Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Important Gun Control Info' started by Jeff82, Apr 26, 2004.
Good read, thanks.
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
I wish I could have read through all 13 pages of this thread but this UK vs US gun situation is always interesting to listen to.
Never been to the UK but have talked to several visiting tourist and active military personel. Their responses can be quite interesting, espeically seeing me on duty (and armed). Of course pro and anti gun comments vary but one thing I always try to make them understand is that criminals could care less about laws prohibited firearms. UK's sharp rise in violent crime is testimate to that fact (criminals don't care). For me, it comes down to a simple truth...if you believe that a person is innocent of a crime until they are proven to be quilty in a court of law, they why would you find millions of gun owners guility of "possible" crimes? Someone earlier on this thread stated that legalizing firearms in the UK would just make the problem worse. I don't agree. In the US, some of the worse places of gun violence have some of the strictest laws...a high ranking member of the New York police department once said in a public statement he was very concerned about gun violence in New York and blamed the violence on less restrictive gun laws in surrounding states...meaning he felt that criminals were getting firearms there and bringing them back into New York. He urged surrounding states to adopted tougher laws on firearm ownership because of the violence they brought back to New York. Like any true politican, this is a "knee jerk" reaction to a problem with a somewhat simple solution, carry stiffer penalties for people convicted of crimes involving firearms. Dont make the general population suffer (guilty) for the actions of a select few.
The argument that banning guns causes crime to go up doesn't always hold water. Sometimes the crimes are so bad, with such frequency, that the only thing for local legislators to do is restrict firearms. If you live in a relatively low crime area, that may be hard to understand. I would not give up my guns if they became illegal locally, because I am a firm believer in 2A, and the right for us to protect ourselves. I am not looking for a philosophical argument, just stating a fact that local circumstances can affect local protocol. Trying to push our way of life on other countries is an asinine thing to do. It is not better or worse, it is just different.
How does restricting citizens from getting guns keep criminals from getting guns? Have you ever heard of the black market? England had a problem a few years ago with full auto MAC 10s showing up on their streets. Those guns weren't sold in gun shops or owned by law abiding citizens. You should quit defending those on the other side. If you need help understanding the more guns = less crime argument, check FBI and DOJ statistics on such matters and you will see that you are wrong.
I am not trying to push our way of life onto others but just trying to point out the illogical reasoning behind certain laws. I know the UK has never been a "gun culture" (as evident in most LEO's there are not armed....because it gives the appearance of being too aggressive, but that is another topic of disscussion). Remember that our judical process was modeled after their's (innocent until proven quilty).
An example I will use involved an earlier thread concerning a man charged with a firearm crime in the UK. I cannot remember all the details but the issue was that he had found a shotgun on his property in a plastic bag. Thinking this was a stolen firearm and may have been used in a crime, he decided to take it to the local police station to turn in. After arriving to the police department and handing over the firearm, he was charged (and convicted) of criminal pocession of a firearm. At his sentencing it was never in question that he had just found the firearm to turn in but that strict interpretation of the law required the judge to charge the man with a crime, regardless of his intent (this actual article appears somewhere in GT). With laws (and the common sense; or lack there of) concerning firearms ownership in the UK, it is no wonder that they are having issues.
You missed my point entirely. Not surprising. I will not waste the good members of this boards' time further. By the way, the case you gave as an example is one of two that are frequently referred to regarding the law in GB. The other is the man that was jailed for defending his farm. The detail that nobody mentions, is that the kid was running away and was shot in the back. That would be manslaughter here as well. To understand the reference you made, you should read up on it. It is old news, and well documented.
You should also drop the attitude. More guns does not always mean less crime in all cases, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. Not everyone should have a firearm, and your way is absolutely not the only way.
Have to agree with alaskacop. You're missing the point. America is a nation founded on freedom. That freedom was won by using firearms to end the oppresive rule of England. ALL freedom exists at the end of a gun. No government, not even the American, may take away the freedom of those who will not allow it. How should a law-abiding citizen in England defend herself from a home invasion rapist with a knife? Well, since the rape is inevitable she might as well lay back and enjoy it.
Statistics from the English ministry of defense show that violent crime has increased since England's gun ban. Our crime stats show that violent crime has decreased steadily in America for the past decade. We don't make good victims. Those without means of defense make excellent victims.
The highlighted statement is not only in violation of the constitution, it is asinine in the utmost.
UNDERSTAND THIS: CRIMINALS DON'T CARE!!!!!! THEY WILL NOT OBEY THEY LOCAL LEGISLATION!!!
That the example pointed out by Alaskacop is frequently used does not make it any less relevant, or less unjust. Does it?
In your post (above), you seem to subscribe to: "I said it, so that's the way it is, end of discussion". So, not sure what you mean by "attitude".
Do you also seem to claim that the only thing some local politicians "can" do about crime is take away victims' ability to protect themselves? Since such laws don't take guns from criminal hands, that claim (even the waqy you worded it) seems instead to point out a failure by politicians who are inadequate to the task, not a constructive solution to problems of violence.
It seems some politicians just don't know what to do, and trump up controversy about guns because they want to appear competent.
Others may want to accomplish something not acceptable, so they disguise it as though they were really interested in preventing violence, while they actually seek something else.
