UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

David Hill
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:30 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by David Hill »



We have a problem with crime as does everybody else, but only a complete lunatic would believe that the answer if for everybody to be armed. Keep the american way you're welcome to it we are a long way from being the violence obsessed culture that america seems to be.


Well, look at it this way: In Texas it is Legal for you to carry a gun. Say that you are a "bad guy" you have a gun. You don't know if this man you want to mug has one or not. So, you take the chance you go up show him your gun and say "Gimme all your money" and he smiles and shows you his gun. You both pull your guns on each other, and he shoots you in the shoulder or something, you live and go to the hospital then jail after your healed. One Bad guy down it's all over the news and "Bad guys" are gonna think twice now before they try to rob someone. The problem with your "No Guns = No Crime" is wacko... There will ALWAYS be "Bad Guys" and they may not carry a gun with them everywhere, but what about at night and this "Bad guy" comes into your house with a mask on and holds you at gun point and you can't defend yourself? What now?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Accountable »

Oh well. At least Arnold and I agree.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by gmc »

posted by far rider

GMC your point is well taken. Col. Applegate was one of the founders of training doctrine and command for US Special Forces. Hes become a legend.

Heres a link to a web page to an association I belonged to at one time. I no longer hold any membership in any organization such as this. For personal reasons.


try this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/ ... g_02.shtml

Their weapons training and unarmed combat equipped agents for close combat only. William Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes - two ex-Shanghai municipal police officers - taught unarmed combat, or silent killing. The pair gave their name to the FS fighting knife - a small knife used mainly by the Commandos - and their Fairbairn Fighting System was subsequently taught to members of the FBI and CIA.


In the UK the knife became synonymous with the commandos.

posted by david hill

Well, look at it this way: In Texas it is Legal for you to carry a gun. Say that you are a "bad guy" you have a gun. You don't know if this man you want to mug has one or not. So, you take the chance you go up show him your gun and say "Gimme all your money" and he smiles and shows you his gun. You both pull your guns on each other, and he shoots you in the shoulder or something, you live and go to the hospital then jail after your healed. One Bad guy down it's all over the news and "Bad guys" are gonna think twice now before they try to rob someone. The problem with your "No Guns = No Crime" is wacko... There will ALWAYS be "Bad Guys" and they may not carry a gun with them everywhere, but what about at night and this "Bad guy" comes into your house with a mask on and holds you at gun point and you can't defend yourself? What now?


None of the british posters has actually claimed no guns=no crime. The original poster was american. On the other hand lots of guns doesn't mean no crime either, just lots more dead people and a climate of fear. You might still have to occasion to worry about the "bad guys" but the odds of he or she having a gun are remote enough not to be of concern.

Bad guy knows his victim doesn't have a gun, he doesn't have one either but he has a knife. he needs to pick a victim he is physically capable of overpowering. Shows victim the knife he/she says go forth and multiply ya wee nyaff. Bad guy then has to decide if it's bluff or not and whether they want to take the chance of getting hurt. Pick the wrong victim and there is no conversation the knife wielder is on their way to hospital. Drunken brawl, someone may have a knife and cause damage but the odds of somebody ending up dead are a lot less.

Different cultures different answers to the same basic problem. How to deal with violent crime. We do things differently, it suits us, your solution hopefully suits you, from a UK perspective it's a way we want to avoid.

We don't have "bad guys" they are more commonly known, as thugs, morons, wee S**&*S, etc etc. Bad guy sounds too cuddly, mind you so disenfranchised inner city dweller makes then sound like a biology experiment.
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Jives »

gmc wrote: . On the other hand lots of guns doesn't mean no crime either, just lots more dead people and a climate of fear.


"Climate of fear?" Actually, I'd be more afraid if I had nothing to fend off a home invasion except a baseball bat.

You might still have to occasion to worry about the "bad guys" but the odds of he or she having a gun are remote enough not to be of concern.


So what do you guys do when you run into one of these "bad guys" intent on harming you or your family...use harsh language?

Bad guy knows his victim doesn't have a gun, he doesn't have one either but he has a knife. he needs to pick a victim he is physically capable of overpowering.


This is a good case for more guns. Even an 80 year old granny is a match for a young tough if she's armed.

Different cultures different answers to the same basic problem. How to deal with violent crime. We do things differently, it suits us, your solution hopefully suits you, from a UK perspective it's a way we want to avoid.


Well, to each their own, I guess.

We don't have "bad guys" they are more commonly known, as thugs, morons, wee S**&*S, etc etc. Bad guy sounds too cuddly, mind you so disenfranchised inner city dweller makes then sound like a biology experiment.


Or wankers, tossers, and "Gits"

:D
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

Let's cut to the chase.. the statistics in most of the western countries and Japan with extensive gun control show that it does nothing to reduce crime, criminals by the nature of what they are and do will not immediatly stop and become lawful productive citizens.. if its guns they want, they will find them on the black market or they find other ways to do and get what they want.

