbors that scared them off each time (due to burglaries in the area we have a kind of neighborhood watch). Neither of these times did the burglar confront or attack anyone - they simply ran away.

I have actually caught a burglar trying to enter through one of the back windows of my house, I simply rammed into the side of the guy sending him to the floor after which I attempted to pin him to the ground. My neighbors weren't around at the time and I didn't have my mobile on me so I couldn't phone the police. I simply held the guy there for a couple of seconds and simply told him something along the lines of "If I ever see you around here again, i'll ****ing kill you".

No burglaries since this incident for 4 years so far, and I didn't need to "bust a cap in his ass" :).

[cut]

Cut wrote: Although the are a lot of guns on the black market here these tend to be used in gang war and not robberies.

Actually, according to your own government,

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence group and principal weapon, 2001/02 total was:

1) Robbery: 5,323 crimes*
2) Burglary: 459 crimes*
* All firearms excluding air weapon

CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS OTHER THAN AIR WEAPONS

There were 9,974 recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons. This was an increase of 35 per cent compared to 2000/01 (Table 2a). Half (53%) were robbery offences and a further third (35%) were violence against the person (Figure 2.2). Violence against the person includes homicide which made up one per cent of all crimes involving firearms other than air weapons.

Interesting tidbit: None of these recorded offenses involved legitimate firearms certificate holders.


Cut wrote: I disagree, for example I don't believe convicted criminals have that right. Also should someone commit a crime, anything that would mean the police coming to their house to arrest them, there is a far greater danger for arresting police officers.

Again, this is a false statement. There have not been any police fatalities by firearms in almost ten years.

Injuries to police officers

No police officers were seriously injured on duty by firearms during 2001/02. Ten officers had slight injuries. There have been no fatal injuries to police officers by a firearm since 1995 (Table 2c).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf

have you seen this years? p-)

[cut]

That is complete bollocks and you know it, the vast majority of burglars will bolt at the first sign of the resident whether they are their or not. The people that get killed are the ones that chase them down the street or worse pull a gun out on them.

I am calling b/s on Cut.

A criminal breaking into an occupied home may be a rapist, kidnapper, and quite possibly a murderer. Even with mere thieves, some will get violent.

A homeowner will have a far greater chance of surviving the encounter if he or she is armed.

BURGLARS RUN AWAY THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOOT THEM

how many times :roll:

[cut]

I have had my home targetted by burglars a few times over the years, and I can safely say that I don't see the point of having gun to protect me from this.

Two out of the three times, the burglars have simply bolted, both times I wasn't at home. It was my neighbors that scared them off each time (due to burglaries in the area we have a kind of neighborhood watch). Neither of these times did the burglar confront or attack anyone - they simply ran away.

I have actually caught a burglar trying to enter through one of the back windows of my house, I simply rammed into the side of the guy sending him to the floor after which I attempted to pin him to the ground. My neighbors weren't around at the time and I didn't have my mobile on me so I couldn't phone the police. I simply held the guy there for a couple of seconds and simply told him something along the lines of "If I ever see you around here again, i'll f*** kill you".

No burglaries since this incident for 4 years so far, and I didn't need to "bust a cap in his ass" :).

a few attempted burglaries in how many years?

[ShadowNeo]

Over the period Ive been in the house, 3 burglaries in, around 8 years.

[CX20]

I cannot believe we are getting into an argument on statistics. For your information, police services and the Home Office routinely "fiddle" crime statistics to depict what they want to show.

How do I know? Because I am in the job myself. My force was caught falsifying crime statistics several years ago by the press. Anyone can quote statistics to back up an argument that they genuinely know nothing about. More often that not, charges are "downgraded" at the prisoner charging process to secure a conviction. Whilst the person may have committed a serious offence, lack of substantial admissable evidence would make prosecuting for that offence impossible. Therefore that person is convicted of a lesser offence to secure a conviction. So, on the statistics, it will show a less serious offence than what actually occured.

That is just one example of how it is done. I can think of quite a few more deliberate cases of crime figures being fiddled over the years, thats just from my own personal experience.

If you believe those statistics, then I have some lovely beach front property with an ocean view in Warwickshire that I'd like to sell you, for a reasonable price.


Again, this is a false statement. There have not been any police fatalities by firearms in almost ten years.

Bollocks.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/content_objectid=13759117_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Policeman-shot-dead-on-traffic-duty-name_page.html

[cut]

Again, this is a false statement. There have not been any police fatalities by firearms in almost ten years.

Bollocks.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/content_objectid=13759117_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Policeman-shot-dead-on-traffic-duty-name_page.html

yeah we mentioned that already he got his stats from 2001/2002

[BlackRain]

have you seen this years? p-)

Yes I have. What is your point.

The number of firearm robberies decreased by an eighth (13%) between 2001/02 and 2002/03, after having risen by a third the previous year. The proportion of robberies involving firearms (including air
weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last six years.

Injuries to police officers
One police officer was seriously injured on duty by a firearm during the 12 months ending in March 2003. Eleven officers received slight injuries. There were no fatal injuries to police officers caused by a firearm between 1996 and 2002-03 (Table 2c).

The account you mentioned earlier did not involve a homeowner with a firearm on premises as in the context of the conversation.

