UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

reply to post by SpearMint


Actually, Home Office statistics show that gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Forget the sleight of hand, the fact is simple: less guns, more gun-related crimes. There is no argument.

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Actually, Home Office statistics show that gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Forget the sleight of hand, the fact is simple: less guns, more gun-related crimes. There is no argument.

Well first of all it was all violent crime just now, stop changing it to suit you. Secondly you can't look at just the numbers, you need to look at it per capita, because the population has grown too. Violent crime has decreased in the UK and is now lower than it was before the gun laws

By the way of the millions of violent crimes in the US in 2008, about 436,000 were known to have a gun.

So no, your assumption that less guns = more gun-related crimes couldn't be more wrong.

reply to post by EvanB


It's more than our guns it is the right to bear ARMS. Bear Arms is what local armories are for. Not just the military but local city armories, State armories but all are controlled by the fed. But it goes deeper than that any citizen has the right to bear arms that is to have a armory complete with all the latest arms needed to fight off any invading army or tyrannical govt.

But they took the right to bear arms for the purpose of defense years ago and we did nothing. Now we are arguing over small arms hand guns, rifles and ammo. That is not what the second amendment was established for.

we need to have a solution to all the govt is doing. the infringement of rights is only part of it, the debt ceiling, the budget or lack of one, the by passing of congress is out of hand with this administration. I made a thread that a person suggested a peaceful way a divorcement from the govt and that the governors of each states where petitions were signed for succession could initiate to form a more perfect union go here to read more www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by misscurious


I don't think that's what he meant....taking guns on a demo. The British people are vulnerable to having a knock at the door and being rounded up etc. The UK is a scary feudal police state. Here in Australia there have been reports of people arming themselves to the hilt. They know what's coming.

I understand people not wanting to bullied by governments. I don't and won't have guns my self....there are lots of places to hide and eat fruit in Oz. But I totally get why people want them. Weather a population is disarmed or not, the real nasty thugs and criminals (of which I saw a shocking amount of in the UK) will always be armed.

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Actually, Home Office statistics show that gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Forget the sleight of hand, the fact is simple: less guns, more gun-related crimes. There is no argument.

I can tell you now, the vast majority of that statistic is due to foreign gangs increasing massively. We have had from Jamaica to Eastern European, Russian to Turks, these gangs operate well armed and are absolutely ruthless, they undertake a level of violence that to be quite frank, we really are not used to in this country.

great thread

Britain is far more violent now that it ever used to be and regardless of what brain washing media and other outlets may say, it's a direct result of the dramatic increase of immigrantion and as such, immigrant gangs, that to be honest even coppers who have been in the service 30+ years say conduct a level of violence that is just alien to Britain, even if you go back to gangs like Krays and Richardsons, they're nothing compared to this lot. In turn, we have our own increasingly dysfunctional youth to deal with that seemingly have been left to raise themselves by equally as dysfunctional "parents". They themselves, undertake increasingly more violent acts that again, never used to be the case many moons ago. All in all, regardless of what you hear or read, Britain is becoming increasingly more violent with each passing year.

Most of you will be totally unaware of the amount of guns that are on the streets, but its loads more than you probably believe. I'll be honest with you for every drug related raid in the Met area, I'd say one in four uncovers firearms at the scene. So gun laws have done nothing to deter gangs and criminals from owning guns nor gun crime itself. However, is this an indication that Britain should relax its gun laws so that law abiding citizens can obtain guns for self defence? No. Simply put, gun crime is still relatively low in this country. The vast majority of gun crime is between organised criminal gangs and individual criminal rivalries hence why you hardly ever hear about it, that does not make it right, but while they're at each other, its all out of sight in terms of what the government and police see as a threat to public safety. I mean as far as the old bill is concerned, its all about one less criminal of the streets to be concerned about.

That being said, the Police now, talking with regards to the Met as really that's all I can base my opinion on, is becoming less effective by the day. The politics is just killing law and order, the recent "recommendations" is going to absolutely wreck the police. What I can see is the police going the same way as many undeveloped nations, mass corruption, effectiveness in the gutter and to be frank less of a career choice for any self respecting adult so they'll do what they did before, recruit any old trash.

So that leaves members of the public out in the cold, with a dysfunctional police force and an increasing number of criminals, especially from abroad, who will stick a knife in you just for your shoes and won't think twice. What with the economic conditions worsening, people of working class who would not dare handle stolen goods, will now be more than happy to save any money they can, even if it means getting their goods from thieves. This is what is happening, this is what then increases crime. Do you want to sit in your home waiting for someone to kick the door in and be totally defenceless, knowing that this country is becoming more violent and the police less effective?

