Should Britan be armed?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As pointed out above I had thought Kelpdiver was making a comparison which I wished to refute. It would appear that on this occasion I was mistaken as to his intent but I hope you will agree that his statement can be taken either way.

Looking back at it, it's easy to see that reading of it, though it helps to be looking for a 'fight' in the first place. It wasn't a particularly bad diversion to take, in any event.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I honestly cant see how there is confusion as to why there is a need to stop the production and public sale of non-necessary and deadly items.....

Oh, so now the qualifier is "non-necessary" when the item is "deadly"?

Baseball bats are not "necessary." Who "HAS" to play a game, anyway? But people kill with them. In fact, here in Florida a month ago, three guys murdered SIX INNOCENT PEOPLE with aluminum bats. We'd better get crackin'; there are millions of baseball bats out there, and there's no question they're deadly, and they sure aren't "necessary," and we have to stop the production and public sale of them pronto!

Quote

Yes, knives are deadly, Yes people will kill if they want to... but guns are hardly necessary and knives of a utility nature generally are necessary.

I don't have to do much to disprove your assertion here except to link you to this and say that since not everyone can be an expert martial artist, and not everyone can overcome three large and strong attackers bare-handed, sometimes guns ARE necessary for the good to prevail over the weak. Why do cops have guns, hmm?

Quote

Why stop there? If we should allow people to own guns why not more? maybe grenades or anti-personnel mines for home garden protection? After all its not the deadly weapons that kill people.

Why is it that whenever people try to make anti-gun points, they almost invariably end up saying ridiculous things and engaging utter hyperbole in their attempts?

Mining a garden has the clear potential to maim and kill those who are not even threatening deadly physical force, ergo you are not allowed to use them. How would you prevent the mine from killing a mailman or a meter-reader?

How would you use a hand grenade to defend yourself in a way that could possibly prevent the death of not only yourself in addition to your attacker, but also innocents who may be in proximity, or in nearby rooms?

Your method of arguing your points needs serious work, if this is all you can come up with to support banning guns. Witnessing this kind of anti-gun desperation is nothing new to us, however.

Quote

All I have to say about a knive is... I have the option to run or more easily defend myself... dodging bullets I'll leave to the hollywood stuntmen.

If you have any appreciable distance between yourself and your attacker, it might not be that hard, in fact, to "dodge bullets." If you'd ever fired a handgun at a shooting range, you'd know that it is not the easiest thing in the world to be accurate. Compound that with the stress of combat, and it's easy to understand that people can miss, and miss badly, when trying to hit a moving human target. Handguns remain very effective nonetheless as personal defense weapons because many times assaults occur in very close proximity, and also because in a huge proportion of cases, once a defensive gun is presented, the attack is curtailed and the attacker flees.

So please explain how getting rid of guns from society would benefit society, when we can show very easily that people bent on committing violent crime will use all manner of non-banned items to do it; and that you would be forcing millions of people who lack the means to be the stronger of two parties in a lethal altercation (older people, small women, small men, etc.) to be defenseless against even a simple assault by someone who was merely physically stronger. Why would you force them to be so easily dominated?

-Jeffrey

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"How would you prevent the mine from killing a mailman or a meter-reader?"

Put a sign up saying
"Keep off the grass, I really mean it."
Word would soon get around.

"So please explain how getting rid of guns from society would benefit society, when we can show very easily that people bent on committing violent crime will use all manner of non-banned items to do it"

Au contraire, its is not for the people to justify maintaining the current status quo, rather it is up to those who would advocate change to justify that change.

So your statement should read something along the lines of...
"Allow me to enlighten you and here are the arguments you need to take to your government to enable the change you so desperately need......."

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Yeah, whatever.
Britain is not armed!!!
There are game bird hunters and clay shooters and the odd gangsta with a gun but the general public of the united kingdom is not at all armed. For starters it is illegal to own a pistol. The british public do not want a pistol because it is not needed here.

