water cannon
 

let us know how that works out for y'all

http://www.senortuna.com/pics/data/500/katrina_067.jpg

I'd expect folk would be mighty polite to each other in that neighbourhood. As they should be!

the good ol' "keeping peace by means of a superior firepower" ;)

You know what, I lived here in the UK for some years now, and I still can't get my head around the obstinate "guns are evil!" policy: the result is that people aren't safe in their homes and that events like the ones of the last days go out of control.

Besides, all this coming from one of the countries which constructed their empire with the use of guns is a bit silly :rolleyes:

I have a nice collection of WW2 and WW1 guns, but left them all in custody in Italy, since it's a massive ballache to bring em here..

I was born and bred in the UK and have only ever seen one gun in my life, a Magnum as it happens, which I loaded using a spring loader. Once it was loaded the rather simple mechanical device took on a whole new meaning. It was rather scary to be holding a device that could blow someone's head off with a simple click.

I for one am very happy with the UK's no guns policy and have never felt unprotected whatsoever. If you need to kill someone then do it online. And if you feel you 'might' need to kill someone then move country.

Tuppence anyone ?

So as long as the criminals play by your standards and rules then everyone will be safe and happy!

And if not, they get shot and most probably killed. Welcome to the 21st century... :rolleyes: Fits the rest (debts, infrastructure, social support, scholar system and and and...).

yeah, I think people fail to understand that the sense of protection they're given by their home walls is just an illusion. What happened in London and other UK cities was just a mild teaser of what would happen in case of massive riots, caused by anything out of the ordinary.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen to the all British "we know it better" attitude the day shit really hits the fan and they find themselves on the wrong end of a 12".. :rolleyes:

A "we know better" attitude is hardly confined to the British!

The point is that if everyone is allowed to have a gun, then it rapidly becomes necessary for everyone to have one, as an arms race between criminals and citizens sets in. While if no-one has one, this is a common good. I agree that it makes burglary more common - but it also reduces the lethality of muggings.

There is also the accident rate to consider - I am too lazy to look it up but I would make a wager that the rate of deaths by accidental shooting in the US is higher than the UK's entire murder rate, whether inflicted with gun, knife or horrible food (eg the "Great British Sausage").

I would prefer to live in a society free of handguns and assault rifles, (although I am quite familiar with their use), but I recognize that this is not a realistic option for the USA given the NRA and the sheer number of guns in circulation.

Whats the old saying 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Maybe the scaryness was a reflection of your own soul? A deep down fear that all that hate and anger from being put down for all those years would rise to the surface and you wouldn't be able to control your self...and now in your very hands you had the means to take revenge?

....

No wait a minute! That was me! ;)

Only joking, seriously, If you swapped the guns for cricket bats, you could take that photo anywhere in the UK or Australia and you'ld see a regular bunch of fun loving blokes coming to gether in an expression of their community spirt. I don't know the background for the above photo, could be after Katrina? Any way at least they've got a sense of humor.

Cheers!

tis true, but they invented it ;)

erm, yeah, that in a ideal society, where criminals are abiding the law (?). The truth is that criminals still will find ways of having firearms, so the government only disarms law abiding citizens, not criminals. That's an old bogus thinking which I've heard ad nauseam..

There have recently been changes to our laws here, now if you kill an intruder in your property, unless it's evident he/she was fleeing, you won't be charged with murder.

yeah, and a tenth of the population of the USA? :rolleyes:

I am very familiar with the use of firearms, and I can tell you about other societies where firearms control was introduced for the "greater good": Nazi Germany, Ceaucescu's Romania, Franco's Spain and many other happy regimes..


Mind you, in the UK there is no complete ban, you can have bolt action rifles, rimfire semiautos and muzzle loaders, not to mention smooth bore guns, but it's the demonisation of firearms that is plain ridiculous. You need to think about ultimate protection for yourself and your family, cos there won't be anybody answering your 999 call (which is 666 upside down!) when the zombie apocalypse comes ;)

Guns never kill people - it's the biological protoplasm that pulls the trigger.

