NationStates Jolt Archive

all they to is wound and kill, wouldnt we be better off without them???
the US constitution is a load of crap when it says "every man has the right to protect him/her self"
you are more likley to get shot with your own gun :sniper:

:mp5:

there is now a poll, got to:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387574

You are a bigger flamer than Graham Norton. But I'll bite this time. Firearms do more than just wound and kill people. They keep honest citizens safe from armed criminals, give people the pleasure of recreational shooting, and allow people to hunt their own food. They should be legal and anyone saying otherwise should be stabbed and bludgeoned to death.

Yes

<--- Not an American. And never want to own a gun.

The only people likely to shoot themselves with their own weopons need to be shot anyway. If you dont know how to use a firearm, you shouldnt own one.

Fire arms should be legal...
and
where's your statistic that shows you are more likely to be killed by your own gun?

If you outlaw firearms, the only people who own firearms will be outlaws. If somebody is intent on killing you or stealing from your home, they won't care about breaking the law to buy a black market gun. This is just giving the upper hand to those who want to steal and kill.

What?!?

You obviously have not seen the crime levels in Britain! They are huge and the laws are so strict that even low level cops cannot carry fire arms.

The Swiss on the other hand REQUIRE every citizen to own a fire arm and the crime level there is one of the lowest in the world. WE need to move toward more fire arm owners not away from it.

And the US Constitution has the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS in for an excellent reason. If we took away firearms whats to say political insurgents will not run amoc attacking all the good citizens who have no firearms? Whats to stop against a tyrannical government from replacing the current one?

Also criminals dont care about breaking the law by carrying an illegal weapon. They are already planning to break the law who cares about carrying an illegal weapon? And how are the police to fight back without fire arms?

Common sense helps. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :D

What?!?

You obviously have not seen the crime levels in Britain! They are huge and the laws are so strict that even low level cops cannot carry fire arms.

The Swiss on the other hand REQUIRE every citizen to own a fire arm and the crime level there is one of the lowest in the world. WE need to move toward more fire arm owners not away from it.

High levels of gun ownership != low crime rate.

Otherwise places like the Congo would be the most crime free places in the world

And the US Constitution has the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS in for an excellent reason. If we took away firearms whats to say political insurgents will not run amoc attacking all the good citizens who have no firearms? Whats to stop against a tyrannical government from replacing the current one?

Well, it hasn't happened in Britain yet. Or any other states with strict firearm legitslation.

Common sense helps

Obviously

Blah

That's exactly what I just said. And I live in Britain. Law abiding citizens are defenseless when an armed robber enters their home.

High levels of gun ownership != low crime rate. [QUOTE]


High levels of gun ownership != high crime rate either. Canada and Switzerland have more guns per capita than the USA and much less crime.







[QUOTE]Well, it hasn't happened in Britain yet. Or any other states with strict firearm legitslation.[QUOTE]

No, But it happened in at least 13 of your collonies ;)




[QUOTE]Obviously :mp5:

:mp5:
Look at my first post on this thread.

I agree with you that firearms should be legal.

But I don't think those reasons are valid.

Look at my first post on this thread.

I agree with you that firearms should be legal.

But I don't think those reasons are valid.
Ok, fair enough. Sorry for :mp5: ing you.

Ok, fair enough. Sorry for :mp5: ing you.
Its just a flesh wound.

Well, it hasn't happened in Britain yet. Or any other states with strict firearm legitslation.


The bastards are creeping closer to totalitarianism. Taxes creep up, new laws sneak in every day. But obviously nobody's going to disrupt this process by wielding a gun. My main argument is that British burglars have the upper hand, they can get guns on the black-market, but we law-abiding Brits are unarmed.

The bastards are creeping closer to totalitarianism. Taxes creep up, new laws sneak in every day. But obviously nobody's going to disrupt this process by wielding a gun. My main argument is that British burglars have the upper hand, they can get guns on the black-market, but we law-abiding Brits are unarmed.
Oh yeah, I know that Britain is getting worse.

But my point was, it isn't insurgants we need to worry about, but, as you pointed out, our own government.

I just don't think that some people fully understand what guns do. They kill people. That's what they do; It's thier purpose. Most people don't understand that until they send a bullet flying into someone elses head.

As for guns and legality? I'm a tad iffy. I personally think that only police should be allowed to carry Guns, and yes, hunters can too. But I don't think you really need an AK-47 to shoot a deer!

I just don't think that some people fully understand what guns do. They kill people. That's what they do; It's thier purpose. Most people don't understand that until they send a bullet flying into someone elses head.

And animals. Don't forget that they also kill cute fluffy animals.

I just don't think that some people fully understand what guns do. They kill people. That's what they do; It's thier purpose. Most people don't understand that until they send a bullet flying into someone elses head.

As for guns and legality? I'm a tad iffy. I personally think that only police should be allowed to carry Guns, and yes, hunters can too. But I don't think you really need an AK-47 to shoot a deer!
Some people need killing. Anyone who breaks into my house with the (presumed) motive of harming me needs killing. Anyone who attacks me needs killing. Firearms make defending myself easier.

Ofcourse they should be legal. If that changes in the U.S. I will just be an outlaw.

When I lived in the UK I felt a lot safer for myself and my family than I do living in the US. Today in my town of Orlando a man was shot and killed over road rage. Just a family man on the way to work and he ended up dying full of bullet holes in the parking lot of a CVS pharmacy.

When the right to bear arms was given a rifle cost the equivalent of a average year's salary and took a highly skilled gun smith a half a year to make. If you were a highly skilled marksman and your powder was dry you might just get off three shots in a minute. If a mad man started shooting people there was a good chance he would have been overpowered before he could reload for a 2nd shot.

Right now on the web you can buy an AK47 and enough ammunition to decimate an entire neighborhood for less than my weekly pay check, and honestly I don't make a whole hell of a lot. When you consider the awesome firepower and accuracy of a AK47 the idea that anyone in the US can easily afford one is scary

I just don't think that some people fully understand what guns do. They kill people. That's what they do; It's thier purpose. Most people don't understand that until they send a bullet flying into someone elses head.

As for guns and legality? I'm a tad iffy. I personally think that only police should be allowed to carry Guns, and yes, hunters can too. But I don't think you really need an AK-47 to shoot a deer!



For the purpose of protection at home you don't need an automatic or even semi automatic firearm. A regular pistol or shotgun would be fine if forbid you find yourself in the situation of having to use it on someone.

yes and no

When I lived in the UK I felt a lot safer for myself and my family than I do living in the US. Today in my town of Orlando a man was shot and killed over road rage. Just a family man on the way to work and he ended up dying full of bullet holes in the parking lot of a CVS pharmacy.

When the right to bear arms was given a rifle cost the equivalent of a average year's salary and took a highly skilled gun smith a half a year to make. If you were a highly skilled marksman and your powder was dry you might just get off three shots in a minute. If a mad man started shooting people there was a good chance he would have been overpowered before he could reload for a 2nd shot.

