Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
Mine are better because they get me paid!

I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?

Probably same reason their so invested in ours?

It gives us something to talk about.

Fair point!

 Easy E wrote:
Mine are better because they get me paid!

I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?

To be honest, I always try and keep clear. Well most of the time

Whenever the subject comes up with people I know, I defend America. Their country their rules. Remember the NHS debates a couple of years ago with right-wingers attacking the NHS because of Obama care? Remember how mad Brits were? That's what I say to people.

Funnily enough, whenever I defend America on this board, I sometimes get attacked....by American posters!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Funnily enough, whenever I defend America on this board, I sometimes get attacked....by American posters!

You took der argu-ments!

Easy E wrote:Mine are better because they get me paid!

I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?

Not really sure, you could ask the same for British people being invested in America's gun laws, or Americans being invested in Canada's health program, etc. Etc. I guess we all just love to stick our noses in other peoples business

cerbrus2 wrote:This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.

I'm happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.

Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required. And this is a criminal, he's not going to toss you a knife for a fair fight, if he wants to stab you he will. Even in a fist fight he could kill you easily.

I realize neither side is going to budge at this point, but do you guys really want no option to protect yourselves? Seriously? After what happened to that model sculptor who got stabbed and beaten and the horrible incident with the soldier, I would've thought you guys would at least begin to understand where the "gun crowd" is coming from here. And that's just really publicized ones, I'm sure you guys have plenty more beatings and murders that don't get international attention. Would you at least want pepper spray or a tazer, or are you guys against that too? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smart arse.

I'm sorry but the idea that a person would want no option to protect themselves whatsoever absolutely amazes me. I guess this is how you guys must feel hearing us say "I wouldn't live anywhere where I couldn't use a gun for self defense."

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required.

Wait, what stops you from having these things?

Doesn't everyone in the UK have a sword cane or umbrella? I thought it came with the accent and NHS card?

Cricket Bat?

Btw why are we bouncing back mostly to US Laws. I thought this was a big issue with UK.....and curious on where this bill stand......making progress...dead in the water...still garnering support?

Even in the roughest towns and areas, you are safer when there are no guns. It takes a lot to beat someone to death. And because we have no guns, assault with other weapons (such as a knife) is seen much more seriously.

You dont have to carry anything for protection because the odds of you being attacked are minute.

If eveyone at the bpston marathon was carrying a couple of uzis would that have protected them? If the two men hacked apart asentioned abpve had been armed would it have saved them from aomepne who jumps them with a large bladed weapon?

Prevention is better than cure, and most of the rest of the western world has gone the same way yet aociety hasnt collapsed into an orgy of blood as armed criminals lord it over the disarmed public.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Easy E wrote:Mine are better because they get me paid!

I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?

Not really sure, you could ask the same for British people being invested in America's gun laws, or Americans being invested in Canada's health program, etc. Etc. I guess we all just love to stick our noses in other peoples business

cerbrus2 wrote:This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.

I'm happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.

Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required. And this is a criminal, he's not going to toss you a knife for a fair fight, if he wants to stab you he will. Even in a fist fight he could kill you easily.

I realize neither side is going to budge at this point, but do you guys really want no option to protect yourselves? Seriously? After what happened to that model sculptor who got stabbed and beaten and the horrible incident with the soldier, I would've thought you guys would at least begin to understand where the "gun crowd" is coming from here. And that's just really publicized ones, I'm sure you guys have plenty more beatings and murders that don't get international attention. Would you at least want pepper spray or a tazer, or are you guys against that too? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smart arse.

I'm sorry but the idea that a person would want no option to protect themselves whatsoever absolutely amazes me. I guess this is how you guys must feel hearing us say "I wouldn't live anywhere where I couldn't use a gun for self defense."

Sorry, but that's one of the best argumemts against gun control as far as I'm concerned (along with the rest if the UK).

Think about it this way - if I start carrying a gun what do you think a criminal will do in response?

In fact, the criminal is likely to own i gun first...

So would you rather be mugged by someone using their fists, or a gun?

How many people die in the US as a result of muggings, robberies, botched burgularies and the like? In the UK it's so small as to be effectively zero.

In addition to which it's pretty much impossible to massacre a classroom of schoolchildren with only a knife. It's impossible for your child to kill themselves with your brass knuckles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Cricket Bat?

Btw why are we bouncing back mostly to US Laws. I thought this was a big issue with UK.....and curious on where this bill stand......making progress...dead in the water...still garnering support?

It's not a big issue in the UK and it's not a bill, this thread was started as a result of an online limited choice poll carried out by a right-leaning UK newspaper.

 motyak wrote:
, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

Is this actually happening more often than pre ban?