GUN CONTROL be it the USA, UK, Japan, other European countries is basically centered around one central issue and that is NOT safety.. its PEOPLE CONTROL pure and simple. If it was truly safety on the part of those in the ruling power positions then why do the rich and ruling elite have courtesy exemption from such laws and when caught with the "bad things" have high powered lawyers that talk their way out of jail or fines ?

The following is article out of the UK I was emailed by a long time friend that lives between England and Australia having to do with the current hype in England about KNIFE CRIME taking over where gun crime left off and the guts of the whole thing, which like the battle cry for gun control, is well orchestrated hype using the media to do the pollie's dirty work so they can pass the laws they need to restrict us further and give them more latitude in what they want to do and control.

" Article16 December 2004

Knife culture? Cut the crap

There is little evidence for a 'rising tide of knife crime' in Britain.



by Brendan O'Neill



Is Britain in the grip of a 'knife culture'? According to the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Association of Chief Police Officers and just about every front page of every newspaper, it is.



The police speak of a rising tide of knife crime, where everyone from misguided schoolkids to inner-city hoods are apparently arming themselves with flick knives, pen knives, machetes and swords. The last thing David Blunkett did before stepping down as home secretary was to propose new measures to 'tackle knife crime', including banning under-18s from buying them and allowing headteachers to frisk pupils for anything with a sharp edge (in the event, however, Blunkett failed to turn up to yesterday's launch of the 'fight against knives', instead leaving it to his junior Home Office minister Caroline Flint). In effect, as one report put it, the government has decided to 'wage war on knives' (1).



It started with dire warnings from the cops. In November, London's Metropolitan Police expressed 'fears' about a worsening knife problem in the capital (2). The Met had already unveiled Operation Blunt, a campaign against the menace of knives, which included trialling a metal detector at Hammersmith bus station in west London in an attempt to catch out knife-carriers. Also in November, following claims that more children are bringing knives into school, then education secretary (now new home secretary) Charles Clarke said airport-style X-ray machines might be introduced in schools too, if he thought it was 'the only way to tackle knife-carrying' (3).



In December, the relatives of stabbing victims - including the parents of 14-year-old schoolboy Luke Walmsley, who was murdered in a school corridor in January 2003 - launched a campaign called 'Knives Destroy Lives'. They called on the government to introduce a five-year minimum jail term for carrying an object with a blade longer than three inches, and a six-month minimum jail term for carrying a blade shorter than three inches. They also warned, according to the Independent, that there could be 'civil unrest' if the government didn't do more to tackle the problem of knives (4).



It didn't take the government long to get involved. Blunkett announced a raft of proposals to tackle knife crime (even though he admits that 'the number of incidents involving knives remains low, [but] I share the concern of the public about this issue'). The Metropolitan Police and others are organising a conference to cast a 'Spotlight on Knife Culture in the UK', because 'the time has undoubtedly come for the government, law enforcement agencies, schools and social services throughout the UK to come together and formulate strategies to reduce knife violence and prevent further tragedies from occurring.' (5)



Eventually even prime minister Tony Blair expressed concern about Britain's 'knife problem', telling ITV1's This Morning that: 'You now get a mandatory five-year sentence if you carry a gun. And I think some of these people are switching to knives, which is why we are now looking at how do you make that tougher.' (6)



What's going on? How did knives become the biggest issue in British politics? There have been various knife panics over the past 10 years - but now, in the space of six weeks, knives seem to have been fully transformed from everyday objects that we use at home and work into evil things, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake and potentially threatening civil unrest. Yet the evidence for a 'rising tide' of knife crime is thin indeed. The anti-knife campaign, it seems, has little to do with fighting crime, and much more to do with launching a moral crusade against something, anything, that can make the authorities feel useful and perhaps even a little virtuous.



When it comes to the facts and stats of knife crime, the authorities can't seem to keep their story straight. The furore over the so-called knife culture was triggered by London's Metropolitan Police at the end of November. The London Evening Standard reported the police's concerns about the knife culture 'spreading in London', claiming that '361 incidents involving knives' are recorded every week in the city, representing a rise of 13 per cent from last year (7).



Yet a Met spokesperson tells me that, 'There has been little fluctuation in the number of offences involving knives over the past three years'. In the year April 2001 to March 2002, there were 18,854 offences involving knives in London, accounting for 1.78 per cent of all reported crime. From April 2002 to March 2003, there were 19,107 offences involving knives, 1.77 per cent of all reported crime. The latest figures, covering the 10 months from April 2003 to January 2004, show that there were 17,362 offences involving knives, 1.96 per cent of reported crime.



So where did that claim in November come from, of 361 knife offences taking place every week in London representing a 13 per cent rise on last year? 'I don't know where it's from', says the spokesperson. If one does the sums, it seems that, if there are 361 offences involving a knife in London each week, that is actually little different from previous years. The 2001/2002 figure of 18,854 offences involving knives works out at 362 offences a week; the 2002/2003 figure of 19,107 translates into 367 a week. So 361 seems fairly ordinary, rather than evidence of a 'spreading knife culture', or even a 13 per cent rise.



