Gun confiscation

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

And there are massacres and gun crime, great keep hold of your rights and allow people to continue to die.

Most people in the UK saw the sense of having the right to have a gun taken away from us, it meant that it was easier to police the criminals who carried them.

But I guess it must be part of a civilised culture to have to have the right to carry a lethal weapon, just in case someone accidentally smiles the wrong way.

Doesn't wanting to hold guns and protect oneself apply to many countries who want nuclear weapons to protect themselves? But we ask them to trut the present civilised holders to act reasonably, like they want to hold onto their rights and carry a lethal weapon and there is no point in carrying a weapon if you don't intend to use it.

Take the example of Switzerland, all citizen have military full automatic weapons, do they have a high crime rate? NO

But you can be sure they are all well trained.
http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/t...their_guns.htm

[South]

Originally Posted by anonymously

And there are massacres and gun crime, great keep hold of your rights and allow people to continue to die.

There were massacres and crimes long before the first gun was ever invented.

Originally Posted by anonymously

Most people in the UK saw the sense of having the right to have a gun taken away from us, it meant that it was easier to police the criminals who carried them.

That's for the UK to decide. Live any way you want to live. Your rights or lack thereof aren't our concern. Only our own.

Originally Posted by anonymously

But I guess it must be part of a civilised culture to have to have the right to carry a lethal weapon, just in case someone accidentally smiles the wrong way.

In case someone smiles the wrong way? Really? That's what you're taking from the gun supporters in this thread is that someone wants to shoot people for smiling the wrong way? You're either not very smart, deliberately snide, or not paying attention. Which is it? I'm guessing deliberately snide.

[anonymously]

Just painting a reality of the out of hand gun culture that one ses in the US cities, that does not come from no where.

Sadly we have to have some British cops carrying guns these days, but I am convinced more guns = more guns = more people killed by them. It works the same as alcoholism, the more alcohol is available, the more is consumed the more alcoholics there are.

Easy access to guns and the right to carry guns means that gun masacres can be expected. Personally I would gladly give up some rights to protect others and indeed I and others do. Our rights have to be balanced against the good of our family, community, country, world and demanding the right to carry lethal weapons is a relic of the homestead cowboy days and a civilised America should have outgrown that and see that demanding that right endangers society far more than it protects it.

[South]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Sadly we have to have some British cops carrying guns these days, but I am convinced more guns = more guns = more people killed by them. It works the same as alcoholism, the more alcohol is available, the more is consumed the more alcoholics there are.

Well then by all means, ban alcohol for everyone so that no on abuses it. Guns too so that nobody misuses them. Don't forget gambling. People have addictions to that as well so that should be criminal. And tobacco. Knives too. Somebody could stab someone so personal ownership should be banned. Also cars. More people are killed from not handling cars properly than guns and knives combined. How can we be civilized when people are allowed to own something that's known to cause so many deaths every single day?

If some misuse it then ban it for everyone. That's called a nanny state. Enjoy it brother, but keep it on your side of the sea. We choose freedom above security.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by South

Well then by all means, ban alcohol for everyone so that no on abuses it. Guns too so that nobody misuses them. Don't forget gambling. People have addictions to that as well so that should be criminal. And tobacco. Knives too. Somebody could stab someone so personal ownership should be banned. Also cars. More people are killed from not handling cars properly than guns and knives combined. How can we be civilized when people are allowed to own something that's known to cause so many deaths every single day?

If some misuse it then ban it for everyone. That's called a nanny state. Enjoy it brother, but keep it on your side of the sea. We choose freedom above security.

As I said in another thread, seems one of your states is willing to force people to have swine flu vacination, but allows them guns under what you seem to think stops a nanny state!

I know which one will kill most people and it won't be the flu.

When I was over there you seemed to have some stop lights on the road, nanny state, why not just let people drive as they want. You also had some laws about drinking in poublic, nanny state, why not let them do what they want. You seem to have some laws about when you could cross the road, no jay walking, nanny state why not just let them do what they want. Guns, kill, that's what they are created for, whoops let people have them , no problem, don't want a nanny state here.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

As I said in another thread, seems one of your states is willing to force people to have swine flu vacination, but allows them guns under what you seem to think stops a nanny state!

I know which one will kill most people and it won't be the flu.

When I was over there you seemed to have some stop lights on the road, nanny state, why not just let people drive as they want. You also had some laws about drinking in poublic, nanny state, why not let them do what they want. You seem to have some laws about when you could cross the road, no jay walking, nanny state why not just let them do what they want. Guns, kill, that's what they are created for, whoops let people have them , no problem, don't want a nanny state here.

