New U.K. Gun Law.

[manaman]

Actually Texas has one of the oldest retreat laws on the books. Several states have laws that in the event of an intruder you are to retreat to a safe room in the house and contact the police, you are not to confront the intruder if at all possible. The enforcement of the law varies by country (more rural counties ignore it, and more urbanized areas tend to ignore it unless things escalate). Texas is not traditionally an open carry state, the gun culture that many find stereotypical of Texas is not really present to any greater extent then most places, and if you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back there you are going to jail for excessive force just like anywhere. In fact during the short time Texas was a country they banned guns because of the large numbers of Mexicans still in the newly formed country after the war with Mexico, and they feared revolt destabilizing the new country.

This isn't true at all, given that a "no retreat" law was <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/texas-governor-signs-shoot-first-law.php> signed in 2007.

That's great that they finally got rid of that then. Sorry last time I was in Texas longer then a family visit was well, nearly a decade ago.

I made mention in several posts that I find it interesting that the homicide rate and violent crime rates in this country have been going down since the 90s, but this last decade especially has seen the repeal of long standing gun bans and other restrictions and multiple supreme court decisions backing the rights of private gun owners.

Not that I think the people having guns is the answer to crime, far from it. I just don't think crime rates and the availability of guns are quite as intertwined as people think.

 

[Therumancer]

The problem with a thread like this is that it's impossible to discuss gun control without making it a gun control issue.

The problem with the UK is that it's an example of the snowball effect. It started out by limiting certain kinds of firearms, which took on inertia with the gun control legislation becoming increasingly more powerful until even the kinds of guns that were intended to remain fairly unregulated like shotguns are also being regulated.

I see the right of the populance to arm themselves as being a sign of a free people. It means that the goverment has to be very careful about what laws it passes, and has to respect protests, because of the amount of damage that can be inflicted if enough armed civilians become sufficiently aroused towards violence. Non-violent protest having the root of it's power in violence, being a display of how many people you could rally to a cause without actually killing anyone or destroying anything, simply displaying the potential rally if you chose to do so.

While it is true that civilians with small arms are not going to deal with tanks and planes in the case of an (unlikely) large scale action against their goverment, it's noteworthy that in unleashing such things on armed civilians to turn the tide the goverment is going to destroy itself and it's own infrastructure. The ruins the goverment winds up ruling over after putting down a popular revolt are going to be nothing like the country they wanted.

What's more an armed population also gives lawmakers pause to consider the response to what they do. If nothing else in the end some cop, who is a volunteer, has to decide whether enforcing a law is worth the risk of getting his head blown off. The police being able to deal with individuals fairly easily, and even groups of individuals, but not a whole lot of armed people who are all violent opposed to a law they are expected to enforce.

I'm probably not articulating this well, but I believe it was Robert Heinlan who said "You can either live in freedom, or in safety, never both". I think issues involving personal armament exemplify that attitude.

I'm of the opinion that no society, irregardless of what it's people might think, can fairly claim to be "free" or even possess a high degree of freedom, if the people are powerless against their own goverment and law enforcement, outside of rights that the goverment itself chooses to give them (and can be taken away).

In general there is nothing you could tell the people passing the current shotgun laws in the UK that they likely haven't already heard. If goverment inertia is in favor of it (and limiting the power of the people and keeping them in line is always big for most goverments) there isn't much youc an do unless the goverment itself allows it, and chances are they aren't going to. I mean it's not like they are running the risk of angry UK citizens having enough firepower to do anything but make a trivial effort if the goverment decides to start swinging the punkhammer around.

Apologies to those that this might offend, but that's my opinion. As warped as it might sound I actually think the amount of firearms violence in the US is a good thing in the big picture.

 

[David Bray]

A gun is a gun is a gun. Every projectile weapon capable of murder should be registered under the full extent of the law.

Personally, the idea of even having them in the country seems stupid but that's licencing laws for you.

Huzzah for this. I can feel mildly safer. No where near as close as i should though.

Your chances of dying in your workplace are higher then your chances of getting shot in most countries the US included.

Your chances of dying on your morning commute are higher then your chances of getting shot, even in the US.

