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

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

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.

Yeah, but I can kill you with a pencil. You would be extremely likely to die, in fact, I guarantee it. Shall we ban them and close stationary stores? That kind of idiotic reasoning, the belief in the innate evil of inanimate objects, leads straight to mattress-padded rooms and straight-jackets for anyone that doesn't carry a Party card.

Problem solved, I'm pleased to report you have cracked it. Well done.

edit on 17-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. It's simple fact that guns are more effective at killing people than pencils. And its also a fact that guns have very little utility outside killing stuff, whereas pencils have other uses. Perhaps you should look up the number of pencil related deaths in the US and compare it to those caused by guns? Then you could write a letter about it to your congressman with your gun, sorry, pencil.

How about you attack me with a pencil and I'll have a gun? I imagine that 'guarantee' of death would alter somewhat.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by D377MC

 

You just cannot see the wood for the tree's can you. I am happy to form my own opinions thank you very much and I do not change that opinion if I find it falls in line with the majority just so I can say that I am not part of the sheeple. Denying ignorance is a two way street, denying what is spoon fed to you by the media is great as long as what you are being spoon fed is inaccurate. But at the same time denying ignorance involves having to accept that some things that you see and read are also truths.

If you think that your government is behind these mass shootings as you indicate in your previous post then you are living in cloud cookoo land mate.

I don't think the government is behind the shootings, I damn well know so. Those events had all the trademarks of intelligence operations.

It comes down to how you look at the evidence.

You can ignore the fact that the shooters were all high on drugs, or not. You can ignore the fact that at each event multiple witnesses speak of multiple shooters, or not. You can ignore the fact that the media and police consistently ignore them, or not. You can ignore the fact that consistently these students had arsenals of weaponry worth tens of thousands of dollars when they were broke, or not (how do you buy 20,000$ worth of military-grade weapons whilst on unemployment?). You can ignore the fact that that they shoot and kill with the kind of speed, accuracy and reloading tempos elite troops are hardly capable of, or not (in fact multiple US marines came out and said it was downright impossible). You can ask yourself how a humble student could rig his apartment with military-grade explosives so that it took the FBI bomb-disposal technicians 48 hours to clear the mess out, or not. You can ask yourself why the media scrub all news which contradicts an ever-changing official version within minutes, or not. You can ask yourself why the official version of events still maintains that Lauren's car was hit by bullets shot from inside the school, when there is no record of any bullet holes in the windows of the school, and when ballistics show it is downright impossible, or not.

I could go on and on, or not. You don't seem worth the effort. Or maybe you are simply unaware of the facts. Because it would take you all of 5 minutes to disprove the various official versions of events if you set your mind to it. Yet you don't.

Stick your head back in the sand and turn up the volume on your television set, new ideas are forming in your head as we speak.

I am always amused by people who have strong opinions about things they know nothing of, especially when their opinion happens to be the same as everyone else's, which happens to be the same as the mainstream media's.

One last question, since you are in here shooting your mouth off about guns: ever owned a gun? ever shot one? Or do we have to sit here much longer and listen to a virgin explain to us how to have sex?

reply to post by D377MC


I did 7 years in the Military so you can safely say that I have operated a rifle on numerous occasions. As regards to the rest of your post, well if you believe that your Government did the mass shooting and every other mass shooting in recent history then I feel sorry for you and your paranoia.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

Just curious: how many mass shootings were there in the UK the 40 years before Hungerford when there was no gun control in the UK at all? It seems to me, given that there were none, that this is a bit of a case of the old "I have a rock that keeps tigers away and I know it works because there are no tigers here in Scotland."

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

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.

Yeah, but I can kill you with a pencil. You would be extremely likely to die, in fact, I guarantee it. Shall we ban them and close stationary stores? That kind of idiotic reasoning, the belief in the innate evil of inanimate objects, leads straight to mattress-padded rooms and straight-jackets for anyone that doesn't carry a Party card.

Problem solved, I'm pleased to report you have cracked it. Well done.

edit on 17-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. It's simple fact that guns are more effective at killing people than pencils. And its also a fact that guns have very little utility outside killing stuff, whereas pencils have other uses. Perhaps you should look up the number of pencil related deaths in the US and compare it to those caused by guns? Then you could write a letter about it to your congressman with your gun, sorry, pencil.

How about you attack me with a pencil and I'll have a gun? I imagine that 'guarantee' of death would alter somewhat.

If I had a pencil and intended to kill you, and you had a gun, I would most certainly not attempt to. Which does kind of show how effective that gun would be for you doesn't it?

Wait a year or two however for the guns to be gone, and tell me what will stop me shoving that pencil through your eyeball and into your brain at a 45 to 60 degree angle?

Is it truly possible you don't get it? Are you arguing for the sake of it?