I guess that if the majority of the british public decided to ban skydiving, they would disregard YOU the same way you disregard those gun owners who had pistols that were forcibly taken from them when they were banned. "The british public doesn't want skydiving," (and fuck those who actually DID before they banned it). Whenever you say that "the british public wanted the gun ban" and disregard the thousands and thousands of people who had their property taken from them, you disingenuously ignore them and pretend they did not oppose being disarmed for no good reason.

Quote

For an american to sit here and say that britian is armed, this american wants to belive this because he is a gun lover.

I am no more a "gun lover" than a skydiver is a "nylon lover": I am a freedom lover, and the gun helps me remain free. If Lego blocks could do what guns can, as far as maintaining strength against force when necessary, I'd have them instead of guns.

Quote

i think it is well known in this forum that the only people here who think britain is armed is the americans.

And your news media.

Quote

The english and scottish here know damn well that we are not walking around with guns in our bags and pockets.

Well DUH! Not the GOOD people. It's the BAD people who are arming themselves at will if they wish to. That's our whole point.

Quote

Jeffery you need to stop saying all this bullshit about britain being armed and start showing the figures. i would love to know why you think there are 4 million guns in this country.
The general public of Britain is NOT armed and for an american to sit there saying this well, it is all in his gun loving outspoken aroggant mind.

Dude, watch the name-calling. I haven't personally insulted you -- I'm just calling you on the absence of facts in your claims. And learn to spell "arrogant" if you're gonna call me it.

Start [url: "http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F08%2F17%2Fnguns17.xml"]with this article on a British news website[/url] talking about the illegal gun problem in Britain. Here are excerpts:

"SIR John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said police in London were on target to reduce gun crime by two per cent this year, despite the number of murders involving firearms having doubled.

The number of gun deaths in London rose to 25 in the first eight months of the year, up from 12 in the same period in 2000. Gun crime overall was up by 11 per cent." (note: from 12 to 25 is double, or 200%, of the previous figure)

Here's another article, the one you were asking for:

"In the meantime, guns flood into Great Britain from the international black market, driven and funded by the demands of Britain's new gun culture. It has been estimated that the number of illegally possessed firearms in Great Britain has doubled over the past 4 years, and has now reached the three million figure.

A January 15, 2001 item from The Independent, entitled "Police Move to Tackle Huge Rise in Gun Crime," noted that "for the past 11 months, a team of officers from the National Criminal Intelligence Service has compiled details of weapons and ammunition seized by the police and has concluded that the scale of Britain's black market in firearms is 'far higher than anybody had previously thought.' "

Quote

Get a clue, just because you are a gun lover does not say that we need to be armed or that we are armed. This country has balls, the people of this country do not pull out guns to solve their problems, they stand there and defend themselves and sort out their problems like men should, if a knife gets pulled they will run or take it head on.

If you're trying to convince me that Brits are just brave in the face of conflict, I have to tell you that when you mention standing and facing a knife attack, it's coming across more as stupid than brave. Since when did survival against a violent attack become an issue where the means you used to do it is a measure of your manliness? I say if you have to bite the fucker's balls, and you take him out that way, you win, and no one can criticize what you had to do to survive. You on the other hand want to make it into a machismo-test or something. That strikes me as particularly dumb. Your argument against having guns for defense seems to be, "You're not as big a tough guy if you have to use a gun." What a way to miss the point.

Quote

If someone pulls a knife this does not mean you are dead, if someone pulls a gun, it means you probably are.

If you believe this, you have it backward. Knife wounds are less survivable than gunshot wounds. So in your scenario, you're more likely to die if someone pulls a knife on you than a gun.

You simply are ignorant of the facts surrounding this issue.

Quote

just know that your country is known for school killings and thousands of mureders and innocent killings and drive-by shootings every year.

Here:

BBC news: 18 dead in german school shooting -- That's more killed by one dude than were killed by both dudes at Columbine in the U.S. Um, Germany has strict gun control, bigway.