Why this culture of fear exists for firearms and not for cars, is apparently, but still somewhat confusing. It's a matter of experience, you are told how dangerous firearms are, but never see them enough for positive reinforcement (as in firing one hundreds of times with no problems) to kick in and tell you they are just a machine like many other machines people use. A tool that can be used for pleasure or harm. With vehicles however there is no negative reinforcement because you spent years driving without you yourself being in an accident, and the wrecks you pass every few days are soon put out of mind after passing them.

The historic "wild west" of the US where firearms where exceptionally common, was actually safer then urban areas of the US at the time where carrying firearms was far less common. Boston had a far higher murder rate then any place in the Old west. Even the infamous Tombstone the location of the O.K. corral shootout had a lower homicide rate then the urban areas of the US.

Murder is a more a cultural thing then the access to tools.

Dude, i've been shot and stabbed. Might just be unlucky, but the things should just not exist.

 

[manaman]

A gun is a gun is a gun. Every projectile weapon capable of murder should be registered under the full extent of the law.

Personally, the idea of even having them in the country seems stupid but that's licencing laws for you.

Huzzah for this. I can feel mildly safer. No where near as close as i should though.

Your chances of dying in your workplace are higher then your chances of getting shot in most countries the US included.

Your chances of dying on your morning commute are higher then your chances of getting shot, even in the US.

Why this culture of fear exists for firearms and not for cars, is apparently, but still somewhat confusing. It's a matter of experience, you are told how dangerous firearms are, but never see them enough for positive reinforcement (as in firing one hundreds of times with no problems) to kick in and tell you they are just a machine like many other machines people use. A tool that can be used for pleasure or harm. With vehicles however there is no negative reinforcement because you spent years driving without you yourself being in an accident, and the wrecks you pass every few days are soon put out of mind after passing them.

The historic "wild west" of the US where firearms where exceptionally common, was actually safer then urban areas of the US at the time where carrying firearms was far less common. Boston had a far higher murder rate then any place in the Old west. Even the infamous Tombstone the location of the O.K. corral shootout had a lower homicide rate then the urban areas of the US.

Murder is a more a cultural thing then the access to tools.

Dude, i've been shot and stabbed. Might just be unlucky, but the things should just not exist.

How is that supposed to invalidate my point? Far less people die by firearms in the US then die in alcohol related incidents, or from vehicles and that is including people who off themselves with a gun, which accounts for slightly more then half the gun deaths each year. I don't see you calling for a ban on cars, or a ban on alcohol so why focus so much effort on this one machine? Also you admit to being stabbed, but are not also calling for a ban on knives? Why do knives get special treatment there?

I was stabbed in a bar fight. I was also medically discharged from the military after I was injured in Iraq. You won't find me thinking that because these events happened to me they are typical of everyone.

Here is an interesting little fact, in 1900 England had a homicide rate of 1.0, and no gun laws at all. Don't fool yourself into thinking guns (especially handguns) where uncommon at the turn of the century either. Today England has highly restrictive gun laws and a higher homicide rate of 1.4. Not that any rises and falls have coincided with gun bans. 1900 wasn't a fluke either Britain has historically had a low homicide rate compared to other countries for pretty much as long as records of these things have been kept.

During the 1900s and you will find that the US also had a low homicide rate of 1.2 even during a time when guns could be purchased through the mail, or from a store anonymously with no waiting periods or permits of any kind and no restrictive carry laws even in cities.

The Brady bill and the assault rifle bans in 1994 are often credited with the lowering homicide rate in the 1990s a time where over most of the decade the homicide rate actually fell by 30%. However the homicide rate began falling in 1990 and fell at a fairly steady pace until 1997 when the rate slowed. During this time the US economy was also experiencing a rapid boom, with an extremely low unemployment rate. The rate dropping started to slow as the economy started to take a downswing. Yet you can't blame the drop entierly on the economy either because the rate continued to fall to a lesser degree as the economy went south.