One of good reason you shouldn't disarm, "In the dark days following the British Expeditionary Force's evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, Great Britain was a nation virtually disarmed." :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650257/posts

[South]

Originally Posted by anonymously

When I was over there you seemed to have some stop lights on the road, nanny state, why not just let people drive as they want. You also had some laws about drinking in poublic, nanny state, why not let them do what they want. You seem to have some laws about when you could cross the road, no jay walking, nanny state why not just let them do what they want. Guns, kill, that's what they are created for, whoops let people have them , no problem, don't want a nanny state here.

Now you're getting it. People are allowed to drive so long as they follow the rules of safety under the law. They fail to do so and they lose the right to drive.

Same with guns. Use them according to the law and you keep them. Fail to do so and lose the right.

See how that works? It's the individuals actions dictating the individuals situation, not some bureaucracy legislating rights away from the masses over the actions of the few.

I'm curiously fascinated over the mindset of those who think it should be the opposite. From your point of view I could take anything from you that I wanted by simply misusing it and having it banned from all. Sad.

[m42]

Some interesting stats on gun ownership from 2006:

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them....

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html

Some interesting stats on post election purchases and background checks:

In Florida, the state government has actually abetted the surge in handgun sales to homeowners. A state legislative panel recently approved spending $3.8 million to expedite the processing of a huge backlog of concealed weapons-permit applications. Background checks for gun purchases in Florida more than doubled after the election, going from 32,381 in September to 63,936 in November, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The number dropped somewhat in January.

Nationally, the FBI completed more than 1.5 million background checks in November - a 41.6% increase over the same time last year.

The recent earnings report of handgun maker Sturm Ruger (RGR) suggests this is a national trend: Over the last year, the company saw its order book grow by almost 50%, from $156 million to over $233 million. Demand is hot: Out of the 776,000 units ordered, Sturm Ruger reported over 175,000 of them were on backorder.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/.../index/a/21415

[Allen Farlow]

Anonymously, can you explain to us exactly why it is that some British police are carrying firearms? Do they see the unarmed citizens as such a threat?

Or is it because of the armed criminals?

That's why we carry guns in America, as protection against criminals, who are not armed with pocket knives or baseball bats, but loaded firearms.

We also have literally hundreds of street gangs, armies of young thugs who really will shoot you if you smile at them the wrong way. Perhaps you've heard of Crips? Bloods? What about the Hispanic gang members of MS 13, the most notorious and blood-thirsty of all of them? Do a simple Google Search and learn!

No, armed citizens do not encourage armed robbers, they discourage them. Do you honestly think robbers are going to try to attack someone knowing chances are very good the robbers will be shot? Hardly. Instead, robbers will attack those who are least able to defend themselves, such as the unarmed citizen.

We have such things as home invasions here in America, where armed criminals will literally walk into your home, tie you up, beat you, rape your women and steal everything you own. It happens all the time in our cities and the police only show up after-the-fact to take a report. Should we turn in our weapons and let these criminals continue doing these things or should we shoot and kill them? What do you think you would do?

Is it really such a leap to say that we in America without guns would become slaves? Not at all. But then I doubt you've actually seen British military conducting training operations in your cities like we have here in the United States. I'm talking about military aircraft, fully armed military personnel running through the streets with their M-16s, military vehicles blocking off streets and entire neighborhoods and demanding that everyone entering (such as those simply trying to drive home) show their identification or else. Just go to youtube and watch the videos, for crying out loud!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L924i...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hglv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah_8x...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iOl3...om=PL&index=24

Now let me ask you this: why would the U.S military need to conduct training exercises in our American cities? Are they training for a possible attack by a foreign enemy upon our own soil or are they trying to make our military troops accustomed to fighting in familiar territory, with cars and people they can relate to, in cities that are familiar to them?

The last thing the military wants is troops who refuse to shoot their own kind! They don't want soldiers who are sympathetic to the plight of people who speak the same language, they want robots! Train it out of them and turn them into killing machines that never question an order.

Are they trying to get the U.S. citizen accustomed to seeing U.S. military vehicles and fully-armed combat troops driving through our neighborhoods so we are not alarmed to see them when our government finally decides to declare martial law and place us all in camps?

I don't know about you but I do not trust the government of the United States to not do something like that. Especially with the current leadership!

