Guns

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

Tylluan Penry,
If you look at your own history you can see the way that guns were restricted over time. It was a slow process that progressed with few interruptions. Farther back in your history the Magna Carta was an agreement that returned certain rights to the subjects of the King and preempted the absolute authority of the crown. That was later applied to parliament as well. England and most of western Europe has become a socialist society where the "good" of the populace outweighs the good of the individual. In reality what is best for the individual is also best for the populace because the populace is made up of the individuals. You say that gun ownership still exists in England yet, as I understand it, it is unlawful to possess a gun in the home and guns must be kept at prescribed ranges under lock and key. I suppose that the very wealthy could have a shooting range on their property and have the guns there.
My view is that we have the same rights to defend ourselves against attackers as animals. If a predator has a gun we should be able to use that same deadly force to stop or repel him. Your country has fewer gun crimes but you have a higher percentage of violent crime than we do in the USA. For all your "civilities" there is more violence than you are willing to admit. The same is true in Australia since the harsh restrictions on guns there. The following year, according to the Australian police, violent crime nearly doubled. So much for guns being the cause of violence.
So, how does a subject defend themselves against an attacker with a gun or knife in England?

Magna Carta, eh? 1215CE. No guns then.
In the UK violence - to be legal - has to be proportional. So we can defend ourselves, of course, but not by blasting the attacker to kingdom come.

We don't go armed and by and large, we don't need to. Violent crime does exist of course, but it always has. Some areas are more prone to it than others. And personally I think that works for us.

I never said the UK is not violent (we do breed a particularly spectacular form of football thug, for example) although our way of classifying violent crime differs significantly from the US. And that's important too. I understand - which you appear not to - that we have different ways of looking at things.

To go armed, here, is to go looking for trouble, not to be looking for situations to defend.
And frankly, I like being a socialist. The good of the populace is -by and large - the good of the individual. I am proud that the Red Flag was first flown in the UK in Wales. And that the first Labour (i.e. socialist) MP in this country stood for a Welsh seat.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Guns

It's strange, the cultural difference. In the US you seem to feel safer if you're armed to the teeth. In the UK we feel safer because we're not. Even the UK police do not want to be armed. We have armed response units, but the average bobbies on the beat don't want a gun.

There's a decent amount of regional variance in the US on this one. Some areas are arm everyone, others are for banning everything not in police or military hands and some are in between. My personal issue with the arm everyone approach is that weapons without competency are less valuable than many people like to think and we shouldn't touch my opinion on the competency of large sections of the US population.

I'd actually be interested to see what happens to violent crime if limited military (including weapons) training is built into all public schools. Will a population where weapons are easilly accessed and everyone over the age of 18 knows how to use them to lethal effect deter violence (since now all potential adult victims and bystanders know how to kill a predator that screws up) or increase it?

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Guns

Tylluan Penry,
If you look at your own history you can see the way that guns were restricted over time. It was a slow process that progressed with few interruptions. Farther back in your history the Magna Carta was an agreement that returned certain rights to the subjects of the King and preempted the absolute authority of the crown. That was later applied to parliament as well. England and most of western Europe has become a socialist society where the "good" of the populace outweighs the good of the individual. In reality what is best for the individual is also best for the populace because the populace is made up of the individuals. You say that gun ownership still exists in England yet, as I understand it, it is unlawful to possess a gun in the home and guns must be kept at prescribed ranges under lock and key. I suppose that the very wealthy could have a shooting range on their property and have the guns there.
My view is that we have the same rights to defend ourselves against attackers as animals. If a predator has a gun we should be able to use that same deadly force to stop or repel him. Your country has fewer gun crimes but you have a higher percentage of violent crime than we do in the USA. For all your "civilities" there is more violence than you are willing to admit. The same is true in Australia since the harsh restrictions on guns there. The following year, according to the Australian police, violent crime nearly doubled. So much for guns being the cause of violence.
So, how does a subject defend themselves against an attacker with a gun or knife in England?

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Guns

It's strange, the cultural difference. In the US you seem to feel safer if you're armed to the teeth. In the UK we feel safer because we're not. Even the UK police do not want to be armed. We have armed response units, but the average bobbies on the beat don't want a gun.

It's funny I suppose but that was the mentality of much of the US up until the 1960's. The beat cop who walked through your neighborhood and knew everybody and everybody knew them. They had guns for if they needed them but you hardly every heard of them using them. All that started to change in the 60's and 70's until now you don't see beat cops at all except in patrol cars. Yet the cops changed to match the change in society. Personally I think the rise of weapons in the US as it stands today probably owes more to the red scare and fear mongering than anything. We had gangs and such prior to the 60's & 70's but the very structure and lethal nature of those gangs changed and the police couldn't match them. Outgunned, outmanned and often restricted by the very nature of the society they were sworn to protect while the criminals were not.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

In England it took a hundred years to give guns an evil or menacing persona. It all began with the revolver because it had more firepower than the single shot pistols that were common. That is the same technique being used in the USA today. Naming semi-auto rifles and pistols "assault weapons". The function of these guns is no different that the semi-auto rifles we have used for hunting for decades yet because the LOOK like a military weapon the are deemed "dangerous". Guns are not evil. They are tools. They are used to gather food, for recreation and for protection.

