Should Britan be armed?

[Skyrad 0]

Actualy the average life sentance over here is nine years.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[bigway 4]

well are crossbows legal over here?
i would rather a powerful crossbow over a gun.
We have a lot of american TV in new zealand

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

We have a lot of american TV in new zealand

Having seen 'The Tribe' I can understand why!

As far as I know crossbows are still legal over here, i used to have one, great weapon and I didn't even need a licence!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[gordy 0]

Quote

3 to 5 for some form of theft is a bit different from 25 to Life for homicide.

8 for homocide, out in 4 for good behaviour, to a career criminal who will more than likely have done time before "its only a year" type mentality...

The point was in our country it is difficult (relatively) to get access to guns.....and I would like to keep it that way....in the event of a MILITIA my opinion may switch although I doubt it

Quote

During the 20 minutes of "response", this robber beat the hell out of the 4 workers and was threating to kill an old lady with a iron rod until they let him out.

Your right, he wouldn't have shot them, at the thought he was going to be incarcarated.

Another thought also, give the shop owner a gun in that scenario which he uses and he will do time...

No one is saying the law is perfect, but it is the best one we have just now.

Quote

Anyone who thinks a criminal might actually think that needs their head examined.

Maybe, but I can justify my opinion....several innocent children have been slaughtered recently over here due to the increase in availability of guns. I would like to see this stopped, but then I obviously need my head examined

[bigway 4]

my god, you have actually watched that??
you must have been way past bored to watch that.....tell you what though, a good kiwi movie....Once were warriors.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Skyrad 0]

I disagree that its difficult to obtain firearms illegaly over here, Did you ever see McIntier investigate how easy it is. Bit of weewee.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Legalize all individual weapons with no license required, allow unlicensed concealed carry for all adults (as in Vermont), and adopt Colorado's home-defense laws (when a person is in your home illegally, you reasonably believe they have committed or will commit an additional crime, and reasonably believe they pose a threat to you no matter how slight you can use any level of force against them after which it's illegal for them or their family to sue).

[gordy 0]

You can't just go into a shop and buy one? Yet.

[Skyrad 0]

i agree, Once were warriors is an awesome film.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[bigway 4]

watch the second one, it is alright. can't remember what it is called.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Skyrad 0]

Nah but you can pop down the toad and have a wisper in the shell like of big ron in the pig and wistle. If I wanted a piece I could get one by tommorow at the latest. And I'm no gangsta.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[gordy 0]

Day longer at least....and there would be fairly harsh ramifications if you got caught and said where you bought it, I would imagine.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I should think it obvious. Since it's not....

1) Nation-states are not individuals.

2) The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other nations.

3) The transitive property of logic does not apply between nation-states and individuals.

Among many other reasons.

1. An aggregation of people like a country has the same rights its members have as individuals. No individual has the right to initiate force (including the threat of violence) against another. Forming a country and electing leaders doesn't give them the right to launch pre-emptive strikes against other nation states. Individuals and the countries they form are entitled to do everything else.

2. Rights are inherent in the condition of man whether or not legally recognized, including the right to self defense. Nuclear weapons are great for that because countries like the US don't invade nuclear powers. The US Constitution does not grant these rights, it merely limits infringement of these pre-existing rights.

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so here's a thought: punish the criminals!!

It may be an extreme idea over there, but when you put criminals in prison, they're not hurting the public. When you keep them there a long time for violent crimes, the next one may balk at following in his footsteps.

Oh, and by the way, getting a gun in England is not difficult. Your smugglers and organized crime have no trouble doing it. Anyone who wants one gets one. It's called a black market. No law known to man has ever stopped one from operating.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Dazzle 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you could relax on other laws, i mean we are in the capital of europe here and the pubs close at 10-11pm!, now that is where you have a problem.

Actually that’s going to be happening in the next Parliament. It's also heavily linked to many of our violent crime problems as I'm sure Skyrad can testify - it's all the drunken louts who are kicked out of the clubs that end up beating each other up... drinking habits change when there's no closing time.

Took their time though didn't they. I'm sure it was in the 1997 manifesto and here we are - it might happen next year!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

OK, so here's a thought: punish the criminals!!

It may be an extreme idea over there, but when you put criminals in prison, they're not hurting the public. When you keep them there a long time for violent crimes, the next one may balk at following in his footsteps.

WHAT!!! You’re talking crazy, man!
You mean it’s not the guns themselves that are killing people???
The criminals are actually responsible and should be held accountable???
Surely you know that, if the people just didn’t have those guns, there’d be a whole lot less killing around. Come on Kennedy! What are you thinking!
That’s a revolutionary thought! You’re really rocking the boat, brother!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

yeah, in my country they close3am-5am. you do not go the pub till about 9pm and the band dont start till 10pm-11pm.
but this way people leave through the night cause they are too pised or tired and go home, they are not drinking as much as possible before closing time and then are chucked out in the middle of town at 11pm and no where to go but cause trouble.