It's only coincidental that the bills happened to pass during at time when you could plot a graph from their signing and show a decrees in the homicide rate. During the end of the 90s the homicide rate was around 7, which has continued to fall at a slower pace to the present 5.4. Even through many gun bans, and restrictive laws concerning guns have been overturned during the 00 decade, while at the same time the Supreme court reconfirmed that the constitution grants every citizen the right to own a gun for defense several times. 5.4 also happens to be the median homicide rate for Europe. Yet Canada with the second highest ratio of guns to population in the world (around 65 to 70 guns per 100 people, with the US having 93 guns per 100 people) but a homicide rate of only 1.8.

I don't know how many different ways I can repeat here that guns and gun bans don't seem to make a lick of difference in homicide rates in various countries. The only statistic that gun bans seem to effectively and constantly alter is the percentage of total deaths involving a firearm. The homicide rates remain unchanged statistically. For gun bans to prove their effectiveness you would have to see a slowly increasing statistically valid drop starting in the years after the ban and increasing to it's maximum effectiveness before the rate slowed it's drop. You don't see that, ever. It has far, far more to do with culture then anything.

 

[MartialArc]

So far as I can tell, violent crime and sub-poverty line population density correlate much stronger than anything else.

Granted, the population density in the US taken as an average across the country is quite small, but the density in some of the cities is very respectable. Try looking at the violent crime rate in different localities in the US and compare it to the "strictness" of the gun laws. You will find that some of the places with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest rates. You can also find places where laws have been relaxed and violent crime has dropped. Florida is one example.

In general, the places where violent crime is likely to happen is somewhat predictable to folks familiar with the area. This notion that people are scared in the streets of the US is just not realistic. People are afraid of areas, lousy neighborhoods, etc. The culture bit is spot on. Anyone who has lived in their respective city for any amount of time can tell you where not to go, if it has such a place. The unfortunate reality is many US cities do have such a place. Hell, I'd just about bet my left testicle if you factored out the top 10 metro areas in the US, and then compared the violent crime rate of the remaining portion of the US we would come in about the same as the UK or France. Shoot, compare any crime rate you want, I'm almost certain you'll find them to be lower.

Manaman's point holds water.

 

[David Bray]

[
I don't know how many different ways I can repeat here that guns and gun bans don't seem to make a lick of difference in homicide rates in various countries. The only statistic that gun bans seem to effectively and constantly alter is the percentage of total deaths involving a firearm. The homicide rates remain unchanged statistically. For gun bans to prove their effectiveness you would have to see a slowly increasing statistically valid drop starting in the years after the ban and increasing to it's maximum effectiveness before the rate slowed it's drop. You don't see that, ever. It has far, far more to do with culture then anything.

Things with cars and alcohol it that they have another purpose. Guns dont. You don't put up shelves with bullets or bring back groceries. They are designed to kill.

Animal hunting is grand and all but then they get out there. I dont care what you have to say, guns are designed to kill and are, therefore, not required in modern culture.

 

[Treblaine]

A gun is a gun is a gun. Every projectile weapon capable of murder should be registered under the full extent of the law.

Personally, the idea of even having them in the country seems stupid but that's licencing laws for you.

Huzzah for this. I can feel mildly safer. No where near as close as i should though.

I'd ask you... would you feel safe in prison?

Prisons have no guns and very high security but still horrible things happen to people in there. The limitations on the power and freedom of the individual, plus the ever more massive surveillance infrastructure is making our everyday lives more and more prison like. Thanks to such meagre sentences for violent crimes you can also guarantee that we will have to mingle with violent criminals.

I don't feel safer.

 

[Treblaine]

[
I don't know how many different ways I can repeat here that guns and gun bans don't seem to make a lick of difference in homicide rates in various countries. The only statistic that gun bans seem to effectively and constantly alter is the percentage of total deaths involving a firearm. The homicide rates remain unchanged statistically. For gun bans to prove their effectiveness you would have to see a slowly increasing statistically valid drop starting in the years after the ban and increasing to it's maximum effectiveness before the rate slowed it's drop. You don't see that, ever. It has far, far more to do with culture then anything.

Things with cars and alcohol it that they have another purpose. Guns dont. You don't put up shelves with bullets or bring back groceries. They are designed to kill.

Animal hunting is grand and all but then they get out there. I dont care what you have to say, guns are designed to kill and are, therefore, not required in modern culture.

