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

reply to post by JuniorDisco


tell that to our boys and girls in the afghan who are coming home in body bags on a near weekly basis

they arent fighting against a modern military

reply to post by maintainright


2175 deaths in 11 years is not a very high amount for a war. About 12-16% of the average yearly gun related homicide rate in the US ? Nearly 50% of the deaths and injuries to coalition forces come from I.E.D's so they're at least using modern explosives. In 11 years the Afgans haven't managed to get rid of the Coalition. Couldn't get rid of the Russian's without Stinger missiles either.

reply to post by ultimatelizardman


in reply/further reply to your posts last night, your unsubstantiated comments about gun crime in belgium or china are not really relevant to this thread about UK gun ownership, we are not talking about a general issue about gun crime in relation to gun ownership in those nations or world wide after all (and i have no interest in that), feel free to start a topic on that, a few more posts and you can do so - i expect there are plenty of belgians on these forums with whom you can discuss it, plus many other interested parties.

as to me passively limiting other people's rights to self defence with firearms via my opinion on my countries gun laws, thats just a nonsense argument unless you want to abolish laws wholesale which is an entirely different matter - we live in communities of different minded individuals which means there is always compromise in relation to what can and cant be done and how that is legislated. i expect that no one agrees with all of the limitations put on them by the various laws in place, i know i would change some laws but so what? i dont blame everyone who disagrees with me for it, i may push for change in various ways on certain issues, or i may just source my own contraband or do what i like and take it on the chin. i have in fact done this thousands of times by choice and dont feel so bad about it, and i have been smart and/or lucky/discreet enough to never get my collar felt.

re guns and the above paragraph, i suppose that my (in your logic) passive limiting of others rights to carry a gun for self defence wherever they like in my opinion therefor also passively limits someone else's ability to paranoidly and petulantly pull out a gun at percieved risks and insults... i know my country well enough i feel, and have seen how easily violence can erupt at times and am very happy that in the UK a gun is not an easy resort for every angry fool.

i think that covers it.. anything else?

I think your missing my point

which was..

you dont need tanks, planes, gunships etc to wage a war against a modern army

Originally posted by maintainright
I think your missing my point

which was..

you dont need tanks, planes, gunships etc to wage a war against a modern army

Maybe not but the constitution allows for it.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by maintainright
I think your missing my point

which was..

you dont need tanks, planes, gunships etc to wage a war against a modern army

Maybe not but the constitution allows for it.

errr, check the thread title, it may seem that ats is exclusively about us gun issues, but it really isn't, believe it or not.

Originally posted by maintainright
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

tell that to our boys and girls in the afghan who are coming home in body bags on a near weekly basis

they arent fighting against a modern military

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

Fair point. But if we were totally ruthless and willing to just kill everybody in Afghanistan and Pakistan regardless of civilians and collateral damage then we (and the US) would win. So would the US army if it invaded its own soil - a bunch of hunters, dads with pistols and drug dealers aren't going to be much use against Predator drones and airstrikes.

My point is that in an all-out war a few rifles aren't going to be a lot of use, certainly not in the manner they were in the 18th century. Even the Taliban have access to RPGs etc, which as far as I know aren't legal in the US. And much of the killing is done with IEDs, the components of which also aren't legal in the states.

Text The UK spilt plenty of its own blood in the more than 2 years of war with Nazi Germany before Germany declared war on the US on 11th December 1941 so don't go all condescending on us.

reply to post by Alfie1


@ Alfie
Don't be foolish and circumvent the subject. The matter of discussion was control of government which the US has as well as the UK. Your country men's courage nor sacrifice was the topic here and you very well know it. It was one of your own people who made this thread of concern for his own people and being a thread of international concern I feel free to voice my opinion as well as you. Don't try the guilt complex because that is not the issue here. The issue here stems from gun control and that is the subject matter of concern and should be taken very serious. Not your or anyone's Granny knickers is of interest in this subject and in fact is a diversion of conversation.