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by D377MC

 

I did 7 years in the Military so you can safely say that I have operated a rifle on numerous occasions. As regards to the rest of your post, well if you believe that your Government did the mass shooting and every other mass shooting in recent history then I feel sorry for you and your paranoia.

Yes, I did figure you were shilling. What's the pay-grade for keyboard warfare nowadays? Where did you sign-up then? I 'm curious....

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by michael1983l
Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

Just curious: how many mass shootings were there in the UK the 40 years before Hungerford when there was no gun control in the UK at all? It seems to me, given that there were none, that this is a bit of a case of the old "I have a rock that keeps tigers away and I know it works because there are no tigers here in Scotland."

There wasn't many mass shootings in the USA pre 1996 either, but whilst the UK took action in 1997 after the mass shooting in 96 we have had only one since (that involved a legally owned shotgun) whilst in the USA, mass shootings have started to become common place. I do indeed think it is a fair comparison and considering the fact that hand guns give us very little useful value anyway in normal society, it was the correct decision to outlaw them.

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by D377MC

 

I did 7 years in the Military so you can safely say that I have operated a rifle on numerous occasions. As regards to the rest of your post, well if you believe that your Government did the mass shooting and every other mass shooting in recent history then I feel sorry for you and your paranoia.

Yes, I did figure you were shilling. What's the pay-grade for keyboard warfare nowadays? Where did you sign-up then? I 'm curious....

edit on 18-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Why would I be shilling in a discussion about UK gun control. It is already done here and we are very happy with the outcome. It is YOU and other Americans that is making this thread about US gun control.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by D377MC

 

I did 7 years in the Military so you can safely say that I have operated a rifle on numerous occasions. As regards to the rest of your post, well if you believe that your Government did the mass shooting and every other mass shooting in recent history then I feel sorry for you and your paranoia.

Yes, I did figure you were shilling. What's the pay-grade for keyboard warfare nowadays? Where did you sign-up then? I 'm curious....

edit on 18-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Why would I be shilling in a discussion about UK gun control. It is already done here and we are very happy with the outcome. It is YOU and other Americans that is making this thread about US gun control.

I don't know. Why wouldn't you? I'll ask your follower shall I? Whoever is starring your ass immediately each time you post?

A quick glance at your stance on other topics tells me all their is to know really.

reply to post by D377MC


If all you need to know is that I have strong opinions formed independantly for myself and that I am not afraid to air them despite them being unpopular to most here. Then yes I agree with you.

Maybe I am receiving a star because I am talking with some logical reasoning. Plus if you had really looked through my post history you would see that I am quite critical about my own government on certain topics, where it is warranted of course.

I am not going to start shouting unfounded conspiracy theories about my government just to appease you.

My stance on guns is rather simple. No-one gets them, or everyone does. You can't take them away from criminals, you won't be taking them from me either.

No need for a 50 page discussion.

I've never shot anyone, and I sincerely hope I never have to. Push comes to shove though, I won't hesitate for a second.

You guys had a police force that was the envy of the world. After taking guns from honest hard-working citizens who had never used them to ill-effect, they then turned around and armed the force. What for? Now they are being para-militarized...again, why?

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by michael1983l
Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

Just curious: how many mass shootings were there in the UK the 40 years before Hungerford when there was no gun control in the UK at all? It seems to me, given that there were none, that this is a bit of a case of the old "I have a rock that keeps tigers away and I know it works because there are no tigers here in Scotland."

There wasn't many mass shootings in the USA pre 1996 either, but whilst the UK took action in 1997 after the mass shooting in 96 we have had only one since (that involved a legally owned shotgun) whilst in the USA, mass shootings have started to become common place. I do indeed think it is a fair comparison and considering the fact that hand guns give us very little useful value anyway in normal society, it was the correct decision to outlaw them.

Yes, very little shootings in the US pre 1996 as well. In fact, there were no school shootings at all in the US back in the days there was no gun control at all, just like in the UK. Thus, one could suggest that gun ownership does not cause this and can also suggest that gun laws did not prevent this.

That is not a "fact" that hand guns are not useful, it is an "opinion." Handguns are a very useful self defense tool, otherwise police would not use them in the UK or the US, no? In American states where concealed carry permits have been authorized, crime has actually gone down and CCW holders very rarely commit crimes with their legally licensed carry guns. The facts would contradict your opinion--at least over here in the US.

Do you think that Gordon Brown would have got away with what is tantermount stealing our gold if we were armed?. Or the constant BS from the EU?.. Open door immigration? Unjust wars?... Man.. The list goes on and on..

In the USA, they are the most heavily armed population on the planet. Fear of the armed population hasn't stopped the US Government from

1) Giving the banks almost $1 trillion without any sort of ground rules or accountability
2) Enacting the PATRIOT act
3) Shipping prisoners to Guatanamo Bay for indefinite detention periods without trial
4) Constant BS from NAFTA
5) Open door immigration from Mexico
6) Unjust Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
7) Wiretapping every phone call made in the USA

The list goes on and on.