Take it from me, someone who has to deal with this madness every single day, it's not going to get better for us, in fact, it is going to get far worse than it is now. Do you want to be left out in the cold unarmed and unable to defend your family? I stand by the fact that its a good thing that guns aren't as freely available in this country as in America, but the way this country is going, I do believe that something must be done. This country has allowed and cheered on even the stripping of police powers, a copper can't do anything now without thinking he/she will be taken to court while some yob/scum looks for a nice compensation pay out. We've allowed this to happen, we're allowing the police to become even less effective with the current "modernisation" of the service. We've sat by while government implements policy after policy of destruction. So now it comes to this, regardless of whether you have a gun or not, you're on your own, I sure hope you're all prepared for that, because guns or not, Britain is becoming a violent place to live.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ototheb85
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

No its not up to us its up to the government! so abide by the law like a upstanding Citizen!! owning guns it wrong! plain and simple.. you need to grow up! how about this I want to own a coc aine farm is that OK with illegal immigrants working for me??

is that an OK thing to decide for myself?

edit on 16-1-2013 by ototheb85 because: (no reason given)

What the hell sort of an analogy is this?...

Owning firearms does not equal to owning a coc aine farm, or exploiting people...

First you need to learn to make a concise, and intelligent argument if you want to be taken seriously. So far all you have shown is not only complete ignorance, but how extremely naive people like you are.

If the government tells you there is a law that wants to compel you to jump from a 2,000 foot cliff you will do it because "it is up to the government"?...

There have been plenty of governments which have FORCED people to do their will, just like you want, from Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, castro, etc, etc... They all have one thing in common, appart from being leftwing, they all have FORCED people to do the will of the government...

So we know with what sort of people, and governments YOU would side with...

The sort of mentality of people like you is the reason why so many dictatorships have appeared all over the world...

edit on 16-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

so hitler and mussolini were left wing then, ok, no wonder some us posters on here think that the us has been taken over by communists.

also, if i had the time i would check to see how many us posters in this thread have cried about brits commenting in us gun control threads. sadly i dont.

anyway, thread checked for epicness, pot stirred, and it's off to work for me!

laters!

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by superman2012

 

Lets take a real life example..

Tony Martin was woken up in the middle of the night by two burglers who invaded his rural home.. He shot them with a shotgun.. One of them died.. The other lived to claim compensation for his injuries..

Tony Martin got put in jail for manslaughter... For protecting his home and possesions..

Do you not see something wrong in that?

Not only was Tony Martin not ment to have a gun but he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away that's why he got sent down I can see why he did next time blow his leg off then he's not dead and the police can arrest him :/

Originally posted by geewizz

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by superman2012

 

Lets take a real life example..

Tony Martin was woken up in the middle of the night by two burglers who invaded his rural home.. He shot them with a shotgun.. One of them died.. The other lived to claim compensation for his injuries..

Tony Martin got put in jail for manslaughter... For protecting his home and possesions..

Do you not see something wrong in that?

Not only was Tony Martin not ment to have a gun but he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away that's why he got sent down I can see why he did next time blow his leg off then he's not dead and the police can arrest him :/

I could not give a crap.... They should not have invaded his property.... They were fair game as far as I am concerned...

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by StarBoy
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Do you really want me to go over the history of human civilization?

The queen?

Really?

You need at least 10 million armed queens to save you from an extremist government.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Queen is a far more effective deterrent to an extremist government than all the Americans guns.

You do realise that it is her majestys government and that she has the power to dissolve parliament and dismiss the prime minister .

She is also head of the armed forces and all the officers hold their commissions from her.

In the fanciful and ridiculously improbable scenario of a rogue government there is no doubt the Queen could end it all in a moment.

I am sure that she can wave her hand and make all the bad men go away.

Sorry to burst your bubble , she's a figurehead and has no power whatsoever, if the government went rogue the only thing she would/could do is acquiece.

You don't seem to know much about the constitutional position of the monarch in the UK. The Queen is head of state, head of the armed forces and the fount of all power.

By convention, she only exercises that power on the advice of her ministers but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is absolutely no legal doubt that the Queen can dissolve parliament; in fact she is the only one who can. For her to do so against the advice of her ministers would indeed be unconstitutional but what keeps being proposed here is that, ludicrously improbably, the government has already gone rogue and is acting unconsitutionally.

In a split between a rogue repressive government and the monarch I have absolutely no doubt that the armed forces, police etc would maintain their oaths of loyalty to the Queen.

www.centreforcitizenship.org...

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX

Originally posted by ototheb85

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...

edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)

I could not have agreed with your more!!! I don't want my daughter growing up around guns!. no way! im happy the way it is! peaceful protests all the way!

A peaceful protest would save your daughter from being jumped, stabbed, or raped?

Sorry mate, we don't play those paranoid games. We've gone way past locking our daughters away until they are married, besides I dare bet most women jumped, stabbed or raped are done so by their partners or so called friends.
One endevours to be as careful as possible, but a guns not going to help you if you are comatose from rohypnol or if you are cornered in your own kitchen by someone you are supposed to trust. That is unless peoples idea of carrying a weapon means they even sleep with one strapped to them.