What's more, the Met's category of knife offences apparently covers everything from cars being scratched with a knife to assault and murder with a knife. Even more strikingly, for all the headlines and handwringing about knife-assisted robberies and murders, it turns out that a 'knife offence' does not necessarily involve the use of a knife. According to the Met spokesperson, the Met's stats on knife crime include 'all offences where a knife has featured in some way'. 'Many of the offences…do not involve the actual use of a knife. [It] includes offences where a knife has been discovered by police during the investigation of another offence - for example, a knife discovered on a person arrested for shoplifting'. So stealing from a shop can become a 'knife crime' if the shoplifter had a knife somewhere on his person but didn't use it.



Is a breakdown of these 'knife' offences available, to show how many are minor, how many are major, and how many involved the 'actual use of a knife'? Apparently not. We do know, however, that of the 18,854 knife offences in London in 2001/2002, 70 were homicides, and of the 19,107 knife offences in 2002/2003, 67 were homicides. In both years, the other 18,000-odd offences cover everything from car-scratching to threatening behaviour to assault to offences not actually involving the use of a knife but where a knife was later discovered.



The Home Office, which compiles crime stats for all of Britain, not just London, likewise seems to make conflicting statements. In the year 2002/2003, a total of 1,007 homicides were recorded across all of the UK (this is higher than most years because the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman, Britain's first serial killer GP, were added, although they were murdered at various times over the past 20 years). In November 2004, according to one report, Home Office minister Hazel Blears claimed that of these 1,007 victims, 272 were killed in knife attacks. But a Home Office spokesman tells me it is misleading to refer to these as knife murders; they are categorised under 'homicide by a sharp instrument', which includes not just knives but 'broken bottles and glasses'. Perhaps the government should consider banning bottles as well as blades.



In a population of 60million, 272 killings with a sharp instrument a year seems a fairly low figure. Of course we'd all like it to be lower still, but will metal detectors in bus stations, more stop-and-search laws and the regular frisking of schoolkids do anything to tackle knife killings? Those suggesting such measures overlook one fact: at least as many murders, and usually more, take place in domestic settings as they do on dodgy street corners.



Of the 1,007 murders by all methods in the UK in 2002/2003, 410 took place in a domestic setting, between family members, friends or acquaintances, compared with 414 listed as 'stranger' murders - and it should be remembered that in 2002/2003, the stranger category included, as usual, murders where the relationship between the perpetrator and victim was unknown and, unusually, Shipman's 172 victims, where the relationship was classified as a 'commercial, business or professional relationship, where the suspect killed a customer or client in the course of carrying out their occupation', which also falls under the 'stranger' heading. In most years, there are more family or acquaintance murders than stranger murders (8).



And according to one Home Office report, which analyses the Scottish experience, around 60 per cent of murders with a sharp instrument take place indoors, usually in a domestic setting. The logical conclusion, then, if restricting access to knives is seriously seen as a means of reducing the murder rate, is to make all of us empty out our kitchen draws and ban knives from the home.



In other parts of Britain, the apparent rise in knife crime is itself the result of the authorities' obsession with knives. At the end of November the Scotsman reported that 'Knife crime soars by 50 per cent in four years'. The paper said: 'The number of people caught carrying knives and other deadly weapons in Edinburgh has risen by 50 per cent, shocking new figures today revealed…. A total of 430 crimes involving possession of weapons were recorded last year, compared to 283 in 1999 - an increase of 51.9 per cent' (9).



But there seems a simple explanation for this: Scottish police have prioritised searching the general public for knives, above just about anything else. As a spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said, the 50 per cent rise is the result of the police being more 'proactive'; for example, they have 'extensively used stop-and-search powers' on the streets of Edinburgh and elsewhere in their war on knives (10). They went looking for knives, and they found them. Surely, this is less evidence of 'soaring knife crime' than of a soaring obsession with knife crime. It also suggests that talk of a knife culture can become a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more knives are seen as a great evil, the more the police look for them, and the more the police find them, the more we are told we face a great evil. We will no doubt see a similar effect in London when the Met rolls out Operation Blunt to cover all boroughs.



What of the claims that more schoolchildren are carrying knives? Here, too, reports have been heavy on hysteria and light on evidence. Media reports have quoted from two surveys - last year's Youth Survey 2003, conducted by the polling company Mori for the Youth Justice Board, and this year's Youth Survey 2004, again conducted by Mori for the Youth Justice Board. Both surveys have been quoted out of context to paint an unrealistic picture of flick knife-wielding schoolkids.



The first thing to note is that the Youth Survey is just that - a survey of young people's experiences, where around 5,000 school pupils aged between 11 and 16 self-complete questionnaires on their experiences and perceptions of crime. So it needs to be read with the usual rider that young teenagers, for various reasons, don't always tell the whole truth and nothing but.