Right now on the web you can buy an AK47 and enough ammunition to decimate an entire neighborhood for less than my weekly pay check, and honestly I don't make a whole hell of a lot. When you consider the awesome firepower and accuracy of a AK47 the idea that anyone in the US can easily afford one is scary
No, you can't. Unless you have an FFL. You can't mail order guns.

For the purpose of protection at home you don't need an automatic or even semi automatic firearm. A regular pistol or shotgun would be fine if forbid you find yourself in the situation of having to use it on someone.
You do know that the majority of pistols are semi-auto and semi-auto shotguns are common don't you?

High levels of gun ownership != low crime rate.

Otherwise places like the Congo would be the most crime free places in the world

The Congo is still mainly a tribal system. The death seen there is actually not that far outside the norm for warring tribes. In a stable society, however, high levels of gun ownership and gun freedom, ie. unlimited conceal carry etc.. etc.., it does equal lower crime rates.

all they to is wound and kill, wouldnt we be better off without them???
the US constitution is a load of crap when it says "every man has the right to protect him/her self"
you are more likley to get shot with your own gun :sniper:

:mp5:
I'm not even gonna try and refute this heap of flaming trolling spam
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/images/smiles/icon_troll.gif

No, you can't. Unless you have an FFL. You can't mail order guns.

You mean "legally". Just like you "Can't" buy a firearm without the waiting period. Like you "Can't" go to a gun show and buy enough firearms and ammunition to supply a small army.

Weapons are designed to kill, and it may be hard for a nonviolent, peace-loving person to come to terms with that. If I may offer the following passage from a book about Zen:

"The sword is generally associated with killing, and most of us wonder how it came into connection with Zen, which is a school of Buddhism that teaches the gospel of love and mercy. The fact that the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing, for he never appeals to the sword unless he intends to kill. This case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For this is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He has no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is as though the sword performs automatically its function of justice, which is the function of mercy."
-- D. T. Suzuki, 1973, Zen and Japanese Culture


If someone comes looking to kill your children, you would be compelled to pick up a gun and stop them. You would have no desire to harm them, and yet you would have no choice but to stop them by any means necessary. They "appear and make themselves a victim".

When I lived in the UK I felt a lot safer for myself and my family than I do living in the US. Today in my town of Orlando a man was shot and killed over road rage. Just a family man on the way to work and he ended up dying full of bullet holes in the parking lot of a CVS pharmacy.

Da so? In the wonderful Democrat bastion of laws named Chicago, guns are basically outlawed and yet if three people are shot and killed on a weekend, it's considered a good weekend. Banning guns does nothing.

You do know that the majority of pistols are semi-auto and semi-auto shotguns are common don't you?

Yes, I am aware.

But I own a 38 revolver.

You mean "legally". Just like you "Can't" buy a firearm without the waiting period. Like you "Can't" go to a gun show and buy enough firearms and ammunition to supply a small army.
Please. Feel free to find me a site that will sell guns mail-order in the USA without a FFL. If you don't want to post it where everyone can see it TG me. There are none. Prove me wrong smartguy.

Da so? In the wonderful Democrat bastion of laws named Chicago, guns are basically outlawed and yet if three people are shot and killed on a weekend, it's considered a good weekend. Banning guns does nothing.

I guess someone drove the thirty minutes to Aurora and loaded up the trunk. It's a whole lot different when they're stopped at the border by customs agents.
Really, England is a whole lot safer.

Banning guns accomplishes nothing.

Someone who is going to break the law to kill someone doesn't give a sh*t if he's breaking some firearms law as well.

Crime is the issue here. If the Crime rate is high, criminals will find a way to get guns, no matter what the law is.

People who think anti-gun laws will accomplish anything are deluding themselves.

For the purpose of protection at home you don't need an automatic or even semi automatic firearm.

In an actual fight, you *will* miss four times out of five, even at distances of a few feet, and you will need several hits to stop an attacker. That is why you need a semi-automatic pistol. By the way that's a very unfortunate name, I'd rather just call it "regular pistol", since there is no other kind. Revolvers are marginal for self-defense, you need to be extremely well-trained and cool-headed in order to stand and aim while you're being shot at. Have you ever tried to rapid-fire a revolver? With a fifteen-pound double-action trigger? Can you hit *anything*?

For much the same reasons, automatics are fairly useless for self-defense, they are very hard to control/aim, and too easy to hit things you weren't intending to.

Please. Feel free to find me a site that will sell guns mail-order in the USA without a FFL. If you don't want to post it where everyone can see it TG me. There are none. Prove me wrong smartguy.
What's an FFL

Firearms F[-something] License?

People are apparently unaware that you can make a gun in your garage with little or no special equipment these days. The British (Those famed models of non-gun owning amazingnesness) did it fairly well in World War Two, with the STEN and a few other interesting contraptions. Bullets are another matter, but its fairly easy to smuggle something as small as a bullet, even in large quantities.
The thing is, if a guy with, for instance, a perfectly legal knife breaks into my house, I want to have a perfectly legal shotgun in order to shoot him before he has a chance to stab me in some unpleasant area.
While, yes, I dont see the need for people to own a .50 calibur machine gun, I also dont see much reason to deny them one, provided they can pass the proper licensing stuff. As to the people who DONT pass the proper licensing stuff, they can get a .50 calibur machine gun just as easy from Columbia.
Y'see, theres these bodies of water known as 'the Gulf of Mexico' and 'The Pacific Ocean', theyre big, and something like twenty miles out (Cant remember what the limit is) the US cant do squat unless you present some sort of clear and present danger and blah blah blah, and since these bodies of water are quite large, its not possible to patrol the entire area, leaving quite handy gaps where you can insert, say, a rubber raft loaded down with RPG-7's.
The Simpsons is now on, so Ill have to go now.
*Curses his addiction to the Simpsons*

If guns were illegal criminals would find some other way to get a hand on them. Think: they're criminals. If their intentions were to break the law in the first place, what makes you think they'll care about something being illegal?

The right to bear arms (not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet) is also a great thing in terms of making it nigh on impossible for tyranny to reign here in the US

I heard somewhere that if all the gun owners in Pennsylvania got together... they would comprise the 4th-largest army in the world (or some similar high ranking).

If PA has that many gun owners, imagine how many there are in Texas. lol

Now... people need to LEARN about their guns. They can be dangerous if handled with leisure or ignorance.
-
But if the government outlawed them, the good guys would turn them in. Would the criminals? lol, yeah right.

Should baseball bats, fists, cars, knives, cigarettes, prescription pills, cholesterol, and dogs be made illegal ?

Of course guns should not be made illegal.

Please. Feel free to find me a site that will sell guns mail-order in the USA without a FFL. If you don't want to post it where everyone can see it TG me. There are none. Prove me wrong smartguy.