Yes, though the ban was incidental. The main reason for the change was unchecked immigration while had the dual nightmare of importing people from countries where life is generally cheaper and allowing guns importation to proliferate.
This is not to say that immigrant = gun wielding fanatic, gun crime is rare but out of the millions who have come to the UK if only a tiny percentage come from societies where carrying a gu and using on just about anyone is an unfortunate fact of life then there will be problems. The vast majority of shootings are ethnic on ethnic and don't make the press easily.

However the kneejerk handgun ban after Dunblane hasn't helped. The ban was there to give instant credibility for Tony Balir at the dawn of his tenure at the expense of lawful gun owners and the public at large. The Uk used to have the mosrt rerlaxed gun laws in the western world but had very rigorous self policing by gun clubs. The general principle is that you can haver a gun, even a fully automatic but first you have to have the responsibility to use it. All gun ownership has long been registered but back in the day to get a gun other than as a farmer one had to convince the gun clubs who in turn would recommend to the police. The ideal, workable in practice was simple, to get a gun you had to convince other gunowners you weren't a trigger happy douchbag. As this system needed to be workable for the gun owners to keep their collections they were hard to please.
"Yes you can join our club, here get a handle on this unloaded gun, but to have a loaded gun you have to convince us you have 0% ATTITUDE PROBLEM, this will take time. We can start when you are ready."
This golden age of gun ownership ended in 1987 when Michael Ryan a gun owner flipped went postal and shot a lot of people in Hungerford with legally held automatic weaponry including an M-16 and an AK-47 copy. While to the credit of the gun owning public Ryan was a solitary case, up until this point large scale ownership of automatic weapons in the general public was possible and passed without serious incident.
However Hungerford raised questions and rthe government could find no reason why fully automatci weaponry should be legal in the UK. So fully automatidc weapons were withdrawn but people could still shoot single shot weapons.

Next came Dunblane. the newly elected government made the gun clubs take the blame for Dunblane, however in actual fact the system had worked, at least from their end. The local gun clubs has repeated recommended, even begged the police to withdraw Hamiltons gun licences, but they had failed to act. The result was a spin fest a catchy song and some rallies and a near total ban on guns. The Labour govenment wanted a total ban but could not due to agriculture so they went with what we have today andf unworkably draconian and at first badly worded gun law. under the initial legislation a definition loophole allowed people to still legally own a long barreled .45 "Dirty Harry" under a shotgun licence.

Frankly the result is a mess while guns proliferate legal gun owners have to jump through a number of insanely complex expensive and inconvenient hoops, which do very little to stop the actual proliferation of guns.

The final nail in the coffin is the over-regulated gun clubs, which used to be places people with an interest in firearms could go and have the attitude removed from them so they could carry. They no longer can afford to have that function due to liabilities anf gun control dogmas which overly target the lawful gun owning community. So people who like guns don't get the maturity to use them properly and sensibly helping the UK has turned from a country with relaxed gun laws and low gun crime to one with the very strictest gun laws short of an outright ban, abut ironically amongst the highest gun crime rates in Europe.

 Seaward wrote:
Ah, but we're not talking about family and friends, which you would be aware of if you actually read what was written. As I recognize that's a lost cause, I'll simply say it again: your assertion that murders of an "acquaintance" stemming from "a dispute or argument" could not possibly involve people engaged in criminal enterprise on a regular basis is laughable.

Did you even read the table? Or do you read things and just ignore/forget them just forget things when you they threaten the worldview you've put up around you?

Because here's the figures again;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

The FBI figures state the number of murders committed as part of a felony. Including those suspected of being related to a felony, it was 1,876, out of the total of 12,664. 14.81%.

That's the number that per your grand theory accounts for 'most' of the murder rate. 14.81%.

You are fething wrong. Completely fething. And totally fething ignorant about it.

You do not know what you are talkign about. In order to defend guns you have invented a ridiculous theory, and the real world has shown you completely fething wrong.

So fething stop it.

This is where your argument falls apart, unfortunately. Our violent crime rates in general are higher than yours. Not simply gun crime, but all violent crime.

You are, again, completely wrong.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

In terms of the rate of assaults per capita, New Zealand, Portugal, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, and Scotland are all greater than you. And yet each has a much, much lower murder rate.

In terms of robberies, the UK, Spain and Belgium are all higher than you. Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and Italy are all roughly on par with you. And yet your murder rate is many times greater than all of them.

Your theories do not match the statistical realities. You are wrong. fething accept it.

I'm saying it hasn't changed in any significant fashion on the Second Amendment, and your claims of being able to predict the future notwithstanding, there's no indication it will.

You claimed that gun rights are protected because of the constitution. I pointed out that any realistic study of politics doesn't just assume that because it's presently written on paper that it will at all future times be protected. Society does change, and when it does the political will to maintain rules, even those written in the constitution, can drop away.

