When we outlaw guns...

Most police in the UK don't carry guns, only SWAT-style units and airports (or other terrorist targets). When these coppers do fire them, they get on the national news.

They don't need to shoot because there are very few people in a situation where they have a gun and a firing back too.

I think that if you allow guns, it reduces crime, and if you ban guns, it reduces crime too. Its just that when you allow them, more people end up in hospital.
 
Werbung:
Most police in the UK don't carry guns, only SWAT-style units and airports (or other terrorist targets). When these coppers do fire them, they get on the national news.

They don't need to shoot because there are very few people in a situation where they have a gun and a firing back too.

I think that if you allow guns, it reduces crime, and if you ban guns, it reduces crime too. Its just that when you allow them, more people end up in hospital.

That's fair and you've made a good argument. Ideologically, however, I will always trust myself for protection over the government, hence why I cherish my right to carry.

All for that one situation where I say to myself "I sure am glad I've got my gun with me."

I hope you're never in a situation where you say "****, I could really use that gun right now."
 
I don't trust my government particularly, its ****ing incompetence is unbelievable, but I think everyone feels that about their government on certain issues. However, Blair is nothing but a big pile of spin with no balls and a fetish for George Bush.

However, I don't think I need a gun, I do trust the government to protect my life, even if the police can't retrive stolen goods or lock the ****ers up. What I do think I'm being robbed of most is my rights though by this government.
 
What I do think I'm being robbed of most is my rights though by this government.

How about your income? I look at what you guys over there are taxed and I'm amazed that there hasn't been a revolution. Hell, the American colonists revolted in response to something like a 3% tax, while the Brits were being taxed 15%.

I guess it's just tradition. Americans have never found a tax they didn't want to avoid paying.
 
How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

see what i mean? No sir it wasnt intended as an insult it was stated as a FACT your British....therefore in MY OPINION you can and NEVER will totally understand the Gun Control issues we face In America.....you simply dont have the experience in this because of your geographic locale and your governments stance on weapons

although recently i have actually seen Armed bobbies in the streets of London? whats up with that? seems they need the guns sometimes? and sometimes not? even the British dont know where to stand on gun control
 
He's not British you moron. Try reading rather than ranting then getting banned. Its quite fulfilling.

As for armed police, we know what we need, and we change our laws accordingly, rather than sticking to a consitution (which has its benefits, although progression can be good too). I think police have always had the right to carry guns though. Do some research before you make a claim though matey.

I NEVER stated that your Bobbies DIDNT have the rights to carry guns did I?
No sir again more projection on your part i had forgotten how much you enjoyed projecting things that one never said.........what i wanted to know is why NOW after all these years do they carry guns? I have been travelling to the U.K since 1994 they didnt start carrying till 2000 ?

so why the change? because they NEED the weapons your Gun Ban hasnt worked has it?
 
Roker, I wasn't by any means calling you out, but as soon as I first asked for the bickering to stop, both Sublime and Think respected my request and left the thread. You however, made 5 posts after I asked you guys to stop.

I'm not blaming you, Roker, I'm not saying it's your fault, but you have to stop when I ask you to stop.

I've temporarily locked this thread to remove the stuff unrelated to the thread title.

EDIT: I've reopened the thread after deleting the offending posts. Let's stay on topic...
 
2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are those who advocate gun control in some form. They use the actual verbage of the the 2nd to imply this is geared toward a "militia" which has grown and been replaced by our present day military. In some respects, that could be true.

However, the truest sense of this amendment is exactly as stated. We are to have an armed militia (military for common defense) for our national security and the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Granted, arms in the days this was written was a far cry from the arms we have today. Our Bill of Rights resulted from (IMAGINE THIS!) a political dispute. One side was gravely concerned about having a standing army that was not under control of the people, and this amendment addressed both issues.

So, we have the militia (standing army) addressed, and at the same time acknowledging the right of the people to retain a method for exercising control if it were to get out of hand.

As gun control laws are passed in this country, every one of them edges us closer to the point that government will have complete and irrevocable control over us. And yes, if guns are outlawed entirely, the outlaws will have guns. The only real question would remain is how many normally peaceful, law-abiding Americans would be willing to become those "outlaws" for their self-protection and security, not just from the criminal element, but from a potential military-state government?

A note about England. Guns were only banned in 1997, but ownership restrictions had begun following WWI. The "interventionist state" in England increased, and had gradually placed more and more restrictions on ownership during the 1900's. In 1954 there were only a dozen armed robberies. By the 1990s, that number had increased 100 fold.