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by EvillerBob

 

most of those 4 million guns are stored at gun clubs, not in the home.

I'd trust the security at a gun club more than I'd trust the security-consciousness of the average home owner.

Originally posted by EvanB

I could not give a crap.... They should not have invaded his property.... They were fair game as far as I am concerned...

Well, fortunately for UK society, you aren't in charge of making the rules. If every home owner had yours and Tony Martin's attitude towards criminals, all it would produce is a far more ruthless criminal for the nation to be concerned about.

Individuals cannot walk around in a constant state of readiness for criminals who they are willing to kill for threatening their well-being. Even trained soldiers crack up after a varying amount of time under the stress of constant combat preparedness.

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Except you don't have a low crime rate. But why rely on statistics when you can spew nonsense?

Well, we do have a low crime rate in the UK. The high figures are distorted simply by the fact that 'violent' crime is catergorised quite differently here than in some countries. No idea why though.

For instance, all burglary is violent crime even if the householder isn't even home. Being arrested from drunkenly giving a policeman a mouthful of abuse is a violent crime. It goes on.

I suppose the rationale is that crimes like this have 'violent intent or potential' rather than something physically happens.

Originally posted by SecretFace

Originally posted by D377MC
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Actually, Home Office statistics show that gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Forget the sleight of hand, the fact is simple: less guns, more gun-related crimes. There is no argument.

I can tell you now, the vast majority of that statistic is due to foreign gangs increasing massively. We have had from Jamaica to Eastern European, Russian to Turks, these gangs operate well armed and are absolutely ruthless, they undertake a level of violence that to be quite frank, we really are not used to in this country.

Which supports what we've been saying all along: that gunlaws do not stop crime because they only disarm those who obey the law and criminals will always find a way to get guns.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by EvanB

I could not give a crap.... They should not have invaded his property.... They were fair game as far as I am concerned...

Well, fortunately for UK society, you aren't in charge of making the rules. If every home owner had yours and Tony Martin's attitude towards criminals, all it would produce is a far more ruthless criminal for the nation to be concerned about.

Individuals cannot walk around in a constant state of readiness for criminals who they are willing to kill for threatening their well-being. Even trained soldiers crack up after a varying amount of time under the stress of constant combat preparedness.

edit on 17-1-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

I don't follow that logic and it really doesn't make any sense: better not resist criminals at all unless they become more criminal? In practice, the inverse is true. Criminals prefer weak victims and the weaker you are, the more they victimize. Put up a strong front and they go to the next house.

I do wonder if the difference in opinions about guns is that in the UK we still believe we live in a society, where everyone is connected and we each have our part to play. In the US, forgive me if i'm wrong, there's more of a "every man for himself" individualistic perception of ones role in the world. Individuals are easier to pick off than a collective group of people. Unfortunatly i see the US trend of individualism has been growing here ever since the days of Margret Thatcher.

I think that's what the mythical powers that be want, if everyones too busy looking out for themselves they forget to look out for each other.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
reply to post by EvanB

 

It's more than our guns it is the right to bear ARMS. Bear Arms is what local armories are for. Not just the military but local city armories, State armories but all are controlled by the fed. But it goes deeper than that any citizen has the right to bear arms that is to have a armory complete with all the latest arms needed to fight off any invading army or tyrannical govt.

This is one aspect that I cannot understand in the gun advocates' argument. In the nineteenth century I can see that an armed population could defend itself with rifles against tyranny or invasion because any aggressor would just be a load of other guys with rifles.

But nowadays unless you have the wherewithal and desire to own several helicopter gunships and maybe some tanks I don't see how you're going to defend yourselves. A couple of machine guns are not really going to do the job against the full might of a modern military.

reply to post by SecretFace


I take your point about police powers and I'm nervous of cuts to the service. But what you say about Britain being more violent than ever is complete scaremongering nonsense.

Read some history. In the 1780s the Prince of Wales was mugged in broad daylight in Berkeley Square. In the middle of Mayfair! Wind back a bit and Elizabethan England was extraordinarily violent, with the countryside a terrifying patchwork of criminal-infested hinterlands. People went about in London with bodyguards as a matter of routine. Go back further and whole stretches of the UK were basically in anarchy, controlled by bands of thieves and marauders.

It's fashionable to think that things are always getting worse. And I'm sure there are more guns in London than there were ten years ago - indeed when I renewed my firearms certificate a few weeks ago the officer who interviewed me said as much (incidentally he also said that he recognised an absolute correlation between gun availability and criminals' use of them. More guns = more criminals with guns). But the scenes you describe of home invasions? It's not a reality I recognise or think will come to pass.

I'll leave you with a quote.

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

That was written over two and a half thousand years ago. So you're not the first or last to hold a pessimistic view of society.