You have now drifted away from your original claim that the constitution was a protection, to the idea that because it's been upheld so far, it will forever more. Due to arrogance or ignorance, or likely some combination of the two, you didn't even notice that you'd given up your original claim, but whatever.

Honestly, saying, "Despite no supporting evidence right now, I can tell you what will happen in the future!" isn't exactly the high-minded debate you claim it is.

I've explained my evidence - the long term trend is towards a smaller and smaller proportion of homes in the US owning guns. That you remain ignorant of that point says a lot, really.

HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view? If your friends start carrying weapons for self defense will you still consider him/her your friends. Would you talk them out of it? I live in a very good neighborhood. I own my weapons because one. I'm comfortable with them. I do enjoy them on the range. I do enjoy giving classes on proper handling of weapons on and off range. I do enjoy giving advices on for first time buyers. It also gives me a since of security. One that develope on deployments.
Also since being married to a woman that has the ability to De-nats, deny, bring up charges on fraud on applications to be a US citizen, or ask for additional informations that clients are not willing to put forward or let it come out. She has a long list of people that do not like her. Met two of them already over time. Once in uniform and once out of uniform. Needless to say it was comedy gold till threats were made at the wife....never ever Google my wife name.

Jihadin I'll give you my view.

IN regard to someone beating me up/or someone i knew. It is then up to the law system (criminal law) to deal with the perpetrator , I know this isn't much but if i don't have faith in the law system I don't have much faith in the society I'm living in.

If my friends start carrying weapons for defence . I would not feel comfortable around them. If someone feels the need to carry a weapon on them in this country they either have something SERIOUSLY wrong with them or have suffered a significant trauma, both of which would lead me to not feel safe around them, particularly if i'm going drinking with them. Most people who carry knives tend to be met with derision or suspicion.

 Jihadin wrote:
HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view?

I know people who've been in car accidents, and even one person who was in the terror attack on Bali, and the Mumbai terror attacks hit India a few weeks before I went there. Those events never changed my willingness to drive a car, or to travel overseas. Because, as much as it can be challenging, it's important not to let personal experience and single events over-ride our understanding of probabilities.

If your friends start carrying weapons for self defense will you still consider him/her your friends. Would you talk them out of it?

It depends why they owned a gun, and why they carried it around with them. If they said they owned a gun because guns are fething cool and love to go target shooting, all I'd do is ask them if I can come with them some time.

If they owned that gun because their ex-partner was complete nut and they genuinely feared for their lives and the lives of their children, well then I'd consider that a pretty good reason.

But if it was because they thought at some point an evil stranger might attack them on the street or in their home, I'd tell them that gun is far more likely to get used in a heated family argument, or in a suicide attempt, than to defend himself and his family against some random stranger who wants to do him harm. If that didn't make an impression, well whatever, it wouldn't affect our friendship and I'd still hang around with them. I'm not their mother.

Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot

 Jihadin wrote:
Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot

Sounds pretty cool to me.

And I know people probably make a lot of assumptions about me because I end up arguing with the pro-gun set in these threads, but I'm not actually anti-gun. I think guns are great fun. I just argue against a lot of the myths that surround guns.

 Jihadin wrote:
HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view?

As already mentioned, if I was carrying a gun in this situation, then the chances are very high indeed that the criminal is also doing so, effectively escalating the whole position and changing a dangerous but probably not life-threatening situation into a potentially deadly one - in which the criminal probably still has the upper hand.

Knife crime has been in the news in the UK over the past few years due to a small number of high-profile stabbings (still extremely small compared to US murder rates) and one set of figures is very clear - the individuals most likely to be stabbed are those who carry a knife. Has anyone done any research into the murder rates of gun-owners in the US? There's been a lot of talk about how carrying a gun prevented muggings and robberies - but does it also change your chances of actually being killed? Isn't it likely that in at least some instances an attempted mugging or robbery will become a murder when the victim pulls a gun and the criminal kills them in reaction?

In Britain the overwhelming point of view is that there's no problem with having very strict gun controls because we don't need guns. Partly this is because we look at America and (rightly or wrongly) see what happens when there are widely available firearms. America has a whole host of historical and cultural reasons for having a very pro-firearms lobby - non of those reasons apply in the UK. The price in lives the US pays for this has no balancing factor for the UK.

 Jihadin wrote:
Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot

I think jihadin that you live in a very different world to the one sebster and I inhabit. If you want guns for home defence that sounds fine to me, I wouldn't like to live in an area i felt i needed one , but if it makes you feel better, why not?
What drugs are you on? I gotta say they have wiorked well, you don't seem to be a raging ball of anger like you were a month or two ago

I don't think I'd like to shoot an M1 , I'd probably either shoot the ceiling in or accidentally shoot someone (I have no idea of the recoil to expect having only fired a centre fired low cal rifle.