Most (?) states in the US close the bars at 2am, not too different. But it does seem that this leads to a drunk hour on the road from 1:30 to 2:30 or so.
Wouldn't be as bad as bars closing at 11 though - that's just barbaric!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You should note that “gun crime” includes the 1,815 instances of the use of imitation weapons in crime (a jump of 46% year on year). How about the fact that 70% of armed police call outs are to deal with imitation guns, as touched on in the article… perhaps robbers can’t find real guns to use??

Are the penalties less for using a fake gun? That would be a big motivation to use them. In the US, the law no longer distinguishes between them, even if it suggests your intent is not to kill.

[rickjump1 0]

When I visited the Imperial War Museum, they had a number of guns on display that were donated to the people of Britain from friends in America.They came at a time when crime was down, but you were facing an invasion from across the Channel. When you do decide to rearm, I can send an old single barrel .410 guage perfect for home defense. I'll keep the offer open. If you need more fire power than that, I can accept cases of Guinness.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[gordy 0]

Quote

OK, so here's a thought: punish the criminals!!

For once I agree with you, that is a unusually well thought out argument.

Quote

Oh, and by the way, getting a gun in England is not difficult

Pretty difficult if your a kid, well more difficult than going to your parents drawer.

I am certain that your feeling that its your right to have a gun will overpower what I consider to be reason, but just consider it briefly the next time you hear about a kid getting shot, or opening fire on a school.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

So today the UK's Home office anounced that violent crime is up 11% and that over the last two years gun crime in Britan has risen by 5%. Seeing as gun control over legal firarms seems to have no affect on gun crime is it time the people of the UK were allowed to arm themselves? Whats your take?
Personaly I'd like to see a change in the law relaxing firearms controls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm

What brought you around? Every time gun crime and violent crime comes up for discussion here, we get a few guys claiming resolutely claiming that everything we know, every report we've read, about a rising tide of crime in Britain is false.

And then we get the guys telling us that human truths are not human truths, and that allowing people to be armed for their own defense may work in America, but somehow it just could never work in Britain.

I answered that people should be allowed to carry on their person, like any truly free people.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Do you not feel safe in england?
The only trouble i have ever though would be a concern to average people here is the Junkies lying all over the streets and the Footaball fans of Louts out in the evenings. These people are not really known to be carrying guns though are they?
I could be wrong about this butit is just what i have noticed since travelling this country. I have lived in nearly every main part of the UK and have never felt the need to be carrying a weapon.

That's a good thing, for you, since being caught with anything that can reasonably be used as a weapon -- even a defensive weapon -- is viewed as a serious crime in Britain.

As for the soccer hooligans and such not being armed with guns... Who says that the people who are a threat to you have to be armed with guns in order to be a threat to you? Or for it to make sense for you to be able to defend yourself with a gun? I mean, if two or three guys with knives come to attack you on a deserted street, should you have to go at it with them with your bare hands, or even a knife of your own? What are your chances then? So it seems clear that a gun might suit a person for self defense even if his assailants don't have them.
Make sense to you?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ok, well lets put things further into perspective then shall we.

We had the whopping total of 68 homicides by firearms this year. 68 in a population of 60 million. (2003/4 British Crime Survey)

The US population is just about 300 million - that’s 5 times the population of the UK.

68 x 5 = 340.

This year there were 11,660 firearms murders in the US. (National Bureau of Justice Statistics 2003/4 National Crime Victimization Survey).

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Just an observation....

If he is prepared to rob the shop, and beat the employees for what ever reason, I don't think he would be that bothered about shooting them, seeing as he would probably get 3-5 years for just the robbery (armed).

It may be off the wall but I would like it to remain semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns.

It is off the wall.
The thing is, criminals do get them.
It's a false assumption that these laws actually do make it "semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns."

The issue then becomes, what options do their victims have, since we have to assume the assailants have guns if they so desire?

If you have no gun, you can do nothing but capitulate.

If you have a gun, you can capitulate if you wish, or you can fight.

I prefer to have as many options as possible.

See, your implication is that gun laws that keep honest people from having guns also stop determined criminals from acquiring them, and that's a fallacy. Your scenario of the guy with the pipe maybe having a gun... already, it's by luck alone that he didn't. Pipe or gun, the assumption has to be made that the victims were as good as dead, upon the whim of the assailant. Now, given that, I think it makes the most sense to let the victims be armed.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[gordy 0]

Quote

It's a false assumption that these laws actually do make it "semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns.

Maybe, but there is a difference from a career criminal and your average thug in the street who just now may use knifes and bottles, and I would prefer these people didn't have guns.

I would also prefer that things like the Dumblane massacre, or Columbine can't happen, I realise of course this isn't possible, but I don't see any reason to facilitate it.