An armed populace in modern times never stopped a Government from doing anything it wanted.

As much as Americans love to say that they keep their guns in case they need to overthrow the Government, they are more lethargic than the population of almost any other country on the planet when it actually comes to taking action.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by michael1983l
Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

Just curious: how many mass shootings were there in the UK the 40 years before Hungerford when there was no gun control in the UK at all? It seems to me, given that there were none, that this is a bit of a case of the old "I have a rock that keeps tigers away and I know it works because there are no tigers here in Scotland."

There wasn't many mass shootings in the USA pre 1996 either, but whilst the UK took action in 1997 after the mass shooting in 96 we have had only one since (that involved a legally owned shotgun) whilst in the USA, mass shootings have started to become common place. I do indeed think it is a fair comparison and considering the fact that hand guns give us very little useful value anyway in normal society, it was the correct decision to outlaw them.

Yes, very little shootings in the US pre 1996 as well. In fact, there were no school shootings at all in the US back in the days there was no gun control at all, just like in the UK. Thus, one could suggest that gun ownership does not cause this and can also suggest that gun laws did not prevent this.

That is not a "fact" that hand guns are not useful, it is an "opinion." Handguns are a very useful self defense tool, otherwise police would not use them in the UK or the US, no? In American states where concealed carry permits have been authorized, crime has actually gone down and CCW holders very rarely commit crimes with their legally licensed carry guns. The facts would contradict your opinion--at least over here in the US.

I am sorry but this does suggest completely that gun control's work as the UK does not have these mass shootings any more whereas the USA does. The only difference being that one has gun control and the other does not. We are both socially very similar, our media is pretty much the same and so is our belief system, so the UK should trend with the USA in terms of Gun related crime, but does not.

Also, the police do not use guns for self defence here, there is no need for them to. They have battons and sometimes a Tazer, only specially trained police units carry weapons that are only out on the streets in servere circumstances, where a crime is either being commited that involves a fire arm or is about to be committed.

Being able to carry a gun with you on the streets is going to lower certain levels of crime, I am not disagreeing with you there. I would be interested to know how many accidental deaths occur though from these guns being carried around. However in my opinion the slight lowering of certain crimes is not a big enough gain for the cost of human life that widespread gun availability brings. The Americans can decide their own fate on this matter but the British have done what is right for Britain and most of us are happy with gun restrictions here.

Originally posted by babybunnies

Do you think that Gordon Brown would have got away with what is tantermount stealing our gold if we were armed?. Or the constant BS from the EU?.. Open door immigration? Unjust wars?... Man.. The list goes on and on..

In the USA, they are the most heavily armed population on the planet. Fear of the armed population hasn't stopped the US Government from

1) Giving the banks almost $1 trillion without any sort of ground rules or accountability
2) Enacting the PATRIOT act
3) Shipping prisoners to Guatanamo Bay for indefinite detention periods without trial
4) Constant BS from NAFTA
5) Open door immigration from Mexico
6) Unjust Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
7) Wiretapping every phone call made in the USA

The list goes on and on.

An armed populace in modern times never stopped a Government from doing anything it wanted.

As much as Americans love to say that they keep their guns in case they need to overthrow the Government, they are more lethargic than the population of almost any other country on the planet when it actually comes to taking action.

Which proves that we aren't running around shooting everything in sight doesn't it? The kind of government we have today cannot be overthrown.

We want to keep our guns because criminals are armed. It's really really simple.

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

These figures should show you why we aren't that enthusiastic when people from the other side of the pond descend on these threads and shoot their mouths off about disarming us.

As I said, its really simple.

Originally posted by D377MC

These figures should show you why we aren't that enthusiastic when people from the other side of the pond descend on these threads and shoot their mouths off about disarming us.

Excuse me Mr. Ignorant Yank but this is a thread about UK Gun control, so please stop shooting your mouth off about the USA in here. Your words not mine.

Originally posted by michael1983l
I am sorry but this does suggest completely that gun control's work as the UK does not have these mass shootings any more whereas the USA does. The only difference being that one has gun control and the other does not. We are both socially very similar, our media is pretty much the same and so is our belief system, so the UK should trend with the USA in terms of Gun related crime, but does not.

Also, the police do not use guns for self defence here, there is no need for them to. They have battons and sometimes a Tazer, only specially trained police units carry weapons that are only out on the streets in servere circumstances, where a crime is either being commited that involves a fire arm or is about to be committed.

Being able to carry a gun with you on the streets is going to lower certain levels of crime, I am not disagreeing with you there. I would be interested to know how many accidental deaths occur though from these guns being carried around. However in my opinion the slight lowering of certain crimes is not a big enough gain for the cost of human life that widespread gun availability brings. The Americans can decide their own fate on this matter but the British have done what is right for Britain and most of us are happy with gun restrictions here.