2.7 ROBBERIES
As has been seen, offences involving non-air weapons were most likely to be robberies, although the number of robberies in which firearms were involved fell by 13 per cent from 2001/02 to 2002/03, compared with a 33
per cent rise in 2001/02. ... Firearms described as handguns were used in 70 per cent of robberies involving firearms, and sawn-off or long-barrelled shotguns in six per cent.

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used by offence group and principal weapon, 2002/03:

Robbery: 4,630
Burglary: 471

Going back to the original point of all this, armed robbery and armed burglary occurs regulary in the United Kingdom. The number of firearm related offense continues to rise despite restrictive gun laws. Homeowners are prevented from self-defense. Police are not endangered by homeowners posessing firearms. Police are at risk in a society where only criminals own firearms.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf

[Sixgun Symphony]

I did find something about this, and you are wrong he killed one policeman not 3 and although I think it's probably wrong to criticise them because one of them died there was more two it, such as not putting the guy in handcuffs when they should have.

If these officers are not armed and the bad guy is both armed and non-cooperative, then how are they suppose to put the perp in handcuffs?

[BlackRain]

To conclude this exercise in futility, I submit this sad news article from down under.



Attacks spark sword ban
Swords will be banned in Victoria under new laws to be introduced from July.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer today said owners of swords, which are currently listed as controlled weapons, would have to hand them into police or sell them to a dealer under the new laws.

Anyone caught in illegal possession of a sword could face up to six months in prison or a $12,000 fine.

"The Bracks government is implementing these new regulations to help Victoria Police overcome this culture of young people arming themselves with swords," Mr Haermeyer said.

"Vendors will only be legally permitted to sell a sword to an individual who can produce evidence that they fall within an exempt category or have a specific approval from the (police) chief commissioner."

Mr Haermeyer said the government would establish exempt categories to ensure legitimate sword owners were not disadvantaged.

"There are some cultural, religious, military and collector groups that have legitimate reasons to own swords," he said.

"Such groups will be able to apply for an order exempting their members from the need to obtain individual approvals."

The move to list the swords as prohibited weapons comes following a string of incidents involving them, a state government spokesman said.

"There has been a number of incidents involving swords... and we want to make sure these weapons are not freely available," a state government spokesman said.

A 13-year-old boy was last week arrested and charged with possession of a controlled weapon and other offences after he allegedly ran at officers with a samurai sword in central Victoria.

A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by what was believed to be a samurai sword during a brawl in Melbourne last month.

Huy Huynh, 19, was allegedly hacked to death near a Melbourne nightclub in July last year by a group that used samurai swords or machetes.

- AAP

These politicians have effectively banned firearms and are now tackling the weighty issue of swords. How long till they ban people.

A sword and a gun are hunks of metal with no mind or freedom of choice. It is only the person who picks the "weapon" up who utlimately decides how to use it. Simply putting ink to paper and crafting a law banning things does not work as evidenced by escalation of crime in Australia and England. The real problem is the failure of these countries to hold people accountable for their actions.

[cut]

I did find something about this, and you are wrong he killed one policeman not 3 and although I think it's probably wrong to criticise them because one of them died there was more two it, such as not putting the guy in handcuffs when they should have.

If these officers are not armed and the bad guy is both armed and non-cooperative, then how are they suppose to put the perp in handcuffs?

I don't know I can't find out more about it until they publish the public inquiry

[cut]

These politicians have effectively banned firearms and are now tackling the weighty issue of swords. How long till they ban people.

A sword and a gun are hunks of metal with no mind or freedom of choice. It is only the person who picks the "weapon" up who utlimately decides how to use it. Simply putting ink to paper and crafting a law banning things does not work as evidenced by escalation of crime in Australia and England. The real problem is the failure of these countries to hold people accountable for their actions.

banning the use of weapons was not what made the number of crimes go up

[Sixgun Symphony]

banning the use of weapons was not what made the number of crimes go up


That they ban guns rather than get tough on criminals has alot to do with rising crime.

[cut]

not true, britain has more prisoners then ever, you make these up as you go along, don't you?

[GazB]

I cannot believe we are getting into an argument on statistics. For your information, police services and the Home Office routinely "fiddle" crime statistics to depict what they want to show.

Quite true.

Did you know that 65.3% of stats are made up on the spot and that of all the use of stats 50% are genuine, 50% are made up, 22% are intentional lies to fool you, 6% are errors that will fool you but are unintentional and the remaining 43.2% don't actually add up.

[Sixgun Symphony]

not true, britain has more prisoners then ever, you make these up as you go along, don't you?

Actually I got this from reading about the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a couple of burglars.

The authorities actually put him in jail because quote: "he was a danger to burglars". Amazing really.

[marktigger]

I worked in a plastic surgery ward in a hospital in England and we at one point had a large number of sword injuries due to a fued going on in the local asian community. I can see the need for a ban on the public carring of thease weapons.

[marktigger]

Govt departments use stastics to wage a war between themselves in order to try and get greater funding so artifically inflating the crime stats before decisions on the public spending round are made is a normal policy. But when the crime stats are debated they are slightly different. So remembere there are



Lies, Dammed Lies and stastics

[Geezah]

I have had my home targetted by burglars a few times over the years, and I can safely say that I don't see the point of having gun to protect me from this.

Two out of the three times, the burglars have simply bolted, both times I wasn't at home. It was my neighbors that scared them off each time (due to burglaries in the area we have a kind of neighborhood watch). Neither of these times did the burglar confront or attack anyone - they simply ran away.