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.c...monkey_gun.jpg

I do't know who told you that crap, but not even the Nazis had a hard Firearms Control law (for Pistols and Rifles, full automatic weapons never had been legal in Germany). The first Firearms control came with the Allies in 1945 when ownership was absolutley prohibited and in 1948 when the Federal Rebublic of Germany was founded, the Allied Firearms Policy was taken as Federal law by the new German Government, that was the Deal for getting back limited sovereignty.

The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns**, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded.
Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions.
Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons.
This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

**= which ment a maximum for owned Handguns except for historical collections)

lol unfortunately it's not the first time I see a monkey with a Glock ;)

*cough cough*

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html

sorry, I should have specified that Jews were forbidden from owning and making firearms and ammunition..

Oh, well played.

Alex Jones much?

Sternjaeger, you are advocating the free(ish) sale of guns in my country. As a concerned citizen I would need some information before deciding. I have a question.

Will the UK's crime rate go up, down or be un-affected by gun ownership?

In that dark days Jewish Germans were forbidden for many more things, even the use of Public Parks.
I was in Auschwitz a few years ago, i think everbody nows the Rooms were the Hair and the suitcases are shown to the public, but there is also a little pot full with Iron Crosses, from jewish German WW1 Veterans. There also is this room with artifical arms and legs, maybe some of them is from jewish ww1 vets.
You get your leg shut off at Verdun, just to end in Auschwitz a few years later. It's just....

who's Alex Jones? :confused:

Lixma, it's already there, you're free to go buy a firearm in your country, provided you can produce a gun license when you buy it. This is what I mean, there is deliberate confusion and disinformation on the matter.

The crime rate won't be affected, since criminals already have a gun. So do hunters, collectors and skeet shooters, but it's not like there's a stand-off everyday, is there? It's about the way licenses are given.

I have a question for you: how many people die of a car accident every year in this country? Shall we ban the use of cars then?


Uh and let me give you another example: you remember the shooting man in Wales not so long ago? The maniac that was driving around and shooting at people from his car? He could have been stopped instead of letting him go on the loose for 3 and a half hours if the police cars behind him had armed police officers in it. Don't you think that if the rest of the world has armed police officers and we don't, and then that kind of stuff happens, maybe it's time to reconsider things?

...horrible, I know. But this happened also because of gun control. You remember what happened in the Warsaw ghetto when they managed to get their hands on weapons, right?

We look at WW2 and other conflicts with a distant and detached attitude, but the ultimate right to defend yourself should never be taken off you. It's about freedom, and making sure it's respected.

So they aren't much good at preventing crime.

Arming the police and allowing the public access to firearms are separate arguments. I'll let the police decide.

yes they are, it just has nothing to do with criminals, since they already have firearms. What did they find on the scum that was killed by the police in London?

I agree, and firearms are already accessible by the public, albeit in a restricted form.

Hehe, mention firearms to an american and he screams "second amendment" and starts singing the anthem. :grin:

Gun homicide per 100,000 population:
USA 3.98
Canada 0.4
England/Wales 0.15

Have fun doing what you're doing while we here in Sweden have intercourse with bikiniteams and polarbears. :grin:

:-P

erm,I believe you misinterpreted what I meant.. It won't affect crime because criminals already have guns.. do I seriously have to explain this bit again? :confused:

You can't simultaneously hold the positions that :-

A) Gun ownership prevents crime.

and....

B) Crime rates in the UK will be unaffected by public ownership of firearms.

If gun ownership prevents crime then all things being equal the the crime rate should come down after its introduction.

But if, as you said, the crime rate will remain un-affected then in what tangible sense has gun ownership prevented crime?

I never understand people who really believe that taking guns from law abiding people would make a safer place where no one will be hurt by crime. They have way too much dependency on institutions to live and eat.

Muggings without guns mean less lethal? That's hilarious. The point is less muggings not less chance of losing life due to lead poisoning.