Well of course there are ways around it like this site where you use someone who has an FFL number.

http://www.beararms.com/policies.asp?C=0&M=0&K=&Num=1&Q=20

Of course you can get a FFL for $200 so a lot of people have them.

http://federalfirearmslicense.com/FFL_Kit2.html?hop=hellobilba

And of course there are a lot of web auctions and classifieds where you can buy anything you want and arrange to have a private party ship it to you. There are hundreds of them on the web with thousands of ads so ATF is defeated by the shear volume of it. Just Google. :D

I guess someone drove the thirty minutes to Aurora and loaded up the trunk. It's a whole lot different when they're stopped at the border by customs agents.
Really, England is a whole lot safer.
Actually that's not true. While you are less likely to be killed by a gun, unless your a young black male between the ages of 16 and 24 you're less likely here than in Britain to be killed violently.

In an actual fight, you *will* miss four times out of five, even at distances of a few feet, and you will need several hits to stop an attacker. That is why you need a semi-automatic pistol. By the way that's a very unfortunate name, I'd rather just call it "regular pistol", since there is no other kind. Revolvers are marginal for self-defense, you need to be extremely well-trained and cool-headed in order to stand and aim while you're being shot at. Have you ever tried to rapid-fire a revolver? With a fifteen-pound double-action trigger? Can you hit *anything*?

For much the same reasons, automatics are fairly useless for self-defense, they are very hard to control/aim, and too easy to hit things you weren't intending to.


I wasn't thinking about if I was being shot at. If someone is tryin to break into my home ..I hope I hear it when it's happening, and prepare myself. But since I've never been in that situation nor in a gun battle. No I can't say that a regular ole pistol would do the trick, or even any other for that matter. If I lost my head.. I doubt Any of them would do me any good. I hope I never have to find out. And there isn't a garuntee that I would even be able to bring myself to shoot them period, especially not just over protecting myself. If it came down to saving a friend or family members life, I think I'd be more so to. Can't say until I am put in that situation.

As a law-abiding, gun-owning American citizen, I think I ought to say something:

The amount of crime and strife in these African nations is a result of social issues, particularly feuds between rival ethnic groups, that have gone on for centuries. They were killing each other en masse long before guns arrived in Africa.

The "You don't need an AK-47 to kill a deer" argument is pretty ignorant. The 7.62x39 round an AK-47 fires is low-powered compared to larger, more common hunting cartridges like the 30.06 or .308. The 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington round fired by the M16 and AR-15 type rifles is even weaker than the 7.62X39, in fact, in many states it is not legal to hunt deer with a .223 chambered rifle as the round is considered underpowered.

The 7.62x39 cartridge, on the other hand, is legal to hunt with and is comparable ballistically to the old 30-30, which still kills more deer every year in the US than any other rifle cartridge. In many states you can hunt with an AK-47, and I have seen plenty of people who do.

People use the D.C. Snipers as an example of why these "high-powered assault rifles" are extremely deadly and need to be outlawed, but think about what the killer could have done if he had been equipped with a common 30.06 hunting rifle instead of a semi-auto Bushmaster AR-15 clone. He would've enjoyed a significant advantage in terms of range and power, and probably would've killed even more people. If I remember correctly, several (at least one that I remember) people survived being shot by the sniper. If he had an ordinary hunting rifle, they probably wouldn't have. The whole semi-automatic issue wouldn't have been a factor at all, since he only fired one shot each time.

This leads me to another issue, the debate over "semi-automatic assault weapons". Gun control proponents love to lie about a semi-auto rifle being a "bullet hose" and being able to "spray bullets" over a wide area without aiming. This might be true in Hollywood, but has no basis in real life. "Assault weapons" like the AR-15 and AK-47 clones are not machine guns, but semi-automatics, meaning they fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. Machine guns fire one round after the other as long as the trigger is held down or the magazine still holds rounds, but machine guns are very strictly controlled in the United States, and have been since 1934. The "assault weapons ban" did not apply to real machine guns.

Semi-autos like the AR-15 or AKs function in exactly the same way as conventional semi-auto rifles, they just look scarier. They might look exactly like a machine gun, but many of the internal parts are different, and not interchangable. Anti-gun lobbyists often try to claim that semi-autos can be converted to fully automatic weapons easily, but this is not true. It is impossible to convert an AR-15 to a fully automatic M-16 without about 170$ in M16 parts (namely the bolt carrier and various trigger bits), and an extra hole through the lower reciever for the M16 sear.
This is not something the average would-be criminal can accomplish on his own, since it has to be very precise, and would probably take a machine shop. It would probably be easier to convert a weapon built to looser tolerances like the AK, but it would still take a lot of difficult modifications and hard-to-find parts. The ATF takes the machine gun thing very seriously, and you'd almost certainly be busted. It's also worth noting that there are almost no machine guns 'on the streets' or used in crime. Most of the ones that are are smuggled in from other countries.

I find it interesting how many people said that violent crime would skyrocket with the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban, but so far nothing has happened. This is probably because that, even before the ban, "assault weapons" were used in less than one percent of violent gun crimes.


And as for all of you talking about "a gun's only purpose is to kill", this is just stupid. I've sure as hell never shot anyone. Guns have plenty of other uses besides committing violent crimes, you know. And the "you're more likely to be shot with your own gun" statistic is totally false and has been debunked many, many times.

Actually that's not true. While you are less likely to be killed by a gun, unless your a young black male between the ages of 16 and 24 you're less likely here than in Britain to be killed violently.\

Source?

In an actual fight, you *will* miss four times out of five, even at distances of a few feet, and you will need several hits to stop an attacker. That is why you need a semi-automatic pistol. By the way that's a very unfortunate name, I'd rather just call it "regular pistol", since there is no other kind. Revolvers are marginal for self-defense, you need to be extremely well-trained and cool-headed in order to stand and aim while you're being shot at. Have you ever tried to rapid-fire a revolver? With a fifteen-pound double-action trigger? Can you hit *anything*?

For much the same reasons, automatics are fairly useless for self-defense, they are very hard to control/aim, and too easy to hit things you weren't intending to.
? What crack pipe have you been smoking? A .38 snub nose does wonders for self defense. That and how you can miss within five feet of a target unless you're trying for a headshot is beyond me, unless you're an itty bitty person trying to take someone down with a .44 magnum revolver. Revolvers are much more reliable than a semi-auto anyway.

\

Source?
I don't exactly have my books from law class anymore, so no. However if you break it down by race the black population has a violent murder rate of something like 29/100,000. Combine this with the fact that the white violent murder rate is something like 3.5 and the fact that I think 85% of black murders are commited against other blacks it's a pretty safe bet.

Well of course there are ways around it like this site where you use someone who has an FFL number.

http://www.beararms.com/policies.asp?C=0&M=0&K=&Num=1&Q=20

Of course you can get a FFL for $200 so a lot of people have them.

http://federalfirearmslicense.com/FFL_Kit2.html?hop=hellobilba

And of course there are a lot of web auctions and classifieds where you can buy anything you want and arrange to have a private party ship it to you. There are hundreds of them on the web with thousands of ads so ATF is defeated by the shear volume of it. Just Google. :D
What they do is you have your local gun store give the online retailer a copy of their FFL, and they ship it to them. Then you go pick it up, at the store.