I have actually caught a burglar trying to enter through one of the back windows of my house, I simply rammed into the side of the guy sending him to the floor after which I attempted to pin him to the ground. My neighbors weren't around at the time and I didn't have my mobile on me so I couldn't phone the police. I simply held the guy there for a couple of seconds and simply told him something along the lines of "If I ever see you around here again, i'll f*** kill you".

No burglaries since this incident for 4 years so far, and I didn't need to "bust a cap in his ass" :).

On the news this morning there has been a couple of break ins where a 12yr old and 18yr old(different incidents) were raped while the parents were in the room next door asleep, I realize that the majority of Brits on here are pro life but I'm sorry if that was me and I had a chance to "bust a cap in his ass" I think it would be an amazing sight to see a 12ga slug go through a nonce.
We are talking about some poor teens that have had there lives ruined by a ***-case/beast, this is just one situation, this may have started out as a robbery but then he fancied something else, my home is my castle and if my 2 Rotts don't get to any potential perp then my 12ga will.
I will not relay on the Police to save my day because I've said time and again the Police over here don't seem ta have any problems with the individual exercising their right to self defense!
Why are the majority of Brits on here happy with being sheeple?

[Geezah]

not true, britain has more prisoners then ever, you make these up as you go along, don't you?

Actually I got this from reading about the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a couple of burglars.

The authorities actually put him in jail because quote: "he was a danger to burglars". Amazing really.

Sorry Sixgun, then wouldn't let him out early becuase he was a danger to burglars, $#@%ing amazing.......I think Tony Martin is a hero, he stood up for the little man and I say good riddence to the two low lifes that targeted his house that night, they got what they deserved!

[Geezah]

These politicians have effectively banned firearms and are now tackling the weighty issue of swords. How long till they ban people.

A sword and a gun are hunks of metal with no mind or freedom of choice. It is only the person who picks the "weapon" up who utlimately decides how to use it. Simply putting ink to paper and crafting a law banning things does not work as evidenced by escalation of crime in Australia and England. The real problem is the failure of these countries to hold people accountable for their actions.

banning the use of weapons was not what made the number of crimes go up

Quite true, it was just part of a package deal for thugs, law abiding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves/leniant jail time/ they don't fear the law!

So there you have it, if you having nothing to fear for taking part in any type of crime you have nothing to lose!

[Durandal]

not true, britain has more prisoners then ever, you make these up as you go along, don't you?

Actually I got this from reading about the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a couple of burglars.

The authorities actually put him in jail because quote: "he was a danger to burglars". Amazing really.

I agree in part...I think it was a joke that he was considered a "danger to burglars"...

However, I understand the real reason why he was sent to jail. The guy was nuts. The super pro gun crowd here in the United States makes it seem like the guy was normal gun owner with no issues.

Unless you include these:

A) The shotgun he owned, was owned illegally, because...
B) His shotgun certificate was revoked when he fired upon a car
C) Owned a sawed off shotgun (which even is the United States is FELONY...you knowm don't past go, go directly to jail, never ever vote in any federal election and never own a gun again).
D) Arrested several times before on a number of misc charges...

I agree that he was right in defending in himself but he ALSO had past that PROVED he was not a responsible gun owner. The cops proved Martin also shot them as they were fleeing the house/property (I have not read an article yet from either side that says where exactly). If it is outside the house and the guys are fleeing, that is not self defense, at least according to English Law...

"In court he argued he had suffered from a paranoid personality disorder which diminished his responsibility. "

I hate gun control, but this dude was a loon.

Now that I bashed the pro-gun

Now, to the anti-gun peeps.

So why are all the figures for gun related violence always from England and Wales? Where is Scotland in this mess? Or does Scotland kill the curve?

[Sabre]

Actually I got this from reading about the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a couple of burglars.

The authorities actually put him in jail because quote: "he was a danger to burglars". Amazing really.



Sorry Sixgun, then wouldn't let him out early becuase he was a danger to burglars, $#@%ing amazing.......I think Tony Martin is a hero, he stood up for the little man and I say good riddence to the two low lifes that targeted his house that night, they got what they deserved!

Tony Martin was a paranoid gun nut. He removed some of his stairs to trap burglars, he laid out ****y traps in his own home, turning it into a veritable fortress. He broke the law before he shot any one by keeping his shotgun loaded.

If you think a hero is a lunatic who shoots a 16 year old kid in the back with a shotgun, while he is running away AFTER he tried to rob you...then you have a very distorted understanding of the word. Maybe if he wasn't such a crazy psycho and a loner, he could have organised a type of 'countryside watch' that works in other rural locations in the UK with his neighbours.

Yes, they shouldn't have been stealing. Yes, the police could have done more to help Tony Martin (but they were probably pissed off by the f*cked-up lunatic by then). Yes, the older thief was a right bit of ****, dealing drugs and involved in violent crime. But at the end of it all, someone's life is worth far more than any bit of **** in your home.

I can't believe that you would think a 16 year old having his spine blown out through his chest whilst running away got what he deserved. Just because he was disadvantaged and living in a **** society that failed him and gave him nothing to live up to, causing him to go down the path he did, does not mean that he deserves to die.

I have three questions for you:

1-Have you ever seen someone being shot and killed?

2-Have you ever stolen anything?

3-Would you want the first to happen to you because you did the second?

