Gun grabbers going to town in Britain.

[Zebo]

Being able to protect yourself from bodily harm is a fundemental human right. I hate gun grabbers because they seek to take away this right. A woman walking to class late at night who is approched by would-be rapists has every right not to be a victim and be able to really defend herself, and a firearm is her only real alternative. Unfortunatly for society, the police don't usually catch a crime in progress but come after to pick up the broken pieces and shattered lives. They do the best they can but can't be everyplace like her smith and wesson would be.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ah for crap sake, guns didn't stop the Supreme Coup from overthrowing the elected government.

That's cause democrats arn't militant. Where were you? Plus not to many own them. Plus Cinton, really a neo-con, did'nt send the troops in for recount. It certainly could have made a difference if the will was there and about 200K armed citizens.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Being able to protect yourself from bodily harm is a fundemental human right. I hate gun grabbers because they seek to take away this right. A woman walking to class late at night who is approched by would-be rapists has every right not to be a victim and be able to really defend herself, and a firearm is her only real alternative. Unfortunatly for society, the police don't usually catch a crime in progress but come after to pick up the broken pieces and shattered lives. They do the best they can but can't be everyplace like her smith and wesson would be.

Not always. Going in a group or by car is also an alternative. It's not as empowering in your eyes - but it doesn't require a firearm.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Every time someone mentions "UK Police", I am reminded of those police officers from "Demolition Man". Powerless, once push comes to shove.

Cheers!
Nate

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Every time someone mentions "UK Police", I am reminded of those police officers from "Demolition Man". Powerless, once push comes to shove. Cheers! Nate

I think they'd take exception to that... Theres a lot a bobby can do with his truncheon and mace before he has to call in an ART

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

What do US police officers have to do with gun ownership in the UK?

 

[SNC]

A great man said "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
It gives me shivers just typing it.

I have a few thousand really fast friends for the person(s) that try for my guns.
Just your normal redneck responce to gun control.

Answer me this: If every criminal knew for a fact that that if he was to try and rob/rape/mug/murder/steal from someone he would die at the hands of a law abiding gun owner, with a 50 cal +p through the earhole, how do you think that would impact the crime rate? hmmmm?

 

[Zephyr106]

Answer me this: If every criminal knew for a fact that that if he was to try and rob/rape/mug/murder/steal from someone he would die at the hands of a law abiding gun owner, with a 50 cal +p through the earhole, how do you think that would impact the crime rate?

In the real world it's not that simple. Law abiding gun owners become criminals in domestic disputes, when enraged, when drunk, etc. Think of all the stuff that goes down now. Beating the wife, beating the kid, yelling at the neighbor, stumbling out of the bar and giving someone a dirty look. This is the stuff you read about in the paper- woman gets restraing order for domestic violence, DYFS removes kids, drunken brawl outside bar. If everyone were carrying a gun imagine how much more deadly it could be.

I'm no "gun grabber" but I'm certainly not a "gun pusher" either. It would be like saying the world would be safer if every nation had nukes. The threshold for their use could potentially go way down and when trouble did brew, it would be exponentially more catastrophic, i.e. the Indo-Pak wars of a few decades ago where 15,000 soldiers die on each side vs. the millions of lives held in the balance in the recent nuclear standoffs.

Zephyr

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

What do US police officers have to do with gun ownership in the UK?

Am I from the US or the UK, and was I not talking about the US getting independence and then started talking about Britain's gun policy. I'm talking about the US police. I've got no clue what the British police think, nor did I ever say I did. Last time I checked I was talking to Whitling, and his profile says "Berkeley, CA." That's in the US, no?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Answer me this: If every criminal knew for a fact that that if he was to try and rob/rape/mug/murder/steal from someone he would die at the hands of a law abiding gun owner, with a 50 cal +p through the earhole, how do you think that would impact the crime rate?

In the real world it's not that simple. Law abiding gun owners become criminals in domestic disputes, when enraged, when drunk, etc. Think of all the stuff that goes down now. Beating the wife, beating the kid, yelling at the neighbor, stumbling out of the bar and giving someone a dirty look. This is the stuff you read about in the paper- woman gets restraing order for domestic violence, DYFS removes kids, drunken brawl outside bar. If everyone were carrying a gun imagine how much more deadly it could be.