And you can't get an FFL without jumping through a lot of ATF hoops. You also need to have an actual storefront, a place of business. You need to actually sell guns to keep your FFL. There's actually another type of FFL, that applies only to "curios & relics", that anyone can get, regardless of whether or not they plan to run a gun store, and allows them to have guns shipped to them, but the catch is it applies only to guns that are over 50 years old (I think. I know there's also a list of specific models of firearms that are considered curios or relics).

I've never seen anyone who offered to ship a gun directly to the purchaser. This is highly illegal.

Heh, to the people who say that guns cause crime and are meant to kill people, I guess I must be doing something wrong. Since I haven't shot anyone yet with mine.

A tool is just a tool until it does the job itself... I use my guns for sport, and I equate them with any other instrument, it makes no sense to take them away, unless we take away the fencer's foils, the hockey stars sticks, or the baseball player's bats.

And while I myself wouldn't own a .50 cal machine gun(the recoil is killer), I see no reason why we should deprive a person of owning one. I remember talking to a person who would spend all day, lining up a shot. If people can find zen through motorcycle repair, then they can find it through weapons just as well.

As for the government outlawing them....well, I can make a gun myself with tools from the SEARS catalog lol. And there was the instance of Bougainville, the rebels in that third world country were placed under military blockade, of course, within a few years they had begun making their own weapons, not just simple single shot firearms, but quality copies of M-16's and the like.

As Ben Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

I don't exactly have my books from law class anymore, so no. However if you break it down by race the black population has a violent murder rate of something like 29/100,000. Combine this with the fact that the white violent murder rate is something like 3.5 and the fact that I think 85% of black murders are commited against other blacks it's a pretty safe bet.

On other words that is conjecture on your part?

OK, pistol vs revolver is a debate which has been done to death. I'll just break it down for you

Pistol advantages:
Reloading speeed - Jerry Miculek (top revolver shooter) can reload his revolver faster than you can probably reload your pistol, but Rob Leatham (top pistol shooter) can reload his pistol faster than Jerry.
Trigger - no 9lb double action trigger pulls here.
Capacity (really only a matter when you're in the military, or you're fighting mutant alien ninja zombie bears)

Revolver advantages
Lower maintanance and higher reliability.
Can't jam. Unless you do something stupid like put 357 Max in a 38 Spl or something of that nature, or the bullets aren't crimped well enough and they go forward under recoil enough so they stick out of the cylinder.
Ergonomics - you can reshape the grip more extensively than with a pistol.

Yes, provided that there is no reason to believe that the person is dangerous (ie. outstanding warrants/probations/etc) and the person can pass a basic proficiency and safety test with the weapon in question.

On other words that is conjecture on your part?
Educated conjecture, since about half a semester of honors law was taken up by the study of violent crime, but yes.

Honestly I don't see what the big issue is with firearms. There are so many more things the government could do that would be much less contraversial and provide much more safety to the overall populus.

Guns never hurt anyone. The people behind them do. Making it illegal to own guns doesn't affect criminals.

If the government wants to save tons of lives they would require more safety requirements on cars, raise the minimum driving age to 18, and lower the drinking age. Doing this would prevent many more deaths than outlawing firearms which, potentially, may not lower the murder rate at any significance.

What they do is you have your local gun store give the online retailer a copy of their FFL, and they ship it to them. Then you go pick it up, at the store.

And you can't get an FFL without jumping through a lot of ATF hoops. You also need to have an actual storefront, a place of business. You need to actually sell guns to keep your FFL. There's actually another type of FFL, that applies only to "curios & relics", that anyone can get, regardless of whether or not they plan to run a gun store, and allows them to have guns shipped to them, but the catch is it applies only to guns that are over 50 years old (I think. I know there's also a list of specific models of firearms that are considered curios or relics).

I've never seen anyone who offered to ship a gun directly to the purchaser. This is highly illegal.


Well yes, but what constitutes a "Store Front" is up to some interpretation especialy down here in fly by night Florida. Look I've known people at jobs I've had, who had FFLs and their store front was their trunk, that's car boot for you Brits. Yeah you can say, "Oh well that's Illegal", so what.

What I'm saying is that the firearm laws that we have are basicly meaningless, like the fact that video taping is a felony they are ignored.

If it came down to saving a friend or family members life, I think I'd be more so to.

I agree. Actually that's what got me into firearms... when it was just me, I didn't worry about the possibility of being attacked, but now that I have a family, it's a different story entirely.

I wasn't thinking about if I was being shot at.

If you are, speed matters. I recommend trying your revolver rapid-fire vs any pistol (semi) preferably an M1911A1... you might discover the reason why people like pistols ;) Revolvers are not bad, but I'd say they have about half the effective rate of fire at any given range than pistols. Then again, revolvers never jam ;) I guess it's a matter of taste to some extent, but I would personally prefer a pistol if at all possible.

But since I've never been in that situation nor in a gun battle. No I can't say that a regular ole pistol would do the trick, or even any other for that matter.

99% of the time the bad guys run away at the sight of any weapon. The other 1%, well...

Honestly I don't see what the big issue is with firearms. There are so many more things the government could do that would be much less contraversial and provide much more safety to the overall populus.

Guns never hurt anyone. The people behind them do. Making it illegal to own guns doesn't affect criminals.

If the government wants to save tons of lives they would require more safety requirements on cars, raise the minimum driving age to 18, and lower the drinking age. Doing this would prevent many more deaths than outlawing firearms which, potentially, may not lower the murder rate at any significance.
Or they could adopt stringent driving tests like germany has.

I think Firearms should be legal. If u outlaw them, Hunters will starve. The only thing about firearms and weapons are that they should just make u have a permit, and if you have a serious criminal record, u cant get one. (thats pretty much how it is now though)

Look at Australia (a beautiful continent, by the way), once they made the ownership of firearms to the general populace illegal, crime has SOARED! I think one estimate was 300%?

I am a firearms instructor, competitor, I have several in a safe in my home (away from my 2 year old niece), and I have never once been shot with my own weapon.

I have never shot someone in anger or threatened anyone with my weapon who wasn't trying to do me harm. But I do practice with it often and believe in using it should my life be in danger...

Lascivious

I just don't think that some people fully understand what guns do. They kill people. That's what they do; It's thier purpose.
Ah I had thought guns were used to water plants, thanks for clearing up what guns are for. No , really. thank you oh fountain of knowledge.

Yes, people should have the choice to own one or not. By owning one though, you are responsible for it and making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

Educated conjecture, since about half a semester of honors law was taken up by the study of violent crime, but yes.

But you have no studies to point to, no links except (no offence) we have to take you word that you are who and what you say you are. I just said I "Felt" safer in England I didn't offer it as empirical fact.

I mean you may very well be in training for law enforcement and may I say with all the nasty assault weapons on the street, the very best luck to you. Because if people bring a gun into a house there is a far greater chance of killing or getting killed by a family member than a home intruder, and cops have to walk into that everyday. Really,there walks a braver man than I.