You must think you are really hard bastards because you're able to make such brave decisions. Real men who believe in 'tough justice'. Just wait until some poor 16 year old sod breaks into your home to fund what ever habit he has, then see just how you feel when you see the expression on his face as he lies bleeding to death on your carpet, because I guarantee you haven't thought that far ahead. Hey, even more fun would be to go and talk to his mother about why you thought he 'got what he deserved'.

[Sabre]

So why are all the figures for gun related violence always from England and Wales? Where is Scotland in this mess? Or does Scotland kill the curve?

Scotland has a devolved government and able to produce its own laws, so it produces it's own figures on most subjects; crime, health, transport etc...

Northern Ireland is again a separate issue, there are different laws there too. It is actually easier to own a firearm there than over here, crazy or what! (apparently, I've not verified that) But their firearm statistics will be way out due to the slight problem we've had there with dissident republican terrorists!

An interesting fact about Wales and the IRA is that there have been relatively few terrorist incidents in Wales. This is apparently because the IRA saw Wales as the 'fall-back point' for their cells in England if they ever got into trouble, so they wanted it to stay quiet.

Feel free to find those statistics on Scotland, I don't think they will be much different to E&W (despite their war-like tendancies ;) )

I think E&W stats are used because the majority of the population of the UK are in England. Welsh law is the same as in England, so their statistics are included as well.

[Geezah]

Actually I got this from reading about the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot a couple of burglars.

The authorities actually put him in jail because quote: "he was a danger to burglars". Amazing really.



Sorry Sixgun, then wouldn't let him out early becuase he was a danger to burglars, $#@%ing amazing.......I think Tony Martin is a hero, he stood up for the little man and I say good riddence to the two low lifes that targeted his house that night, they got what they deserved!

Tony Martin was a paranoid gun nut. He removed some of his stairs to trap burglars, he laid out ****y traps in his own home, turning it into a veritable fortress. He broke the law before he shot any one by keeping his shotgun loaded.

If you think a hero is a lunatic who shoots a 16 year old kid in the back with a shotgun, while he is running away AFTER he tried to rob you...then you have a very distorted understanding of the word. Maybe if he wasn't such a crazy psycho and a loner, he could have organised a type of 'countryside watch' that works in other rural locations in the UK with his neighbours.

Yes, they shouldn't have been stealing. Yes, the police could have done more to help Tony Martin (but they were probably pissed off by the f*cked-up lunatic by then). Yes, the older thief was a right bit of ****, dealing drugs and involved in violent crime. But at the end of it all, someone's life is worth far more than any bit of **** in your home.

I can't believe that you would think a 16 year old having his spine blown out through his chest whilst running away got what he deserved. Just because he was disadvantaged and living in a **** society that failed him and gave him nothing to live up to, causing him to go down the path he did, does not mean that he deserves to die.

I have three questions for you:

1-Have you ever seen someone being shot and killed?

2-Have you ever stolen anything?

3-Would you want the first to happen to you because you did the second?

You must think you are really hard bastards because you're able to make such brave decisions. Real men who believe in 'tough justice'. Just wait until some poor 16 year old sod breaks into your home to fund what ever habit he has, then see just how you feel when you see the expression on his face as he lies bleeding to death on your carpet, because I guarantee you haven't thought that far ahead. Hey, even more fun would be to go and talk to his mother about why you thought he 'got what he deserved'.

1, I've been stabbed before and I've seen vicims that have been stabbed but as far as being shot......I don't think so....I'll say no!

2,Have I ever stolen anything, time at work, a biscuit here or there but never have I gone out of my way to deprive someone of something they've worked hard for, what goes around comes around! karma!

3,As far as I know #1 won't happen as I'm a law abiding citizen unless I'm attacked by a criminal!

All I will say is John Malvo, he deserves to die, at an early age we know what's wrong and what's right. Jamie Bulger killers they shouldn't have been released, Mary Bell, what is the deal with her profiting form a book on what happened the list goes on and on and the Justice system has failed the innocents that are scared for life by these arseholes but the criminals get a second chance while that second chance has been denied the victims.

Please tell me how you would explain to the victims how it's right the scum that's been released is the correct thing to do?

People choose which direction they want to go in and if they're not savy enough to make the right choice then what ever comes their way was because of the choice they made. And no I still do not feel sorry for the guys Tony M shot they shouldn't have been in there in the first place!

"but they were probably pissed off by the f*cked-up lunatic by then" does this then take away his rights to be protected equally by the law as the law over there promotes calling 999

I still stand by what I said, they got what they deserved, my Father told me at an early age, "you ever bring the Police home, I'll beat the **** out of you" well guess what it worked! My Father has a strange way of showing his love for us kids but I would never trade him in:)

[cut]

So in the States, what are the conditions in which you are allowed to kill someone? does any kind of break in count as self defence?

[Geezah]

So in the States, what are the conditions in which you are allowed to kill someone? does any kind of break in count as self defence?

Arrhh.....now if(correct me if I'm wrong)I feel my life or the lives of my Family are at risk I am allowed to use reasonable force to stop that threat. I've heard people say time and again "if you shoot a burglar and they make it outside drag them back in" which is incorrect if they make it outside leave them there and callthe Police, it's a crime scene and with forensics these days they know everything!

My main concern is to protect my family, which if they are threatened then I will do my best to put end to it!
I think just the sound of me chambering a shell would be enough to equalize the threat:) I hope I'm never put in that position!

