Skip to comments.After today’s UK mass shooting, what makes gun banners think British laws would work here?
Posted on 06/03/2010 4:49:10 AM PDT by marktwain
The body count in Northwest Englands Cumbria county earlier today stands at a dozen dead and more than twice as many wounded, suspected gunman Derrick Bird is dead and he used only a sporting shotgun and .22-caliber rifle, according to published reports.
Not an "assault weapon" in sight, and there are indications that Bird may have legally owned those guns as he was apparently a member of a local gun club.
Armed with two weapons - a .22 rifle and a shotgun - Bird drove down the coast from Whitehaven where the first attacks took place, leaving a trail of carnage in his wake.
The carnage this guy wrought will take authorities some time to sort through, as there are reportedly 30 different crime scenes. Reports from various news agencies indicate he drove along over the course of a couple of hours, shooting people along the road, some of them at point blank range after beckoning them to his car.
American gun prohibitionists have frequently held up the gun laws of Great Britain as their model. They have created the impression that English-style gun laws would prevent outrages in this country. Todays shooting spree, which apparently left victims in 30 different locations, should forever put the lie to this argument.CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, Bellevue
In the wake of this shooting, there will be much analysis, quite a bit of pontification and no doubt a lot of finger-pointing. One thing the British seem to be good at is pointing their fingers at American gun laws when something like this happens here, but when it happens somewhere in the United Kingdom as did the Dunblane, Scotland massacre of 16 school children in 1996, and the Hungerford massacre, which also claimed 16 lives in 1987 they
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Well they seem to be able to put larger holes in things than most other common firearms.
The Brits are somewhat ahead of the USSA in stupidity.
How about the Brit that found a gun as he walked along a rail track.
He picked it up, wrapped it in paper and delivered it to
the local police station.
Of course, they charged him with the crime of having a gun.
The brits should look at the possitive effects garnered by allowing people to carry firearms. It would really help reduce their “knife crime” problem.
Lol. In the first chapter of Irvine Welsh's "Filth", a detective novel, there's a description of the protagonist investigating a murder done with a hammer. Luckily, hammers have serial numbers.
I read that, since the criminals in Britain are SURE you dont have any guns, they just ding dong the front door in the daytime and when you open it, punch you in the face and walk right in. Is your family just robbed, or raped too?
I read that 92% of British home invasion robberies are done this way, but just 7% in America, as the thug is unsure of what is on the other side of the door.
Hows it feel to live in fear, Brits???
Hows it feel to tremble behind your own front door, afraid to open it?
Hmm hmm hmm.
He was a convicted criminal who kept the gun for several days, contacted the police (without mentioning he had the gun), then went into the police station, asked to see a police officer with whom he had an existing dispute (related to his previous crimes), and then said “I have something to9 give you” and pulled the gun out of the bag.
British police aren’t armed. If he’d pulled that stunt in an American police station, I wonder if he would have lived long enough to be charged.
Some British gun laws are stupid - but that guy’s case really isn’t a good example.
I am curious what this man’s religious beliefs were.
For the record, although there was some talk by some doctors of banning knives, no one took it very seriously. It is not on any agenda atm.
As far as the question posed in the article is concerned, I'm a Brit and I live in county Cumbria, and I can guarantee that British type gun-control laws would not work in the USA.
I wouldnt know, because I dont know where you read that, but its not related to any reality that I live in.
Outside of London’s Metropolitan Police, most British cops have sidearms. The last time I was in Gatwick, they had MP-5s.
The vast majority of British forces still don't routinely arm.
Airport police are an exception, as are the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, MoD Police, but the only provincial force which routinely arms its officers is Northern Ireland.
Only AFOs (Authorised Firearms Officers) are allowed to carry firearms, and in no force are more than 25% of officers AFO qualified. There are also SFOs (Specialist Firearms Officers) but they are even rarer.
You are more likely to see an armed officer out of London, simply because they authorise a much higher number of officers as AFOs (in London, it is felt that Armed Response Vehicles can respond quickly enough and so only about 7% of officers are AFOs - in a county force, servicing a much wider area the situation is different) but they are still the decisive majority.
Furthermore when the question of arming themselves was last put to the rank and file of the Police in a vote, they overwhelmingly rejected it.
For the same reason American idiot liberals think they can make European failed socialism work here. They THINK they know better than everyone else and can make it work THIS TIME.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.