First you say guns have no legitimate purpose... then you give one EXTREMELY good example but dismiss it. In most parts of the world where humans have population the top predators have been driven to (or to the brink of) extinction. There are no wolves left, the only predator to control the population of herbivores is MAN! We have a responsibility to the environment to hunt these herbivores as if they aren't their population will grow exponentially, pick the trees bare, eat all the saplings and destroy entire forests then their population crashes as all the food runs out at once.

Hunting IS necessary and firearms are the most humane way of hunting them for food. You can't suggest they be poisoned and incinerate the carcasses? Or would you rather introduce packs of wolves into the countryside?

Traps and poisons are not selective and not very effective when they kill endangered species and pets more than the target species, firearms are such an efficient way of culling pests. Lethal-injections for sick pets are both expensive and unreliable, not a bullet through the brain.

You see it is may be an uncomfortable fact of life for you but life must come to an end and firearms are a very efficient way of doing the job.

In an ideal world spider-man shoots webs to pull the guns out of criminals hands then punches their lights out. The reality is you need guns to counter people who pose immediate lethal threat and that is not merely those who have guns (oh woe, if only guns never existed) considering how easy it is to improvise deadly weapons like blades, bombs and even flame-throwers (terrible case of Cologne School Massacre).

Certainly police should be armed on a far more extensive basis and there is a very strong argument that certain civilians like qualified security guards should be allowed to be armed as well. I mean consider the explosives storage at a quarry... can't have an armed policeman posted there 24/7. But a few guys with baseball bats could over-run any unarmed security guards and get a hold of a far more dangerous weapon: high explosives.

Firearms have a necessary place in this world, whether we like it or not.

 

[David Bray]

Firearms have a necessary place in this world, whether we like it or not.

You're winning me over to the same level that Charlton Heston did.

 

[Treblaine]

Firearms have a necessary place in this world, whether we like it or not.

You're winning me over to the same level that Charlton Heston did.

Oh, so hunting ISN'T necessary?

Firearms aren't the most targeted form of pest control?

We DON'T need to protect dangerous materials and sensitive areas with armed guards?

We can fight gunmen, suicide bombers, and armed criminals with just sticks and suped up cattle prods?

Have the SELF RESPECT to actually counter just a single one of my points instead of blatantly showing your prejudice by saying effectively "you're arguments are useless, you republican jerk".

Don't act as if you are somehow above reason, above logic or debate. If you think you are below that then really what would anybody think about your opinion other than you've given it little thought and are too vulnerable to criticism.

As to your snide insinuation, I presume this is the "Chartlon Heston" as depicted in that "documentary" known as Bowling for Columbine?

Don't believe such leftist tosh. That is the most manipulative motion picture this side of militarist propaganda, Michael Moore tricked the audience to think that Heston gave his "cold dead hands speech" right in Columbine right after the terrible shooting. Look at the actual clip from the movie, right between cuts Heston - in apparently the same speech - his suit and tie completely change colour and pattern, background as well. Guess he must be a magician.

The rest of the speech where his suit stays the same colour is edited to a RIDICULOUS extend and under no stretch of the imagination was it for brevity:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

It's really quite pathetic... it's like some you see tried in an episode of The Simpsons only it's REAL!

Only you are actually hiding behind this cliche by equating my carefully reasoned arguments to such farcical pastiche as grounds for dismissal?

 

[Treblaine]

Dude, i've been shot and stabbed. Might just be unlucky, but the things should just not exist.

How did you get shot? Was it an accident or was it crime related?

 

[Treblaine]

*double post*

 

[Lord George]

Good theres no reason for a well developed society to enable civilians access to firearms, as far as I can tell the laws not going to make it much harder for farmers to acquire them (who apart from hunters are the only people with valid reasons to be owning a shotgun in the first place.)

I guess that works, for you.

It is my belief that the people should not "be able to do what the Gov. enables them" But "Everything and anything that it doesn't forbid"

There are plenty of reasons for people to own guns, you just have no interest in them.

Well the government doesn't forbid standing out in a lightning storm with a big metal conductor but that doesn't mean I want to do it. No offence but your reasoning on that seems silly (or its badly worded)

I can see no valid reason why people would want to own a gun if they aren't a farmer or hunter. Unlike knives or other weapons guns are designed with the singular purpose of killing a living thing efficiently and quickly.