[cut]

If the us is anything like the rest of the world the burglars will bolt as soon as you appear gun or no gun

[BlackRain]

In 1994, an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house, while he called the police. When the officers arrived they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to put someone in fear.

Monthly Gun Poster:

http://www.allsafedefense.com/images/Posters/Carry.jpg


Crime rate may fall, says sheriff

ROGERSVILLE--With the Missouri State Supreme Court upholding the conceal and carry law, local law enforcement personnel say the crime rate may drop as a result.



"In the 31 states that have conceal and carry laws, all the crime statistics I've seen would indicate that the crime rate has gone down as a result," said Webster County Sheriff Ron Worsham.

"I've always supported the law. I've covered too many homicides where I've had to dig up victims of a crime, especially young women. I firmly believe that if they had a way to defend themselves, many of them would be alive today. I've always encouraged my daughter to carry a loaded weapon in her car in plain sight," Worsham said.

With the law in effect, anyone over the age of 23 years old who has not been convicted of certain crimes, can carry a concealed weapon in their vehicle, Worsham said.

"Before it had to be in plain view. Now it can be concealed," Worsham said.

Worsham said that the new law has many restrictions for permit holders.

"I'm not sure there's a big advantage to having a permit. Once people find out the hassle there is to go through, it might be better to not have a permit. There are a large number of places where you cannot carry a concealed weapon - churches, bars, government buildings - people may find it simpler to put it in car and forget it," Worsham said.

With the law now in effect, Worsham said it would not change the way his department approaches drivers, who may now be carrying concealed weapons.

"The possibility of someone having a concealed weapon is part of the training everyone receives at the academy. (The deputies) are supposed to approach every vehicle as if the driver has a loaded weapon. It shouldn't change the way they approach (a pulled over vehicle)," Worsham said.

Worsham said that his department has received 14 applications since the Supreme Court upheld the law.



Court rules law Constitutional

The Missouri Supreme Court recently ruled that the state's new conceal-and-carry law is not unconstitutional. The law goes into effect Friday.

According to Webster County Sheriff Ron Worsham, the new law will allow most people 23 years old and older to carry a concealed weapon in their vehicle.

"They can't have a felony conviction or some misdemeanors which prohibit a person from carrying a concealed weapon for up to five years," Worsham said.

The sherrif's department has a list of locations giving classes necessary to obtain a permit. The county may hold them in the future, Worsham said.

"I have to talk with the county commissioners to see if our insurance can cover the courses," Worsham said.

If the county does hold the training courses, a tentative fee for the training will be approximately $88, which will include the cost of the required background check, Worsham said.

The law authorizes sheriffs to charge a non-refundable fee not to exceed $100 for permits. Renewal of the three-year permit may cost up to $50. The concealed-carry permit will be endorsed on a driver's license or state-identification card.

Those taking the course would be eligible to purchase the license for $50, Worsham said. Until the issue of insurance coverage is resolved, Worsham said his office can answer questions and take applications.

Under the new law, sheriffs are required to submit information to the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System.

Worsham said the permit can be suspended or revoked if the holder violates any of the requirements for qualification for concealed carry.

Any person issued a concealed-carry permit must notify the department of revenue and county sheriffs of both the old and new jurisdictions of residence within 30 days of moving. If a concealed-carry permit holder loses their driver's license they must notify the sheriff of the loss within seven days, according to Worsham.

Part of the application process associated with the new law requires sheriffs to conduct fingerprint and background checks on applicants, Worsham said. It was scheduled to take effect in October, but a St. Louis judge ruled that the proposed law violated the state's constitution.

The state Supreme Court overturned that ruling last week, but question regarding of whether or not the law violates the ******* amendment are still unanswered, Worsham said.

The ******* amendment prohibits the state from imposing an unfunded mandate. According to the amendment, the state cannot impose any new or expanded activities on counties or municipalities without providing state funds to pay for the new programs.

The concealed-carry law includes a fee of up to $100 for the permits, but it required the fees to be deposited in a fund that by law can only be used to pay for training and equipment, not personnel costs.

Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Greene and Camden Counties presented evidence before the court that processing the applications will cause substantial increased costs in those counties. The Supreme Court ruled that the law does violate the ******* amendment in those counties. The court, however, refused to assume that other counties would incur extra costs as well.

[cut]

black rain, we're not disputing the right to carry in the US. We're discussing the case in the UK, so why do you insist with these american articles?

[Geezah]

black rain, we're not disputing the right to carry in the US. We're discussing the case in the UK, so why do you insist with these american articles?

Looks like you missed this,


In 1994, an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house, while he called the police. When the officers arrived they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to put someone in fear.

I'm not happy with the fact that they may scarper only to come back when they feel "SAFE", I would prefer they scarper knowing I'm armed and never come back or better still I detain them at gunpoint, let them know I'm not a victim and be congratulated by the Police for doing so!

[Geezah]

If the us is anything like the rest of the world the burglars will bolt as soon as you appear gun or no gun

Did you not read my earlier post about two teenage girls that were raped(in Ohio) while their parents were asleep in the other room? these were two seperate incidents!

[Durandal]

So in the States, what are the conditions in which you are allowed to kill someone? does any kind of break in count as self defence?

Here is great question, glad you asked. I live in Kentucky, so the laws differ depending on what State you are in.