Here's one that's closer to home to you in Britain. This article mentions that in the year prior, there was an average of one shooting a week. How is this possible?! Guns and gun crime are so scarce in England thanks to your wonderful gun ban!

-Jeffrey

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Here's one that's closer to home to you in Britain."

So how would private gun ownership have prevented a drive by shooting of a person too young to own a gun, even in an enlightened society such as yours?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Paulipod 0]

Ok Jeffrey, a few points...

The incident you refer to as closer to home was in fact in my home town. Where, in the last few years I can count on one hand the number of gun deaths... and we are outraged by the high figure!

I wonder if you could count how many gun deaths in your city without an abbacus?

Also, yes... there are gun incidents all over. But you do have to have metal detectors in your schools. I am pleased your kids can feel so safe.

Are baseball bats necessary? no... should I ban them? no... cus lets face it... any blunt object will do...

To argue that 'anything can kill' is a stupid way to go.... We clearly cant ban everything, but we can use common sense as to what objects make killing easier.

Why do the police carry guns? Because they have to equal the criminals... FYI though, not all police here have guns... they are only brought out when needed.

Do I have to equal the criminals? No, I am not paid for law enforcement. Does that mean someone is likely to shoot me? Thankfully not in this country.

Yes bad people have guns but I am not likely to meet them.... if I start dealing drugs maybe I deserve to get shot.

Am I likely to be robbed at gunpoint? Not really but even if I were.. I give the money and let the police dis-arm them.

You think gunsgives you freedom. I think it increases your risks. Americans in general are fascinated by guns / what the do / the power and this is purely down to nurture. You only have to read the 'Sniper Rifle' thread to see the kind of mentality that I am talking about.

Wow, whats the best tool to pick off a guy at 1000m? That kind of fascination is quite frankly sick IMO.

By the way, I have shot many guns / rifles in the UK and US.... doesnt mean I need one on my belt 24/7 if I wanted to target shoot... they can keep them at the sports facility.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mr2mk1g 10]

Give us some figures we can put to our government that will show how arming everyone, (including every single person with criminal intent), will cut the number of people killed by firearms from the giddy hights of 68 people in this last year down to a much lower figure.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"Here's one that's closer to home to you in Britain."

So how would private gun ownership have prevented a drive by shooting of a person too young to own a gun, even in an enlightened society such as yours?

You seem to be willfully missing the point.

Your society clamped down on -- eradicated -- gun ownership (oh, sure, go and cite for me the fact that you can still have single-shot long guns and some minor shotguns) -- and you still have rampant gun crime. And as the articles cited, it is bad and getting worse with each passing year. That one article I linked to, about the drive-by shooting, was posted Oct. 15 this year! Days ago!

My point is that you gave away the guns, and it -- whoa, amazingly -- did nothing to keep guns away from those who use them criminally! So in essence, you really need not have deprived people of their property. It was unfair, and in the end, it didn't do any good anyway.

-Jeffrey

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

[Skyrad 0]

Bigway, Bigway? Yo!...........Where'd he go?

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

By the way, I have shot many guns / rifles in the UK and US.... doesnt mean I need one on my belt 24/7 if I wanted to target shoot... they can keep them at the sports facility.

More misstatement of the facts.

You CAN'T "keep them at the sports facility" if you are not allowed to OWN them.

Tell us, Paulipod, how you think you can keep, say, a simple .38 SPL revolver at the "sports facility."

The answer, of course, is "You can't." You're not allowed to own firearms but single-shot long arms. Oooh, the fun of going down to the "sports facility" to have them unlock your single-shot .22 so you can s-l-o-w-l-y have some fun firing it.

Your own OLYMPIC TEAM has to practice out-of-country because even they don't get an exemption from your idiotic stringent gun laws.

Your country is so paranoid about guns, so fearful of them, that all sense has been abandoned, and you folks won't even recognize the difference between a street thug with a 9mm and an OLYMPIAN with a target pistol.