Just ask yourself if you were very very hungry and just had to eat and you have two people and you had to roll one of the for cash to afford to eat.

One holding a gun in his right hand and foaming at the mouth, smiling, laughing in such a such a way his belly fat jiggles and he is winking at you, licking his lips, blows a kiss your way and he's holding one hundred dollars cash in his left hand and the other subject is just holding the cash, which would you choose?

Just answer that to yourself because anyone with common sense knows that answer.

If people want to own guns, that's their business. Personally, I don't want the responsibility of owning a firearm.
Touch wood, so far I have never been in a bad situation where having one would have been convenient.

Checking the stats I must admit there are other countries who have higher killrates by firearms than the US...like Colombia, Albania and the Phillipines. :-D
By the way, what's the requirements to legally buy a gun in the US? Clean record or? And can I take my gun with me to the pub for a pint with friends?

I purchase from gun shows locally here in Texas now and then. They have them every month. When I have done so you just decide what you want and they make you fill out this paperwork and you have to have proper ID of course. Wait for about 15 minutes while you're background is being checked - usually buying ammo or reloading supplies during this wait. Then they'll call your cell phone to tell you that you're approved and give you receipt and your gun and that's it. You have to 18 or over and a clean criminal background.

Taking it into bar is not allowed. State law provides that any business can forbid carrying of a firearm on their property. They display this sign iat the entrance of the establishment.
http://www.hammerle.com/wp-content/u...as-300x225.jpg

However a business owner can pack heat all he wants to in his own business and even wear it visible. Many pawn shops have all their people working there packing heat. They never have anything happen in them bad.
http://store02.prostores.com/hurrica...z911_thumb.jpg
I feel safest in these places.

Trust me when I tell you this because I've lived here my entire life. Everyone I know and I mean EVERYONE I know owns and or carries a gun on them all the time. Guns are not rare they're every where.

And the death rate from automobiles is astronomically higher than either stat, so wouldn't be more prudent to get rid of cars because thy statistically kill a lot more people than any other weapon?

lol at expanding gun ownership in Britain. Too many drunks here for that to be a good idea!

What do I need a gun for anyway? There's no wolves or bears here last time I looked. If it's against crims in my house then I'd rather knock them out with a chair leg or something instead of shooting them. Better that than think 'murderer' every time I look in the mirror afterward.

I was caught up in a shooting in Greenford once though. It wasn't much fun and I was glad to get out of there pronto. I don't think having a shooter would have helped the situation at all.

It just raises the stakes too much. I have no problem with other people in other countries carrying guns. Not here thanks though!

Arms race?

I dont think so.

Criminals go for the low hanging fruit and much prefer robbing old ladies and the helpless.

I have never said that gun ownership prevents crime, I just like firearms and want to be free to use them.

Let me give you an example: I can legally own a bolt action rifle (modern or vintage), but NOT a semiauto one. What's the difference? I'm still gonna be able to kill with a bolt action rifle.. it's the legislation that is ridiculous, not people's opinion on it.

I frankly don't care what people think of firearms, men that don't like em never shot one probably, but again, it's not my problem, I know I like going to the range and use my ww2 rifles, period. Some people go fishing, some others dress up like women, I like firearms. If then having one in the house would allow me for self defence, well I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

You lot have a very distorted vision of owning firearms me thinks..

That legislation was bought in after the Hungerford massacre. As you may remember, Michael Ryan had a semi automatic rifle (an AK I think) and used it very efficiently.

The idea was to limit the damage one individual could do with a weapon. Slower rate of fire = less kills per unit of time etc

No we need to ban the one common denominator in these problems. Humans. We should just ban humans. Check out the stats for alcohol related drunk driving accidents that resulted in death in Texas. Couldn't find the last couple of years but nevertheless.