When you look at crime statistics it will show you that your UK crime rate is appalling regardless of what tools are used in committing those crimes. Arguing against facts is not productive nor sensible. The same applies to the US. If majority of crime is committed with knives and swords and you ban knives and swords you have done nothing to prevent crime except to limit the accessibility to knives and swords. You have done nothing to mend the reason for crime. In this country the main reason for crime is lack of education and drugs usage and I would venture to say that this is the mainstay in the UK also. Once you disarm your opponent all you have done is put them under duress. Nothing else. At the first opportunity those ones who have been subjected to your arm will revolt and in many cases it will bring destruction and blood. This will be repeated till the lesson is learned that education and clean living are the tools of progress. Once that has been accomplished the people will not have the need to defend themselves against the criminals. Till that is accomplished there is a need for the oppressed to keep arms.

Originally posted by Seede

If majority of crime is committed with knives and swords and you ban knives and swords you have done nothing to prevent crime except to limit the accessibility to knives and swords. You have done nothing to mend the reason for crime.

Yeah. But if you get attacked with a sponge you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a knife. And if you get attacked with a knife you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a gun. There's even a guy above who seems to want guns legalised so he could shoot people who mugged him, conveniently ignoring that he would probably dead if they had used a gun. Which they might well have if they were more widely available.

reply to post by maintainright


Think you're missing my point too. Yes you can wage a war against modern military using only rifles, handguns and the like but to win a war you need modern military equipment. The Afghan mujahedin were losing the battle against the Russians due to Russian air superiority untill the US sent them stinger missiles. It's a bit rediculous using the argument you need guns to defend yourself against your own government. If it got to that point then it's a civil war, which isn't going to be won with small arms.

reply to post by Seede


really, a vast majority of brits dont want a change in the gun laws, i know some us posters get vexed by this but they should just get over it

comparing the us and the uk, which a lot of us (myself included) have done in one way or another on these threads is kinda irrelevant, we are very different nations, despite sharing more or less the same language, and wether or not gun availability in one form or another relates to crime is also somewhat a red herring in the face of what the public want, regardless of some peoples's accusations of sheeple-ism, which is ofc highly original.

I have lived in the UK all my life grew up as a young lad through the 60's ,70's, 80's etc do I think it's more violent here than in the past NO!

Part of the problem is the communication revolution, news 24 hrs a day , internet, twitter, facebook and of course the mobile phone.

When I was a teenager mid to late 70's was there a gang problem YES, between schools,towns, housings schemes , sometimes even different streets. Were people mugged yes, were people stabbed yes, gang fights at local discos/pubs were common BUT did we hear about other parts of the country NO not unless it was serious.

That's the real point we are bombarded with information now everything seems more intense, do I think other areas had no trouble or were different than were I lived no, teenagers will be teenagers.

Did folk I know that were injured in a fight or stabbed report it NO, they gave out there own justice I was lucky the people I used to hang around with were not into that and avoided looking for trouble, could we look after ourselves if required OH YES!!!

The problem now with UK crime figures a verbal threat is a violent crime That's why I pmsl at the comments from across the pond about the UK.

BASED on population and gun figures there is an obvious connection between the number of guns and gun deaths it cant be hidden.

So lets have a look at some stats

Population USA 311m UK 62.5m so USA 4.976 times the UK population.

Lets look at murders

ALL Murders in USA 2011 total 14,612 UK 564.

USA 4.976 times UK population 25.90 times the murder rate!!!!

LETS look at GUN murders

USA 2011 8583 fig for UK updated is 51

USA 4.976 times the UK population 168.2 times more gun deaths

Here is another set of stats for the USA 2010

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S

Guns you can keep them

Textreally, a vast majority of brits dont want a change in the gun laws, i know some us posters get vexed by this but they should just get over it

That is a fair rendition and I find no quarrel with your premise. If all should be fair and without prejudice then let the people themselves decide upon these broad issues and not one or a handful of politicians. My contention is that regardless of the difference in cultures the people have a right to individualism and not collectivism. A clause in the format of government should so state that special elections should determine the matters of special concerns in government. By a national vote, matters of this sort would settle the discontent of the masses and by putting the matter at immediate rest would free the government to focus on other important matters that have been temporarily shelved.