And another thing...if American colonists were not armed, how do you think they would have been able to fight off the oppression of the British military when they came here and attacked us in what is today known as the Revolutionary War?

[anonymously]

Knife crime is a growing problem in the UK, it works like this, the more people carry knives the more problems there are, people say they carry them to protec t themselves, because they carry them to protect themselves, the more knives that are carried for protection the more knife attacks we get, the more knife attacks we get the more people carry knives for protection.

You talk about people carrying guns within the law, but that is not easy to police, unfortunately carrying them and usiung them outside the law ususally results in someon or more dead. The only way to really police guns is the same as carrying a gun in the Uk or even a knife, that in itself is a crime.

You talk about the frontiers men, grief I thought you had moved on a little from those days, perhaps we should also carry clubs we needed those for protection when we were cave dwellers.

Also south said

That's for the UK to decide. Live any way you want to live. Your rights or lack thereof aren't our concern. Only our own.

Is that what Bush said to Iraq, Afghanistan or to North Korea. No US wants to do as it pleases however that affects others, and certainly the amount of freely available guns in the US affects us because they filter here, but tell others how or not they can defend themselves.

As to if people are safer with guns, does having a sign over the door saying we carry guns stop attacks on households or does it ensure that the raiders come prepared and carry guns themselves? If I were a robber and I knew most householders had guns I would take one with me for protection, just in case I bumped into the householder toting a gun. If carrying gins cuts down crime of burglary and robbery, where have you nil or low crines rate of this sort?

How much do we have of armed robbery and personal attack in UK, very little and mercifully the majority of our cops do not carry guns, that is restricted to a highly trained and specialised small group.

Do I trust our Government, no but enough not to contemplate doing a Guy Fawkes and trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament. I am glad that i do not have to go to bed at night saying to myself "I am safe if there are foreign invaders or if the Government troops come after me". If I did I think I would get myself treated for paranoia.

If your Bill of Rights gives you so many freedoms how come you can force people to be vaccinated or block the streets off for no good reason. The cops did that here recently and they are still answering awkward questions about it. Surely you are not telling me that the Americans are silly enough to keep voting for people who treat them like that despite their citizen rights.

But does it not occurr to you that thsi chicken and egg thing about freedom and guns is that you have serious gun problems, serious dissorder problems and serious attempts to stem the problem because guns are so freely available to both criminals, lunatics and reasonable citizens. To cut down guns in the criminal fraternity then you have to choke off the supply and that means that some people have to forgo that right for the greater good of te society in which they live. But if one does not give a hang about such stuff, I am glad i live in the UK.

[South]

Originally Posted by anonymously

As to if people are safer with guns, does having a sign over the door saying we carry guns stop attacks on households or does it ensure that the raiders come prepared and carry guns themselves? If I were a robber and I knew most householders had guns I would take one with me for protection, just in case I bumped into the householder toting a gun. If carrying gins cuts down crime of burglary and robbery, where have you nil or low crimes rate of this sort?

Clearly you're committed to your anti gun views and no degree of logic is going to change that so I'll leave you to it. Again, it doesn't effect us one way or the other. For the record though, yes. The district in the US with the harshest laws restricting personal gun ownership consistently suffers the highest murder rate and gun crimes. Criminals are looking to steal things others worked for, most aren't looking for a shootout. For those who are looking for a shootout, personal ownership really evens it up.

[Natural Elements]

"To cut down guns in the criminal fraternity then you have to choke off the supply and that means that some people have to forgo that right for the greater good of te society in which they live."

If I follow your logic, you are the kind of person thinking that we shouldn't have military army around the world to avoid any war, right?

The point you are missing is that the world was based on conquests, and wars, perhaps you should study your history to understand that we are not living in a fantasia world.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Knife crime is a growing problem in the UK

Maybe you should apply your gun control principles to the knife problem? Why not just ban all knife ownership?

[anonymously]

Some figures on gun fatalities in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year.

A little different from the US and not accounted for by the difference in population numbers from the figures above.

Could that have anything to do with our general belief that citizens should not carry firearms?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Maybe you should apply your gun control principles to the knife problem? Why not just ban all knife ownership?

What is and isn't legal in the UK http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...tion/DG_078569

the maximum penalty for carrying a knife is four years in prison and a fine of £5000

* it is illegal for any shop to sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under the age of 18
* it is generally an offence to carry a knife in public without good reason or lawful authority (for example, a good reason is a chef on the way to work carrying their own knives)
* the maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is four years in prison and a fine of £5000
* knives where the blade folds into the handle, like a Swiss Army Knife, aren't illegal as long as the blade is shorter than three inches (7.62 cms)

We do try to ban ownership as you can see.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Some figures on gun fatalities in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

A little different from the US and not accounted for by the difference in population numbers from the figures above.

