Britain wants her guns back!

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.

**Frazzled**

cerbrus2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
cerbrus2 wrote:

I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.

The argument made by Americans here is only to justifies there own "Love for guns" little to none of your arguments have anything to do with Britain or its inhabitants.

translation: I don't have a family to defend, and I'm Mike Tyson.

I do have a wife and two children, what kind of a keyboard warrior goes around accusing people of lying about there family? Just because you don't like the fact that a British person, living in a Britain, sees no need for owning a firearm. Again read the Thread topic. THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMERICA, i have no interest on your gun laws. Its too late to ban guns in countries, where probably every house hold owns at least 1 firearm. And saying there are benefits to holding a handgun is a mute point coming from countries where the majority do own firearms, of course you are going to see a benefit, you don't know any other way.

But in a country like Britain (the one in the thread title) Guns are not freely available and the need to defend our self's with guns is not needed. By introducing a law where by anybody can apply for a gun. you are creating a hell of a lot more problems. I know its hard for people from countries that have guns to understand, as that's all you know. But i for one am glad that if someone breaks into my house at night, the chances of them carrying a firearm are slim to none. And is far more easier to defend your family against. Open gun laws mean that the chances of someone breaking into your house wile being armed with a firearm are 90% because of the availability of the firearms.

Look at the American police. Most of the time if they pull someone over they have there hand on there gun ready to draw it. WHY? because guns are easily available and they have to protect them self's because of this. In Britain (the one in the thread title, Because you seem to keep forgetting) All our police officers need is a Pen and Note Pad, WHY? because guns are not easily available and the chances of someone pulling a gun on them are slim to none.

And I'm not debating anything. I'm telling you, Britain does not need guns. And yes I live in Britain. An American or Canadian cannot preach to me the Pros of owning a gun. In your countries the criminals carry guns. So yeah the whole why should it only be criminals carrying the guns, is a valid argument for YOUR countries. Not Britain. We don't have many Criminals carrying guns here. And its a much safer place because of it.

Stop watching Snatch, and thinking that's the average British criminal. There is actually a very small amount of Shotgun wielding cockneys.

You're going to defend your family against two or three people, invading the home, with your bare hands? Seriously? I hope you have a lot of life insurance.

**CptJake**

dæl wrote:
CptJake wrote:
cerbrus2 wrote:

I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.

I suspect I can better defend my family with a gun than with my fists, and I know for a fact my wife can better defend with a gun than with her fists. I'm glad we have that choice.

But you don't have a choice regarding escalation, we do, and the majority of Brits are perfectly happy with a low number of guns among criminals.

I guess I disagree. I do have a choice regarding escalation. I can choose to escalate up to the point the perp is bleeding out on the floor, or can attempt to detain or scare away as the situation merits. Holding the gun gives me that choice. Conversely I can choose to not be armed. Not being armed at all gives too much initiative to the perp, he then chooses the level of violence he is willing to commit. I don't like him having that choice at all. Even more important to me, if my wife and I are not together (we spend way too much time with split households due to the military) I very much prefer HER deciding the level of escalation vice any perp that decides she would make a good victim.

I guess it comes down to a willingness to commit acts of violence to include taking another's life in defense of property, family, and self. If you are willing to do so, providing yourself with the best tool to do so makes a lot of sense. If you are unwilling to do so, no need to get the tool. However there is no need to impose rules which would disallow others from having those tools if they so desire. I know me. I know my wife. We fall into the category where we want the best tool. I could really care less about what others choose for themselves, but believe they should have the right to choose.

You may have a low level of guns amongst criminals, but you do not have a low number of criminals willing to commit acts of violence. Instead, you seemingly (from my view) have a society that accepts that level of violence and the resulting victimization because it isn't gun violence. For you, the tool used for the violence makes a difference. You are willing to give up the best tool to defend yourselves in the hopes that the criminal that attacks you won't have a gun and won't kill you with what he does have. A rape or beating is okay as long as the perp doesn't do it at gun point.