Another view, which I share, is that my nation should have at least two special election periods in the fiscal year. Serious matters, which are not easily resolved, should be shelved for these special election periods and then a majority vote would put them to rest. This would eliminate the usurped power of a collective government.

I agree that your nation and my nation have different forms of government which actually cannot be compatible without a vast reconstruction of purpose. One example is that English Bobbies have never been authorized to carry a gun and to this day still do not (as a practice) carry guns. That is your culture and may very well have served its purpose as it appears to this day. But in all fairness it has not deterred crime in the UK, that you can cite. While it may seem fair in your culture, it seems unfair in our culture.

Our nation was founded with guns against the British Crown as well as our own people. Since its birth our nation expanded by the use of guns. The wild west was tamed with guns and guns became a tool to us just as the night stick was a tool to you. As we progressed into this century we have come to accept guns as part of our existence and now we find that we have criminals out of control who use these guns as tools of their trade. But the answer is not that guns have a mind and culture of their own. The gun does not choose the victim nor plan the crime. The gun is a tool to be used by either a criminal or a honest citizen.

Would you bring a knife to a sword fight? Would you bring a sword or a knife to a gun fight? Don't think so. You may win one battle but you most certainly would lose the war. What is the answer? The answer is education. Education is a tough war to win and it cannot be won through the adult minds of the ignorant. If we would wage an honest war against drugs and the cartels, then we could educate the people away from knives and guns and all sorts of violence. It would take several life times but we could build a first class civilization from the rubble. Along with this is the treatment of the mentally ill which comprises a great number of criminals in our country. The drugs used to treat the mentally ill are atrocious and most should be banned as harmful. Most drugs actually destroys the brain beyond repair and what little could have been corrected can never be helped.

At one time, as a young man, I lived in England with a Christian Jewish family. I worked and studied and enjoyed my life among your people. I held a deep respect for your law and order and do so to this day. I now see the vast difference in how both your people and my people have degenerated into self serving diversified cultures. I see that both cultures have not lost the war for decency but have not fought that war with love as the foremost tool. Love of God and love of country is needed to be victorious. Nation building should be founded upon love and not ideology.

TextYeah. But if you get attacked with a sponge you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a knife. And if you get attacked with a knife you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a gun. There's even a guy above who seems to want guns legalised so he could shoot people who mugged him, conveniently ignoring that he would probably dead if they had used a gun. Which they might well have if they were more widely available.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


@ Junior Disco

Being a dinosaur myself (getting on the road to ninety), I am more aware of what you are saying than at any time in my life. My mother was ninety two years old and was beaten by a gang of youths for fun. As a result of that beating she died in the hospital. That was some years ago. The youths were never prosecuted because of minority status. We called it political correctness.

My contention is this. I have carried a revolver for a great number of years and have never had to use it in my defense but when my mother was beaten to death I almost lost all reasoning in self restraint. Even though I knew of these youngsters and their whereabouts I held my peace but if I had been at her side I would not have held myself in check. This is what gun control is all about. The men and women who are well trained and educated in firearms will most always show fairness in usage.

The problem most people have is that they do not understand that a law abiding citizen will always think before using a weapon. The criminal will not think and does not care. Now if you will firstly disarm that criminal then I will put my weapon down also. But to ask me to put my weapon down and not enforce the criminal to do likewise is grossly unfair and stupid. I would never agree to a proposal such as that. That is the issue that I consider.