Could that have anything to do with our general belief that citizens should not carry firearms?




What is and isn't legal in the UK http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...tion/DG_078569




We do try to ban ownership as you can see.

Le deux Français assassinés à Londres victimes d'une «attaque horrible, frénétique»

"Ils ont été poignardés à répétition à la tête, au cou, dans le dos et au torse"

http://www.20minutes.fr/article/2406...frenetique.php

Do you remember that? It was in London two French tortured, stabbed several times and killed.

Seems like your ban doesn't work.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Le deux Français assassinés à Londres victimes d'une «attaque horrible, frénétique»

"Ils ont été poignardés à répétition à la tête, au cou, dans le dos et au torse"

http://www.20minutes.fr/article/2406...frenetique.php

Do you remember that? It was in London two French tortured, stabbed several times and killed.

Seems like your ban doesn't work.

Of course bans don't make all knives or guns go away, but it makes it far easier for the police to be able to tell who the criminals are. With less knives or guns in circulation then it is far more difficult to obtain weapons too.

If I were the average burglar or mugger, I would have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a gun, not least the blackmarket cost, so I would not carry a gun, that means we feel less threatened, as US writers here seem to be, and don't feel any of the need to carry personal weapons for protection.

We resisted police having guns, and still do routinely, because we believe that the more weapons there are in circulation or the easier it is to carry and get a gun puts up the crime and death rate proportionally to the amount in circulation.

But even if the bans don't entirely work our track record of crimes, IMHO, speaks for itself on the efficacy of keeping the number weapons in society down. That does depend on the co-operation and acceptance by the public that we shall have bans and severe restrictions on personal freedoms in relation to ownership, but the majority of the law abiding citizens in the UK see that as a small price, nay as a fantastic asset to keep gun and knife crime to relatively low, still far too high, levels.

I believe that accepting such restrictions is the only way forward if people really want, as has been expressed here, for a government to be able to reduce actual crime. Issue is which somes first, reduction in crime or reduction and tighter controls on weapons for everyone. With the levels of crime in the US seems to me the over 100 year old strategy of keeping any guns disered in private hands is clearly not working.

Should we tell the US what to do in this respect. Firstly it is impossible to tell you what to do, best we can do is to tell you how good things are here, compared, and why we believe that to be so. Secondly I also believe that guns are an international problem, we have the level we do in the UK simply because they are available from overseas when one has enough money etc, so the more guns can be taken from the world scene, the less there is available, the higher the price, the less likely the average criminal in the UK will carry one. So we can't solve the problem alone, because bans have a limited, though good, effect, like many issues these days, since globalisation, to really tackle drugs, guns and many other issues we also need the world to want to look after its own interests and therefore act globally.

[Allen Farlow]

Bringing George W. Bush into this is the wrong tact to take, because the Bush administration tried their best to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by anonymously

Surely you are not telling me that the Americans are silly enough to keep voting for people who treat them like that despite their citizen rights.

Uh, yeah, you've got that pretty much right. How do you think Bush won re-election in 2004 and Barrack Obama got voted in? I think the majority of American voters don't have a clue as to why they are voting for someone, other than that they were told to. Seems few can think for themselves even when presented with concrete factual evidence that contradicts everything they've heard.

The more knives we carry, the more knife attacks we get? What kind of twisted reasoning is that? Okay, so let's say we ban firearms and nobody can have firearms because it would be against the law.

So you're thinking the criminals will turn in their firearms simply because it's against the law to have them? Okie-dokie... Criminals are called criminals because they commit crimes, such as owning firearms in violation of the law!

It's fact that no one will EVER rid the United States of firearms. We've had firearms since the colonies were founded before the United States even existed and our Second Amendment gives us each the right to own firearms.

And since criminals will always have them, what sense does it make to turn ours in and place ourselves at the mercy of armed criminals when they come in the night?

Perhaps you have the wrong idea about the U.S.

I can go months, even years without seeing one other person openly carrying a firearm. It's not like this is still the Wild, Wild West or anything. But I can tell you I'm also not going to sneak through someone's open window and go into their home because I know the chances of my getting shot are quite good! Just the fact that they 'may' be a gun owner is enough of a deterrent. They don't have to point it at me.