Capacity (really only a matter when you're in the military, or you're fighting mutant alien ninja zombie bears)

A pretty good summary. I disagree with that one point though. Capacity matters. If you're up against two armed bad guys, six shots is simply not enough. Assume you hit one time out of four, and you need two hits to disable each one ... six shots is marginal even against one bad guy, against two you are most likely dead. Look up Lance Thomas, he was in a couple of pitched firefights against 2-3 people, I think he needed around 30 shots, and he was a pretty good shot too. All of this is assuming they prefer to fight rather than run away, of course.

P.S. a friend of mine who is a police officer and was in a serious firefight now carries five 15-round mags *all the time*. your mileage might vary.

Different scenarios for different countries.

In Australia we have strict gun laws, few people own guns, so we have very few gun deaths as a result. We have a stable population & government, so insurgency & tyranny aren't a problem.

Because if people bring a gun into a house there is a far greater chance of killing or getting killed by a family member than a home intruder

Source?

Yes, people should have the choice to own one or not. By owning one though, you are responsible for it and making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands.


That is a very good thought and I think more should be done with owner responsibility. However serial numbers can still be filed off and we I don't think they've come as far as an incorruptible RFID that can be hidden in the gun. This would be a good step on insuring full compliance with owner responsibility.

all they to is wound and kill, wouldnt we be better off without them???
the US constitution is a load of crap when it says "every man has the right to protect him/her self"
you are more likley to get shot with your own gun :sniper:

:mp5:

Firearms have a hell of a lot more posative factors to them than alcohol. Why don't we try prohibition again, except this time with a worthwhile enforcement?

Honestly, you sound to me like somebody who's never even held a gun and because you don't know anything about them you're just scared of them. If you know what you're doing and don't goof around with them they're really no more dangerous than a cordless drill. (to ones self, I mean)

Source?

Well Ok there is the report by Doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay. All the gun violence studies are vigorously maintained for view on anti gun sites. You can find counter arguments on pro gun sites.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Because if people bring a gun into a house there is a far greater chance of killing or getting killed by a family member than a home intruder.

This is simply not true. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. There was a study which claimed that, but it included suicides (which are, alas, very common). Considering there are ~2000 justifiable homicides and ~600 fatal accidents with guns per year, gun self-defense is far more common than gun accidents. Especially since very few self-defense uses of guns (well under one percent) result in a homicide (or even in any shots being fired).

This is simply not true. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. There was a study which claimed that, but it included suicides (which are, alas, very common). Considering there are ~2000 justifiable homicides and ~600 fatal accidents with guns per year, gun self-defense is far more common than gun accidents. Especially since very few self-defense uses of guns (well under one percent) result in a homicide (or even in any shots being fired).


Source?

Edit and I hope you catch it. I noticed that unjustifiable homicide by a family member isn't included in those hot little numbers.

Source?

I assume your source is the Kellerman & Reay study (Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine 1986. 314: 1557-60; summarized here for example: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html). As you can see, 86% of the deaths included in the study are suicides.

Some good critiques of that study here:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/43times.html

I recall seeing the 2000 number for justifiable homicides based on court decisions somewhere but I cannot find the source now. The UCR says ~200-300 justifiable homicides by citizens (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm). There's only one catch, that's based on initial police reporting, not the eventual court decision. Of course the police would report most cases in which there is any doubt as not being justifiable. Kellerman & Reay get a ratio of 4 to 1 for criminal vs justifiable homicides (not sure by what method). That would put the justifiable homicide numbers at ~3300 per year.

There are somewhere between 100,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html). This is a very controversial subject. I suspect the real number is in the middle of the range. That would put the likelyhood of a justifiable homicide during defensive gun use at under one percent.

There were 600 fatal gun accidents in 2000 (NSC, http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html). This number has dropped a lot (60%) over the past decade.

Edit and I hope you catch it. I noticed that unjustifiable homicide by a family member isn't included in those hot little numbers.

Yes, it is (in the K&R study).

A .38 snub nose does wonders for self defense. That and how you can miss within five feet of a target unless you're trying for a headshot is beyond me, unless you're an itty bitty person trying to take someone down with a .44 magnum revolver. Revolvers are much more reliable than a semi-auto anyway.

Heh. Believe it or not, I see people on the range miss every other shot at a silhouette target at 25 feet firing a .38 snubnose double-action, and they're taking their time. Rapid fire? Forget it. Rapid fire in double-action mode is pretty hard, even if you train a lot, and aiming a snubnose is not that easy either.

As for missing at five feet... yep, that happens too. Just imagine shooting while dodging a knife, grappling, running, or jumping behind a car for example... most people do not train to shoot and move at the same time, or to shoot from behind cover. Missing at twenty feet is very easy indeed if you're under fire yourself.

Agreed, revolvers are more reliable than the *average* pistol.

It has to do with the fourth branch of the government, which the Constitution call "We the people." The idea is that if, at some time in the future, the government should attempt to take away personal freedoms and rights to a huge extent (think Hitler), then we will have the power and right to overthrow the government and set up a new one.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Guns can be postive and negative. By owning one, you will be able to protect yourself if you ever need to. However, If they're illegal, then crimanals will get them anyway, illegally, and you won't have one to defend yourself.

However, Small children can get into them and seriosly hurt others, and they can seriosly injure or kill you if your not careful.

I'll say yeah, they should be.

You are a bigger flamer than Graham Norton. But I'll bite this time. Firearms do more than just wound and kill people. They keep honest citizens safe from armed criminals, give people the pleasure of recreational shooting, and allow people to hunt their own food. They should be legal and anyone saying otherwise should be stabbed and bludgeoned to death.

Keyword ARMED CRIMINALS!!!

Who hunts there own food?

ARMED CRIMINALS! Meaning they have a gun! If they dont have a gun the "honest citizens" dont need guns.

Keyword ARMED CRIMINALS!!!

Who hunts there own food?

ARMED CRIMINALS! Meaning they have a gun! If they dont have a gun the "honest citizens" dont need guns.

Millions of Americans hunt for food.

Until the criminals (including the politicians) are disarmed and imprisoned, I'll fight to keep my gun. Thank you. Have you ever wondered why the UK is now having to pass laws "allowing" the citizenry to defend themselves against assaults?

More crimes are committed w/ baseball bats, crowbars and knives. Oh wait. the UK is trying to ban "assault knives" as well. I'm sure it will work to curb the crime rate.

i think firearms should be illegal for all non military or police organisations. GUNS ARE WRONG!

that protection stuff is bull, police protect you, if you wanna protect yourself, why not let people use tranquiliser guns to protect themselves?

i think firearms should be illegal for all non military or police organisations. GUNS ARE WRONG!

that protection stuff is bull, police protect you, if you wanna protect yourself, why not let people use tranquiliser guns to protect themselves?

Most totalitarian Gov'ts say the same thing right before the cleansing begins.

According to the courts, the police are not obligated to protect you. You use a tranquilizer, then wait to get sued by the criminal. I'll stick w/ my 12 gauge.

Of course they should be illegal. Just like in such respectable regimes such as Nazi Germany. Because guns are bad. Only the government should have the guns. That way we can't revolt against the infalliable federal government. And we can all live happily.