**MrDwhitey**

Your last sentence is so absurd and it's actually quite insulting.

I was sort of with you till that.

**easysauce**

dæl wrote:

easysauce wrote:
and i am sure you would rather spit on a fire then have a fire extinguisher,

some of us are not chuck norris super heros and use the right tools for the job,

40-80 THOUSAND people use guns to defend themselves from people and animals combined in canada.

its far more in the states, so please stop being willfully ignorant of the benifits of guns.

its disegenuous and dishonest to have a debate about the pros and cons of something when you completely ignore the pros.

The right tool for not being the victim of crime is a better society, not lethal weapons to anyone who wants them regardless of skill, basic safety training or mental health.

So what would be the pros of owning a gun in the UK?

the benifits in the UK are the same as everywhere else, people defend their lives and property with guns every day, most often without anyone being hurt or killed.

why do you ignore 40,000-80,000 people, in my country alone and it much more in the states, who use guns defensivly against animals and people. People in britain used to (and some still do) have that protective benifit.

canada doesnt give guns away to anyone regardless of background, and neither does the states. background checks are the norm.

lethal weapons are freely available in britain, knives/bats/cars are all lethal weapons, and are all used as such.

Some people are not chuck norris' like yourself, and would rather rack a shotgun and watch the crooks run way without firing a shot or getting into some kung fu fantasy land where every elderly person or small stature person can fend off multiple attackers with their bare hands.

**CptJake**

That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.

UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.

US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.

UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!

You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.

**MrDwhitey**

One of the reasons for that lack of comparison is the oft explained and quoted, in this off topic forum, difference in how America and the United Kingdom define violent crime. Essentially we're left with guess work, as the figures shown are not comparable.

You should know this, it's brought up time and again.

From what I've looked at, violent crime, as judged by US law, is similar in both countries (though the UK is definitely higher, it's been falling for over a decade).

It's murder rates that should be looked at. Something sebster has said time and again, and seemingly been ignored because he presents a reasonable point of view instead of pants on head crazy "I'd take on a mountain lion with my fists" or "rape is fine so long as no guns are involved" points of view. Both of which are pathetic.

I've only just noticed that this is actually a thread on UK laws of gun ownership, and not a thread that the UK is demanding weapons from the American War of Independence back.

**dæl**

CptJake wrote:
I guess it comes down to a willingness to commit acts of violence to include taking another's life in defense of property, family, and self.

I would absolutely not be ok with taking a life for the sake of property, to defend life it would be justifiable but to murder someone because they tried to steal something is just plain wrong.

If you are willing to do so, providing yourself with the best tool to do so makes a lot of sense. If you are unwilling to do so, no need to get the tool. However there is no need to impose rules which would disallow others from having those tools if they so desire. I know me. I know my wife. We fall into the category where we want the best tool. I could really care less about what others choose for themselves, but believe they should have the right to choose.

Personal choice in matters such as this must play second fiddle to public good, and the public good is to have less people being killed with guns, so therefore no guns without proper licensing.

You may have a low level of guns amongst criminals, but you do not have a low number of criminals willing to commit acts of violence. Instead, you seemingly (from my view) have a society that accepts that level of violence and the resulting victimization because it isn't gun violence. For you, the tool used for the violence makes a difference. You are willing to give up the best tool to defend yourselves in the hopes that the criminal that attacks you won't have a gun and won't kill you with what he does have. A rape or beating is okay as long as the perp doesn't do it at gun point.

Do you think because we haven't armed everyone we don't care about reducing crime? Do you think that if the government handed out rifles to everyone tomorrow violent crime would increase or decrease? Arming people isn't the solution to violent crime, it just adds another problem, and it doesn't even solve the issue of violent crime, otherwise you guys wouldn't have any.

**cerbrus2**

CptJake wrote:
That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.

UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.

US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.

UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!

You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.

Making Guns available to the public more easily means it is also easier for the people that do the violent crimes to get a Gun. And it takes a lot less effort for someone to shot someone with a gun.