1982 4,213
1983 3,823
1984 3,912
1985 3,678
1986 3,567
1987 3,260
1988 3,392
1989 3,370
1990 3,250
1991 3,078
1992 3,059
1993 3,043
1994 3,187
1995 3,183
1996 3,742
1997 3,513
1998 3,586
1999 3,522
2000 3,779
2001 3,736
2002 3,823
2003 3,675
2004 3,583
2005 3,504
2006 3,466
2007 3,363
2008 3,382

But is it not cheaper to eliminate these individuals from living among us peaceful people than to break an expensive handmade antique 14th century Louis V mahogany chair over their head and have to be fed and supported in a penal facility by you and the tax payers? Get your calculator out and do the math I can reload that one round for about a buck 05 vs what the cost for the expensive antique chair plus years of free rent / food / healthcare.

And unless I am the one being shot at I am not getting involved unless I am pretty sure that I know what is going on and I have as greater chance that the outcome will produce a win for me vs a win for them. This is a flight sim you do essentially the thing. You size up your opponent. You follow and stalk and wait for the right moment and go in for the shot. Same thing. You don't go blazing into battle with a unloaded or empty gun unless you're really trying to entertain the subscribers of the Darwin awards email newsletter.

...erm, you can buy a semiauto rimfire .22 CAR15 in the UK... it's just an obstinate political thing..

you forgot the Cumbria shooter and his 12 killed and 23 wounded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

wake up, people..

Like buying a cell phone over here. Horrible but guess it's about culture. I'm not judging anyone but hope we'll never go that route over here.

Big dogs and booby traps forget the guns.

...or clone my wife and equip every home with one.

http://fleshymeninpolyester.files.wo...gly-woman4.jpg

I know about the rimfire's still being available. As you know, they are significantly less powerful than a centrefire gun, hence still being legal.

As for Cumbria, that was because of police incompetence. If they had got their act together, they could have stopped him earlier. I wasn't disputing the fact that the legislation is crap though - just pointing out why it is the way it is.

Don't get me wrong. I like target shooting, but the laws are there for good reason (normally because a minority ruin it for everyone else). Right or wrong, we just have to accept it. :(

Honestly I like it this way. I mean were we can and you can't. I will defend your right to keep them out of the hands of all your citizens.

It's all about shot placement. Lotta survivors of .44 mag who took one in the arm or leg but no survivors of those that took a .22 rimfire between the eyes.

too true!

then a lot of the rioters could have been equally armed.

would've been carnage.

so far one guy was shot dead (gang related apparently) thsoe three blokes that got hit by a car and a couple of bystanders (not rioters or police) have gotten a kicking.

hang on.

the criminals have guns, yes, a lot are reactivated firearms or eastern european. but it's the bullets that they find in short supply. rounds go for £50-100+ each. they tend to just shoot each other because it's difficult and expensive to get rounds for anything other than settling scores or sorting territory.

second, it appears and according to the IPCC, that the guy who got shot hadn't fired at police, and reports suggest it was still in his sock when they shot him. if he is brandishing the thing then fine - danger to life is obvious. if not the police ballsed it up. not helped by a bunch of them battering a 16 year old girl on the floor outside the station when the family turn up wanting to know what happened.

Nice thread.

Car = transport. Not a weapon.

Gun = Weapon. A weapon.

SternjagerII left his guns in Italy but wants to shoot guns = GO BACK TO ITALY.

We sorted?

Really, it's that simple. This is the UK, we don't do guns. Perhaps one day you'll be dancing on our national grave saying "I told you so" but I don't think so. If you want to own and shoot an arsenal of guns there's loads of places to do it, just not here. If you came here loving guns and are upset you don't get to go full-auto, it's this simple.

Leave.

The exits are clearly marked.

Go.

and would've ended in 1 day, but perhaps you prefer the alternative which is for the UK to be bled to death slowly?

Four dead ( is that how many the cops shot to death without reason on that bridge in New Orleans?), probably 2,000 going through the courts, about £100 million of damage, a national debate, some macro-economic and social changes. Hardly being bled to death slowly is it? And while we're at it this was exsclusively English rather than a UK event.

There are also people who like to go fishing with firearms while dressed in womens clothing! which would be actually illegal in Australia.