I'm no "gun grabber" but I'm certainly not a "gun pusher" either. It would be like saying the world would be safer if every nation had nukes. The threshold for their use could potentially go way down and when trouble did brew, it would be exponentially more catastrophic, i.e. the Indo-Pak wars of a few decades ago where 15,000 soldiers die on each side vs. the millions of lives held in the balance in the recent nuclear standoffs.

Zephyr

There are already laws preventing those people from ownership and preventing people from carrying in those instances.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Answer me this: If every criminal knew for a fact that that if he was to try and rob/rape/mug/murder/steal from someone he would die at the hands of a law abiding gun owner, with a 50 cal +p through the earhole, how do you think that would impact the crime rate?

In the real world it's not that simple. Law abiding gun owners become criminals in domestic disputes, when enraged, when drunk, etc. Think of all the stuff that goes down now. Beating the wife, beating the kid, yelling at the neighbor, stumbling out of the bar and giving someone a dirty look. This is the stuff you read about in the paper- woman gets restraing order for domestic violence, DYFS removes kids, drunken brawl outside bar. If everyone were carrying a gun imagine how much more deadly it could be.

I'm no "gun grabber" but I'm certainly not a "gun pusher" either. It would be like saying the world would be safer if every nation had nukes. The threshold for their use could potentially go way down and when trouble did brew, it would be exponentially more catastrophic, i.e. the Indo-Pak wars of a few decades ago where 15,000 soldiers die on each side vs. the millions of lives held in the balance in the recent nuclear standoffs.

Zephyr

I know my 50cal packs a punch, but to compair nations with nukes to my question is a little extream dont you think.
I am talking about taking out scum one at a time, when they act like scum. A nuke will kill all in its range. Just a little different.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

Are you rude? Yes.

Can't you give a civil answer to a civil question? Sorry for misinterpreting the fact that in an apparent debate on gun crime in Britain that you might be talking about UK police opinion, as opposed to US. Guess you don't make honest mistakes?

Andy

 

[Bigdude]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Zebo
No matter how many times a gun ban causes cirme to RISE, the gun-grabbers still keep grabbing your guns. Why? Because an armed citizenry can say "NO" to the government. When you lose your guns, you lose the freedom to say "NO", and there is no freedom at all without the freedom to say "NO. Text

Oh please, that is both facile and ridiculous. This has more to say about your perceptions of your nation than reality. Banning gun ownership does not in itself lead to an increase in crime. And here in Britain we don't really feel the need to use guns to say no to our government - generally this little thing called *voting* works well enough.

Without guns you are a Subject, with guns you are a Citizen!

 

[Bigdude]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ah for crap sake, guns didn't stop the Supreme Coup from overthrowing the elected government.

That's cause democrats arn't militant. Where were you? Plus not to many own them. Plus Cinton, really a neo-con, did'nt send the troops in for recount. It certainly could have made a difference if the will was there and about 200K armed citizens.

We already counted the votes 3 times!

 

[Bitek]

I don't see how having a gun is keeping you "safe" from the gov't. A well armed citizenry may have been a force back in they day when everyone just had muskets, but a civilian w/ handgun vs a M1A1/A10/F16/Apache or body-armored night-vision enabled infantry armed with high-powered machine guns etc, etc just seems like a severe mismatch to me.

If shotgun weilding farmers are really so powerful, what does this bode for our soldier's in Iraq? They are facing a very well-armed population with easy access to both AK's and explosives. Seems at best such a population could only hope to give the army a bloody nose, but at the end of the day they will just be masacred.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling
This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng...

What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue?

Cheers,

Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

Are you rude? Yes.

Can't you give a civil answer to a civil question? Sorry for misinterpreting the fact that in an apparent debate on gun crime in Britain that you might be talking about UK police opinion, as opposed to US. Guess you don't make honest mistakes?

Andy

Being short and concise is not rude...

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng... What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue? Cheers, Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

Are you rude? Yes. Can't you give a civil answer to a civil question? Sorry for misinterpreting the fact that in an apparent debate on gun crime in Britain that you might be talking about UK police opinion, as opposed to US. Guess you don't make honest mistakes? Andy

Being short and concise is not rude...

There's such a thing as being too short...

To be honest, I did read it as you saying that most *british* police officers were happy- it looked like you had written the first paragraph about the american revolution, and the second paragraph about guns and crime in Britain, so it wasn't an unreasonable question by fencer.