So unless you need to kill something fast and certainly there's no good reason you should own one.

 

[MagicMouse]

Good theres no reason for a well developed society to enable civilians access to firearms, as far as I can tell the laws not going to make it much harder for farmers to acquire them (who apart from hunters are the only people with valid reasons to be owning a shotgun in the first place.)

I guess that works, for you.

It is my belief that the people should not "be able to do what the Gov. enables them" But "Everything and anything that it doesn't forbid"

There are plenty of reasons for people to own guns, you just have no interest in them.

Well the government doesn't forbid standing out in a lightning storm with a big metal conductor but that doesn't mean I want to do it. No offence but your reasoning on that seems silly (or its badly worded)

I can see no valid reason why people would want to own a gun if they aren't a farmer or hunter. Unlike knives or other weapons guns are designed with the singular purpose of killing a living thing efficiently and quickly.

So unless you need to kill something fast and certainly there's no good reason you should own one.

Sorry, it was the wording. The point I was trying to get across was that you believe in more Govt. and I in less. (on this topic)

Also, not all guns are designed for killing, many guns are designed for target/skeet shooting. And though I admit that MOST guns are designed to kill, that doesn't mean they can't have other purposes as well.

I would also like to point out that guns don't need to hurt anyone to be used defensively. Simply brandishing one can end a violent situation. I remember reading (for a report) that LESS violence occurred when ARMED women were attacked, then when unarmed ones were.

In a happy perfect Utopia, there are no use for defensive weapons. In OUR world, there certainly is a need for them.

 

[Lord George]

Good theres no reason for a well developed society to enable civilians access to firearms, as far as I can tell the laws not going to make it much harder for farmers to acquire them (who apart from hunters are the only people with valid reasons to be owning a shotgun in the first place.)

I guess that works, for you.

It is my belief that the people should not "be able to do what the Gov. enables them" But "Everything and anything that it doesn't forbid"

There are plenty of reasons for people to own guns, you just have no interest in them.

Well the government doesn't forbid standing out in a lightning storm with a big metal conductor but that doesn't mean I want to do it. No offence but your reasoning on that seems silly (or its badly worded)

I can see no valid reason why people would want to own a gun if they aren't a farmer or hunter. Unlike knives or other weapons guns are designed with the singular purpose of killing a living thing efficiently and quickly.

So unless you need to kill something fast and certainly there's no good reason you should own one.

Sorry, it was the wording. The point I was trying to get across was that you believe in more Govt. and I in less. (on this topic)

Also, not all guns are designed for killing, many guns are designed for target/skeet shooting. And though I admit that MOST guns are designed to kill, that doesn't mean they can't have other purposes as well.

I would also like to point out that guns don't need to hurt anyone to be used defensively. Simply brandishing one can end a violent situation. I remember reading (for a report) that LESS violence occurred when ARMED women were attacked, then when unarmed ones were.

In a happy perfect Utopia, there are no use for defensive weapons. In OUR world, there certainly is a need for them.

Ah right, though the wording was a bit strange, and I do actually believe in less government, however I put more faith in the government then in people in this case.

Though I still can't see what uses guns would have outside killing, and things like clay pigeon shooting don't seem like a good reason to own a gun. (Though I did find it quite fun when I tried it )

I guess that guns do seem to help in America, though I think its the culture and ingrained attitudes that effect this and in a country where everyone had guns I'd probably want one too to be safe. While introducing guns to a place like the UK would simply end in disaster.

In the UK they seem to cause more problems then they solve though (considering how little shooting there are) and this law could have avoided either or both of the recent psycho gun shootings (though they might have happened anyway).

So I think any restriction on them in the UK is a good move, though in places like America it seems that restrictions on guns would only help criminals and not law abiding citizens so I can understand why so many Americans oppose gun laws.

 

[manaman]

Double posts suck.