Some people are merely rationalizing irrational fears, which often may stem from lack of education and/or lack of understanding.
I imagine there are some people who really believe that gun restrictions for people who are not likely to commit illegal acts, potential victims, are disarmed, it will mean the criminals will eventually be unable to get guns: sort of an erratz "trickle-down" theory. But disregarding the threat of violence in order to address the threat of violence...?? Even people who bought in to this might ask what victims should do in the mean time. Unfortunately, some people may have been misled. To discover whether one has been misled, one must take an objective step back, seek objective facts (not just propaganda, "common-sense" guesses, or the opinions of others), and re-assess the issue. Many people swear they do that, but most do not.
The way you present your position makes it seem to fit that last paragraph, by the way.
At best, none of these seem very well thought out, and none are constructive. Can you think of any better way to handle the problem?
The brits are liars of the highest order. The IRA killed a lot of brits with guns, these are not reported at all as gun crime in the UK! If they were they may have to look at themselves-something subjects don't like to do, we are not subjects, but rather citizens, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance! Why should they have reported these killings as gun crime? They [the british gov] locked up, after Criminal trials many members of the IRA-on one hand it was a crime, on the other it was a war etc. Their arrogance is only eclipsed by their ability to lie, and defend the lies.
How Gun Control Made England The 'Most Violent Country In Europe'
Sept. 24, 2014
In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was "the most violent country in Europe." They also reported that Britain's home figures showed "the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa."
Full article at:
I have been a member of Glock Talk for some years and my support for your 2nd Amendment is well documented. You must understand that there is little or no gun culture in the UK and most people are frightened of them. As a Brit Army vet, I have no problem with them and always get some plinking in on the rare occasions I can get to the US.
Having said that, and as I'm not a gang banger or a career criminal, I know that my chances of getting shot in the UK are vanishingly small. Any shooting incident makes front page headlines whereas in the US, these get a one-line mention, if that. UK and US cultures just can't be compared and I wouldn't want guns to be freely available in the UK.
I have to say that I get nervous when I see UNTRAINED people with access to firearms. The vast majority of these are, of course, just law abiding people who want a form of defence against the millions of guns which might well be used in a home invasion but there are a lot of wack jobs and neurotics out there.
If I were lucky enough to live in the US, I would certainly own a gun but I'm also realistic - I would own a G19, with another G19 as a spare and I would train with them at least once a week, time permitting. I would be careful where I lived and who I mixed with and given a premium defence round, from, say, Speer, Federal, Winchester and the like, I would consider myself as having a fighting chance.
If my fellow Glock Talkers want to own and shoot dozens of handguns and/or rifles, I say good luck to them but your average urban dweller doesn't, in my opinion actually NEED them. Becoming intimate with one gun under as many varied circumstances as I could arrange, would be far more valuable.
I also love Sigs, Walthers and Berettas and would probably rent one occasionally for fun but for serious shooting, I would want to keep it as simple as possible - it's all about muscle memory and training, training and yet more training.
No doubt many on Glock Talk will disagree with me but let's be realistic and stay away from flights of fancy as much as possible.
Your points are well taken but miss the point almost entirely. "Freedom" can be dangerous but it is what we have here in the States. (Or at least what we are fighting for everyday!!)
We do NOT have "Gun Priveleges", they are RIGHTS...
there seems to be some lack of communication here - where have I suggested otherwise? I fully support the 2nd.
You might start closer to home - Feinstein and Biden would be far more worthy of your attention.
Except, apparently, for Florida:
"Florida appellate courts have held that the “Retroactive application of (new Florida Statutes), is not unconstitutional because a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and not a vested right.” Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1989)."
taffbanjo is right in that Biden and Feinstein need LOTS of attention! Not votes, just watching, or else Florida's legislative/judicial fate may spread.
Coming late to this party which seems to have been going on for ten years or so...
Have I read/heard correctly that non-criminal British subjects face the risk of being tried and convicted of violent crime if they defend themselves against a violent home invasion with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife?
And that the home invader, if injured during such a defensive effort, would have a good chance of receiving a civil judgement against the defender should he sue?
And that points on knives - kitchen and others - are in the process of being outlawed?
And that the ancestors of today's British subjects were the Vikings?
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Sadly there is a lot of truth in what you say, but the courts have recently eased things a little.
The thrust of UK law is that the response to an intruder must be "proportionate", and what that means is decided by the courts on an individual basis. Personally, I feel that anyone invading my "castle" deserves a body bag and I am not alone in this by any stretch of the imagination. However, while the courts tend not to agree with me on this, burglars who have suffered extensive bruising in the performance of their trade have been receiving less and less sympathy from the courts, and this can't be a bad thing.
Kitchen knives and the like have not, and will not be banned as far as I can see as long as the court sees their use as proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case.
A civil court would likely take the previous criminal case as their guide as to the proportionality of the homeowner's response and, I hope, things would proceed from there.
We are not (yet) as litigious in the UK as you are in the US but things seem to be heading in your sort of direction.
Incidentally, do you know why a sperm is like a lawyer? Just one in a million is likely to become a decent human being.
Freedom is never free....
This link seems to be broken now. Does anyone know how to update it so it works?