You be safe Bullick I keep very good care of my weapons. Beside be shooting bu=owling pins with the 30 cal. the M4 we be litaerally plinking,I agree with Sebster. Ti each is to their own on what their oerception on a weapon is. I for one go to fun end of the spectrum but I do know very very very rarely that I would go to self defense and then try to avoid escalating it.. Hence I go for the foot of knee cap shoot. all chain of thoughts pretty much desist and if they continue. The I go for the weapon wrist and then kick the weapon away,,,,and then I zip cuff and render first aid,,,,,,after TAPE HIS MOUTH . As for my posting the type of drugs I;m on. well lets say its a lot, Chemo, PTSD, Pain meds, also mood meds,,,anti anviety meds....celexa...3 pills a day 10 milligram a pill at once, steroid shoots,,,,,,well hell....its a couple sheet full.....and they're still tying to find the right mix to rtry to keep me normal. Manny and DJJones caught me when my mix was wrong yesterday plus two beers to

 sebster wrote:
Hilarity.

You know, what's the point? All of your supposed issues have been addressed countless times, by myself and others. You're unwilling to change from your entrenched position of ignorance, so why even bother? I'm just going to get more Orwell quotes and assurances that, despite all the evidence, all the many, many, many court cases, all the polling, the prediction of the near future that you've pulled out of a bodily orifice will absolutely come true. You'll rage, get a couple warnings, and we'll be right back where we started when the next thread pops up. What's the point? Back to ignore for you.

 Seaward wrote:
You know, what's the point? All of your supposed issues have been addressed countless times, by myself and others. You're unwilling to change from your entrenched position of ignorance, so why even bother? I'm just going to get more Orwell quotes and assurances that, despite all the evidence, all the many, many, many court cases, all the polling, the prediction of the near future that you've pulled out of a bodily orifice will absolutely come true. You'll rage, get a couple warnings, and we'll be right back where we started when the next thread pops up. What's the point? Back to ignore for you.

You claim that most homicides are crime related. I point out that only 14.81% were, as per the FBI's own figures.

You claim that the high murder rate in the US has to be seen in the context of the generally high overall violent crime rate. I point out that violent crime in the US is about standard for the OECD, with many developing countries having much higher rates of violent crime overall, as per UNODC figures.

In response, you address none of that. You don't concede you were wrong and reconsider some or all of your argument, you don't even attempt to make up some new nonsense to justify your claims. You just ignore all that and attempt some kind of vague, pissy little complaint about me in general.

Pathetic, really.

 Sanguinius5817 wrote:
I have a compound bow and arrows, no license needed, just a bit of skill. I would rather have that than easily obtained handguns

Don't have a clue do ya boy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Sanguinius5817 wrote:
I have a compound bow and arrows, no license needed, just a bit of skill. I would rather have that than easily obtained handguns

Do you hit moving targets with your bow? Are these moving targets coming at you with knives, baseball bats, guns, etc... Are you sitting in the trees or brush when this moving target is on the move? If you answered yes to all three of these questions, congratulations General Zaroff will be getting in contact with you shortly.

Further, do you expect grandma to have to defened herself with a bow and arrow in her bedroom, in the middle of the night when startled awake?

I don't think my grandma could do that with a gun...
Actually could many people do that?

 purplefood wrote:
I don't think my grandma could do that with a gun...
Actually could many people do that?

If they train with their weapon, yes.

I'd say frazzled grandma probably could, she probably gets alot of practice chasing mexicans off her lawn.

Bullockist wrote:
I'd say frazzled grandma probably could, she probably gets alot of practice chasing mexicans off her lawn.

Kiowa actually.

lol ,I had to look up what that was. I think the name " people with the large tipi flaps" sounds a little raunchy, but it's probably just my diistorted mind in action.

I'll change it to; she probably has alot of practice chasing injuns off her ranch

 purplefood wrote:
I don't think my grandma could do that with a gun...
Actually could many people do that?

yeah...actually thats very common... my 80+ year old grandma can shoot anything 12g or smaller without discomfort.

thats the whole point of guns, now older weaker people are not at the mercy of stronger/younger criminals.

with proper training anyone can effectively use a gun to defend themselves, most of the time it doesnt require fireing the gun even.

tens of thousands of people use guns for self dence in canada evey year, 40,000-80,000 including animal and human defence. Its much higher in the states.

No I mean, wake up and instantly be able to defend yourself with a gun.
When I wake up I can barely tell what time it is...

 purplefood wrote:
No I mean, wake up and instantly be able to defend yourself with a gun.
When I wake up I can barely tell what time it is...

Nothing like a rush of adrenaline to get you up and going.