Amazingly, the increased controls on law abiding citizens accompanied increased leniency on criminals. (Sound familiar America?)

Then came the tragedy of the "Dunblane massacre", which left 16 school children and their teacher dead. 1997. The hysteria and sensationalism of this tragedy spring boarded the growing efforts to band guns entirely to the citizenry.

According to BBC reports, gun-related crimes went UP as much as 40% in the two years following the ban. Gun-related crimes have continued to increase in the years since. In 1997-1998, England (and Wales) had 12,805 firearm offenses. In 2005-2006, that number was 21,521.

In the meantime, the U.S. crime rates have decreased, and national homicide rates in particular have decreased. This is largely due to the many "protection" laws that we have passed. Many states have passed "right to carry" or concealed weapons permit laws. As cited in one of the earlier posts, we even have place(s) in this country where mandating gun ownership and maintenance has virtually eliminated crime, gun-related or otherwise.

Largely because of the Revolution of 1688 in England, the result was their own Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. Because of earlier attempts to suppress the Protestant religion partly via gun control, the right to bear arms was addressed for the English people.

Why is it that we humans for get so soon, and fail to learn from history?
 
2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There are those who advocate gun control in some form. They use the actual verbage of the the 2nd to imply this is geared toward a "militia" which has grown and been replaced by our present day military. In some respects, that could be true.

However, the truest sense of this amendment is exactly as stated. We are to have an armed militia (military for common defense) for our national security and the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Granted, arms in the days this was written was a far cry from the arms we have today. Our Bill of Rights resulted from (IMAGINE THIS!) a political dispute. One side was gravely concerned about having a standing army that was not under control of the people, and this amendment addressed both issues.

So, we have the militia (standing army) addressed, and at the same time acknowledging the right of the people to retain a method for exercising control if it were to get out of hand.

As gun control laws are passed in this country, every one of them edges us closer to the point that government will have complete and irrevocable control over us. And yes, if guns are outlawed entirely, the outlaws will have guns. The only real question would remain is how many normally peaceful, law-abiding Americans would be willing to become those "outlaws" for their self-protection and security, not just from the criminal element, but from a potential military-state government?

A note about England. Guns were only banned in 1997, but ownership restrictions had begun following WWI. The "interventionist state" in England increased, and had gradually placed more and more restrictions on ownership during the 1900's. In 1954 there were only a dozen armed robberies. By the 1990s, that number had increased 100 fold.

Amazingly, the increased controls on law abiding citizens accompanied increased leniency on criminals. (Sound familiar America?)

Then came the tragedy of the "Dunblane massacre", which left 16 school children and their teacher dead. 1997. The hysteria and sensationalism of this tragedy spring boarded the growing efforts to band guns entirely to the citizenry.

According to BBC reports, gun-related crimes went UP as much as 40% in the two years following the ban. Gun-related crimes have continued to increase in the years since. In 1997-1998, England (and Wales) had 12,805 firearm offenses. In 2005-2006, that number was 21,521.

In the meantime, the U.S. crime rates have decreased, and national homicide rates in particular have decreased. This is largely due to the many "protection" laws that we have passed. Many states have passed "right to carry" or concealed weapons permit laws. As cited in one of the earlier posts, we even have place(s) in this country where mandating gun ownership and maintenance has virtually eliminated crime, gun-related or otherwise.

Largely because of the Revolution of 1688 in England, the result was their own Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. Because of earlier attempts to suppress the Protestant religion partly via gun control, the right to bear arms was addressed for the English people.

Why is it that we humans for get so soon, and fail to learn from history?

I don't blindly accept statistics. Please provide a link.
 
Why doesn't the world just eliminate all guns completely? Because as we know, flowers ARE better than bullets.
 
Why doesn't the world just eliminate all guns completely?

Now please explain how you'd go about doing that? It's silly to say that guns are the source of crimes. Guns don't pull the trigger, they are merely used as means for carrying out violence -- they don't cause violence.

Before there were guns, millions were killed by sword...
 
Werbung:
Guns don't make a Man

I believe that a person has the rights to bare a firearm to protect
his or her values. However to carry a gun just because of the power
shows cowardness. Fire power will NEVER get banned throughout the
world. In Wars many unarmed civilians is shot to death, and GUNS
don't make a Man.

As far as rifles I support having one of them, but they are suppose
to be used for hunting according to the NRA, and the law has made
them legal to protect the home...Not hurt or hunt people.
 
Back
Top