Posted on 08/19/2005 12:28:00 PM PDT by neverdem
Considering that there hasn't been a homicide in two years in my USA county(with a LOT of guns), and no "gun" homicide in at least 4 or 5 years - I have no complaints.
I've taken some stick for my views, I see. I expected it.
Let me reiterate that I think the UK's present gun laws are unfair to target shooters, re-enactors etc. and I think it was a shame that so many old soldiers had to hand in their war trophies, nearly all of which were lying around harmlessly in attics. The crazy-gunman problem could have been solved by means other than banning ALL gun clubs and ALL private ownership etc.
I am new to FR, though I lurked for a while and read its articles with interest. There have been previous threads about gun control laws, which I ignored. I did read those about Britain and guns; most of these mocked us as pansies, wusses, subject, sheep etc. ad nauseam, and concluded our country was doomed. I never knew whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance, but this time I saw fit to post a response.
Now, don't conclude that I'm attacking your US gun laws (however puzzling and illogical they look to me – that's a completely different thing). It's YOUR country, your gun laws are the result of a long historical, legal and social process. I couldn't care less whether or not every American can buy assault rifles, AP ammunition or even flamethrowers. Go ahead, if it makes you feel safe. I'm just not interested in what happens in the USA.
However, I do get irked when Americans chortle at us. Our gun laws too are the result of a long process. I am talking here about guns purely in a BRITISH context.
Answering individual points, my thanks to Neverdem for the links: in many cases they confirm my views. But I'll have to peruse them in greater detail another time.
D.Hunter:
>Leftists always try to use the USA's high murder rate to justify gun control laws. However, the murder rate by knives alone in the USA is greater than the UK's total murder rate! In 1981 the American murder rate was 8.7 times the UK rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times higher and by 2002 it was only 3.5 times higher. Besides, a study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate was consistently five times the London rate, but for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. <
This alone proves my point that we're – still - safer in the UK than in the US. Thanks. As to the study comparing NY and London over 200 years, what relevance does it have today what things were like in Napoleon's day? I'm talking about the UK today.
>Swiss reservists (almost the entire male population between 20 and 42) keep semi-automatic rifles in their homes and conscripts are issued with fully-automatic rifles to keep in theirs, however, the murder rate in Switzerland is regularly lower than it is in Britain!<
So what? A different society, much more staid and law-abiding, while the Swiss' guns and ammo are government property and locked away. Why is this relevant? Why bring the Swiss into this? What have they go to do with us?
>Yeah right, apart from the fact that in the UK a much higher proportion of people are kicked to death than shot and they along with many victims who suffer "Grievous Bodily Harm" could have been saved by a CCW system.<
Meaning it's OK to shoot people to bring down the murder rate/violent crime rate? Er…
Kicking deaths being more frequent that shooting deaths demonstrates that REAL gun crime is hardly soaring.
Me: Anybody who can't defend himself without a gun is a wuss anyway.
You: Yeah those elderly, female and disabled people don't deserve to live because they can't fight as well, yup, that's a great attitude.
To clarify, I meant the kind of people who get involved in pub brawls. Youngish pissed-up blokes, not the above, who are almost never victims of this kind of thing. I stress "almost", so don't bother coming back at me with deplorable and sensationalised incidents from tabloid newspapers.
Me:But I certainly would't like most of the UK population being able to purchase a gun, because that means criminals can get them too.
You: For goodness sake, criminals can get them even though they're illegal!
I know that! It's bad enough already, so why make it any easier? Luckily, gun-armed criminals in the UK are a menace to each other more than anyone else. They are non-proficient (there's nowhere safe and legal for target practice) and more interested in looking cool (being insecure prats with masculinity problems, like as not). Ammunition supply, care, maintenance are sketchy too. BTW, to correct my previous assumption, it's not just black drug dealers, but also Turkish, Albanian, eastern European, Chinese and some British white gangs who use real guns without compunction. The death rate in all cases is insignificant, but let's be fair.
Me: I'm not scared of anybody armed the same as me: i.e. boots, fists, broken bottles/clubs etc.
You: Will you stop thinking about yourself, what about people who are outnumered, female, weak, ill, old, disabled etc?
If you're in one of those categories, you really shouldn't hang around near rough pubs at chucking-out time, where most of this sort of trouble occurs. If you're outnumbered, you'd best scarper. Common sense, really. Anyway, do you think hauling out a firearm is going to cow a bunch of tanked-up yobs? They'd ram it down your throat, or worse. Or call the police and get YOU banged up.
Stew Padasso:
>Well, it is pretty simple. If I am about to be attacked, I'll defend myself by any means necessary, including putting a hole through a soccer hooligan weilding a broken bottle.<
1. Soccer hooligans normally do prearranged battle with their own sort using fists and boots. Anything else is considered unsporting. Remember, our society is different.