At least in my state taking fish with a firearm or even carrying it on your boat, or discharging it over open water is illegal.

Some laws are just plain silly and are designed to repress our self expression on our journey to enlightenment!

Classic "frog placed in pot of cold water on the stove". The water is just starting to get warm. Relax and enjoy the spa.

Well I will eat my hat! :o

From NRA-ILA website (must be accurate, right?):

"The firearm accident death rate is*at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904."

Meanwhile across the Pond...

Most recent murder rate UK = 1.28 per 100,000 pop (2009)

Actually until sometime in the seventies, I would have been right, but the gun accident rate has kept on dropping fast. Credit due to better gun design, improved safety awareness or stricter gun controls, take your pick.

Personally I do not believe that the level of crime in total is related to gun ownership - there are countries with high gun ownership levels and low crime rates (Switzerland), high guns + high crime (US), low guns + high crime (UK), and low guns +low crime (Japan?).

But the expression of crime in terms of gun related murder does seem to correlate with gun ownership - hence is my arms race argument, which is a classic prisoners' dilemma problem where the optimum solution can only be achieved through the use of an outside arbitrator, ie the state.

The overall crime rate is clearly a cultural matter: not primarily economic, as the left-liberals claim, although demographics and the business cycle clearly have an incremental effect.

Meanwhile the way in which yanks and limeys talk past each other on this issue is also cultural, and down to the different ways in which each views the role of the state.

Yanks, at least of the Red State variety, view liberty as something that is threatened by a strong state. With a weak state they feel free - to keep slaves, massacre red indians, invade Mexico etc ;)

Guns are a totem of this freedom. Hence the rather silly arguments about how we are all doomed to end up under Nazi rule unless we have the right to bear arms. (Which ignores the fact that the Weimar republic fell because it did not control a monopoly of force, not because citizens were disempowered by gun laws).

For the British a strong centralized state has historically been the source of rights and freedoms. The main threat to liberty the individual faced was not from the sovereign, but from ruthless and greedy oligarchs, whether the traditional landed aristocracy or rapacious industrialists. The state, through the mechanisms of the Crown Courts, ameliorated the depredations of the locally powerful.

Indeed the recent riots in England can be seen as parallel to the American Revolution:

- A section of the population feels that it lives long way away from the centre of power.

- They believe that the forces of the state are biased against them and give them insufficient "respect".

- The state has been attempting to prevent them from victimizing other subjects (albeit with little success).

- When they are required to contribute to the finances of the state from which they have been major beneficiaries they claim they are over taxed and under represented.

- When some spark ignite the flames a few opportunists organize the rest through the social media of the day and start an insurrection.

- Rival militias form.

- While the forces of the crown struggle to reimpose order the politicians leap at an opportunity to settle old scores....

- Civil war?

Yes i do, but then it was too late. The Major Problem in germany and maybe the whole world, was that the Nazis were underestimated. Big Mistake.

Yes i'm with you in this point. I have a Firearms License which includes the right to concealed carring a gun which is pretty hard to get here in germany right now and if something similar will happen in germany as it happens right now in London and elswhere, i will defend my self by all means and if necessary that will include the use of Deadly Force.
But that will not happen, because most of them looters are cowards, when they see a gun, they go elsewhere to loot.
But if necessary i will not hesitate and take actions depending on the level of Threat.

Which takes us in a big loop back to the original post and the photo.

By putting up the sign and not concealing their firearms (most visible had holsters on their hips) they are actually putting out a fairly strong message and therefore avoiding violence and anti-social behavior.

Cheers!

Uhmmmm a very refined thinking,did u write it yourself or got help from the BNP?

You completely missed the point of what I was saying,whenever mentioning firearms some people here get their knickers in a twist. What you don't seem to understand that apart for most semi-autos and pistols you can have other firearms in this country,it's the attitude of public opinion and the lack of armed police officers that I find ridiculous.

You think firearms should be used against firearms,but it's not the case.

What leaves me utterly amazed is that the police here behaves like Dad's Army, whenever they screw up (Cumbria, riots) their answer is "we didn't expect that".. seriously?! You're a police force,you need to be able to deliver an ultimate strength service wherever necessary on the spot,not sit and look people commit crimes. A swifter and more decisive intervention in Bidmingham could have saved the lives of those guys.

The ones with reactivated guns are petty criminals,I'm talking about the real ones,do you really think there's no stacks of assault rifles from former eastern block arsenals? Smuggling stuff in this country is still incredibly easy,get a ferry to the continent and see how many controls you go through,I was shocked the first time I crossed the Channel: NO control whatsoever,no police presence,nothing!

you know what, I find it frankly disturbing that in front of such massive police fails people still believe they can be protected by them. People love digging their heads in the sand here, hoping that it's never gonna happen to them.

I've heard conversation where some pride themselves with the fact that there is no need for brutal police force here..in a village in Devon though..

It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them.

And yes, there's insurances and what not to repay the damage, but for some of the damage there's no compensation that will fill the void.

Do you really think that in the end, once this is over, the minority of people which will be charged with some offence will actually make things better? This lot had nothing to lose..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

The problem which most of the people arguing for freedom regarding owning a gun or not is that they usually forget that there are tons of people around, which should definitely not be able to carry a gun around and NOT being criminal. Of course, us, normally behaving and at least average intelligent human beings, can discuss this matter being pro or against. Silly things with laws (however stupid they are...) is: they have to be the same for everybody. And I absolutely not want my choleric neighbour, who tends to get angry by every little thing bothering him, to carry a gun around. And I am absolutely sure that he has a clean record and no (obvious) mental disorder. That's the way it is, all other arguments are picked.

First, you should stop bringing up over and over again examples of massacres. Even now in Norway, things like this are usually rare events compared to the amount of gun homicides, which happen on a daily basis in the US. This comparison is ridiculous, as such things can happen even with the tightest control of guns, but they will also continue to happen if everybody is carrying a gun (as the maniac is usually ready to die).

Second: how many times did you actually miss a gun in your hands? I guess, that 99% of the people desperatly begging for free firearms have never been in a situation where they would have real drawbacks with NO gun in their hands.

Third, don't forget that you can destroy someones life even without killing him, usually the high numbers of injuries are not taken in account in the statistics...

Fourth: in a working society, there is simply not 100% freedom possible, forget about that. So there is NO right to carry around a gun, that is ridiculuous thinking of about 200 years ago...

Fifth: comparing cars and guns is on an intellectual niveau I usually do not further comment. People dying in cars=accident. People dying by guns=controlled, conscious action. Even you admit, that its not the gun killing people, but the one at the trigger. Same is true for cars, so argument even further invalid...

I think, "unreasonable" is right, criminal rate is a cultural matter. Of course, you would feel more safe with a gun at home, if some looters want to rob your stuff out of your house. But come one, how many times happens this in your life? And don't you think, there would be more intelligent ways to avoid looters robbing your house than just by sitting in there armed like hell? This is so shortsighted thinking that I stop commenting any further here...

yeah, truth is that those were real riots, whereas what happened here was mainly looting. Things could have gone way out of hand in those two contexts if there was no armed police forces.

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it. Truth is that police couldnt do its job properly because they're untrained and unarmed, which defies the concept of policing.

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

I for one care about and respect the society I live in and will do what I can to protect it and my household, and know that police forces unfortunately can't be everywhere all the time.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

All I can hope for is that you will never find yourself in a position when you might really do with one, cos it's not gonna be fun..

I'm sorry but that's a gross generalisation.
The truth is that a car is a commodity that very few people would give up on. That's the only difference. Cars and the oil we need to run them make waaaay much more damage than owning firearms, but again, who would give up on such comfort? It's the hypocrisy of modern society..

Wow.

You are awesome.

I don't get your point.