Of course they should be illegal. Just like in such respectable regimes such as Nazi Germany. Because guns are bad. Only the government should have the guns. That way we can't revolt against the infalliable federal government. And we can all live happily.

And Stalinist Russia
and Maoist China
and Cambodia
and a bunch of places in Africa(regularly)
and...

Source?

Oh, I found the where I had seen the 2,000 number for justifiable civilian homicides: it's in Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank", actually he says 1,500 to 2,800 (http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman/point-blank-summary.htm)

P.S. Also, Time Mag ran a story (July 17, 1989; http://www.claytoncramer.com/firing.html) on a week's worth of firearms homicides in the US, and a followup a year later. The initial reporting was 6% in self-defense, a year later it was 12% in self-defense with a number of the cases still in the courts or being appealed. The eventual number would probably be 15-20% in self-defense. That would also put the total at 1,500-2,000 per year.

and a bunch of places in Africa(regularly)

Yep, don't forget Rwanda, at the urging of the UN.

Yep, don't forget Rwanda, at the urging of the UN.
Yep, the same organization that has a statue of a mangled pistol in front of its building, is trying to force the U.S. into a gun ban treaty, and an excellent track record for compliance amongst its members.

Fire Arms should be legal,

Fire Arms may hurt and cause death but if you look deeper into the argument you would find uses. Guns actually 'decrease' crime rates. Why? If every citizen held a gun, for example a pistol, if you started shooting there would be a chance that you get shot instead. Every citizen has the right to defend themselves. In Australia, why can't we have guns? Because they are bad...bleh who cares? And if you have a gun and a robber comes in and he tries to shoot you and he misses and you shoot him in the leg, guess what? You are the one who gets charged for attempted murder, not the robber, you. And you get a trial. What happens to the robber? He goes to hospital and gets off the hook. And if you put an electric fence and a robber gets electrically shocked from it by touching it, the owner of the fence is sentenced. Same with a frigging dog, your dog bites a robber, the robber gets off the hook and you get charged probably for not giving your dog good enough discipline.

Yes

<--- Not an American. And never want to own a gun.

Way to stereotype the Americans by adding the disclaimer there. Ah well, we can't always be sensitive to the everybody all of the time. ;)

And Stalinist Russia
and Maoist China
and Cambodia
and a bunch of places in Africa(regularly)
and...

This conclusively proves that when guns are banned, freedom thrives.

Yep, the same organization that has a statue of a mangled pistol in front of its building, is trying to force the U.S. into a gun ban treaty, and an excellent track record for compliance amongst its members.

Right. Also let's not forget the UN's security guards who were toting illegal full-auto MP5's around New York... they were not prosecuted due to their diplomatic immunity.

... do as I do, not as I say ...

;)

OK, I think I can speak with some measure of knowledge on this subject seeing as how I am a US Marine, I have my DPSST (Department of Public Saftey Standards and Training) certification as an Armed Security Officer, have my concealed carry permit and am working on my Criminal Justice Degree in order to become a police officer.

As far as revolvers vs magazine fed pistols, the first automatic pistols had reliability problems, modern ones do not. I am spending a total of $1,500 dollars on my cutom 1911 based off a Para Ordanance P14 frame. The thing does not jam, period.
It has a magazine capacity of 14 .45 Corbon PowR'Ball +P+ plus one round in the chamber, I carry the thing cocked and locked (hammer back saftey engaged)

anyways as far as guns being more likely to kill family members than any criminals, I few people have already pointed out the sources that debunked those studies so I really see no need to point you all to those same websites.

as far as it being nearly impossible to miss at 5 feet thats a load of crap as well, during my concealed carry course the instructor (an police officer)told us of an incident that happened in his department of officers doing a search of a house for an armed fellon. One of the officers opened up a closed where the man was hiding and had a gun placed directly against his chest, having his gun already drawn he immediatly opened fire as did the criminal. Both went to the hospital, for muzzle flash burns.

Thats right, at point blank range both the officer and criminal failed to hit each other. A total of 13 shots was fired between the 2 of them. It is very difficult to hit a target when you yourself are being shot at.

Moving on to "Assault weapons" with the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban this last september 14th, anti-gun lobiests were screaming bloody murder that crime rates would shoot through the roof, but I have to ask you when was the last time you heard of a drive by bayonetting? and how does a pistol grip make a rifle any more dangerous?

The problem is, some states make it nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit where as others getting it is a total joke. also, the permits are not valid in all states. I personally believe that like a drivers liscense concealed carry permit should be good nation wide and needs to have some testing involved. Any one without a criminal record and mentally compotent should be able to get a concealed carry permit provided that they can demostrate a knolwedge of firearms saftey and the ability to make effective use of their firearm.

Thats my 2 cents, but what the hell do I know?

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Service Company

Right. Also let's not forget the UN's security guards who were toting illegal full-auto MP5's around New York... they were not prosecuted due to their diplomatic immunity.

... do as I do, not as I say ...

;)

Kind of like Rosie Odonnel w/ her armed security guards ,Ms. "turn them all in " Fienstien who bought her son a rifle, and a certain Senator who owns then didn't own a "Chinese Assault Rifle" and accepted a shotgun as a gift that he was trying to ban.

Let's all do the SNiVeL.

"snip"

Thats my 2 cents, but what the hell do I know?

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Service Company

Well you obviously don't know what you're talking about. :)

Here you go, nice big compendium on the subject.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

Well you obviously don't know what you're talking about. :)

why must you say such hurtfull things? I'm going to go sit in a corner and cry now. :(

why must you say such hurtfull things? I'm going to go sit in a corner and cry now. :(

And you're a Marine? Boy, standards are getting low.

Oh wait, you're headquarters. A REMF. That explains it.

And you're a Marine? Boy, standards are getting low.

Oh wait, you're headquarters. A REMF. That explains it.

I do hope you're kidding :fluffle: besides, Kthulu, don't the Marine support troops get the exact same training as everyone else?

i noticed a bunch of british people saying that their country is going down the tubes. Seriously? Britain is AWESOME man! this is coming from a Canadian, so i don't know everything obviously, but i always thought of Britain as being rich enough to keep up a sizable military w/o having bad social programs, like the US. Have pride! :cool: :D

i noticed a bunch of british people saying that their country is going down the tubes. Seriously? Britain is AWESOME man! this is coming from a Canadian, so i don't know everything obviously, but i always thought of Britain as being rich enough to keep up a sizable military w/o having bad social programs, like the US. Have pride! :cool: :D

Actually, the British War Minister made news a few months ago when he said that the UK was no longer capable of large-scall military operations without help from the US.

Way to stereotype the Americans by adding the disclaimer there. Ah well, we can't always be sensitive to the everybody all of the time. ;)

Ya i can tell you've been having trouble with being to sensitive to other countries/cultures. Hope you don't have to deal with that so much in the future.

I do hope you're kidding :fluffle: besides, Kthulu, don't the Marine support troops get the exact same training as everyone else?


yes I was kidding, sorry I forgot to add the sarcasm tag, and for you information, I fininshed first in my class at the school of infantry, and as far as being a REMF, every Marine is a rifleman first.