2. Shooting a hooligan indulging in a friendly brawl with his fellows would be grossly disproportionate - and murder to boot.
3. Shooting anybody wielding a broken bottle is also rather unfair – and also likely to see you in the dock for murder. Why not just boot the guy? Dear, dear, why go to such extremes?
>People who cannot defend themselves by any means necessary are not free people. Then again, I could really care less about Britain. <
But we can defend ourselves against anything currently threatening the UK!
And if you don't care, don't respond on threads about Britain.
Adam Selene: Just compare the UK numbers with the Saudi Arabian numbers. The UK has 2X the murder rate and 25,000X the burglarly rate? <
Let's keep the Arabs out of this, we're comparing the US and the UK. I couldn't give a toss what the Arab figures are. A totally alien society, useless for comparative purposes.
ElBucko:Now wait just a minute! On one hand you're trying to shoot down US gun owners with a comparison of British crime statistics, now you claim that the UK stats are artificially inflated with toy guns. In other words, what you're really saying is that you, or the government, doesn't really know what the hell you're saying. <
What? Me, trying to shoot down (unfortunate turn of phrase!) US gun owners? See my above statements. "Gun crime" statistics in the UK also cover drunken twunts threatening people with toy guns, kids shooting greenhouses with airguns etc. Real gun crime with people getting added holes is very rare. That suits me fine.
>I've spent time in the UK every two years since '86, I am familiar with British "pub society" and nobody had guns before the gun ban either.<
(Meaning that the gun ban was irrelevant for most people.)
>What they did have, especially in the working class and ethnic neighborhoods was knives. I am willing to bet my lucky gun that there are more people killed with knives in the UK and the US, in the last 15 years, than have been killed by guns. A knifing just doesn't make the news. Fox or Thames TV. <
I hope you're not one of those calling for a knife ban! I know this is the standard PC response, but low-tech weapons simply can't be eliminated. If knives were to be banned, people would use box cutters, sharpened screwdrivers, bike chains, iron bars, brass knuckles or anything to hand. You can't stop people brawling. I know the police are concerned about knifings, but I'm against any ban on selling/buying knives. What you can do is hand out heavy penalties after the event to people using/carrying deadly weapons.
>True, but only a fool would bring a knife to a gun fight. <
In Britain gun-fights? Where? They're as rare as rocking-horse sh*t. Bringing a gun to a knife fight, on the other hand, is disproportionate and unsporting.
You can argue all you want about the details in crime figures. The point is, more people are murdered in the USA than in the UK, however many guns you have, however few we have. The UK is SAFER. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy a gun in the UK would open the floodgates to escalating mayhem. The police would have to be armed at all times, which they don't want either.
Going off at a slight tangent, but still relative to safety, is accidents. I read somewhere – please don't ask me for a source – that dozens of people in the US are killed every year while cleaning or playing around with guns, sometimes even their kids get hold of them, with unpleasant results. That's just a side-effect which is non-existent here in the UK now.
If I could legally buy a gun, I wouldn't: dangerous things for the user and bystanders without training, heavy to carry, seldom of real use in a crisis, and liable to make a disagreeable situation worse. However, I'd feel much less safe if low-lifes had even easier access to guns than they do now. I'd also not feel any safer if, in the course of, say, trying to break up a punch-up or subdue a mugger, some upstanding jerk with his pretty new gun happens by, misunderstands the situation and plugs ME.
There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns. Having and using guns in our society is simply inappropriate. We generally manage without them rather well. And like I said, we don't appreciate being mocked for it.
In conclusion, let us British do things our way without sarky comments.
Perhaps other British posters would care to comment?
Note to self:
No further posting after 24 hours, my arguments remain unrefuted...
I hereby declare myself the "winner" of this little debate.
Celebratory cuppa is in order.
til you get to the point that no tree branch can be longer than 6" and cannot be pointy, and no rock can weigh more than .2kg
If they don't allow guns, they shouldn't be allowed to compete in a gun event. There is something very hypocritical about that
Oh yes there is and especially so when you demand no one else should be allowed to have guns because it will frighten you.
Your opinion and you're welcome to it, but it flies in the face of fact. The fact is that they make a bad situation better. The fact is that according to extensive statistical research that you're a lot less likely to get injured using a gun to resist robbery or assault than following any other course.
The crazy-gunman problem could have been solved by means other than banning ALL gun clubs and ALL private ownership etc.
Again your response is lacking in factual matter. All one has to do is look at the jurisdictions in the USA with the highest violent crime to see that they're also the jusisdictions with the most restrictive anti-gun laws (eg Washington, DC) DC banned private ownership in 1976 and competes annually with Detroit for the highest murder rate in the nation
There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns.
Again a matter of opinion I'm sure the residents of NYC who long ago gave up their right to self defense would agree with you. Those of us in the relevant parts of the country would not.