There has to be a life threatening condition. You have to show that hte person had intent, which if they are armed its a reasonably easy thing to do. You could not, lets say, shoot someone on your property because they were trespassing, nor could you shoot someone trying to steal your car. There is no threat to you. You could shoot someone breaking into your home, if they are in the home. Its a handsdown case if you had no way to leave either or you were protecting a child and (or are) the elderly.

Kentucky is a Conceal Carry State. 8 Hour training course and qualification and background check (reasonable in my opinion). There are been three shoots by CC licensed individuals. One in a park two on city streets, all legal with court appearence. These people were also responsible, being threated by a weapon or bodily harm, all license holders were with clean backgrounds (not criminlas), sound in mind (not insane), and they all legally held CC licenses (which while not difficult or costly to get require a certain level of intelligence).

Last year we had a elderly woman, lean out her second story apartment window and shoot a stranger she thought was breaking in (which afterwards there was evidence to support, though he was trespassing). Killed him. She was brought up on charges and convicted. Not too sure if she did jail time or probabtion (because of age).

Now, across the river in Ohio, things are different. More strict gun laws, especially in Cincinnati (no Assault Weapons, no Hi-Cap mags) no shooting AT ALL inside city limits (even private ranges). Last year, in November if I recall correctly, I guy, in a bar, shot and wounded, a guy trying to hold up the bar (during business hours). Keep in mind, the gy with the gun is breaking several laws:

A) Carrying a concealed weapon (no CC in Ohio at that time).
B) No license/permit to carry a weapon (in Cincinnati).
C) Was in a bar. Automatic Felony (Federal Court).

The guy was arrested, the released, hailed a hero, charges were dropped, The criminal tried to sue, case thrown out.

No look at New York. A guy shoots a burlar enter is child's crib room. New York requires a license to own a shotgun or handgun (maybe all guns, I cannot remember...New Yor as a State has some fairly strict gun laws). He kills the guy. Definate self defense case.

Unfortunately he does not have the permit/paperwork...gets jailtime BUT is also hailed a hero.

So, I guess my answer is...depends on where you are. :) :|

I have never been a firm supporter of the "this is my land" mentality where you shoot first and ask questions later. Keep in mind, also, that I help manage a 300 plus acre farm and deal with wild animals, poachers, kids shooting cans an bottles, drunk teenagers getting high, and dumbasses that think that because there is no house along certain parts of the property it means the can do whatever they want.

I have never shot anyone, though I do carry a shotgun with me during the confrontation "Get off!"

I would never shoot anyone unless theyy had a gun in hand and looked like they were going to use it. Chances are, I would probably back-off and call the cops on the cel phone, while I kept an eye onthe guy.

Just because I believe in in owning a gun and carrying a gun, doesn't mean I believe I need to run around like Death on a Pale Horse. I am EXTREMELY responsible and EXTREMELY cautious.

I also understand the words of wisdom (or those similar to it) handed out by most officers at the end of a Conceal Carry class. You are likely to go to jail from drawing your gun, whether you use it or not. Make sure you know WHEN to draw it and when not to.

[marktigger]

Part of the problem of rising crime rates is with Law enforcement in the UK is the ammount of paperwork(all of which must be correct) and the Crown Prosecution service(soon to be peoples prosecution service if president Blair gets his way) who will no take a case to court if in their opinion there isn't a reasonable hope of success and many of their lawyers aren't the best about.
Added to which the average policeman feels that his superiors and the courts will not give him any backing over the judgements and in many cases the court will believe the accused over the police.
Both of thease have lead to low morale added to that is constant political interference and Imposition of political correctness have led officers to become increasingly disilousioned with the whole criminal justice system which many now see as being balanced towards the criminal.

[martinexsquaddie]

it always makes me laugh that the states have diffrent gun laws without any border its easy to transfer guns around the country with little problem its not like new yourk city can physically search every car and truck coming in

[Beowulf]

it always makes me laugh that the states have diffrent gun laws without any border its easy to transfer guns around the country with little problem its not like new yourk city can physically search every car and truck coming in

There are federal laws governing weapons, ammo etc. however each state has some latitude in terms of its laws, as long as they are not un-constitutional.

Concealed handgun licenses are issued by individual states, for example. Some states have different requirements for a chl, many states do not allow chl's at all. Since a chl is a privilege like marriage, or a drivers license, and not a right guaranteed under the constitution the state has control.

States rights is a very important issue that is often overlooked. Many of the founders wanted as little "big" government as possible. Thus the "United States". The idea is a series of separate states united by a constitution, working together with some federal programs, but as many issues as possible handled on the local level.

Much of this was eroded by "the new deal". Inter-state commerce is edit: one of the tools by which the government puts its hands in the cookie jar of states rights. But i digress...

[Durandal]

it always makes me laugh that the states have diffrent gun laws without any border its easy to transfer guns around the country with little problem its not like new yourk city can physically search every car and truck coming in

Trying to avoid duplicating Beowulf's post...

Personally I enjoy it. Not only does it reflect what the original framers of our government wished (most fo them at least), but it also part of the independent American mind.

Different gun laws make it no less or more possible to transfer guns. Legal gun purchases create paper trails. Even thought he federal government is required to destroy background checks as soon as possible of lawful firearms purchases, the firearms store that you purchased the gun from is required to mainatin their paperwork for 30 years. This includes the make, serial number, and I.D. info of the buyer.

Tracking stolen or illegal firearms across borders is no less difficult that the United States doing it...or to get back on topic, England. I somehow doubt, in fact, I know, British authorities have not stemmed the flow of illegal firearms entering their country or Northern Ireland.

