Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: guns for the UK?
paul1970    9/11/2007 12:32:17 PM
current thread on weapons board about guncrime in US going down because they have legal ownership. and some thinking that we need guns in the UK. what are the views of UK posters? my own is that the US situation is different than the UK and that more legal ownership here would only mean more criminals would turn to guns and this would increase the number of firearm crimes and deaths. Paul
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
tigertony    Bob   9/20/2007 3:56:48 PM
  Now when did i say i dislike the British Isles?  I said some homes i can buy are better then others,not i hate England!.
 
    And i actually do post on many of these SP boards,including US,Australia,China,India,Pakistan,and if they had a German board, on it as well.
 
  I will admit that i usually respond to others posts, and not make many myself,but i find it far more entertaining then watching my TV.
 
   And why do i visit the UK board?  Well because the USA was being talked about while i am here in America!.
 
 
                                                                        tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    Bob   9/20/2007 4:23:33 PM
 "another question tony, how many times a year do people get stabbed by knife weilding gangs? i've been mugged not once, not twice, but thrice walking home from the pub. did i wish i had a gun? NO, shooting people leads to too many complications in my opinion (that's the vital point too, MY OPNION), that and i don't live in a constant state of fear and paranoia about getting stabbed or mugged or whatever."
 
   Well now the real fact with your view is that you were mugged "Not Once,Not Twice, but Thrice".
 
   Well now in MY OPINION "That's 3 strikes and he is OUT!". The point being that if they mugged you, they will mug another,and thus one bullet would end 3 more strikes!. Not to mention billions in US Taxpayer dollars saved by that long,long list of repeat offenders!.
 
  Sounds hardcore and cruel? Maybe,but here in America, it is indeed REALITY!.
 
 
                                                                           tigertony
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       9/20/2007 4:33:54 PM

For what it's worth this is what I as a Dutchman make of it:
 
In my opinion crime and the amount legal gun ownership are not all that related. There is an example for each possibility of high and low crime rate versus small amount and large amount of legal gun ownership.
- Low crime rate--Low legal gun ownership   Japan
- High crime rate--Low legal gun ownership  Brasil
- Low crime rate--High legal gun ownership   Switserland
- High crime rate--High legal gun ownership   US

So you have people who want to ban guns and people wanting more gun ownership citing a relation between crime and the amount of legal guns in a country. But when I look closely at that relation, then it is not obvious that there even is such a thing. I cannot predict wheter a country has a high crime rate on the amount of legally owned guns alone. So in my opinion both sides of the debate use a link between crime and legal gun ownership that is questionable.

In my opinion that means that at least some of the gun ownership debate should also adress other reasons for allowing law abiding citizens to have guns. Such reasons could be:
- National defense
- Defense of minorities against organized group violence
- A guarantee that a state cannot impose all it wants on a population
Etc, etc...










You make some good points, but they raise more questions than they answer. Why does the US have such a horrific rate of homicide when Switzerland (or Canada, or Japan) does not?

I don't believe it's down to genetics (no genes governing behaviour have ever been found across any given specific groups, other than those groups you define by the fact that they have any given specific gene. ["racial" groups don't exist genetically]), therefore it must be culture.

I've been to Holland a few times, and the first thing I noticed was that at night, in a bar, there just wasn't the air of intimidation you get in the UK - of young men looking for a fight to round up the night. (except from the British tourists - sorry!)

A happier, better adjusted society? More mature outlook, stronger familial bonds? I've no idea.
 
I think wide scale gun ownership in the UK would unfortunately go more the way of the US experience than it would go the way of Switzerland's.

On the flip side I'm not sure it's the government's business to legislate for whether or not you carry guns, smoke, wear seatbelts etc

A long time ago you needed a victim before you could call something a crime.

Who is the victim if I should choose to carry a gun?

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/20/2007 5:15:39 PM
There are different theories I've read and they all have something to them.

There's the theory that the US is more violent, because the US is an immigrant country. With immigrants groups starting out being outsiders they are more likely to participate in crime and violence and more distrustfull of the police until the group becomes settled in society.

There's the theory that the US is more violent, because of the corrupting effect of wealth. With the US starting to rebuild it's economy after the great depression and Europe after WW2, Europe lags behind in being exposed to that effect. This would mean that what happens in the US crime will happen 1 to 2 decades later in Europe crime (or at least an European version of it).

I personally have this theory that crime increases the more fellow citizens are being dehumanized. The less you see someone else as a human like yourself, the easier it is to commit crimes against them without concience problems. In extreme cases a person would be like a object to you or like some kind of vermin, which would mean that killing that person causes the same emotional effect of breaking a vase or swatting a fly.

There's the theory that upholding the law has been undermined by basing police work/court laws on faulty theories. Theories like society is always the cause for crime (root causes). People commit crimes because they are poor, sick, anything but evil, alternative punishment for violent crimes, etc.

Then there is the theory that rise of narcotics have caused a lot of violent crime increase.

Then there is the change in the social structure of the family, which changes the way children are raised.