Tell ya what, since the British people don't have firearms, if I ever decide to become an armed criminal I'll be sure to do so in Britain where the chances of my getting shot are slim to none because the people are only armed with pocket knives.

Then let's see what you think about firearms and the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones with the same level of force as your attackers.

I've had five handguns pointed at me so far in my life, three of those pressed right up against my head. There's nothing like the feeling of not knowing if they're going to pull the trigger or not.

[anonymously]

Frstly if the amount of guns or knives is reduced it becomes more difficult for anyone to get one
Secondly if you carry a gun or knife then you are likely to be drawn or to want to use it
Thirdly it is easier for the police to see who are the criminals because they carry weapons,
.....we have seen a small increase in knifings in the UK, many due to the fact that kids carry knives "as a defence" but once a blade is drawn the fight changes its nature.

We had a guy here who shot two young kids who entered his house, one died, he received, quite rightly, a prison sentence, we don't execute burglars here.

If it is true that no one can rid the states of guns, then it never will know what it is like not live in fear. I knew the devastation of a mother whose child was shot whilst on holiday in the states.

The history i leaent was that peace came to many towns in the states when they had law enforcement officers strong enough to introduce and keep weapons out of individual hands.

You have told me that your folk are gullible and believe anything, perhaps that's how it is about keeping guns.

South said the the state with the harshest anti-gun laws had the most gun crime, I think that does not prove that keeping guns keeps crime down, just that whilst guns are freely available and a state line offers no ability to prevent guns being moved in and out then that does put that state at some disadvantage, the guns would have to be taken out right across the US, in much the same way that hand guns were taken out here, at a stroke, by a well supported Act of Parliament.

I am glad that for 10 years I lived in one of the toughest down town areas of London and we had a dodgy front door and many nights we went to bed and , accidentally, left the door wide open onto a busy road. But I still slept easy in my bed.

Our gun killings are very few, we do have some knife attacks, but it grows slowly, thankfully. I am certain that if we allowed private citizens free right to guns and knives and bought all our children knives to protect themselves that we would see more blood on our streets not less.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Frstly if the amount of guns or knives is reduced it becomes more difficult for anyone to get one
Secondly if you carry a gun or knife then you are likely to be drawn or to want to use it
Thirdly it is easier for the police to see who are the criminals because they carry weapons,
.....we have seen a small increase in knifings in the UK, many due to the fact that kids carry knives "as a defence" but once a blade is drawn the fight changes its nature.

We had a guy here who shot two young kids who entered his house, one died, he received, quite rightly, a prison sentence, we don't execute burglars here.

If it is true that no one can rid the states of guns, then it never will know what it is like not live in fear. I knew the devastation of a mother whose child was shot whilst on holiday in the states.

The history i leaent was that peace came to many towns in the states when they had law enforcement officers strong enough to introduce and keep weapons out of individual hands.

You have told me that your folk are gullible and believe anything, perhaps that's how it is about keeping guns.

South said the the state with the harshest anti-gun laws had the most gun crime, I think that does not prove that keeping guns keeps crime down, just that whilst guns are freely available and a state line offers no ability to prevent guns being moved in and out then that does put that state at some disadvantage, the guns would have to be taken out right across the US, in much the same way that hand guns were taken out here, at a stroke, by a well supported Act of Parliament.

I am glad that for 10 years I lived in one of the toughest down town areas of London and we had a dodgy front door and many nights we went to bed and , accidentally, left the door wide open onto a busy road. But I still slept easy in my bed.

Our gun killings are very few, we do have some knife attacks, but it grows slowly, thankfully. I am certain that if we allowed private citizens free right to guns and knives and bought all our children knives to protect themselves that we would see more blood on our streets not less.

Seriously, do you think because firearms are banned, that will stop people to be violent?

I guess you have never been in a "situation" to talk like that. I wish you that you never meet a delicate situation in your life because if you believe what you said, I am wondering how you will be able to handle a major conflict or your life threatened.

After all do whatever you want in UK, but don't tell us what to do in US!

[South]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Frstly if the amount of guns or knives is reduced it becomes more difficult for anyone to get one

I do have to comment on that. Cocaine is illegal in America. It's about the single most illegal substance we have, You cannot legally buy it, sell it, possess it, conspire to buy, sell, or possess it, or be in the immediate company with someone you know possesses it or on property where you know it exists.

You can buy it on any street corner.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own, buy, or sell. Give me two hours and I can get one.

Criminals don't need legal license to own illegal things.