Which is not the end of the world. Prosecuting gun related crime should be the priority.

[Geezah]

it always makes me laugh that the states have diffrent gun laws without any border its easy to transfer guns around the country with little problem its not like new yourk city can physically search every car and truck coming in

Transfer legally or illegally, if legally then when you ship a firearm out of State(or in) you must first find out if the said firearm is legal in that State and if it is you need to send it to the customers FFL so he can do the backfground check and transfer paperwork, so it's not as easy as you think. Unlees you have gun runners shipping illegal firearms and then they don't care anyway.

[Durandal]

[quote=martinexsquaddie]...and if it is you need to send it to the customers FFL so he can do the backfground check and transfer paperwork...

Actually, ALL States require FFL transfers to be done with a local FFL. No sales direct to the public.

I also think that it needs to be known that most FFLs (Firearms retailers) do not do transfers or charge a huge amount. Most FFLs do nto do the transfers since you are usually doing it because you found a great deal, rather than go through them.

THis what people do not get. Unless I am buying from an individual citizen, it is extremely difficult to a handgun, since I can only purchase one in my State (technically I can buy one in another State, but the diffculty of transfering the gun legally means I only buy in my State's FFL holders or from a private citizen (which is difficult since most print media no longer run personal firearms in the classifieds).

Which brings us back to the point. The only people that are really pushing firearms around across borders are criminals.

[martinexsquaddie]

So why do people pass strict Gun laws knowing that another state or in the case of new york outside the city limits you can cannon up to the max freely. At least in the UK its equally difficult to get hold of fire arms every where you go.

[Geezah]

So why do people pass strict Gun laws knowing that another state or in the case of new york outside the city limits you can cannon up to the max freely. At least in the UK its equally difficult to get hold of fire arms every where you go.

Let me give you an example, in Indiana you can apply for your CCW but you must be a resident, now if you carry concealed and you travel into Ohio you must lock it up as they have not as of yet entered into any reciprocity agreements, even though once I aquire my CCW I can travel into Indiana and not worry about breaking the law.
It's not as simple as just travelling down the road, in Ohio to get your license you have to have been a resident for 30days and then if you've been a resident for less than 5yrs you have a full background check with the FBI, fingerprints taken and all that!

You make it sound like it's so simple to get a firearm legally, now my brother lives in Indiana and wants to get a shotgun but I'm not sure if he can go through my FFL(Ohio)and benefit from dealer prices?

[Durandal]

So why do people pass strict Gun laws knowing that another state or in the case of new york outside the city limits you can cannon up to the max freely. At least in the UK its equally difficult to get hold of fire arms every where you go.

Because people are nuts, fear guns, and want to baby sit with laws that ultimately do little to curb violence and criminals. Ultimately, I think the "Want to fight crime" argument is the least important. People like, say, Barbara Boxer, quite literally do not undertand why anyone needs to own a gun, and because they do not understand it, the either fear it or hate it...both of which end up with the same legislation trying to curtail or prohibit firearm ownership. They are not trying to make the world a safer place (though they may use that argument, but they simply fear or have no comprehension...which is probably just as dangerous as an armed criminal in my eyes.

While you may cannon up freely in an adjacent State or county when you live in a City that prohibits or restricts firearm ownership, that does not mean you are not breaking the law.

Every gun owner SHOULD take the time to understand gun laws, not just in their local area but in places they travel or take firearms...including places they drive through. Just because I am moving from Kentucky to Michigan, does not mean, the assault weapons ban in Cincinnati does not apply to me when I get pulled over for a bad tail light on the highway.

Being a responsible gun owner means not only that you practice safety and maintain your weapons, but you understand the laws AND more importantly OBEY them. Just because I think California's gun laws are unconstitutional does not mean I have a RIGHT to break them. I think it also the responsibility of gun owners to be properly educated about gun laws to help educate others, regardless if they are anti-gun or want to start hunting. Its all about responsibility...

I'll tackle another point in the response the immediately previous thread...

[Durandal]

You make it sound like it's so simple to get a firearm legally, now my brother lives in Indiana and wants to get a shotgun but I'm not sure if he can go through my FFL(Ohio)and benefit from dealer prices?

Here is the most basic gist of the whole firearms sales deal...

You can ONLY purchase a handgun, from an FFL, in your home State.

You can ONLY purchase a longarm (rifle and shotguns), from an FFL, in both your home State and States with adjoing borders to your home State.

You can purchase a pistol or longarm in ANY State, so long as it is transferred to an legal FFL holder in your home State.

You can legally purchase a pistol or longarm from any other citizen in your home State or any other 49 States. (This by the way is the so-called "Gun Show Loophole"...which is always made out to sound like there is some sort of criminal action going on *snort*. It obviously has NOTHING to do with Gun Shows.)

You cannot mail a firearm, and I forget which shipping companies ahndle firearms and explosives (ammuniton and black powder).

There may be other laws in your local area that limit you even further, but these are all standard regardless of where you live. They will not get any LESS restrictive, but probably more so depending on your locale.

[Sabre]

Geezah wrote:

Please tell me how you would explain to the victims how it's right the scum that's been released is the correct thing to do?

The issue of early release, or what happens to a person once they have entered the justice system is a different matter. At least they have got to that stage. The 16 year old that Mr. Martin shot never had that chance. Perhaps if the justice system were strict enough, a spell inside would have straightened him out, but now we'll never know, will we.