That's a disgrace.

-Jeffrey

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Give us some figures we can put to our government that will show how arming everyone, (including every single person with criminal intent), will cut the number of people killed by firearms from the giddy hights of 68 people in this last year down to a much lower figure.

Whoa whoa whoa, what the f*ck does arming "everyone, including every single person with criminal intent" have to do with our discussion?

If you're trying to draw a parallel between U.K. and U.S., well, I have news for you -- criminals are forbidden from possessing firearms; a felon in possession can get 10 years on prison; it is a crime to possess a firearm while committing another crime; it is a crime to buy/sell a firearm when the buyer expresses, or the seller is aware, that the buyer wishes to use the firearm in commission of a crime...

So where the hell are you coming from with this "show us proof that arming even those with criminal intent will cut down the number of people killed by firearms."

And I doubt that 68 is all that were killed with firearms in your whole country in one year. Where's a link to that statistic?

And is it so wonderful to have criminals running around with guns and robbing and raping people at gunpoint just as long as not a lot of them get killed? Maybe you subjects just give up your stuff a lot easier without fighting for it, I dunno. Someone tried to convince me that Brits were tough, and would fight a knife-wielding attacker just to show how manly they are... I think the claim falls flat.

But really, back to the main point: why did you offer this strawman about arming criminals? Why does allowing non-criminals the right to have guns dictate having to allow criminals to have them -- except to try to set your argument up to succeed whereas otherwise it would not?

-Jeffrey

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

[Skyrad 0]

***
I understand that people get banned for misbehaving, so could someone tell me how this Jeffrey person is still here?***

I don't think he's broken any rules on this thread, why shouldn't he be here?

***We're told that less than 20% of Americans own a passport. I seriously hope that he, and his gun-loving friends, are not part of that number.***

actualy i think its only 5% that actually use them, its a pity that more Americans dont travel outside their own borders, (other than with the forces) maybe it'd be a less xenaphobic paranoid culture if they did.

***Their reasoning is simply insane, and a forum in any other part of the world would not entertain their increasingly aggressive, bile-ridden nonsense.***

actualy you may not like what they say but alot of it is true, culture has more to do with gun crime than gun ownership. Every Swiss household has firarms most of which are assault rifles yet they have a tiny amount of gun crime.

***Additionally, if I were to say that America was a stain on the world, and that it was inhabited by violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey, I'd likely be banned. Of course, I wouldn't say that. He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged.***

We all have our opinions, I may not agree with his or yours but I defend your right to voice them.

***There are many reasons why America would be the last place on earth that I'd live. Little Jeffrey and his toys can be added to them. Stay where you are, Jeffrey, and remember; guns don't kill people, hysterical right-wing gun-owners do.***

I'd like to see Jeffery and the other right wingers come over here to Europe. See what its like and broaden their horizons. Theres not one of them I wouldn't buy a beer. Your rant sounds alot like a personal attack to me.

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

[Paulipod 0]

'and you still have rampant gun crime'

I woulndt call the handfull of cases we have had in Nottingham over the course of one year as 'rampant' when comparing it to the dozens of cases every single day in major US cities.

Also, I dont personally need to own a gun to fire one at a club... yes probably gone too far stopping licensed premises from keeping them....

but this thread is Should Britian be armed - NO - and isnt thankfully.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

Tell us, Paulipod, how you think you can keep, say, a simple .38 SPL revolver at the "sports facility."

The same way that I can rent a gun when I go to paintball.... I dont need to own it.

I know that we have enforced this ban probably too stringently in that regard.... I have no objection to a licenced shooting club keeping guns under lock and key - with access to registed members only....

I am against any tom-dick or jeffery walking the streets with one in their pocket, or easily accessable in their car or home.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

***Additionally, if I were to say that America was a stain on the world, and that it was inhabited by violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey, I'd likely be banned. Of course, I wouldn't say that. He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged.***


I'd like to see Jeffery and the other right wingers come over here to Europe. See what its like and broaden their horizons. Theres not one of them I wouldn't buy a beer. Your rant sounds alot like a personal attack to me.