Having and using guns in our society is simply inappropriate.
Your opinion again. This only hold true if human nature in GB ais fundamentally different than in the rest of the world. Somehow I doubt that. There are undoubtedly people even in the UK's nanny state would would vigorously disagree with you.
the land of bonsi trees and gravel...
No kidding... When I was shooting competatively (on the amature level), I was going shooting 3 or 4 times a week. I averaged about 500-1000 rounds of .22 a week, and 300-500 rounds of .45ACP, and the occasional .41MAG and .44MAG rounds (50-100) every week!
BTW, there's a shooting range that I used to go to run by the MO department of conservation. I was kicked out of that range for "firing too quickly." I was just doing timed fire (not rapid fire) practice!
I also got in trouble the first time I brought my M-14 out there, just to sight it in (it's only a 100 yard range). They didn't like the magazines, but luckily I had brought a legal hunting mag that was blocked down to 5 rounds. Still, it LOOKED like a 20 round mag, and after a few minutes they decided that if I wanted to continue shooting the rifle, I would have to fire it single shot!
Mark
Me: There's nothing wussy or submissive in not having guns
You: Oh yes there is and especially so when you demand no one else should be allowed to have guns because it will frighten you.
Me:
I don't "demand" anything. I just hope that the majority of British people will continue to agree that we want guns off our streets. Frightened? Not particularly. It's just that they're not needed.
"Extensive statistical research" is something I trust implicitly, of course.
>Again your response is lacking in factual matter.<
I think you've misunderstood me here. Try reading it again.
They don't have guns in NYC? News to me!
We're no different in the UK, but more realistic about the pitfalls and limitations of widespread gun ownership.
However, posters from our "nanny-state" are herewith called upon to refute me.
BS If you don't think it's necessary to carry a weapon, that's your business. If you don't want to permit anyone else to do so, that's their business. Admit it, your afraid of guns.
I admit it, I'm afraid of guns and am quaking in me boots at the very thought of them.
Get real. Read my post carefully and you'll see that by BRITISH standards I'm relatively pro-gun. I was not in agreement with the more draconian aspects of the new law.
I'm in favour of private gun clubs, ownership, re-enactment, although my expectation would be stringent psychiatric and police screening of would-be members, careful monitoring to ensure that mental illness and criminal activity lead to disarming, and regular inspections to ensure that guns are kept safe.
As it happens, I live in Germany where there are plenty of guns, but I'm not bothered.
I admit it, I'm afraid of guns and am quaking in me boots at the very thought of them.
Get real. Read my post carefully and you'll see that by BRITISH standards I'm relatively pro-gun. I was not in agreement with the more draconian aspects of the new law.
I'm in favour of private gun clubs, ownership, re-enactment, although my expectation would be stringent psychiatric and police screening of would-be members, careful monitoring to ensure that mental illness and criminal activity lead to disarming, and regular inspections to ensure that guns are kept safe.
As it happens, I live in Germany where there are plenty of guns, but I'm not bothered.
Buggeration!
Is that the primary criterion for what people are permitted to have? That they have to have a demonstrable "need" for the thing in question? Portable stereos and designer shoes and locally brewed draft porter aren't needed either...yet people have them. That's freedom.
>Portable stereos and designer shoes and locally brewed draft porter aren't needed either...yet people have them.<
Yuk! Should all be banned forthwith.
I really don't care whether or not you believe it, but if you want to see for yourself, google Gary Kleck and gun control. There's too much to include here. The original article was published sometime in the '80s in a peer reviwed publication called "Social Problems" This may still leave you unconvinced. Frequently those who have made up their minds are not swayed by facts.
They don't have guns in NYC
Only the crooks, the celebrities and the cops are allowed to legally carry. Ordinary citizens will not be granted a permit to carry. Ownership is restricted to those with licenses. The ownership license procedure is somewhat onerous itself and can take up to a year. In effect the barrier to ownership in NYC is so high that few people bother. I believe that I used Washington DC as an example, and yes legal ownership of handguns in DC is no longer possible, and long guns fall under many restrictions including having to store them dissembled.
but more realistic about the pitfalls and limitations of widespread gun ownership.
LOL I'd say you're totally UN-realistic about it. Unorganized crooks and organized criminals (ie government functionaries as in Mugabe's Zimbabwe) will always have guns - those unable to defend themselves can fork over their belongings or in the worst case their lives. Hordes of illegal Mexican immigrants have swarmed into my area and are specializing in home invasion robberies. They mostly stick to their own because they are aware that those of us who are born here will likely give them a discouraging reception. (lead poisoning)
I hereby declare myself the "winner" of this little debate.
Pardon me, I didn't realise that we are debating against the clock, some of us have more urgent responsibilities than logging onto FR you know! This is the first chance I've had to log back in since posting those two comments to you.
How tolerant of you
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.