Then there is the influence of television, with it's constant bombardment of advertisments as a form of propaganda for mindless consumerism, not that consumerism is by definition always bad, but that doesn't make consumerism is by definition always good.

Etc, etc, etc.

Could be a lot of small things/causes all added up into a big effect.





 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       9/20/2007 9:51:52 PM

 "another question tony, how many times a year do people get stabbed by knife weilding gangs? i've been mugged not once, not twice, but thrice walking home from the pub. did i wish i had a gun? NO, shooting people leads to too many complications in my opinion (that's the vital point too, MY OPNION), that and i don't live in a constant state of fear and paranoia about getting stabbed or mugged or whatever."

 

   Well now the real fact with your view is that you were mugged "Not Once,Not Twice, but Thrice".

 

   Well now in MY OPINION "That's 3 strikes and he is OUT!". The point being that if they mugged you, they will mug another,and thus one bullet would end 3 more strikes!. Not to mention billions in US Taxpayer dollars saved by that long,long list of repeat offenders!.

 

  Sounds hardcore and cruel? Maybe,but here in America, it is indeed REALITY!.

 

 

                                                                           tigertony

 


 


sh*t tony you don't quit do you...
first, i'm british (read my handle!!!) so how me shooting muggers would have saved US taxpayer money i've no clue.
only nobs like you could compare getting mugged to a baseball game (you really are sad)
as for muggers 1 and 2... mugger number 1 was later apprehended with my stuff (silly prat mugged me outside a police station, it just took the night officer time to put down his tea and assist me). mugger number 2 was caught about three minutes after he attacked me as my friend tackled him on the run and smashed his face into the nice cold conrete pavement so maybe he'll think twice now. mugger number three is still out there i suppose (with a nice winter coat i once owned). i hardly see how me shooting them would have help, i was drunk walking home from pubs on all three occasions, i don't think me shooting a gun under the influence in a busy town is such a great idea, and if you've ever been mugged then you'd know its no long ordeal, they don't stand around after waiting for you to say something, you are usually on the floor with a sore head after they have come up behind you and hit you or clubbed you very hard (fifteen stitches hard once), you really don't understand much do you (silly pratt)

 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/21/2007 11:22:20 AM



For what it's worth this is what I as a Dutchman make of it:
 
In my opinion crime and the amount legal gun ownership are not all that related. There is an example for each possibility of high and low crime rate versus small amount and large amount of legal gun ownership.
- Low crime rate--Low legal gun ownership   Japan
- High crime rate--Low legal gun ownership  Brasil
- Low crime rate--High legal gun ownership   Switserland
- High crime rate--High legal gun ownership   US

So you have people who want to ban guns and people wanting more gun ownership citing a relation between crime and the amount of legal guns in a country. But when I look closely at that relation, then it is not obvious that there even is such a thing. I cannot predict wheter a country has a high crime rate on the amount of legally owned guns alone. So in my opinion both sides of the debate use a link between crime and legal gun ownership that is questionable.

In my opinion that means that at least some of the gun ownership debate should also adress other reasons for allowing law abiding citizens to have guns. Such reasons could be:
- National defense
- Defense of minorities against organized group violence
- A guarantee that a state cannot impose all it wants on a population
Etc, etc...











You make some good points, but they raise more questions than they answer. Why does the US have such a horrific rate of homicide when Switzerland (or Canada, or Japan) does not?

I don't believe it's down to genetics (no genes governing behaviour have ever been found across any given specific groups, other than those groups you define by the fact that they have any given specific gene. ["racial" groups don't exist genetically]), therefore it must be culture.

I've been to Holland a few times, and the first thing I noticed was that at night, in a bar, there just wasn't the air of intimidation you get in the UK - of young men looking for a fight to round up the night. (except from the British tourists - sorry!)

A happier, better adjusted society? More mature outlook, stronger familial bonds? I've no idea.
 
I think wide scale gun ownership in the UK would unfortunately go more the way of the US experience than it would go the way of Switzerland's.
you hit the nail here....
generally UK young males are not the sort who should have access to guns.... the UK has a reputation for drunken thugish behaviour... and it is well earned...
 
the US is welcome to keep its guns and the consequences of their ownership. I just don't want them pushing this mad notion that more guns mean less gun crime.
 
Paul

 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       9/21/2007 11:33:44 AM




 "another question tony, how many times a year do people get stabbed by knife weilding gangs? i've been mugged not once, not twice, but thrice walking home from the pub. did i wish i had a gun? NO, shooting people leads to too many complications in my opinion (that's the vital point too, MY OPNION), that and i don't live in a constant state of fear and paranoia about getting stabbed or mugged or whatever."



 



   Well now the real fact with your view is that you were mugged "Not Once,Not Twice, but Thrice".



 



   Well now in MY OPINION "That's 3 strikes and he is OUT!". The point being that if they mugged you, they will mug another,and thus one bullet would end 3 more strikes!. Not to mention billions in US Taxpayer dollars saved by that long,long list of repeat offenders!.