That's because it was a personal attack.

Let's not pretend we're fooled by someone saying, "I'd get in trouble for saying that XXXX is a big fuckin' stupid ass-licking piece of shit cocksucker juvenile pussy coward, but of course I would never say that because it's against the rules."

In fact, I want Dingley banned for it. I know what he was about. So does every moderator here.

-Jeffrey

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

'and you still have rampant gun crime'

I woulndt call the handfull of cases we have had in Nottingham over the course of one year as 'rampant' when comparing it to the dozens of cases every single day in major US cities.

But the cases in the U.S. have been declining every year for more than a decade. How do your current figures stack up against the figures you amassed before your 1997 gun ban? They're HIGHER. Meanwhile, ours go lower even as we buy about 3-5 million more guns each year. Go figure.

Quote

Also, I dont personally need to own a gun to fire one at a club... yes probably gone too far stopping licensed premises from keeping them....

What are you saying? That shooting clubs are allowed to own the banned guns like Glocks and Berettas and stuff? I don't think they are. If they are, prove it.

YOU said that you could go and shoot guns at a club if you desired. I still say that you'd be limited to the same single-shot plinkers that you are allowed to own at home.

Quote

but this thread is Should Britian be armed - NO - and isnt thankfully.

Only those who don't wish to be, who don't wish to break the guns laws, are not armed in Britain.

-Jeffrey

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"You seem to be willfully missing the point."

Not at all, I'm trying to stimulate further discussion without the abrasiveness we have both seen all too often from both sides. We get a good going gun thread and then it gets all nasty and raggedy, then it is locked.
Yep, we lost our guns, how do we get them back is the question.
The point I'm trying to make is that we will have to convince the government that regaining our priveledge to own firearms will solve a problem that many people don't believe exists.
The government certainly won't entertain the thought that we can justify a change in the law because they (the govt) can't protect us from armed criminals.
And btw 68 gun deaths a year is not rampant, neither is it a rising tide about to deluge us with chaos.

The example you cited is pretty typical of gun crime that makes the news over here, a seemingly random drive by, they are not really the type of scenarios that could be avoided by keeping a firearm in your house. Even CCW would go little way to avoiding a very small percentage of this type incident. The victim in question, had she been of legal firearm bearing age was returning from a nightclub, which means she would have had to take the weapon with her to the club in the first place, an aspect of CCW that I am not comfortable with.

So back to the issue at hand, how would you go about re-instating the pre-ban gun legislation, make a rational case for it PJ, I'm listening.
You know by now I'm not interested in changing your laws, but I am genuinely interested to hear a valid and workable justification for us to change ours, if one exists.
Johnrich and Kennedy, feel free to add some opinion too.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I am against any tom-dick or jeffery walking the streets with one in their pocket, or easily accessable in their car or home.

I don't see how you could feel this way without concurrently feeling that an armed Jeffrey is an imminent threat to other peaceful citizens. Absent any evidence, you are advocating that I ought to be treated by the government (and the people, such as yourself) as though I would do harm if I had a gun.

The fact remains that I, like JohnRich, AggieDave, and others here, DO have guns -- lots of them -- and don't commit crimes with them (or even without them).

Blows a hole in your theory that guns make the criminal -- and that guns cause violent crime.

-Jeffrey

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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Bigway, Bigway? Yo!...........Where'd he go

You ever tried to stop an avalanche?

Perhaps he just did a step aside to let the thunderstorm roll down ?

ROFL.....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Yep, we lost our guns, how do we get them back is the question.
The point I'm trying to make is that we will have to convince the government that regaining our priveledge to own firearms will solve a problem that many people don't believe exists.
The government certainly won't entertain the thought that we can justify a change in the law because they (the govt) can't protect us from armed criminals.