There's a guy called Peter Ratcliffe, he was a right bastard as a kid and routinely stole from his parents (he stole his father's medals and sold them to pay for Man U tickets) and local shops, among other things, until he was 17. Then he joined the army to avoid getting nicked and never looked back. He rose to being the RSM of 22 SAS during the Gulf War and personally led one of the most successful patrols out there, recieving the DCM. Do you think he should have been shot as a child thief? Jesus, even the Saudis are less draconian than you, they only cuit their hands off!

There is a reason for a justice system, it takes an objective view of a person's alleged offences and passes sentence on them impartially. You can't just go around as a vigillante and shoot people, even though you know they have commited a crime. It circumvents the whole system of law and order which protects our rights. Without respecting that, we would just descend into some feudal barbary where we avenged our greivences. How would you like it if a person in the next car shoots you for speeding? That's a crime which could kill someone (unlike burglary).


"but they were probably pissed off by the f*cked-up lunatic by then" does this then take away his rights to be protected equally by the law as the law over there promotes calling 999

No, but the police are only human. They have limited resources to spare and can get pissed off. They probably didn't compromise his protection as it is their professional responsibility to provide it...presicely why Mr. Martin should not have taken the law into his own hands.

Equally, does the 16 year old (a child by law) not have the right to life? He certainly did not enter the property with the expectation of being shot. I do not agree with criminals attempting to take out court actions against their victims (as the other burglar did, unsuccessfully I might add), but they have the right to do so, however in vain it might be. It is up to the courts to decide on a person's guilt and punishment, not us. That is why they exist.


And no I still do not feel sorry for the guys Tony M shot they shouldn't have been in there in the first place!

Mate, I have been in places I shouldn't have! I most certainly didn't expect to be shot while I was there. (unless it was with the Queen's schilling in hand)

[Geezah]

Geezah wrote:

Please tell me how you would explain to the victims how it's right the scum that's been released is the correct thing to do?

The issue of early release, or what happens to a person once they have entered the justice system is a different matter. At least they have got to that stage. The 16 year old that Mr. Martin shot never had that chance. Perhaps if the justice system were strict enough, a spell inside would have straightened him out, but now we'll never know, will we.

No...we will not know but again he took it upon himself to enter Tony Martin's house and this proably wasn't the first time(as Tony had been burglared numerous times before)either so you're telling me I should feel sorry for this poor sod that went out of his way to upset someone elses life? No I do not feel sorry for him and again if he wasn't in that house in the first place we wouldn't be having this dialogue now, if anyone has failed this guy it's his parents.....if I told you my Father used to be a little sod and did 6 months hard labour years ago, would you believe me or the way I think now?



There's a guy called Peter Ratcliffe, he was a right bastard as a kid and routinely stole from his parents (he stole his father's medals and sold them to pay for Man U tickets) and local shops, among other things, until he was 17. Then he joined the army to avoid getting nicked and never looked back. He rose to being the RSM of 22 SAS during the Gulf War and personally led one of the most successful patrols out there, recieving the DCM. Do you think he should have been shot as a child thief? Jesus, even the Saudis are less draconian than you, they only cuit their hands off!

What type of response are you looking for from me, I salute the guy for realizing the error in his oldway and his service to Queen and Country!


There is a reason for a justice system, it takes an objective view of a person's alleged offences and passes sentence on them impartially. You can't just go around as a vigillante and shoot people, even though you know they have commited a crime. It circumvents the whole system of law and order which protects our rights. Without respecting that, we would just descend into some feudal barbary where we avenged our greivences. How would you like it if a person in the next car shoots you for speeding? That's a crime which could kill someone (unlike burglary).


Geezah wrote:"but they were probably pissed off by the f*cked-up lunatic by then" does this then take away his rights to be protected equally by the law as the law over there promotes calling 999

No, but the police are only human. They have limited resources to spare and can get pissed off. They probably didn't compromise his protection as it is their professional responsibility to provide it...presicely why Mr. Martin should not have taken the law into his own hands.

Equally, does the 16 year old (a child by law) not have the right to life? He certainly did not enter the property with the expectation of being shot. I do not agree with criminals attempting to take out court actions against their victims (as the other burglar did, unsuccessfully I might add), but they have the right to do so, however in vain it might be. It is up to the courts to decide on a person's guilt and punishment, not us. That is why they exist.


And no I still do not feel sorry for the guys Tony M shot they shouldn't have been in there in the first place!

Mate, I have been in places I shouldn't have! I most certainly didn't expect to be shot while I was there. (unless it was with the Queen's schilling in hand)

So somehow it's right that the Police have started targeting Tony all the time? they seem to be everywhere and are using the excuse of looking out for his best interests?


They probably didn't compromise his protection as it is their professional responsibility to provide it...presicely why Mr. Martin should not have taken the law into his own hands.

Wow....so now you're telling me that the Police have a responsiblity to protect the individual 24/7, is this something that they now claim they are good at? did they forget this after the numerous occasions that Tony's house had been burglared? and when did the policy of looking after society change to looking after the individual?

When Tony Martin pulled the trigger do you think he was thinking "how old is the guy I'm about to shoot"? Becuase if someone has enough balls to come in my house my main priority is to protect my Family and if I see them as a threat I'm not taking any chances and the last thing going through my mind will be "How old is this guy/girl"?