I think it is pretty clear cut, that every single British person in this thread who has commented, is against the ownership of guns in the UK. (apart from the one who's dad owns a gun club and will make a huge profit out of it)
Because we all know what will happen. The violent crime will stay the same. It will just be replaced by gun shot wounds rather than stabbings. it doesn't solve anything, just makes it easier for those crimes to happen.

And i think its clear to see that Britain is not actualy that keen on getting her guns back.

**dæl**

easysauce wrote:

the benifits in the UK are the same as everywhere else, people defend their lives and property with guns every day, most often without anyone being hurt or killed.

why do you ignore 40,000-80,000 people, in my country alone and it much more in the states, who use guns defensivly against animals and people. People in britain used to (and some still do) have that protective benifit.

canada doesnt give guns away to anyone regardless of background, and neither does the states. background checks are the norm.

lethal weapons are freely available in britain, knives/bats/cars are all lethal weapons, and are all used as such.

Some people are not chuck norris' like yourself, and would rather rack a shotgun and watch the crooks run way without firing a shot or getting into some kung fu fantasy land where every elderly person or small stature person can fend off multiple attackers with their bare hands.

First of all check who you're talking to, I have made no claim of being chuck norris or defending anything with my fists.

You defend yourselves by making your society more violent, we strive toward the opposite. Our 60 Million citizens don't need guns to protect ourselves, not at all, so how is it a pro to be able to defend yourself when it is only needed after the proliferation of guns?

CptJake wrote:That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.

UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.

US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.

UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!

You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.

What on earth makes you think we are ok with violent crime? We are working to reduce crime and are succeeding in that. Our criminals don't use guns so what the feth would we want to give them easy access to guns? It makes absolutely no sense as a step forward.

**Hedgehog**

CptJake wrote:
A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.

And you never see an American who wants to compare American murder rates to UK murder rates.

There lies the problem. Arming people doesn't actually make you safer, it makes BOTH SIDES more willing and able to use violence. So now you have a situation in which there is roughly the same amount of violence, but it's now far, far more lethal.

And easysauce - one of your benefits listed is the prevention of violent animal attacks through the use of guns. There are no dangerous animals in Britain...

Overall, I'm proud of the fact that in my country, even the police officers don't carry guns - I think that's an incredible achievement. I am 100% sure that Britain doesn't want guns, and 100% sure that the British people are right to not want guns.

The people I really pity are the Americans in this thread who are so insecure they feel the need to own a weapon capable of killing someone, just on the off chance they are the victim of a violent crime. Are you guys really that scared? It is literally incomprehensible to me, and to most Britons I think, how the US can be so obsessed with guns - to the extent americans are even trying to persuade people in other countries without a gun problem to get them!

**MrDwhitey**

cerbrus2 wrote:

I think it is pretty clear cut, that every single British person in this thread who has commented, is against the ownership of guns in the UK. (apart from the one who's dad owns a gun club and will make a huge profit out of it)

I'm British, I have no affiliation with any kind of gun lobby/store/etc.

I don't mind the fact that guns are legal in the UK, barring short revolvers/handguns/fully automatic weapons.

Hedgehog, there wasn't really any need for that last part.

**whembly**

Hedgehog wrote:
CptJake wrote:

The people I really pity are the Americans in this thread who are so insecure they feel the need to own a weapon capable of killing someone, just on the off chance they are the victim of a violent crime. Are you guys really that scared? It is literally incomprehensible to me, and to most Britons I think, how the US can be so obsessed with guns - to the extent americans are even trying to persuade people in other countries without a gun problem to get them!

I take umbrage from this...

There is no need for this... come over here and live here for awhile before making such proclamation.

We have our own opinions as you do yours... cool?

**dæl**

Hedgehog wrote:
CptJake wrote:
A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.

And you never see an American who wants to compare American murder rates to UK murder rates.

Or, even better, lets compare the rate of school shootings, or police officers killed in the line of duty, or people killed while defending against an attacker...

That last one should be particularly pertinent to the "I need guns to protect myself" crowd.

**reds8n**

Going round in circles, again, so we're done.