 



  Sounds hardcore and cruel? Maybe,but here in America, it is indeed REALITY!.



 



 



                                                                           tigertony



 




 




sh*t tony you don't quit do you...
first, i'm british (read my handle!!!) so how me shooting muggers would have saved US taxpayer money i've no clue.

only nobs like you could compare getting mugged to a baseball game (you really are sad)

as for muggers 1 and 2... mugger number 1 was later apprehended with my stuff (silly prat mugged me outside a police station, it just took the night officer time to put down his tea and assist me). mugger number 2 was caught about three minutes after he attacked me as my friend tackled him on the run and smashed his face into the nice cold conrete pavement so maybe he'll think twice now. mugger number three is still out there i suppose (with a nice winter coat i once owned). i hardly see how me shooting them would have help, i was drunk walking home from pubs on all three occasions, i don't think me shooting a gun under the influence in a busy town is such a great idea, and if you've ever been mugged then you'd know its no long ordeal, they don't stand around after waiting for you to say something, you are usually on the floor with a sore head after they have come up behind you and hit you or clubbed you very hard (fifteen stitches hard once), you really don't understand much do you (silly pratt)


 



fortunately never been mugged....
 
not sure how bad the mugging problem really is, guess it depends on the area... but I have never been worried enough about walking the streets of central London, Bristol and Blackpool at night
 
I do put a lot of opportunity crime and mugging doen to the drugs problem. and most of our violent crime down to alcohol.
 
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       9/21/2007 12:01:50 PM








 "another question tony, how many times a year do people get stabbed by knife weilding gangs? i've been mugged not once, not twice, but thrice walking home from the pub. did i wish i had a gun? NO, shooting people leads to too many complications in my opinion (that's the vital point too, MY OPNION), that and i don't live in a constant state of fear and paranoia about getting stabbed or mugged or whatever."





 





   Well now the real fact with your view is that you were mugged "Not Once,Not Twice, but Thrice".





 





   Well now in MY OPINION "That's 3 strikes and he is OUT!". The point being that if they mugged you, they will mug another,and thus one bullet would end 3 more strikes!. Not to mention billions in US Taxpayer dollars saved by that long,long list of repeat offenders!.





 





  Sounds hardcore and cruel? Maybe,but here in America, it is indeed REALITY!.





 





 





                                                                           tigertony





 






 







sh*t tony you don't quit do you...
first, i'm british (read my handle!!!) so how me shooting muggers would have saved US taxpayer money i've no clue.



only nobs like you could compare getting mugged to a baseball game (you really are sad)



as for muggers 1 and 2... mugger number 1 was later apprehended with my stuff (silly prat mugged me outside a police station, it just took the night officer time to put down his tea and assist me). mugger number 2 was caught about three minutes after he attacked me as my friend tackled him on the run and smashed his face into the nice cold conrete pavement so maybe he'll think twice now. mugger number three is still out there i suppose (with a nice winter coat i once owned). i hardly see how me shooting them would have help, i was drunk walking home from pubs on all three occasions, i don't think me shooting a gun under the influence in a busy town is such a great idea, and if you've ever been mugged then you'd know its no long ordeal, they don't stand around after waiting for you to say something, you are usually on the floor with a sore head after they have come up behind you and hit you or clubbed you very hard (fifteen stitches hard once), you really don't understand much do you (silly pratt)




 





fortunately never been mugged....

 

not sure how bad the mugging problem really is, guess it depends on the area... but I have never been worried enough about walking the streets of central London, Bristol and Blackpool at night

 

I do put a lot of opportunity crime and mugging doen to the drugs problem. and most of our violent crime down to alcohol.

 

 

Paul


exactly my train of thought paul, if i thought it were a problem i wouldn't have continued to walk home drunk at night, i'd have called a cab. however, (and as usuall) tony disagrees and thinks that me shooting a gun in defence at the muggers (while drunk i might add in a built up and populated area) would have saved (and i seriously quote here) "BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars" (in our case pounds) i don't think he g
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/21/2007 3:10:22 PM

On the flip side I'm not sure it's the government's business to legislate for whether or not you carry guns, smoke, wear seatbelts etc

it's a public safety thing with with guns and smoking since both can have highly deleterous effects on bystanders.
seatbelts i suppose ought to be a matter of clearing the dimwits out of the genepool rather than mandatory.  if you run a public healthcare system then it's a matter of reducing the drain on that over car accident victims.

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    The main reason for guns in the US   9/21/2007 4:49:03 PM
Isn't giving US citizens a way to effectively resist an unjust govt. the main reason why the founders gave US citizens the right to bear arms?  If this is so then why is the primary reason for gun ownership almost invisible in the gun debate? This reason has little to do with crime.

There is a part of me that believes that the Dutch govt. wouldn't be so confident in pulling all that crap if the law abiding citizens were armed. I find the idea of our elected leaders being slightly afraid to get on the armed electorate bad side appealing for some reason.

I wonder wheter the Dutch (or UK) govt. would have pulled less crap if we were more armed and had a slight reason to fear us.




 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics