|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 4, 2013 3:26:49 GMT -6
I like to think we in Britain have found a good deal (but then I would being from here.) Indeed we have strict laws on firearms since the Dunblane massacre but we are not banned from owning guns. I own rifles/shotguns after having the relevant licences but certainly they are not easy to acquire. Guns are not a big issue here but do I feel safe on the streets? You bet. To go to the extreme, Ive been been involved in drug deals (in my wilder youth) and felt safe. 99% dealers don't carry guns regardless what you read in the media.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2013 8:54:58 GMT -6
You would like to believe that it is only responsible and law abiding citizens buying them. When there reasonable evidence to suggest a lot of it is going south of the border. Although, I know that there are some unfortunate irrational people who think they stock up their doomsday shelters for the end times. Wrong I do not believe it is only responsible & law abiding citizens buying them, I do believe the majority buying them are though. As far as the doomsday people their intentions are to protect themselves (self defense) from a nationwide/or worldwide disaster. Nstural or other happening. Agree with this mentality or not. Self defense .... Look what happens in a hurricane for example and power is out, the looters take to the streets, opportunity. While most are trying to help others.. Personally I never had any need for anything more then a hand gun, in all these yrs I have never had to use it gratefully yet, I sure would when if I had too. Does not mean I win & the bad guy is dead it is just a fair chance( a balancer)I am only 5'4 and 140 lbs & not getting any younger. Yes, it is the job of the police but, if that serious I would not have time to wait for the police. Many of the high power guns out there most are used only in border wars not by citizens aganis't another internally. It is only punishing responsible citizens many whom have bought and had them for yrs. Seems to many are shooting from the hip( no pun intended)while playing on emotions.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2013 9:08:46 GMT -6
I do not believe anyone assumes all crime stops just by simply arming the populace. Where did you pull that from? ( your comment in the ending of your post reply) While this whole debate is going on, gun sales have sky rocketed, ammo is selling so fast even the police are facing a shortage of ammo. I don't think you personally said it, but some people on this board has said it. It is also the propaganda we here in Australia. I know EVEN" I would not believe or claim something that stupid..lol
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 4, 2013 11:19:24 GMT -6
I will add, that I think our way works for us. Im not saying every country should adopt our way. Other countries/cultures are different and I respect that
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2013 12:57:37 GMT -6
I will add, that I think our way works for us. And yet the overall crime rate today in the U.K. is significantly higher than it was before such restrictive gun laws took effect there.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 5, 2013 18:26:42 GMT -6
Crime has come down here. Seriously, until you know how small places here are compared to the US you wont understand. My local policeman was saying earlier there was no robberies or thefts at all over the weekend in my town. Nada. The only thing we have to deal with is drunks being sick on the street. Oh you'll get the headlines where knife crime is rife but on the whole? I feel safe. I really don't wish to start a UK vs USA who is lower on crime debate because its been done and all that happens is we go around and around. Links here, links there, linkage everywhere.
The gun laws here work for me and a lot of other hunters. I don't really care what happens overseas because I don't live there. I have no business telling what other folk should be owning. I feel awkward posting this because as an American owned board I feel rude.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2013 23:58:41 GMT -6
I really don't wish to start a UK vs USA who is lower on crime debate because its been done and all that happens is we go around and around. You’re not paying attention. Please REREAD what I wrote. I was not suggesting a U.K. versus U.S.A. discussion. I was merely suggesting that you compare the crime rate of Britain today with that of Britain’s before gun control legislation took effect there.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 6, 2013 2:56:05 GMT -6
You do not see why making a law to ensure a felon or other gets one?? Give them an inch & they will take a mile is why !!! Guns like the DP have one common denominator, no DP next agenda no LWOP. The law does not prevent a normal person from getting one. How do you stop felons from getting a gun if there are no ways to check that they are one? I do not see what the big deal is for someone to have their police record checked to make sure they have not been convicted of a felony. I mean we require it for dealers if you are buying a hand gun. If you are not a felon you get it after 7 days. But if they find out you are a previous convict you don't get one. I do not see why this is infringing on any ones rights to bear arms. Is it a minor inconvenience, maybe, but who cares. You still get the gun. I do not see what is wrong with tying up loopholes. Some people would like to believe all criminals get their guns off a boat in the middle of the night from a container from Indonesia. That makes for good drama at the movies. But the truth is that a lot of criminals get their guns the easiest way possible. So if you close a gap for easy access, then you force them to get them by other means. In engineering we call this the path of least resistance. In a business economics sense you make it the supply goes down to get a weapon for the thug, well that means it will cost more for that POS rat bastard to his hands on one. Does this eliminate it all together, no of course not, they still will get their hands on one if determined,from the many who have them. But over time through tough sentences and hard time and my favorite penalty, death, you will make it less desirable for someone to sell a sht head one, it will lower the amount of gun crimes in the US. Will this stop Colorado and Connecticut, NO it wont, those are isolated incidents, where there is no way to mitigate it one hundred percent. Liberals on the left need to accept it. Responsible people will still be allowed to have them for personal defense, no one is trying seriously take that away.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 6, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -6
Responsible people will still be allowed to have them for personal defense, no one is trying seriously take that away. I see that you’re still more than just a wee bit confused. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not just about “personal defense”. It’s about maintaining the security of a free State.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 6, 2013 14:24:40 GMT -6
Paying attention? I have been. But if im honest (and I always am) im not really bothered. It doesn't affect me.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 6, 2013 20:48:04 GMT -6
Responsible people will still be allowed to have them for personal defense, no one is trying seriously take that away. I see that you’re still more than just a wee bit confused. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not just about “personal defense”. It’s about maintaining the security of a free State. So you think it is a good idea for unlimited access to any felon or hard criminal to legally own a weapon for the security of the state? I feel more secure already.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 7, 2013 12:02:32 GMT -6
So you think it is a good idea for unlimited access to any felon or hard criminal to legally own a weapon for the security of the state? Oh come now! Where did I write, or imply, that it was a good idea for criminals to have unlimited access to firearms? Surely you can do better than that.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 7, 2013 12:24:02 GMT -6
Paying attention? I have been. But if im honest (and I always am) im not really bothered. It doesn't affect me. It’s not about you, it’s about your initial contention that the existing gun controls in place in Great Britain work. They don’t and never have.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 7, 2013 13:15:33 GMT -6
How do you know? You don't live here. They work perfectly for hunters all across the country. Go on a British hunters forum to see for thy self. We don't obsess over guns here. Its really not an issue. At all. No.
edit and please don't start on about rogue governments. We're not paranoid either.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 7, 2013 14:40:44 GMT -6
It’s really not rocket science. The crime rate in Great Britain today is much higher than it was before your strict gun control laws took effect there. Also, according to retired British police supervisor Colin Greenwood, who is a leading expert on British firearms police policy, and author of “Firearms Control”, such laws have had no effect one way or the other on the crime rate in Great Britain. You don't live here. They work perfectly for hunters all across the country. Go on a British hunters forum to see for thy self. We don't obsess over guns here. Its really not an issue. At all. No. edit and please don't start on about rogue governments. We're not paranoid either. Completely irrelevant! If you can live with such existing laws that’s perfectly fine with me; just don’t make the outlandish claim that such restrictive laws work because I happen to know that they don’t.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on May 7, 2013 15:54:53 GMT -6
Yeah of course you do. And that ends my sermon. I have drinks to attend to. More rope vicar? Heh.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 8, 2013 14:42:22 GMT -6
You do not see why making a law to ensure a felon or other gets one?? Give them an inch & they will take a mile is why !!! Guns like the DP have one common denominator, no DP next agenda no LWOP. The law does not prevent a normal person from getting one. How do you stop felons from getting a gun if there are no ways to check that they are one? I do not see what the big deal is for someone to have their police record checked to make sure they have not been convicted of a felony. I mean we require it for dealers if you are buying a hand gun. If you are not a felon you get it after 7 days. But if they find out you are a previous convict you don't get one. I do not see why this is infringing on any ones rights to bear arms. Is it a minor inconvenience, maybe, but who cares. You still get the gun. I do not see what is wrong with tying up loopholes. Some people would like to believe all criminals get their guns off a boat in the middle of the night from a container from Indonesia. That makes for good drama at the movies. But the truth is that a lot of criminals get their guns the easiest way possible. So if you close a gap for easy access, then you force them to get them by other means. In engineering we call this the path of least resistance. In a business economics sense you make it the supply goes down to get a weapon for the thug, well that means it will cost more for that POS rat bastard to his hands on one. Does this eliminate it all together, no of course not, they still will get their hands on one if determined,from the many who have them. But over time through tough sentences and hard time and my favorite penalty, death, you will make it less desirable for someone to sell a sht head one, it will lower the amount of gun crimes in the US. Will this stop Colorado and Connecticut, NO it wont, those are isolated incidents, where there is no way to mitigate it one hundred percent. Liberals on the left need to accept it. Responsible people will still be allowed to have them for personal defense, no one is trying seriously take that away. So I assume then you are for gun regestration as well as background checks? I am for the checks we have now and nothing more. Gun crime is down as is violent crime. We need to use the laws we have now not create more.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on May 8, 2013 17:26:38 GMT -6
So I assume then you are for gun regestration as well as background checks? I am for the checks we have now and nothing more. Gun crime is down as is violent crime. We need to use the laws we have now not create more. The inconvenient truth for our gun-grabber brethren: latimes.comGun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show. Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center. In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium. The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found. The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes -- less than 1% -- reported using a firearm to defend themselves. Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased. It’s unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. (Ya THINK? ) The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news. “It’s hard to know what’s going on there,” said D’Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year. Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates. Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children. The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. (Poster's comment: so are the perpetrators.) Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 8, 2013 18:38:39 GMT -6
So you think it is a good idea for unlimited access to any felon or hard criminal to legally own a weapon for the security of the state? Oh come now! Where did I write, or imply, that it was a good idea for criminals to have unlimited access to firearms? Surely you can do better than that. Ok, so how do we prevent or at least mitigate the ability for a criminal to get one? The only way to do mitigate it is by background checks and tough laws for people knowingly sell to a felon, including sentencing family members to death when they give their felon son's a gun if that gun is used in a capital murder. We should give the death penalty for anyone who uses a weapon irresponsibly. Anyone who owns weapon and it gets stolen due to negligence because they did not make a reasonable attempt to lock it in a safe should be prosecuted criminally. In my opinion the 2nd amendment is a right that comes with a grave responsibility. I believe if people can not handle that responsibility then they should loose the right.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 8, 2013 18:53:01 GMT -6
So I assume then you are for gun regestration as well as background checks? I am for the checks we have now and nothing more. Gun crime is down as is violent crime. We need to use the laws we have now not create more. Yes I think gun registration is a good idea as well as background checks. The background checks need to cover an entire span of potential transactions. I believe that a National Gun registration would be a good idea so that way the government can track the movement of arms, as well as know how many arms someone may have if they are a criminal(When the law abiding citizen decides there is a bigger payoff to crime). I also think that ammunition ought to be controlled as well. So that if someone gets a gun from a friend or family member, that it can be traced to a specific lot. There is technology now to put certain compounds in the gunpowder that give it a specific identifying chemical trace when ran through a gas-chromatograph. This way there is more evidence to prosecute of thug when a murder occurs, one extra piece to send someone to the death chamber. I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 8, 2013 21:51:30 GMT -6
I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list. I see…so you want the United States government to spy on law-abiding American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Now that is truly scary!