Despite the fact that the Youth Survey 2004 was published in July, some have chosen to quote from last year's survey - perhaps because its figures for the number of schoolchildren who claim to have carried a weapon appear that bit higher. The London Evening Standard reported that, 'A Mori survey last year found that 29 per cent of secondary schoolchildren admitted having carried a knife' (11). Guardian columnist David Aaronovitch repeated these claims on 13 December, writing that 'in a Mori survey for the Youth Justice Board, 29 per cent of 11- to 16-year-old school pupils admitted to having carried a knife - a figure that rose to 62 per cent of pupils excluded from school' (12).



In fact, that part of the 2003 survey is not of secondary schoolchildren in general but of secondary schoolchildren who claim to have committed an offence. The survey interviewed a total of 5,549 school-attending and excluded pupils, 1,692 of whom claimed to have committed an offence. And of these 1,692, when asked 'What offences have you committed in the last year?', 29 per cent of school-attending pupils and 62 per cent of excluded pupils said 'carried a knife'. Yet this response of a sample of schoolkids who claim to have committed an offence has been transformed by some into a snapshot of the knife-carrying habits of all schoolkids everywhere.



The reporting of this year's Youth Survey has been equally dubious. The Daily Mirror claimed that 'a Mori poll has revealed that 28 per cent of 11- to 16-year-olds carry knives'; the paper claimed that some 'arm themselves with penknives' while others 'admitted they had flick knives' (13). Yet one of the Mori pollsters who was involved in checking and signing off this year's Youth Survey for the Youth Justice Board tells me that the press coverage has been 'massively misleading'.



In a section titled 'Possession of potential weapons' (note the use of the word 'potential'), it is true that 28 per cent of young people in schools said they had carried some kind of knife 'in the last year'. But 25 per cent of these young people said they had carried a penknife, a fairly harmless device which has been beloved of schoolboys in particular for generations. The Mori pollster tells me the figures have been 'dramatically taken out of context': 'It doesn't mean they are walking around with a knife everyday, it might only have been once. And the vast majority are penknives! They might be going whittling for all we know.' As the Youth Survey itself stated, in a passage that funnily enough was not quoted amidst all the claims of school pupils 'arming' themselves with penknives: 't should be noted that a large proportion of the knives being carried by young people…are penknives, which are, of course, used for a wide variety of innocent purposes.' (14)



Knife culture? What knife culture? The Met can't seem to make its mind up over whether there has been 'no fluctuation' in knife crime in the past three years, or a steep rise. Scottish and other police forces are finding more knives largely because they have made it their job to find more knives. And while there may be isolated incidents of violence, schoolchildren are not, whatever the headlines might say, turning up to class armed with machetes and bad intentions.



Today's anti-knife frenzy is bizarre. Ask yourself - why knives? Why not fists and feet, which have been known to cause serious injury and even murder if used inappropriately (in 2002/2003, 160 people were murdered through 'Hitting, kicking, etc')? Why not 'blunt objects', which were used in 47 murders in 2002/2003? Why not newspapers, which as every football hooligan knows can be folded up to form the 'Millwall brick', hard-edged enough to smash anybody's face in? Or ropes and scarves (there were 68 murders by strangulation in 2002/2003)?



There is little logic to the war on knives, because it has little to do with knives themselves. Rather, this looks like another attempt by the authorities to attach themselves to a cause in a desperate bid to appear caring and right-minded. In the absence of any political vision, or much of a political programme, the government is a sucker for moral crusades, where everything can be reduced to a simple clash between good (those who express concern about knives) and evil (knives). That's one reason why the campaign snowballed so quickly, from the Met's comments in November to the launch of the victims' families campaign in December to Blunkett, Blair and Clarke getting involved; government officials always on the lookout for seemingly simple moral issues were not about to let a campaign against evil knives pass them by.



And if it meant putting a dagger in the heart of rational debate about crime and society, so be it.



Presently Gun Control/Gun Crime is of little discussion or hypo in America at the moment.. but give it a year when the campaign for the next President starts to kick off in full gear and watch IT, like the Abortion Topic, once again be at the forfront of the campaign battles and take a good portion of the news reporters focus with all kinds of "incidents" they presently would NOT give the time of day towards...


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by abbey »

It does rile me somewhat that the UK is considered backward in our no gun policies.

I have never owned or handled one, and would never consider owning one, it's just not in our culture (thankfully)

Of course we are always going to have people that break the law and carry them, but i would say that nine times out of ten they are used in drug or gang related incidents.

I certainly dont have an issue with countries that do arm themselves, why on earth should countries that do carry guns have a problem with that?
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by gmc »

posted by jives

"Climate of fear?" Actually, I'd be more afraid if I had nothing to fend off a home invasion except a baseball bat.