That is EXACTLY why your people should be DEMANDING the right to own guns. Your government CAN'T -- DOESN'T -- protect you from armed criminals. Nor does your gun law.

Here in the U.S., we had a federal (nationwide) gun law passed in 1994. Anyone objective would have admitted at the outset that, as written, it could not possibly have the effect of lessening gun crime. The only way they could get it passed was by compromise: the law would expire in 10 years automatically. If, within 10 years, it had been shown to be effective, no doubt people would have steamrolled through a measure to make it permanent in 2004. The law died a pathetic death on September 13 this year, because it was so clear that it had done nothing but inconvenience lawful gun owners, there was pitifully little support for it.

That's what they should have done with your 1997 law. Give it a finite period to demonstrate effectiveness, and if there doesn't seem to be any (and A CLIMBING GUN CRIME AND GUN MURDER RATE WOULD BE A SURE INDICATION OF A FAILURE) the law comes off the books.

You keep saying that letting brits have guns again would be a change in the status quo, and would need to have a rationale before it was done. Taking the guns away in the first place was the change in the status quo, and the decision never was rationalized, and still isn't being justified.

Quote

The example you cited is pretty typical of gun crime that makes the news over here, a seemingly random drive by, they are not really the type of scenarios that could be avoided by keeping a firearm in your house. Even CCW would go little way to avoiding a very small percentage of this type incident. The victim in question, had she been of legal firearm bearing age was returning from a nightclub, which means she would have had to take the weapon with her to the club in the first place, an aspect of CCW that I am not comfortable with.

Once again, why does it seem you are being deliberately obtuse! I EXPLAINED this. I never said that CCW would have saved this girl, or home ownership of firearms would have saved the girl. I SAID -- and I articulated it quite clearly, I thought -- that the people were forced to give up their guns for nothing, because evidently their doing so does not stop the criminal element from doing these murders.

I hope I was clearer this time.

Quote

So back to the issue at hand, how would you go about re-instating the pre-ban gun legislation, make a rational case for it PJ, I'm listening.

Are you claiming that if you did re-instate the pre-ban gun legislation, that gun crime would go up (more than it IS going up, I mean) because people had guns in their houses? Do you, as a corrolary to that, state that prior to the ban in 1997 you were having a problem with gun crime due to private legal ownership? 'Cause you know, I really am confident that gun crime in U.K. is higher now than it has ever been -- even with gun ownership allowed in the past.

Guns in the home were not a problem before the ban. No case needs to be made for why it was silly, pointless and stupid to take them away. Or are you planning to admit that even with stringent purchase, ownership and storage laws in effect, prior to 1997 Britain had a problem with guns used in crime? We do know that gun crime, while it may not be an epidemic in Britain (that remains to be proven) IS HIGHER than it was in 1997, the Dunblane shooting notwithstanding. In 1980, 1990, 1994, you had very few shootings. In 1997, you passed the ban. In every year since then, your gun crime has been increasing. YOU explain THAT. I'm listening.

Quote

You know by now I'm not interested in changing your laws, but I am genuinely interested to hear a valid and workable justification for us to change ours, if one exists.

You DID change your laws. You made it illegal to have guns, whereas it was not illegal before. Crime went up. I think it behooves YOU to explain why that change was done, and why it should remain.

What I am advocating is a return to how things were before YOUR change.

-Jeffrey

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Whoa whoa whoa, what the f*ck does arming "everyone, including every single person with criminal intent" have to do with our discussion?

The three options on this poll which are next in popularity to keeping everything the same are for people to be armed and carry the weapon.

If you allow people to arm themselves you also arm people who have no criminal record but have criminal intent.

Do you have a magic mind machine which can tell which people are going to commit a crime at some time in the future? Are you able to exclude them from owning a gun on that basis?

In the absence of such a magic mind reading machine you end up licensing people to carry who have criminal intent or maybe even have committed crimes but have yet to be caught.