 

[Lynx516]

The reason guns are banned in the UK is because of a small incident called Dumblane. Look it up. Basically it was a columbine esque situation but with a mad man going into a primary school. In the UK our gun crime is alot lower than that in the US. 135% of a small number is still a small number. Our armed police are much better trained than the US's police force and the UK is not filled with gun nuts. Thank god we dont have a constitution.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Lynx516
The reason guns are banned in the UK is because of a small incident called Dumblane. Look it up. Basically it was a columbine esque situation but with a mad man going into a primary school. In the UK our gun crime is alot lower than that in the US. 135% of a small number is still a small number. Our armed police are much better trained than the US's police force and the UK is not filled with gun nuts. Thank god we dont have a constitution.

Whilst in the most part I agree with the comments above - I don't see how the statement in bold relates. I wish we did have a constitution (the magna carta doesn't count IMHO as it's a contract between the monarch and their subjects, once the monarch's gone so is it) so that the government couldn't push through anything it pleases (as it can at the moment). There doesn't need to be a US style "armed militia" gun ammendment in a UK constitution.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Whilst in the most part I agree with the comments above - I don't see how the statement in bold relates. I wish we did have a constitution (the magna carta doesn't count IMHO as it's a contract between the monarch and their subjects, once the monarch's gone so is it) so that the government couldn't push through anything it pleases (as it can at the moment). There doesn't need to be a US style "armed militia" gun ammendment in a UK constitution. Cheers, Andy

Would anything be any better with a written constitution? What advantages over Britain has having a constitution given America? Hell, most Americans couldn't quote more than three lines of it, and aren't even sure what those lines mean (note for Americans and other aliens: this sentance should be read in a deadpan british accent )

The British way - muddling along through compromise and unspoken agreement seems to suit the British character. After all, its worked for a good long time now, whereas having a written constitution hasn't done nations other european nations too well in the past. How on earth would you write a British constitution today anyway - is the current fiasco over the EU one not proof enough of this? Constitutions more the debate away from the issues, and the compromises that meld them into day to day life, and focus it on semantics - the placing of a comma, or the 17th century definition of a militia, etc. The good thing about an unwritten constitution is that it tends not to age, or get too bogged down in the punctuation.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Lynx516
The reason guns are banned in the UK is because of a small incident called Dumblane. Look it up. Basically it was a columbine esque situation but with a mad man going into a primary school. In the UK our gun crime is alot lower than that in the US. 135% of a small number is still a small number. Our armed police are much better trained than the US's police force and the UK is not filled with gun nuts. Thank god we dont have a constitution.

Yeah, wouldn't want to have to kick your ass again almost 230 years later.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Whitling This "no gun, no right to resist" is going to be news to those who have heard of Ghandi.

Now would Ghandi have gotten the US independence from Britain? Last time I checked we asked nicely at first, then whooped your ass. Ghandi would have kept askng... What's funny is most policer officers are happy with personal firearm ownership. I think they are a little more in touch with reality than you are. Britain's crime rates are rising, and part of it due to the fact that only criminals have guns now(well the general populace can still have guns for hunting and farmers can still have guns). Regardless, it was an idiotic move. WTH would criminals care about breaking another law? Now that's liberal logic for you.

Could you link to the article where you gleaned UK police opinion on the issue? Cheers, Andy

Did I say UK police officers? No.

Are you rude? Yes. Can't you give a civil answer to a civil question? Sorry for misinterpreting the fact that in an apparent debate on gun crime in Britain that you might be talking about UK police opinion, as opposed to US. Guess you don't make honest mistakes? Andy

Being short and concise is not rude...

There's such a thing as being <EM>too</EM> short...

To be honest, I did read it as you saying that most *british* police officers were happy- it looked like you had written the first paragraph about the american revolution, and the second paragraph about guns and crime in Britain, so it wasn't an unreasonable question by fencer.

That's true and he had a valid point, but I was just being short and concise.

 

[Fencer128]

That's true and he had a valid point, but I was just being short and concise.

Well, you know how easy it is to mis-interpret menaing/emotion on message forums. If you were genuinely not trying to talk down to me then I apologise. It reads a bit ambiguously, especially if you're the one it's directed at!

Cheers,

Andy