What's a home invasion? A baseball bat is quite a good weapon in the right hands. If those invading have no guns it would be a good defence.

So what do you guys do when you run into one of these "bad guys" intent on harming you or your family...use harsh language?


Yes, and if a verbal threat display doesn't work use whatever level of force is necessary. If needs must I will run for it, especially if there is a gang of them. No guns remember so the chances of getting killed are fairly low. I don't worry about meeting one of these "bad guys" since the chances are fairly remote that I'll bump in to them and most of those disposed to violence against strangers tend also to be cowards. Like most people in the UK I don't live my life in the expectation of being attacked, nor do i worry about someone behaving in a threatening manner because without guns that individual can't attack me with impunity.

Most of the violence, stabbings etc tend to be drink related.
David Hill
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:30 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by David Hill »

gmc wrote: posted by jives

Quote:

"Climate of fear?" Actually, I'd be more afraid if I had nothing to fend off a home invasion except a baseball bat.



What's a home invasion? A baseball bat is quite a good weapon in the right hands. If those invading have no guns it would be a good defence.



Quote:

So what do you guys do when you run into one of these "bad guys" intent on harming you or your family...use harsh language?



Yes, and if a verbal threat display doesn't work use whatever level of force is necessary. If needs must I will run for it, especially if there is a gang of them. No guns remember so the chances of getting killed are fairly low. I don't worry about meeting one of these "bad guys" since the chances are fairly remote that I'll bump in to them and most of those disposed to violence against strangers tend also to be cowards. Like most people in the UK I don't live my life in the expectation of being attacked, nor do i worry about someone behaving in a threatening manner because without guns that individual can't attack me with impunity.

Most of the violence, stabbings etc tend to be drink related.


And what happens when the "gang" got a hold of some guns on the black market?
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

ArnoldLayne wrote: JEEZ, HOW MANY MORE TIMES.



You dont have to justify your gun ownership to us....simply....



WE,as in , people in Britain, DONT WANT THEM !


Don't get your knickers in knots there Arnold :wah: :wah: ... the post had nothing to do with convicing you about guns or no guns... you missed the point ... really missed the point.... it has to do with control, PEOPLE control using the fear of "objects"as the boogeymen in all their lives and feeding that fear to such a point people start to really believe the utter BS these "politicans and benevolent dicatators" in the ruling places are cramming down everyone's throats...

I guess the problem lies in the fact I don't subscribe the the lemming and sheep mentality of others... I suggest watching Monty Python's Holy Grail a few times, the characters there had the art of "run away" down to a science.. good education tool for the masses ;)


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by BabyRider »

gmc wrote: Most of the violence, stabbings etc tend to be drink related.
So. When's the plan for banning booze getting underway?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Accountable »

ArnoldLayne wrote: JEEZ, HOW MANY MORE TIMES.

You dont have to justify your gun ownership to us....simply....

WE,as in , people in Britain, DONT WANT THEM !
Deep breaths, Arnold. Let's go to the pub where the threads don't take so long to read :guitarist and everybody knows your name :guitarist
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

BabyRider wrote: So. When's the plan for banning booze getting underway?
:D Ahh yes the demon brew, the cause of all evils of the civilialized society and something that must be BANNED to save mankind from its attacks and of course mankinds own inability to control himself ... Uhm...Wasn't that tried back in the 1920's.. Prohibition... didn't work, more bootleg booze than you could throw a stick at and illegal bootlegers to match - BAN IT and it shall cease to exist... NOT !



I'd like to see them ban soccor in Europe along with cricket in the UK and baseball, basketball and football here and sit back and enjoy the anarchy:rolleyes:

I often wonder if more women were in power if we would not have half the problems we do... that should elicit some interesting responses from the Testrone group :yh_devil


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

Bez wrote: The thought of the citizens of the UK carrying guns leaves me cold.......too many people with little self control !


Most of the renegade progunners here would have your head for that comment, I on the other hand.. maybe being female.. can concur completely. AS I noted earlier... 200 years ago was a VERY different animal.. now, there is no reason to disarm but there must be checks and balances within reason (aka laws) to keep the tools that can do harm or good out of the hands of the "mad and the bad" as my Aussie buddy likes to say...

It boils down to common sense and the number of laws to handle that really can be done in ONE..

NO MALE under the age of 25 unless they have full military training and have left with an honorable discharge if not lifers... no one with violent mental illness and treatment on an ongoing basis.. no one with felony criminal convictions regardless of what they are, no one without proper safety and handling training prior to the purchase of their first firearm or being given one by an elder relative and ongoing practice.

NO Male in the first section since its medical/pschological fact that males do mature slower than females are are more prone to being hotwired for short wick tempers and doing without thinking... the rest is a no brainer.. it applies to everyone...

People like to think mental illness means violent and that is so far from the truth.. there are people with varying degrees of mental illness that are so far from ever being violent or becoming that its almost pathetic how they react to panic situations and threats on their own life... submissive would be the best way to describe them I think.