Actually, the British War Minister made news a few months ago when he said that the UK was no longer capable of large-scall military operations without help from the US.

like i said, i'm canadian, so EVERY military looks gigantic to us. :D seriously though, i always though britain was one of the world's leading military powers, like in the first Gulf War, o well tho. nm

The right to bear arms (not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet) is also a great thing in terms of making it nigh on impossible for tyranny to reign here in the US

I heard somewhere that if all the gun owners in Pennsylvania got together... they would comprise the 4th-largest army in the world (or some similar high ranking).

If PA has that many gun owners, imagine how many there are in Texas. lol

Now... people need to LEARN about their guns. They can be dangerous if handled with leisure or ignorance.
-
But if the government outlawed them, the good guys would turn them in. Would the criminals? lol, yeah right.

Hear hear! Unfortunately, what the world will hear more of is the gun violence and the actions of irresponsible gun owners because "that's news" and thus all of the gun owners are somehow categorized as irresponsible war mongers.

After all, it is much easier for people of other nations to generalize and depend on the sources of news that agree with them then to actually find a responsible, intelligent gun owner amongst the millions of people in the country and get to know the person.

yes I was kidding, sorry I forgot to add the sarcasm tag, and for you information, I fininshed first in my class at the school of infantry, and as far as being a REMF, every Marine is a rifleman first.

And thereby proving you have enough affiliation w/the military to know what a REMF is. I did 6 yrs active Navy, 3 yrs Army Nat'l Guard, and am presently in the Army Reserves.

And thereby proving you have enough affiliation w/the military to know what a REMF is. I did 6 yrs active Navy, 3 yrs Army Nat'l Guard, and am presently in the Army Reserves.

There are plenty of people who are not in the military who know what a REMF is, so how bout you ask me something a bit better as proof.

Of course they should be illegal. Just like in such respectable regimes such as Nazi Germany. Because guns are bad. Only the government should have the guns. That way we can't revolt against the infalliable federal government. And we can all live happily.

What you don't agree with that line of argument citizen? Please report to your nearest Termination booth. ;)

Ya i can tell you've been having trouble with being to sensitive to other countries/cultures. Hope you don't have to deal with that so much in the future.

Um, how?

There are plenty of people who are not in the military who know what a REMF is, so how bout you ask me something a bit better as proof.

Damn, Marine trivia..

How about, what makes the new BDU's "stand out" from the other branches?

or the standard response to calling an enlisted man "sir"?

Really I don't need proof. Very few people have the balls to call themselves Marines who aren't. Ussually it will be Special Forces of some sort (most often SEALs)

Well first of all the new MARPAT cammo, lovingly refered to as "digital cammo" or "diggies" the old woodland cammo is now refered to as analog it has tiny little eagle globe and anchor on it all over the place. It breaks up your visual outline 60% better than the old analog cammo, it is chemically treated so that you do not show up on FLIR, and it now has an emroidered EGA on the left breast pocket instead of the old cammo where you had to iron it on.

As far as the standard response to being called sir, isn't it the same in all the branches? "I work for a living"

Kthulustan, Kecibukia... it's kinda amusing how all the people arguing for banning guns left after you guys started talking about military stuff... the poor babies ;)

You are a bigger flamer than Graham Norton. But I'll bite this time. Firearms do more than just wound and kill people. They keep honest citizens safe from armed criminals, give people the pleasure of recreational shooting, and allow people to hunt their own food. They should be legal and anyone saying otherwise should be stabbed and bludgeoned to death.
England dont have guns, and noone i know has ever been shot...besides, england is a lot more sivilised than contrys with guns :sniper:

England dont have guns, and noone i know has ever been shot...besides, england is a lot more sivilised than contrys with guns :sniper:
More civilized than Canada and Switzerland?

i think firearms should be illegal for all non military or police organisations. GUNS ARE WRONG!

that protection stuff is bull, police protect you, if you wanna protect yourself, why not let people use tranquiliser guns to protect themselves?
BULLSHIT!!!! The police are under no obligation to protect you and even if they were they couldn't do the job because they can't be everywhere. You have no gun. I need some crack money. I break into your home with my illegal gun or even with a nice sharp machete and take your money. Possibly rape your wife and kill the two of you as well. What are you going to do about it?

Keyword ARMED CRIMINALS!!!

Who hunts there own food?

ARMED CRIMINALS! Meaning they have a gun! If they dont have a gun the "honest citizens" dont need guns.
Criminals will always be armed. That's like saying nobody will have cocaine if it's illegal. Many people here in the US hunt for food.

England dont have guns, and noone i know has ever been shot...besides, england is a lot more sivilised than contrys with guns :sniper:

Yeah, right...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-445083,00.html
Murder rate soars to highest for a century

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-270544,00.html
Crime hits record

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm
Firearm crime continues to rise

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/578750.stm
Armed crime on the increase

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

In particular the last article says "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."

Will Britain wake up? Maybe...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2656875.stm
Why Britain needs more guns

and meanwhile across the Atlantic...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html
US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts gangs on run

A must read about the UK's insane victim-disarmament laws and the disastrous results...

http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml



Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control.

...

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

...

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them.

...

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle.



P.S. Since the article was written, the murder rate in England has topped that in the US.

Which country is this topic asking about? For the UK I say no. I suppose its different for the US, their criminals use guns I guess, seriously though criminals in the UK dont want to hurt people and most people ,getting stolen from or whatever, wouldn't shoot them. Whats wrong with just using a cricket bat to hit them with?

England dont have guns, and noone i know has ever been shot...besides, england is a lot more sivilised than contrys with guns :sniper:

I live in England. Criminals have the upper hand against us law abiding citizens. Coupled with ridiculous regulations on self-defense, gun abolition means that if somebody breaks into your house, you've pretty much got to let them do as they please.

England isn't more "sivilised" [sic] than other countries. Just walk the streets of any major city over here. Talk to the chavs and townies you meet. Get stolen from.

Which country is this topic asking about? For the UK I say no. I suppose its different for the US, their criminals use guns I guess, seriously though criminals in the UK dont want to hurt people and most people ,getting stolen from or whatever, wouldn't shoot them. Whats wrong with just using a cricket bat to hit them with?

Using a cricket bat is just fine, so long as the intruder doesn't have more than that. And the usage of firearms by criminals is not unique to the US, so please do not make such sweeping generalizations. I would hope that most criminals don't want to have to hurt anyone, but there are some sick individuals out there and I would prefer to have the barrel of my shotgun between myself and such a person.

Which country is this topic asking about? For the UK I say no. I suppose its different for the US, their criminals use guns I guess, seriously though criminals in the UK dont want to hurt people and most people ,getting stolen from or whatever, wouldn't shoot them. Whats wrong with just using a cricket bat to hit them with?