No it doesn't because if gun control was the answer, we should have had these mass shootings way before 1987. Thus we lack teh correlation vs causation factor. Your murder rate has more than doubled since your gun bans have come into effect. OUr rates actually have been dropping in the CCW states.

But you still ahve armed police, yes or no? If arms were useless, then none of the should ahve them, yes? OTOH, more UK police are armed now than before your gun laws, so apparently the police do not feel that these laws have made them safer.

Accidental deaths with CCW are also very low. Think about it logically. Irresponsible and criminal people do not go through nor could qualify for CCW so your average CCW carrier is a very responsible and law abiding person.

reply to post by NavyDoc


The fact that these shootings only started in the 90s points to something around that time being the driving force behind the change in culture about guns, probably Movies and Video games but thats another discussion.

Let me again tell you, that our Police are not armed and only tactical response teams are which do not patrol the street so to speak.

I am tired of this gun control debate, the fact is, we in the UK are very happy about not having guns and you guys in the USA are very happy about keeping yours. As long as the UK stays gun free that is all I care about, I just don't want to see the tears of your citizens the next time a shooting like this occurs, as you lot had the chance to do something about it but refused because your guns make you feel "safe".

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by D377MC

These figures should show you why we aren't that enthusiastic when people from the other side of the pond descend on these threads and shoot their mouths off about disarming us.

Excuse me Mr. Ignorant Yank but this is a thread about UK Gun control, so please stop shooting your mouth off about the USA in here. Your words not mine.

Actually it isn't. It is clearly a thread about the debate on-going in the US from the standpoint of a British citizen, where the UK is simply quoted as an example.

Introduction:
"Over the last few weeks I have taken great interest in the US debate on gun control
And like you was exasperated by the seemingly ubiquitous strange love of guns et al in the US.. The culture of being armed to the teeth did not make sense.. It seemed irrational and the advocates for guns seemed alarmingly blinkered in their arguments.. "

Conclusion:
"You Americans that read this.. Don't make our mistake.. Your founding fathers wrote the second amendment with prophetic eyes.. "

It is clearly not a thread about UK gun control, other than to use the UK as an example in the ongoing US debate on gun control, you arrogant British fool.

Your words not mine.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

The fact that these shootings only started in the 90s points to something around that time being the driving force behind the change in culture about guns, probably Movies and Video games but thats another discussion.

Let me again tell you, that our Police are not armed and only tactical response teams are which do not patrol the street so to speak.

I am tired of this gun control debate, the fact is, we in the UK are very happy about not having guns and you guys in the USA are very happy about keeping yours. As long as the UK stays gun free that is all I care about, I just don't want to see the tears of your citizens the next time a shooting like this occurs, as you lot had the chance to do something about it but refused because your guns make you feel "safe".

FIrstly, I think you are actually agreeing with me: that the causal factor is not gun ownership, but something else. Unless you address the causal factors behind a problem, you will never solve the problem.

Not just the tactical response teams. You do indeed have specific Authorized Firearms Officers who are used in "TAC Teams" but also various other areas. Here are a few:

Within the London Metropolitan Police, there are a number of Operational Command Units (OCUs) that employ AFOs.

The Belmarsh Firearms Team protects Trials at Woolwich Crown Court
The Territorial Support Group has a small pool of AFOs for certain security tasks.
The Specialist Crime Directorate arms certain surveillance officers.
Some detectives in the Flying Squad are armed.
Special Branch deploys armed officers in its surveillance units, and in A Squad, which protects the Prime Minister and other dignitaries.
Royalty Protection Department, which protects members of the Royal Family and guards royal property.
Special Escort Group, which escorts and protects high-risk convoys and VIPs such as the Prime Minister and the Queen.
Diplomatic Protection Group, which guards embassies and government buildings. It also provides the armed guards at Parliament to supplement the Palace of Westminster Division, which is unarmed.
Aviation Security, which protects Heathrow and London City airports.
Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), which provides armed support to the rest of the service, crewing Armed Response Vehicles and providing Specialist Firearms Officers (SFOs)

In fact, you in the UK have guns--a lot of guns--almost 2 million legally, including semi-automatic AR-15's (as long as they are .22LR) and my Brit friends keep them and the ammo at home. I've shot them at the range when visiting. ANy one of these rifles could do a massacre, but they don't because guns don't cause crime. My Brit friends, mostly veterans, but a few lawyers as well, think your gun control laws are stupid and ineffective, but they are the minority. Hell, most Brits don't know what is still legal in their own country and would # themselves if they saw the collections these guys have.

Of course, in the US, thankfully, we still have (for the moment) a sytem of laws that protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.