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 8, 2013 22:05:55 GMT -6
The only way to do mitigate it is by background checks and tough laws for people knowingly sell to a felon, including sentencing family members to death when they give their felon son's a gun if that gun is used in a capital murder. We should give the death penalty for anyone who uses a weapon irresponsibly. Anyone who owns weapon and it gets stolen due to negligence because they did not make a reasonable attempt to lock it in a safe should be prosecuted criminally. Starbux, seriously, take a sedative and go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 8, 2013 23:46:55 GMT -6
I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list. I see…so you want the United States government to spy on law-abiding American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Now that is truly scary! Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state. To me what is scary is that you think someone stockpiling weapons that are derivatives for what we use for war, i.e AR-15's are dummed down versions of M4's and M-16s are law abiding citizens. Maybe its because I work for the government employee i.e an Air Force reservist, that I am on the side the militia would attempt to attack
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 9, 2013 9:02:50 GMT -6
So I assume then you are for gun regestration as well as background checks? I am for the checks we have now and nothing more. Gun crime is down as is violent crime. We need to use the laws we have now not create more. Yes I think gun registration is a good idea as well as background checks. The background checks need to cover an entire span of potential transactions. I believe that a National Gun registration would be a good idea so that way the government can track the movement of arms, as well as know how many arms someone may have if they are a criminal(When the law abiding citizen decides there is a bigger payoff to crime). I also think that ammunition ought to be controlled as well. So that if someone gets a gun from a friend or family member, that it can be traced to a specific lot. There is technology now to put certain compounds in the gunpowder that give it a specific identifying chemical trace when ran through a gas-chromatograph. This way there is more evidence to prosecute of thug when a murder occurs, one extra piece to send someone to the death chamber. I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 9, 2013 9:05:12 GMT -6
I see…so you want the United States government to spy on law-abiding American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Now that is truly scary! Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 9, 2013 9:47:04 GMT -6
I see…so you want the United States government to spy on law-abiding American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Now that is truly scary! Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state. you do realize there is NO reason for them to NOT include you in this surveillance, right? you do realize that if confiscation of weapons ever comes to pass they are going to search YOUR house also, right?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 9, 2013 10:05:50 GMT -6
Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state. you do realize there is NO reason for them to NOT include you in this surveillance, right? you do realize that if confiscation of weapons ever comes to pass they are going to search YOUR house also, right? Exactly the reason we do not need more laws, we need a much different approach to not infringe on "all's rights" to privacy or rights of the whole is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on May 9, 2013 10:53:16 GMT -6
I look at it this way. You can never have too many guns, too much ammo, stockpile enough gold and keep some cash on hand. Am I worried about end times, global apocalypse, total breakdown of the fabric of civilization?
Sort of - I've ridden out three major hurricanes, been to the third world and met enough people that actually do think like starbux posts. This is why I now own land. You can refer back to a long discussion Joe Phillips and had on a similar topic.
Give away all the rights you want to - I'm not, I won't. The perimeter of my house is still fenced and the kill zone still starts at the tree line 232 yards.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 9, 2013 11:35:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 9, 2013 11:47:14 GMT -6
Yes I think gun registration is a good idea as well as background checks. The background checks need to cover an entire span of potential transactions. I believe that a National Gun registration would be a good idea so that way the government can track the movement of arms, as well as know how many arms someone may have if they are a criminal(When the law abiding citizen decides there is a bigger payoff to crime). I also think that ammunition ought to be controlled as well. So that if someone gets a gun from a friend or family member, that it can be traced to a specific lot. There is technology now to put certain compounds in the gunpowder that give it a specific identifying chemical trace when ran through a gas-chromatograph. This way there is more evidence to prosecute of thug when a murder occurs, one extra piece to send someone to the death chamber. I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list. You do know that the first step in confiscation is registration and that will make us subjects not citizens. So what if someone has 20 AR's, 20 AK or 20 any thing, they may like that gun and have it in different configuerations or they may be keeping them as security. I do not want more Government I wan less. AS Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
|
|