The type of firearm is really a moot point.. the type does not matter unless you consider the hands controlling it and how well trained they are to handle it. Most people that have never shot any type of firearm in their life do not have the faintest idea of what to expect from anything, much less the differences and how to handle each one. That is why the "Assault weapon" Bans are so utterly ridiculous.. its based on physical appearance... some of the "baddest guns" on that list are the least lethal of the lot. I've heard newscasters time after time say such oxymorons as the "fully automatic revolver".. to a gun person, you roll over in hsyterics on that comment.. to the NON person you don't have the faintest idea of what is so funny... and I"m not gonna tell you.. ask another gun person :p

That is why people need to learn that all of this is about PEOPLE CONTROL... it has nothing to do with guns... most of the people making the laws have no earthly idea what the FARK they are talking about !!!!

I'm so totally bored with this discussion preaching to the choir and talking to the wall to the lemming and sheep people... let's move on.. time will sort it all out.


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by BabyRider »

ArnoldLayne wrote: Notice that Pearl Harbor did a runner. Wassup ? Run out of ammo ? ;)


He does that. It's annoying. :yh_eyebro



Xxena wrote:

I'm so totally bored with this discussion preaching to the choir and talking to the wall to the lemming and sheep people... let's move on.. time will sort it all out.


And yet we let ourselves get sucked into them every time, don't we? I do have to say, though, Xxena, it's pretty cool to have another pro-gun female here who knows her sh!t. There are a couple here, but you seem as emphatic as I am about the subject.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by abbey »

Xxena wrote:



That is why people need to learn that all of this is about PEOPLE CONTROL... it has nothing to do with guns... most of the people making the laws have no earthly idea what the FARK they are talking about !!!!



I'm so totally bored with this discussion preaching to the choir and talking to the wall to the lemming and sheep people... let's move on.. time will sort it all out.Ok all you other Brits,

lets get some guns n go show the boys in the big house what we really think of them :rolleyes:

gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by gmc »

posted by babyrider

So. When's the plan for banning booze getting underway?


Actually there is talk of loosening up licensing hours. Most of the problems arise at closing time when all the pubs shut and the drunks hit the streets en masse. Alcohol is banned at football matches so the levcl of violence inside the ground is much less than it used to be. No govt would try prohibition we wouldn't let them get away with it.

posted by babyrider

And yet we let ourselves get sucked into them every time, don't we? I do have to say, though, Xxena, it's pretty cool to have another pro-gun female here who knows her sh!t. There are a couple here, but you seem as emphatic as I am about the subject.


Good fun though, besides you don't stop talking to people just because they are incapable of accepting others don't have their world view.

posted by xxena

That is why people need to learn that all of this is about PEOPLE CONTROL... it has nothing to do with guns... most of the people making the laws have no earthly idea what the FARK they are talking about !!!!


Actually it's all about government control. Americans seem to be constantly worried their govt is going to oppress them so they need guns.

On the other hand in the UK we don't. We elect them and can unelect them and if they ignore public opinion we take to the streets-ask maggie Thatcher if she still thinks the poll tax was a good idea

The police are there to control criminals, they are unarmed so they cannot use excessive force in the normal course of their duties, nor can they be used as an instrument of oppression by the state. What kind of country tolerates traffic police being armed? It's a real culture shock seeing armed police at airports or when you go abroad. They are controlled by local authorities not the government which is why talk about centralising control does not go down well. You will no doubt have noted that even during riots no shots are fired. You are inlikely to ever see armed troops being used in that capacity in the UK (OK Northern Ireland aside)

We have traditionally had a small standing army except in time of war so a military coup is rather unlikely.

We don't have an executive with powers to rule without the consent of parliament, though TB is showing signs of believing we should and that he's the man, ultimately prliament can stop him cold.

An independent news media whose prime functuion is to report both side of any debate. Neither tory or labour like the BBC and given half a chance when in power would take away it's independence since objective reporting looks like criticism of the government which most of the time is what is needed. When not in power they love. Those individuals carping on about it being unpatriotic and think it should support the government and never criticise except constructively kind of miss the point. We expect to see politicians being given a hard time by interviewers and dodging questions does not go down well. The bias of privately owned newspapers is all the more obvious because of the contrast.

Most people in the UK get their news etc from more than one source often with different viewpoints on he same thing. On some issues they are left wing on others right wing there is no hard and fast rule but most of all there is very seldom blind adulation of any politician since most see them for the lying devious self serving B$^$$£S they are.

Serious question, would there ever be a programme in th US like Spitting Image with a ruthless send up of GW or would the TV stations be terrified to show it as unpatriotic?

Obviously I'm putting my own spin on this, but most people in the UK don't want to own a gun because they are not frightened about the risk of being attacked. We have problems in some areas with guns crime and others with knife crime. Rather than thinking OH dear I need a gun to defend myself our attitude is more you are the police and governement, deal with the problem. Any spotty little oik that's wants to carry around a knife or own a gun is not expressing a desire for more freedom they are thugs who need to be disarmed and sorted out one way or the other before they annoy somebody. Same with air rifles, the ban in Scotland is as result of public pressure not a nanny state.