Zombie, better wake up about the UK. Yes criminals do want to hurt people, they feel powerful and they like it especially when they know nobody can fight back. More than half of burglaries in the UK happen while people are at home... that has to be deliberate. The burglars just like to rough them up and see them cower in fear. Assaults are higher in the UK than in the US too. UK criminals now use guns about as often as American. As for using a cricket bat - don't you know that's illegal? In the UK the criminal would probably sue you, and win. Just read the last article I posted.

Zombie, better wake up about the UK. Yes criminals do want to hurt people, they feel powerful and they like it especially when they know nobody can fight back. More than half of burglaries in the UK happen while people are at home... that has to be deliberate. The burglars just like to rough them up and see them cower in fear. Assaults are higher in the UK than in the US too. UK criminals now use guns about as often as American. As for using a cricket bat - don't you know that's illegal? In the UK the criminal would probably sue you, and win. Just read the last article I posted.

I do know its illegal, but laws may or may not be passed alowing reasonable force. And living in a particularly rough village in the midands I am aquainted to numberous criminals, most only really do it to get money by robbing, and just leave it if there is somebody in the house. I have been burgaled quite a few occasions, and now some people may not believe me when I say this, but they have been quite at ease whilst doing it. The worst things that have been done to me is bricks through windows and antique vinyls being taken. I may not be a good person to discuss the rest of the UK because im one of the most laid back people round my area, and would rather let them take my worthless possetions than kill them or me myself get killed.

I wasn't generalising the US, I thought it was a pretty obvious example and its the country most posts were about.

And living in a particularly rough village in the midands I am aquainted to numberous criminals, most only really do it to get money by robbing, and just leave it if there is somebody in the house. I have been burgaled quite a few occasions, and now some people may not believe me when I say this, but they have been quite at ease whilst doing it. The worst things that have been done to me is bricks through windows and antique vinyls being taken. I may not be a good person to discuss the rest of the UK because im one of the most laid back people round my area, and would rather let them take my worthless possetions than kill them or me myself get killed.

And you don't see a problem with any of this?

Let me tell you, this would be utterly inconceivable in any part of the US ("quite a few occasions" - jesus! was that while you were around?) The sheer gall! It's not about the possessions, of course, it's about your dignity, and it's about protecting others from the same or worse.

I am quite ready to fight back in such a situation... which is precisely why I will probably never be in such a situation. The poor would-be burglars are probably pissing themselves at the mere thought of encountering someone like me. You are not ready to fight, which is why you have been in such a situation more than once, and (unfortunately) probably will be again. It's not that hard to understand, really.

EDIT: I should mention that you can't extrapolate the kind of burglaries you get in a small village to what happens in the city... youth gangs can be very vicious, they beat people for fun, the theft of property is the least of it.

I have lived in a city once before, and I doubt gangs burgle in a group. Things like this simply dont phase me, I dont see how dignity has anything to do with getting robbed, its more on the robbers dignity. Even the biggest chav ive seen would never use a gun, a knife sure! He doesnt care about killing people, the point is they dont need to use a gun.

I do see something wrong with it, but I dont see how defending yourself with a gun is justified. Other countries can have their gun laws, I just wont move to them. Not my problem in other words.

I am a proud owner of fire arms no one will take that right away from me

England dont have guns, and noone i know has ever been shot...besides, england is a lot more sivilised than contrys with guns :sniper:

America has guns and no one I know has ever been shot. Your point?

America has guns and no one I know has ever been shot. Your point?

The point they're making is that people do get shot. You may be the only person in the US that doesnt know anyone that has been shot, doesnt really matter if you dont know anyone.

Let me tell you, this would be utterly inconceivable in any part of the US
Never lived in the grand District of Columbia, have you?

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns

The point they're making is that people do get shot. You may be the only person in the US that doesnt know anyone that has been shot, doesnt really matter if you dont know anyone.
I have had guns pointed at me. I have seen people shot. I am still in favor of guns. The fact is that banning guns won't eliminate them. They will be smuggled in like drugs, and ordinary people will be at the mercy of armed thugs.

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns
Yes! Illegal guns for all!

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns

Ohh I dont think they're going to like you saying that.

The point they're making is that people do get shot. You may be the only person in the US that doesnt know anyone that has been shot, doesnt really matter if you dont know anyone.
I know someone who was shot, but he was shot with an illegal gun smuggled from another country under really weird circumstances, so it has nothing really to do with ownership of guns in the US.

Hey I didnt make the point, the other person did.

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns
And a fine peice of AgitProp it was, not quite as masterful as F9/11, but still a fine peice of AgitProp indeed.

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns

The films that guy makes are the most staringly obvious pieces of propaganda ever, they doesn't represent proof of any sort.

I have set up a poll on this matter, please go and vote
it is under the name:

should fire-arms be illegal 2 (the poll)

go to

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387574

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Never lived in the grand District of Columbia, have you?

I admit I have not. Nonetheless, I would think there would be a strong disincentive to "hot" burglaries?

I admit I have not. Nonetheless, I would think there would be a strong disincentive to "hot" burglaries?
Guns are completely illegal there. Yet armed crime is insanely high, indeed all crime is. And yet, in Arlington VA, right next to DC, Concealed Carry is perfectly legal and, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is well below the National average.

i think firearms should be illegal for all non military or police organisations. GUNS ARE WRONG!

that protection stuff is bull, police protect you, if you wanna protect yourself, why not let people use tranquiliser guns to protect themselves?

I will not call the police where I live if someone breaks into my house. The average law enforcement officer fires his weapon here (I live in NC) FOUR times a year. He qualifies with it twice a year (every six months) and brings it out the weekend before to make sure it still works. I practice almost every weekend.

On I-85 a few years ago, a man was chased by multiples of officers who finally got him to stop, he fired a shot at them and they fired back. 1500 (FIFTEEN HUNDRED) rounds were fired by the officers and the man was GRAZED. READ: HE WALKED AWAY VIRTUALLY UNSCATHED.

I compete against many officers with Glock and IDPA, the majority that I've shot near in the local range can not hit a human shaped target at five yards (15 feet).

I'm not taking the chance that they won't kill me. I'd rather they came and took a report against the stain on my floor.

LA

just watch bowling for colombine otherwise, i say illegal guns

right, and now that you've watched it, how about you look up some of the supposed facts in it?

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/bowling.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/countries.htm

the plain fact is that bowling for colombine is a work of fiction, not a documentary.

right, and now that you've watched it, how about you look up some of the supposed facts in it?

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/bowling.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/countries.htm

the plain fact is that bowling for colombine is a work of fiction, not a documentary.

Its a good film though. I liked it but didn't take in any of his suggestions of the facts, 9/11 wasn't as good a film. I do like Bowling for Columbine.

Its a good film though. I liked it but didn't take in any of his suggestions, 9/11 wasn't as good a film. I do like Bowling for Columbine.

Well, it was funny in parts but mostly infuriating... dunno about you, but I can see when someone's tie color changes in mid-speech... I can tell doctored statistcis... and really I don't like it when they guy making the movie assumes I'm stupid.

1500 (FIFTEEN HUNDRED) rounds were fired by the officers and the man was GRAZED.

Well dang, that has to be a new record ;) Hmm, we need higher capacity magazines ;)