Skip to comments.Gun law in the shires
Posted on 05/17/2013 5:45:46 AM PDT by rellimpank
In an age of terrorism, we have become used to seeing armed police at major railway stations and airports, or guarding other potential targets such as embassies. But when officers with guns are needed to patrol the streets of an English town because of an upsurge in gang shootings, it seems we have reached something of a watershed in our national life. The images of paramilitary-style policemen with assault rifles escorting parents and children to school in Luton are a shocking confirmation that law and order has collapsed in parts of our country. In the past four months, there have been nine gun-related incidents on two estates in the Bedfordshire town. Last weekend, a 16-year-old boy was shot in the back and may be paralysed.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What kind of gangs? They don’t say.
Amish, I'm sure.
How can this be? The British serfs aren't allow to have guns. Britain is a gun free paradise where the thugs don't rob the defenseless because there aren't any guns to make them act in a criminal manner.
Emotions, meet reality. He is your new advisor.
Luton is a hotbed of Pakistani muslims....
My thoughts also. Thank God they imposed such tight restrictions on the population. Everyone is much, much safer now. Also, why is the cop intimidating that child? Can you just imagine the fear induced from seeing an ACTUAL gun? The child will be traumatized. Well at least they have socialized medicine to help.
Story told me by a pro gun co-worker. He lives in a liberal enclave. The proportion of vote for the turd in the white house was higher in his little suburban fringe city than it was in Manhattan. A school assignment for one of his neighbor's kids (6th grade) was to interview a neighbor about some current topic. The neighbor's kid knew he is an NRA member, and interviewed him on gun rights. At the end of the interview he offered to show the kid his firearms (something I would never do, since all of my firearms were lost on a fishing trip). The kid didn't want to see the the guns because he was afraid of them. What a way to raise a kid.
I would have done poorly. The temptation to give the kid they type of interview that would exactly fuel his worst fears might have proved too much to resist. Why do you have guns? "to kill people." Why would you want to kill people? "some people just need killin' plus it really feels good when you kill somebody." Did you ever kill anybody? "Hard to tell when you're shooting up a rubber plantation with ma deuce on top of a M113 and the rubber trees are shooting back. But if you go in and find blood trails you can at least think you got someone." At this point the kid would have probably pi$$ed himself and left in tears.
“Hard to tell when you’re shooting up a rubber plantation with ma deuce on top of a M113 and the rubber trees are shooting back. But if you go in and find blood trails you can at least think you got someone.”
That’s an almost English level of understatement.
Blood trail from a Ma Deuce shot - that one probably won’t get far.
Roger that. Sadly all my weapons (if I ever had any) were lost when Mount Pinatubo erupted. Or maybe it was Mt. St. Helens. Or maybe during the sunami in Japan. Whatever, they are gone. P.S. Are you sure the ma duece rounds weren’t just bouncing back at you off the rubber trees?
Sounds like time for a British pro-gun campaign to start an advertising push in Luton. Really simple, just list US cities with a high crime rate, and what happened to the rate of violent crimes when they were finally forced to allow honest citizens to carry guns.
Probably the biggest sale will be if Illinois has “gun liberty”. In all likelihood, crime will plummet in Chicago as soon as its honest citizens get guns.
And the citizens of Britain should be pounded over the head with this fact: that no matter what their politicians and media *say* will happen; this is what *does* happen when the free citizenry is armed.
And if they say that Britain is “different” from the US, what they are *really* saying is that the British *people* are so *inferior*, that their lives don’t *matter* to their politicians and media.
I never though of that. I never saw a ma deuce round bounce back, but with rubber trees you never know... :-)
Ya gotta be careful. 50’s are sneaky little devils. Not to mention those evil rubber trees.
It wasn’t just one track, and there were dismounts firing too. Damn rubber trees are tough.
Wrong. Guns (rifles and shotguns) are legal on the mainland, as are some types of handgun. In Northern Ireland, all guns are legal and NI even had a form of concealed carry. There are about 2.3m British guns. I know, I own two of them.
p.s we are citizens, not subjects.
Except it isnt and never has been, despite the US hype.
NI has a form of concealed carry, not had.
My five year old Grandson wants me to take him shooting, a little young yet. I will start with his sister.
Never ride on the top of an M113 during a fire fight.
Well just go down to the store and buy yourself an AKM or an M-15 then. Or maybe a tarus .357 then to keep by your bed for when the thugs want to help you get rid of your excess possessions.
p.s we are citizens, not subjects.
And here I thought you referred to yourselves as subjects of the crown.
Sound advice. And don't ride anytime with your legs dangling over the side.
LTG Boykin took a .50 round to the arm in Grenada, but he only did it to level the playing field for Chuck Norris :-)
1—Obviously (and wrongly imo) there are restrictions on what I can buy. Assault rifles were banned in the UK in 1988 after the Hungerford mass killings by Michael Ryan the previous year. Some handguns (on the UK mainland) are restricted. But as a firearms licenced Brit, I can buy any rifle or shotgun I want. And some handguns.
2-Its a common mistake in both the UK and US that the British are subjects, because we have the Royals. British people have been citizens since 1948 and the Nationality Act.
I have been helping my British artist friend write the Queen to get some photographs of his art that she owns (in the late 1960s when he needed it, she had it shipped to him in the states for a show). In 1948 he was not long out of the Commandos and he still considers himself her subject and will use that form as suggested, when writing her.
“”Step 5: Sign off properly. If you are a citizen of the United Kingdom, you should end the letter with I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant (or, if you prefer, subject). Otherwise, write Respectfully yours, Faithfully yours, or simply Sincerely.
I stand corrrected. Good to know.
But, back to the gun thing, AKMs and AR15s are not assault rifles (a term coined by the civilian disarmament forces around the world) They are merely semi-auto look alikes. And as far as what handguns you can own, what are the restriction?Could you own a .357 revolver? What about a Glock .40 USP? it is a common perception in the USA that brit CITIZENS are required to keep firearms stored at a range. Is this true?
They were classed as assault rifles by the UK govt, I can still own as many as I want, but deactivated.
Handguns?. No, I cannot own the most normal handgun, sadly. The Cullen Report post-Dunblane killings never actually recommended a handgun ban, just tighter controls.
UK firearm law requires all legal owners to keep their arms in a secured cabinet, but at home is perfectly acceptable. The notion they have to be kept at a range is not true. Some gun control morons here have tried to suggest it, thats true, but nobody’s listening.