British terrorist attackers obvious lack of firearms.... Take note America!

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Take away the gooberments guns and it might be a bit hard to police the world, just a thought.

On the other hand it may well free up 57% of the federal dollar for other purposes should such a thing ever come to pass.

Fact is even if that were ever to happen without anarchy ensuring, and the world did not disintegrate into flames, most American gun owners would still be reluctant to relinquish there firearms.

Such is the power of the illusion of freedom.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Have not read past page one, so this may have already been mentioned:

1) The amount of firearms in the US is and has been much higher than in the UK. Even with our 2nd amendment right, there are a huge number of illegal guns already out there. Banning guns will not change that. They would have to some how magically make all those illegal guns disappear. So yes, here in the US, it would still be quite easy for someone to obtain a gun illegally.

2) The argument is not always "they'll find a way to get a gun to kill people". The argument is "getting rid of guns will not stop people from killing people"

The recent attacks in the UK have proven that just fine unfortunately.

a reply to: TonyS

I think something many of us on both sides of the pond miss is the sheer differences in geographical scale involved too.

My son's school's headmaster was either Scottish or Irish, and remarked that when he and his wife decided to take a day trip out to Dodge City, KS, to see Boot Hill, they didn't realize how far that actually was. Compared to the scale of distances where they were from, it was immense, and that was all one state.

Many European countries are comparable to US states, and not the larger ones. So when they think flyover country, their ideas of scale are something smaller I think. They don't necessarily comprehend the times involved for LEO to cover their rural beats.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

And a good afternoon to you.

In regards to your threads premise...nope. My guns have never, are currently not, hopefully will never, hurt/hurting anyone.

Couldn't careless if the attacks happened without guns, that is sooo not the issue. The issue is that the attacks happened at all.

Why are the tools the problem? Seems to me that the people using the tools are the problem. Until that's addressed anything else is utterly and completely meaningless jabber.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Might have been more informative all round all the same if our responding trained armed Police had not pumped 50 odd bullets in to the three terrorist bastards.

Not suggesting any pity or sympathy for the murderous swine but it may have been nice to gleam some information should say they have tasered one of them first as apposed to just wiping them out.

Then again extreme circumstance requires an extreme response and its not like our Police are short of bullets.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Actually, your observation proves the exact opposite. Even in the absence of guns you are still not safe. However, if some of the victims had firearms perhaps the violence would not have lasted as long. Suppose you get your ban on guns. Even in your gun-free utopia you are obviously not safe. What do you plan to do next? Ban cars and trucks? Knives? Hammers? When do you stop blaming the instrument and start blaming the person using it?

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Good afternoon ATS.

I've spent many years on this here site and others arguing with Americans about gun control, I've been through all the arguments over and over again and it always ends with the comment "If you take away all the guns, only the bad guys will have them"... or "If someone wants to carry out a mass killing they will get a gun by whatever means, banning/grabbing guns will not stop this, it just means we won't be able to protect ourselves"... And similar arguments....

My main point in all these discussions is a simple one, that a country with less guns, is a safer country.

Now as we all know this comes down to mentality/culture as well, other countries have a high percentage of weapons in citizens hands, Canada, switzerland etc, but these problems don't seem to occur with anywhere near the frequency they do in the states...

My main point is something I noticed this week, of the 3 terror attacks in the UK in the last month or so NO GUNS were used, that's right, NO GUNS.... This appears to prove my point that a society with less guns is a safer society, and completely destroys the argument that if people want to kill they will find guns and kill people.... These chaps couldn't get hold of one, and they seemed to be planning for quite some time... That's how hard it is to get hold of a gun in the UK, very hard.

In Australia for instance, after the Port Arthur massacre, there was an amnesty...... A large percentage of guns were handed in, the people understood that a society is safer if people don't have hand held killing tools in their homes. The cost of obtaining the same gun used in the Port Arthur Massacre went from 250 Dollars to 40,000 dollars.... See what happened?

I would propose that my argument for all these years has been seen in action. Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

That is all.

PA

That's rich considering the filth is blowing up children or driving over people and slitting their throats. Even some UK police don't have adequate means to defend themselves. Many where running during the London attack. The UK will be a muslim controlled country soon and that's fine but it won't happen in the US simply cause we Americans have "GUNS" and will not allow it. Considering kids in Chicago get their hands on guns and kill each other at record levels there is no way to remove the guns and if that is the case then atleast we in the US will have a fighting chance unlike you blokes in the UK.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That's not something that will occur to the anti-gun folks who use this week as an example...sad, but true.

Blame the tools, not the user is much easier.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

That's some interesting logic you've got there...using a country that's just suffered multiple terrorist attacks in the recent months as the case study for why we should be more like them.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: eriktheawful

Might have been more informative all round all the same if our responding trained armed Police had not pumped 50 odd bullets in to the three terrorist bastards.

Not suggesting any pity or sympathy for the murderous swine but it may have been nice to gleam some information should say they have tasered one of them first as apposed to just wiping them out.

Then again extreme circumstance requires an extreme response and its not like our Police are short of bullets.

Why on earth would you use a taser on somebody that you thought was wearing a suicide vest? Even shooting him is a risk, but a much lower risk.