 

[manaman]

I don't know how many different ways I can repeat here that guns and gun bans don't seem to make a lick of difference in homicide rates in various countries. The only statistic that gun bans seem to effectively and constantly alter is the percentage of total deaths involving a firearm. The homicide rates remain unchanged statistically. For gun bans to prove their effectiveness you would have to see a slowly increasing statistically valid drop starting in the years after the ban and increasing to it's maximum effectiveness before the rate slowed it's drop. You don't see that, ever. It has far, far more to do with culture then anything.

Things with cars and alcohol it that they have another purpose. Guns dont. You don't put up shelves with bullets or bring back groceries. They are designed to kill.

Animal hunting is grand and all but then they get out there. I dont care what you have to say, guns are designed to kill and are, therefore, not required in modern culture.

What pray tell is the purpose of alcohol? Enjoyment? One has to assume that is the case because there can be no other purpose. So assuming that is the case then you are willing to accept some risk for enjoyment. Well I happen to be a very good hobbyist shooter. I enjoy it immensely, and I have a range on my property.

Swords are designed only to kill yet people find them aesthetically pleasing enough to buy and display them.

Not that it matters, if you are just going to put your finger in your ears hum and chant "nanananahan I can't hear you." You provided no counter argument, you just flatly declared yourself correct, contradicted yourself, then dismissed the issue outright. And yes I did just say it was a bit childish to simply dismiss an argument with a "I don't care what you say" statement. Well try to think about it, if you can't counter the basic premise of any of my arguments maybe you should rethink your position a bit.

I'm probably not articulating this well, but I believe it was Robert Heinlan who said "You can either live in freedom, or in safety, never both". I think issues involving personal armament exemplify that attitude.

I'm of the opinion that no society, irregardless of what it's people might think, can fairly claim to be "free" or even possess a high degree of freedom, if the people are powerless against their own goverment and law enforcement, outside of rights that the goverment itself chooses to give them (and can be taken away).

I agree with this sentiment, but I usually try to avoid it as people tend not to understand it well. People seem to assume that the goverment is always right, that revolt shouldn't be necessary, and that you are crazy to believe sometime you might just need to be able to protect yourself from your goverment. Look how quickly some governments have changed within our (well my) lifetime. Could it happen in the US? Sure, maybe not with the same quickness, but it has happened in other western countries before.

As for civil liberties. There is a distinct difference between the way civil liberties are granted and treated in the US and elsewhere. The bill of rights is set up to recognize what are supposed to be inalienable rights every person has, and to protect those rights against any action by the goverment. Where many countries have codified law protecting those rights, the rights are not set up as areas the goverment cannot touch, but areas the goverment agrees not to touch for the moment.

It's this difference that has many people across the world mocking the US's love of their freedoms. Next time anyone feels like doing so realize that those freedoms are at the core of our goverment, not granted by the goverment. Which is why they hold more cultural significance to citizens of the US.

Well the government doesn't forbid standing out in a lightning storm with a big metal conductor but that doesn't mean I want to do it. No offence but your reasoning on that seems silly (or its badly worded)

I can see no valid reason why people would want to own a gun if they aren't a farmer or hunter. Unlike knives or other weapons guns are designed with the singular purpose of killing a living thing efficiently and quickly.

So unless you need to kill something fast and certainly there's no good reason you should own one.

His reasoning it sound, might not have explained it the best however. The goverment in most places is not there to whitelist things, it is there to blacklist things to protect people from each other, and only in some specific cases to protect them from themselves as well.

Now I have to ask you what is the purpose of videogames? Same as alcohol up there. Entertainment... Actually you could just read over my response to David Bray up there, I would just be repeating the same points here for you anyway.

 

[Therumancer]

Ah right, though the wording was a bit strange, and I do actually believe in less government, however I put more faith in the government then in people in this case.

Though I still can't see what uses guns would have outside killing, and things like clay pigeon shooting don't seem like a good reason to own a gun. (Though I did find it quite fun when I tried it )

I guess that guns do seem to help in America, though I think its the culture and ingrained attitudes that effect this and in a country where everyone had guns I'd probably want one too to be safe. While introducing guns to a place like the UK would simply end in disaster.

In the UK they seem to cause more problems then they solve though (considering how little shooting there are) and this law could have avoided either or both of the recent psycho gun shootings (though they might have happened anyway).