Now this does not include only a gun. A knife is a most horrible way to die and at times more painful than a bullet. I would rather face a gun than a knife or a razor. Till you have seen the results of both then you should consider these effects upon flesh. We are not discussing an armed invasion here. We are discussing self defense.and I believe that is the issue.

reply to post by Seede


i respect and appreciate your points as well as the way in which you express them, however i dont believe that the brits even want a special election/referendum on this - i am making an assumption on this of course but i feel that it is a safe one and that the masses are not discontented over this issue.

with regards to the situation in the US, thats up to you guys, and as i have said to another poster in this thread, enjoy your guns, and that was meant without sarcasm - you have a different culture as we have agreed and i feel that it is up to your people to determine that and so forth.

as for your comments regarding education and the social ills that contribute towards violent crime, i agree completely. i work in a highly effective and somewhat unconventional organisation (broadly waldorf) with young people therapeutically (re autism, aspergers, add/adhd, young offenders, abusive and isolated backgrounds and so on and so forth) with regard to mental health, education and mentoring and do what i can to help them develop their own abilities to think for themselves and manage their behaviour with a view to them becoming independent and happy adults - one of the things we do where possible is to deal with reducing or removing the reliance on pharmaceuticals thats another thread though, and if you want to take look at my fairly brief posting history you will see it's one of the issues that first got me commenting here - it's an interesting read all round..

anyway, nice to exchange views with you, see you around!

Originally posted by EvanB

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...

And that is a valid point. If criminals are protected by the system, you will have more criminals.

reply to post by SecretFace


What you mean is, you are not 'equipped to deal with'. Criminals do as they please. Why? Because you are harmless, unarmed, ergo helpless.

The trouble I have with these threads is I doubt the sincerity of the opposing view, so I reckon I'm wasting my time. It really is bloody obvious, or should be.

Criminals in the UK do have it far, far to easy for their crimes and that makes prevention through threat of punishment hard.

I dont think that the killing people with the victims of the would be crime, shooting them with an gun reasonable in anyway.

Id rather just have sentences that actually work to punish AND correct criminals and therefore create a fear of the punishment. 'Give everyone guns and murder more muggers, rapists and thieves' is hardly the answer.

i think more, smaller, solitary cells would be a good start, none of this "hang with your crime buddys and play xbox" # we have now, topped off with good behavior making sentences less. *seriously what the heck is this about*

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by EvanB

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...

And that is a valid point. If criminals are protected by the system, you will have more criminals.

it was a revenge killing with an illegally held weapon, and that kind of eye for an eye gun use seems to go firmly against all the "responsible gun owner" comments i have read...

Originally posted by SecretFace

Britain is far more violent now (...) Britain is becoming a violent place to live.

I stood by this post until I reached this comment:

'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.'

You have the solution and you reject it? Fine, I believe the correct English expression applicable here is: you made your bed, now lie in it.

Can't be helped if you refuse to help yourselves.

And don't think I don't get it, because I do - I really do. You are the product of a generation of intense brainwashing. I suggest you do a Google search on crimes averted because the victim or a third party were armed, which the media carefully ignore. Set a week or two aside to read a fraction of the cases.

If that doesn't change your mind, fine, I won't waste my time.

Answer me this now, if I were to pass you by in the alley where a couple of Albanian Kosovars were intent on beating the # out of you and raping your girlfriend, would you rather I drew a gun and threatened to blow their #ing heads off if they didn't disappear within 3 seconds or would you prefer me to turn around, walk off and promise to dial 911?

Would you be squeamish with regards to my mental health and preoccupied with where I got the gun? or would you be grateful that the kid that pops out 9 months later is actually yours? Or you think this couldn't happen to you? I have news for you, 99% of victims had that deluded thought at some point prior to getting shafted.

Wake up, stop trying to be politically correct. In a perfect world, there would be no firearms, but since we both agree this is not a perfect world, and criminals are armed to the teeth, then I have the right to avail myself of the best possible form of defence to maintain a balanced playing field and ensure my safety, the safety of those I love, and yes - even the safety of folks who think they can always dial 911.

That is a god-given right, and there is no executive order, CIA sponsored shooting or holier-than-though shilling on ATS that is going to infringe on that.