That’s what it has to do with the argument. You provide a licence and unsavoury people will obtain that licence as it’s far from easy to tell who is an unsavoury person.

Wow betide anyone who prevents “Bob” from owning a dozen hand guns when he’s not ever been convicted of something – it’s his right after all. Every criminal has to commit his FIRST offence – till he’s caught for that he’s free to own right?

Quote

And I doubt that 68 is all that were killed with firearms in your whole country in one year. Where's a link to that statistic?

You better believe it buddy. That’s right – our “rampant” gun crime means we had 68 people IN TOTAL murdered in this country in the last year. Guess what dude... that figure's DOWN!

As for a link, I don’t have one. I have the actual report sat on my desk. It’s the British Crime Survey 2004 – published last week. It’s one of the reports that started this thread Jeffrey; DO pay attention.

I’m sure you can find it yourself if you take 2 minutes to look – it’s a government report, it’s out there.

I’ll summarise the parts which indicate just how bad it is over here for you if you like...

The report says:

We had 68 firearms murders IN TOTAL this last year!
That’s 15% DOWN on the previous year!
Armed robbery with a firearm is DOWN 13% from the previous year!
There were 7% FEWER offences involving a handgun than the previous year!
ONLY 0.4% of offences against the person involve the use of a firearm!
Since just before we banned handguns overall crime has FALLEN by 39%!
Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime and burglary has been CUT IN HALF!
Since just before we banned handguns violent crime has FALLEN by over 33%!
Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has FALLEN from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago!

You’re right Jeffrey – our crime rates are spiralling out of control, we’re falling into the depths of an abyss the likes of which the world has never seen… and it’s all due to our banning handguns.

WAKE UP!

LOOK AT THE STATS - THEY DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS!

And most importantly - QUITE WHINING!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

How do your current figures stack up against the figures you amassed before your 1997 gun ban? They're HIGHER

No they're not - see above.

Go read some actual reports yourself instead of simply blindly swallowing the propaganda your gun mag's feed you.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

'Cause you know, I really am confident that gun crime in U.K. is higher now than it has ever been -- even with gun ownership allowed in the past.

That's cool - show me some figures.

I've just shown you official figures which say that not only are you wrong - you're wrong by a looooong way.

Remeber - someone whacked up on LSD can be confident they can fly... any fool can tell them they're wrong though.

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

But the cases in the U.S. have been declining every year for more than a decade. How do your current figures stack up against the figures you amassed before your 1997 gun ban? They're HIGHER. Meanwhile, ours go lower even as we buy about 3-5 million more guns each year. Go figure.

Its very easy to increase a figure from zero... and say that the % rise is huge.. and that yours is going up... and ours is dropping.

Fact. more people every day die in america by gun than die every year in the UK.

(and yes I know there's more people in the US)

Also, I dont see the need for the range of guns - and wouldnt care if I couldnt fire a Gloc or a Beretta exactly how bug a hole do I need to make in a target to enjoy the skill of aiming?

The range of guns / callibre's etc is to pander to the fascination your society has with them... and the revenue they generate...

We are going round in circles here, so I will leave it at that...

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Also, yes... there are gun incidents all over. But you do have to have metal detectors in your schools. I am pleased your kids can feel so safe.

Metal detecters may be installed in some schools, but it's hardly a majority. Let's stick a bit closer to reality - it's bad enough.

Quote

Am I likely to be robbed at gunpoint? Not really but even if I were.. I give the money and let the police dis-arm them.

So you're pretty much depending on the good will of a guy that held a gun to your head for money. That is a major cultural difference across the ocean.

Quote

You think gunsgives you freedom. I think it increases your risks. Americans in general are fascinated by guns / what the do / the power and this is purely down to nurture. You only have to read the 'Sniper Rifle' thread to see the kind of mentality that I am talking about.

Without denying that, the success of American action films abroad suggests that it's not merely us that are fascinated. And 007 is your baby.