So I think any restriction on them in the UK is a good move, though in places like America it seems that restrictions on guns would only help criminals and not law abiding citizens so I can understand why so many Americans oppose gun laws.

Let me put a differant perspective on it. To me, the purpose of having a gun is to kill people, no two ways about it. Sure, it can be used for other things, but the main reason for it's existance is to bring death.

As scary as it is, people having guns is a good thing. Above and beyond self defense, having a gun means that you can pretty much set about killing any other human being you want to with a fair chance of success. It also means that if someone, like say the goverment, wants to oppress you it has a problem, especially if you have a lot of people who happen to agree with you. If you show up with a bunch of people for a protest that means something when all those people could have instead been carrying guns and say raiding the governor's mansion or gunning down bureaucrats. If that possibility doesn't exist then it's easy for the goverment to ignore the protests, and just calmly send the armed authorities to disperse the rabble without a second thought. When powerless protesters go up against armed police and soldiers the results are typically not pretty. Dude with rock Vs. dude with machine gun tends to have a very predictable outcome.

The UK, and Europe in general have a long history of tyrants, and it really shocks me to hear how little respect for the idea of personal armament citizens of the UK happen to be, just because your currently going through a fairly good patch. Oh sure, the violent crime rate might be pretty low, but that's going to be irrelevent should it ever come down to "crunch time" with the authorities.

Look at the issue being discussed here from another perspective. People in the UK have very few guns, and little gun crime. On the other hand the goverment is looking to disarm the people even further, which is leading to what seems to be some rather popular protests, which are of course being ignored by the authorities since they are going to do whatever is in their best interests, irregardless of what you want. I mean in the end, why should the people in charge listen to you? Bureaucracy is self sustaining with it's own processes and logic (something Brits in paticular should understand given how often they made comedies about it) it's not like they have to worry about you shooting them or anything....

See, I'm very pro-police if you've followed a lot of my posts, but I also like the fact that the police have to keep their heads down and be very careful in doing their jobs. It means that the people making the rules and passing the laws have to carefully consider whether it's enforcable or not. Some cop isn't going to enforce some bureaucratic power trip at the potential expense of his own life when there is signifigant opposition. On the other hand if the police don't have anything to worry about, there is going to be no hestitation to do whatever the lawmakers say.

Again, I fear I may not be articulating myself well, but the point is that while perhaps counter to some human instincts, the big criticism of guns (killing people) is actually the biggest reason for them.

Besides which, I think the anti-gun lobby in the US presents some intentionally scewed data on things, oftentimes when presenting information on the numbers of lives lost to firearms it tries to present them all as being murders, self defense and the like don't enter into it.

The UK might have a "lower incident of violence" than the US, but at the same time it DOES have a ton of violence involving knives, blunt objects, and simple assault. It very much operates on a "might makes right" principle when it comes to what criminals can get away with. If some dude is bigger and stronger than you, and decides he really wants to mug or kill you in an alleyway, there isn't much your going to do about it. This is very much an issue with the so called "Chavs" from a lot of what I've been hearing over the years. Muggers, rapists, and the like are a lot more wary of going after targets when physical power might not be the only factor. I mean if that little old lady pulls a handgun, being bigger and stronger than she is isn't going to matter as much. Sort of like the old American saying "God created man, Sam Colt made us equal" (sadly Colt went out of the handgun business).

Rapes, muggings, and assaults have a nasty tendency to go unreported. To be honest the picture a lot of people from the UK present, especially when talking about the "Chav problem" is very differant. At least with the US I think what your seeing is what you get, I think the UK and it's peace and safety are exagerrated when it comes to things like this.

Truthfully I think the UK would actually benefit greatly from a greater degree of personal gun armament, however the goverment would do anything to prevent that from happening because it's not in the best interests of the goverment to put policies into effect that would ultimatly wind up limiting it's own power.

 

[David Bray]

Dude, i've been shot and stabbed. Might just be unlucky, but the things should just not exist.

How did you get shot? Was it an accident or was it crime related?

Crime. I'm not too begruding. THey got a crumpled fiver and i got 6000 in compensation.

 

[Wadders]

Now that's why I never argue about guns on here anymore, its an excerise in time wasting, for both sides. Neither will ever convince the other that their case is valid.