We don't need them to defend ourselves against the government because, for all the faults of our electoral system, ultimately they will answer at the ballot box especially if they are smug gits that think they belong in power.

So I'm sorry all you americans feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe from your fellow americans and just in case your government starts oppressing you but that is your choice, our choice is otherwise.

If most of the people making the laws have no idea what they are talking about, why did you elect thm and what are you doing about it?
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

BabyRider wrote: He does that. It's annoying. :yh_eyebro



And yet we let ourselves get sucked into them every time, don't we? I do have to say, though, Xxena, it's pretty cool to have another pro-gun female here who knows her sh!t. There are a couple here, but you seem as emphatic as I am about the subject.


;) I realized that as well after reading some of your posts on various topics.. "like minds" hahaa ! We do tend to find each other and stick together.. hardly the need for safety in numbers in our groups .. most outsiders will not get the humor in that comment :rolleyes: If work was not the biggest consumption of all my time, including free time.. I'd dig out and post of rather interesting studies and

data sheets on the whole issue and the tie in's from other outside influences...maybe towards the holidays if we do a shutdown for 10 days like we're thinking of doing..

I think there is a misconception that most progun people, especially the activists like myself are under some paranoid delusion that we must be armed to the teeth for protection against our own government. Could not be further from the truth.. to begin with the firepower of the US Military is not going to be deterred by even the most dilligent of any gun owning group they would come up against.. so that's really stupid when you think about making that statement about it.

In our case, meaning our family... its multipurpose.. sporting use, hunting use, protection, collection and my husband's fetish for anything mechanical that he must take apart critique it to be point of making me nuts and then putting it back together over nad over to the point he thinks he can either do a better job or do it himself.. its not just guns.. he takes ANYTHING mechanical apart to autopsy it so to speak before its reassembled and used... must be a guy thing. My comments about the government are based on a variety of other reasons all based in fact that really have nothing to do with the gun issue as the source of that.. more as part of the whole package.

Its the groups like the White Supremists and some of the other odd extremists that are the ones that give the impression that you are talking about GMC.. most people like myself, Baby Rider and others do not live and breath for this, but we are very strong minded about it for a variety of reasons and don't feel the law abiding should constantly pay the price for the governments inablity to deal with the lawless which is the real issue. I am not a threat to society or anyone around me UNLESS they have decided to do harm to me or mine, then they would be wise to rethink that whole idea and take it elsewhere... I think that sums it up

simply.


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Jives »

gmc wrote: posted by babyride

Actually there is talk of loosening up licensing hours. Most of the problems arise at closing time when all the pubs shut and the drunks hit the streets en masse.


Wow. What a great idea, and I'm not being sarcastic. Keep the bars open all night and we'll only have a few drunks on the road at any given time. That's got to better the odds for us innocent drivers.

Did I mention that our town has the worst DWI statistics in the nation? An average of 15 DWI's is common here.



Actually it's all about government control. Americans seem to be constantly worried their govt is going to oppress them so they need guns.


Freakin' A! And is there any doubt why we have that attitude? First of all, our country was oppressed by another's government when we started this country.

Now....we all live under the dhadow of the most powerful and largest government of the world. Wouldn't you be a little paranoid?:cool:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

Maybe mandatory sleep overs at the bars/pubs for the drunks would be a better idea.. any way you cut it anytime they're loose on the road in vehicles they are dangerous ! Most medics don't get OT, I'm sure they would not be happy to know they'll be out there scraping people off the pavement and picking glass out of body parts longer than usual...

Funny it should be brought up about expending or repealing hours.. my husband likes to travel at night with the truckers, less traffic.. the only problematic drivers seem to be the damn drunks when you go through areas of highway where the bars are closing... that is not a joke. We try to time leaving here an hour before anything on this side of the Wisconsin border closes and get into there either

while they are still open or right before closing so we running ahead of the weaving pack... I like my scotch but the last thing I will do is head for my truck if I've been drinking... I'm not sure why that concept is so hard to comprehend with others.


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

Quote:

We have a problem with crime as does everybody else, but only a complete lunatic would believe that the answer if for everybody to be armed. Keep the american way you're welcome to it we are a long way from being the violence obsessed culture that america seems to be.



Well, look at it this way: In Texas it is Legal for you to carry a gun. Say that you are a "bad guy" you have a gun. You don't know if this man you want to mug has one or not. So, you take the chance you go up show him your gun and say "Gimme all your money" and he smiles and shows you his gun. You both pull your guns on each other, and he shoots you in the shoulder or something, you live and go to the hospital then jail after your healed. One Bad guy down it's all over the news and "Bad guys" are gonna think twice now before they try to rob someone. The problem with your "No Guns = No Crime" is wacko... There will ALWAYS be "Bad Guys" and they may not carry a gun with them everywhere, but what about at night and this "Bad guy" comes into your house with a mask on and holds you at gun point and you can't defend yourself? What now?