The funniest thing about England's gun mentality is that during WW II they armed the citizenry with rifles and semi-auto pistols because they were afraid the Germans would invade. Right after the war it was deemed too dangerous for people to have those guns and they were collected and destroyed. A government that arms its people to defend the country but doesn't trust them to have arms for self defense is showing their fear of the people. They made guns bad to protect themselves and not to protect their subjects.

Some of your generalisations - India in another thread and now England - are just mind boggling. No - it didn't take a century to give guns a 'menacing persona.' That's just nonsense and I really can't imagine where you heard it.

Also, during the war the only people who had the right to carry arms were the armed forces (naturally) and people like the Home Guard. Farmers have always been able to apply for gun licences. As for collecting and destroying guns after the war... well soldiers had to return their weapons although a lot of weaponry did come into the country as souvenirs of combat (there were a surprising number of lugers about.)

The thing is, in the UK guns are subject to strict licensing laws. Criminals of course do get hold of guns, but usually don't have a licence. Even carrying knives is prohibited, which can make life tricky for a travelling chef I suppose. But the idea is that if weapons are restricted, certain crimes are reduced.

Frankly, I don't care what guns you have in your own country or state. That's your business. But please don't pretend to be an expert on other countries when you're not in possession of all the facts.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Guns

It always amazes me when people talk about police in Europe. Seem's everyone forgets the special police I know Spain has the La Guardia Seville, the Italians have the Carabinieri, Can't recall the name of the French group but recall seeing them in Paris. All armed to the teeth and usually the ones who are called when it gets really bad. I imagine Germany has something similar.

Of course most people will do nothing to attract their attention because they are that bad. Sadly the US has nothing like them so our regular police forces have to pick up the slack via our special tactics groups and such. The regular police forces don't have those special units to fall back on or depend on. Weapon wise they are usually an army of their own.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Guns

In England it took a hundred years to give guns an evil or menacing persona. It all began with the revolver because it had more firepower than the single shot pistols that were common. That is the same technique being used in the USA today. Naming semi-auto rifles and pistols "assault weapons". The function of these guns is no different that the semi-auto rifles we have used for hunting for decades yet because the LOOK like a military weapon the are deemed "dangerous". Guns are not evil. They are tools. They are used to gather food, for recreation and for protection.

The funniest thing about England's gun mentality is that during WW II they armed the citizenry with rifles and semi-auto pistols because they were afraid the Germans would invade. Right after the war it was deemed too dangerous for people to have those guns and they were collected and destroyed. A government that arms its people to defend the country but doesn't trust them to have arms for self defense is showing their fear of the people. They made guns bad to protect themselves and not to protect their subjects.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Guns

It's strange, the cultural difference. In the US you seem to feel safer if you're armed to the teeth. In the UK we feel safer because we're not. Even the UK police do not want to be armed. We have armed response units, but the average bobbies on the beat don't want a gun.

Pretty much the same in most of Europe as well. I'd feel deeply uncomfortable with having a loaded gun in the house. If I ever take up hunting, my rifle will be stored in a locker, unarmed.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

It's strange, the cultural difference. In the US you seem to feel safer if you're armed to the teeth. In the UK we feel safer because we're not. Even the UK police do not want to be armed. We have armed response units, but the average bobbies on the beat don't want a gun.

[Willow]

Re: Guns

Criminals will always have weapons.

Agreed.

I don't have one. My cousin taught (or tried to) me how to shoot one of his handguns and a turkey shooter (my shoulder is ruined so anything that really kicks I can't use). At the end of the day, I couldn't hit the big wooden board from 15 feet away so... I'm thinking big dog instead.

The concept of everyone being able to buy a handgun used to bother me a lot. Especially when on those rare occasions you'd witness a few idjits sporting unconcealed firearms in a grocery store or something walking around like they owned the place and randomly saying "boom" and laughing. In that sense, it still really bothers me.

But in light of recent events, I may try giving the firing range another chance in the future.

[magusphredde]

Re: Guns

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...ted_at_um.html ... Here ya go ... Including Obamas speech ...

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ore...ollege-n437051 ... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802 ... http://www.kgw.com/story/news/crime/...ting/73154898/ ... http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/at-le...affiliate.html ... Have to give you at least a few different sources ... And another tidbit of info ... Average victim fatalities when aw enforcement stops the shooter --- 13 ... Average victim fatalities when civilian stops the shooter --- 2 ...An armed and propery trained janitor could have lessened the body count ... And to think people egged him on and supposedly gave him suggestions on what weapon to use ... We should put them on trial for involuntary man slaughter ... 13 counts of it ... Or at east conspiracy to commit murder ...

[thalassa]

Re: Guns

I'd like to read this report from the government. Do you have a link?

[anunitu]

Re: Guns

That was the first thing I saw on the news after waking from my nap...did not make me a happy camper to wake to that..

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Guns

Sadly, there's been a mass shooting today at a community college in Oregon. Reports say 10 dead. So both gun advocates, and those against, will be out in full force.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Guns

The report that was forced by the Obama administration on the Surgeon general showed that between 1 1/2 million and 3 million citizens either prevented a crime or stopped a crime with a personal gun each year.
Now if you remove those guns from the public you would have those people as victims of crime instead of part of the solution to crime.
In The UK if someone tries to rob you at knife point and you hit them with a cricket bat and they die as a result you are guilty of murder. Especially if someone looking at the area after the fact thinks you could have run like a rabbit. Hogwash!