Also, those 50 rounds were spread out between 8 officers, if memory serves. Say 6-7 rounds each, which is remarkably restrained when you look at many other nations. It would have been nice to capture him alive and interrogate him, but given the situation they were facing I would completely understand if all 8 just did a mag dump into him.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm just suggesting taking one of the bastards alive might have been an option that may have told us things that we may have missed. The fact that none of them detonated these fake vest could well have suggested to trained armed Police officers as to them being window dressing.

If it was 7 rounds each, and 8 highly trained armed Police then why was one of the officers in question suspended, apparently for reasons surrounding the use of his firearm?

It would have been informative, don't know about nice, but like i said excessive act of depravity call for excessive force and measures.

originally posted by: DL432
Brit here, long time lurker first post.

It would need to be heavily regulated. For example, make it so that it has to be self financed. Anyone who wants a gun has to attend a mandatory 6 months training course, again, self financed (offer payment plans so as not to price out people with less money from owning a firearm). Copy other government systems, such as the passport process, where you need references to apply. Make it so that you need 2 x employer references and a character reference from someone who knows you personally, who is in good professional standing (e.g someone with something to lose if you decide to go off and attack people).

You've just described the existing process for obtaining a Firearms Certificate. Well, except that you normally need 12 months probationary club membership not just 6, and you don't need an employer reference - not everyone has an employer, after all. What about retired people? Students? The self-employed?

I am entirely in favour of having handguns moved back to section 1. I'm also in favour of CCW being an option. There are still people alive now who lived in a time when gentlemen of good standing could keep a revolver in their jacket pocket. There have even been historical cases where the police have asked passers-by to loan them revolvers in order to apprehend an armed villain!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm just suggesting taking one of the bastards alive might have been an option that may have told us things that we may have missed. The fact that none of them detonated these fake vest could well have suggested to trained armed Police officers as to them being window dressing.

I'm not disagreeing about the utility, just the practicality.

Also, if they thought the guy was about to set off his vest, that would be a reason to shoot. The only thing you could assume at the time from the lack of detonation, is that they hadn't chosen to detonate them yet. For all the police knew, the guy could have been waiting to draw a crowd of police closer in order to claim some "higher value" targets when he went up.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob
If it was 7 rounds each, and 8 highly trained armed Police then why was one of the officers in question suspended, apparently for reasons surrounding the use of his firearm?

Hopefully the details will become clear following an enquiry. I wasn't actually aware that one was suspended, though I believe they would all be taken off active duty as a matter of procedure during the investigation that follows any use of firearms.

Possibly one guy went for a mag dump while the others fired one or two shots. If that one guy panicked then it might call into question his suitability for the role. Still, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone put in that position.

a reply to: EvillerBob

True, although one would assume that multiple crowded targets would have been available to the bastards in question long before they started to wield there knives and stab people should there vests have contained real explosives.

Unfortunately we will never know now because in the heat of action our armed response officers offed the bastards in question in there entirety.

Hind sight through is a fickle beast.

End of the day if the Police managed to save life by way of killing the belligerent fools then the justification is self evident.

I'm not arguing the fact of the matter, just playing devils advocate somewhat.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Good afternoon ATS.

I've spent many years on this here site and others arguing with Americans about gun control, I've been through all the arguments over and over again and it always ends with the comment "If you take away all the guns, only the bad guys will have them"... or "If someone wants to carry out a mass killing they will get a gun by whatever means, banning/grabbing guns will not stop this, it just means we won't be able to protect ourselves"... And similar arguments....

My main point in all these discussions is a simple one, that a country with less guns, is a safer country.



PA

Yea right just until men with guns show up and end it all.

Besides the point is rather stupid when you consider it was and has been bombs......and bombs are not legal.

And knives.........are not allowed to use knives to kill people but they do it any way.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm not arguing the fact of the matter, just playing devils advocate somewhat.

Nothing wrong with that at all!

It's worth noting that the officers probably had specific instructions that directed them to shoot sooner rather than later.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly


Why do you even care what is done in the U.S.? Do you really think
a 'law' will get rid of 300+million weapons in the U.S.? Especially when the majority don't want such a law?


We don't care what you think. Really. Seriously. Hint, hint.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

And yet, the worst terror incident to date was accomplished by knives...why are we talking about guns?....

So?

As I said you yanks can have all the guns you want.

US gun control (or lack of) is non of the UK buisness same way as UK gun control is none of the USA buisness.

Both countrys have a way that works for them.

Sssoo I was triggered I guess by "stupid yanks", minus that, we agree.

Bad people are the cause, not inanimate objects.

Dont take it personally.

Us brits have viewd you as uncouth, uneducated , uncultured and uncivilised since the first colonies where established and no matter how big your armed forces or how many bombs you drop we will always think the same

And asked for our help at the same time

We'll Pardner, I think you got it bass ackward, what you guy's need a sled load of 6 shooters and the instruction book for a new game, may I suggest Cowboys and Muslims. We will talk about freedom and independents a little later.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Your Entitled to your Opinion , but Dead Wrong about Legal Firearms . Victims of Crimes and Terrorism would be Best Served in Preserving their Lives by Arming themselves in Situations where a Direct Threat to their Lives could be Prevented by the Ability of Defensive Firepower . ANY Argument Against that Logic Fails Miserably to a Truly Free Man .......