You'd be hard pressed to convince the citizens of Kennesaw Georgia that was not a good idea...


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

ArnoldLayne wrote: It does have to be said, we do have very antiquated licensing laws here in the UK.part of the problems in cities is that the pubs chuck out at 11.30 just about the time youre getting going so consequently, we have a, get as much down as you can in the shortest amount of time, kind of culture . That leads to obvious problems when every body leaves at the same time.



The only draw back to sensible licensing, ie 24 hr opening, is that many, many pubs are "village" pubs that operate in residential, close communities. Having a pub next door could pose new problems if patrons decided to vacate at 4 in the morning after a faceful of Theakstons Old Peculiar.



24 hour opening does exist in certain places, perfectly legally. I'm talking pubs not clubs. You just need to know where to go :D. Pubs around Smithfield Market in London for example open 23hrs a day to allow meat market workers to drink at any time. ( And they do a superb English breakfast to go with your Guinness, to boot )


Why then don't people just buy what they like to drink and drink it at home ? No high fees per drink to pay, no problem with hours of closing too early and not

being served as much as they want and they don't become a nuisance on the public roads and highways.. or does that make too much sense ?


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

It was not arrogant it was a general inquiry since you make it sound like everyone goes to the pub nitely and its creating a very large DUI problem.

The point was if people have a need to consume enough to impair their driving then maybe they should save those "times" for at home when they know they don't have to drive and can drink as much as they want and leave PUB time for one or two so it does not affect their blood chemistry enough to impair their driving. I drink I don't drive period.. I go out and people are drinking and I have to drive or my spouse wants to drink with them, so I am the DD, then I DON"T DRINK.


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Jives »

Xxena wrote: Maybe mandatory sleep overs at the bars/pubs for the drunks would be a better idea..


And now...after being so mean to poor Xxena on the other thread, I'll be nice to her!

This is actually a very good idea!:D In the 70's around my town, the police barricaded the roads into town. All of the drinkers and teens went out to their respective parties in the hills, which lasted all night. The police didn't stop anyone at all who was leaving town, not even if you were underage with a full keg of beer where your passenger seat should've been. (I know this because I did it.):o

The only rule was, "Don't come back into town before sunrise." The police arrested anyone stupid enough to try to drive drunk back into town before the sun came up!:-2
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
User avatar
Xxena
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:21 pm

UK Gun Ban: No Guns = No Crime. Right?

Post by Xxena »

Jives wrote: And now...after being so mean to poor Xxena on the other thread, I'll be nice to her!

This is actually a very good idea!:D In the 70's around my town, the police barricaded the roads into town. All of the drinkers and teens went out to their respective parties in the hills, which lasted all night. The police didn't stop anyone at all who was leaving town, not even if you were underage with a full keg of beer where your passenger seat should've been. (I know this because I did it.):o

The only rule was, "Don't come back into town before sunrise." The police arrested anyone stupid enough to try to drive drunk back into town before the sun came up!:-2


You weren't mean, if you had been I would have let you know without any doubts in your mind about it...

That's a good idea but unfortunately outside of a smaller city or town I don't think it would work in big urban areas. I can admit to being young and stupid myself in my early 20's, it took getting my credentials as paramedic and working the streets and highways to wake me up hence my no driving if drinking attitude from that point forward. Besides I HATE hangovers...

Our other house which is the retirment place is in bumblefark MN... the town we are "associated with" since we live on the lake which is considered "unincorporated" and not city limits is about 600 people... I swear the national past time in those little areas is sitting in a bar and spending your paycheck and getting drunk night after night after night... I was impressed with my son in law.. who's from that town originally... he told me one night that he found himself getting into that go nowhere pattern in his early 20's and put an end to it seeing what it was doing to his friends... he turns 30 this month (and boy are we going to razz the hell out him)... and the 6 years he's been with my daughter if he drinks which is seldom and in small amounts.. he never leaves home or drives. Just the opposite.. he tells her to have fun and unwind and he is always the DD for everyone...

Out here in the far NW burbs of Chicago where we live they often have mandatory check points for DWI's and I'm all for it ... my daugther got stopped one night at age 21.. she was sober, coming home from her friends that is a beautician after having her hair cut and colored... but it took her 4 hours to get home from a 15 minute drive since once they divert traffic... everyone goes and you wait to be tested and have your car checked... the kids and 20 somethings out here are bad... we have at least one fatal accident every farking weekend.. its to the point that people are numb from it and that is bad, really really bad !


The difference between Congress as envisoned by the Founding Fathers and the Congress we have today is one of them inspires patriots to support it, and the other inspires patriots to buy extra ammo (Angel Shamaya):lips:

Return to “Gun Control”