You just don't see those kinds of riots in Arizona where I live. During the L.A. riots some of the so-called black leaders were trying to get people stirred up here to riot. The thing is, we're all armed. In '92 I was carrying openly in a holster as is in accordance with the law. I also was a CCW instructor so I could carry concealed if I wanted to. Either way, the riots didn't happen here and continue to not happen here because the prevailing attitude is live and let live. Unless you're destroying my property or intend to harm. The law here allows a whole bunch of really neat stuff to happen should you decide to become a hoodlum. I've held car theives at gun point for the police. They thanked me. A buddy had a gun stolen and it was hidden in a business warehouse. He reported it stolen. We staked out the place and they came back to get it. The perps were looking down the barrel of my scoped AR-15 when they came out w/the stolen gun. The cops showed up, thanked us for holding the theives and moved on.

An armed society is a polite society. I shot 3 gun combat matches professionally for years and years. I've seen disagreements and I've seen some harsh words exchanged. Never did one person decide that the firearm was the answer to the argument. Whether that person had true respect for the weapon or whether he didn't wanna get smoked by the rest of the armed people present is something only that person can answer. In '95 my team shot 4th in the Soldier of Fortune world championships. Closest law enforcement or military team was 7th. The top 5 were sponsored civilian teams. In those days I was still a professional musician so my hair was long, down to my waist. I was the only competitor with long hair. Even got some smart alec comments from some of the other shooters. Till I shot. They were polite after that. It's hard to explain the dynamic between people when everyone is armed but it's one that I prefer. People for the most part are more polite. Like a normal human being should be. There's no childish screaming or someone being a jerk cuz they've had a bad day. Below is a shot from that match, on the shotgun stage. #4 buckshot or better were the loads we were required to carry. No birdshot.

http://iplaster.net/rugg/sof95a.jpg

I feel completely comfortable around others that are armed. I'm not intimidated in the least by someone carrying. In some ways, I believe that natural selection would work much better in a society where everyone was armed. Those that were too stupid (or rude) to get a clue wouldn't last long and society would be better off for it.

Speak for yourself I am always armed. Always. In my vehicle. On my person. On my property. In my home. I have several. They are all loaded. That is the safest way to keep them. Most of the meat I consume I shot myself. I have a freezer full of it and what I cannot consume I donate to organization that feed people. But I rarely buy meat since I have a ton already. I've won a chili cook off 2 years in a row (the only 2 I entered) using deer.

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation. Guns are not an end all solution to oppresive or aggressive governments. Guns can enable the people to resist and make subjugation of those people very difficult for aggressors.

well mate, if/when the s**t really hits the fan, I doubt you'll save yourself with sophisms..

+ 1000 to ruggbutt


you can actually see it in the arrogance and patronising attitude of their posts.. the conception and tolerance for others' ideas and principles is quite a random one here..

That my friend is the reason you have the 2nd amendment in America. Perhaps the world doesn't understand that the Constitution in America does not state what the government will do for you or it's obligation towards its people. It is a charter of negative liberties against the government to restrain it. And specifically the 2nd amendment is not there to prevent authorities from not allowing people to own guns. Read this next part very carefully. It is there to prevent the government from turning on its people and changing it into any other system that the people do not authorize. It is a written threat and a promise that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not for sport. Not for coolness. But to CONTROL GOVERNMENT. Not the body itself. But the once in a while socialist that gets out of hand. We get torches and pitchforks first then elections and then the 2nd amendment remedy is there.

When it comes to shove back I think consideration of your adversary is important. If you are getting shot at....

I'd say IED and handguns can do a world of hurt as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One thing about a gun, if you pull a gun on someone bluffing time is over. You shoot the dude, unless he becomes a whimpering mass of obsequious jelly.

I don't have much use for guns in daily life, but I do own many. It is really not good sense to discuss your gun ownership in most countries. The governments are very frightened of their own populations, look at London, Greece, Ireland... no sense going on about it. People all over the world are having real issues with their governments.

Guns can contribute significantly against government tyranny.

We use democracy instead of weapons to control government. But I'm a socialist so guess that puts me on your nut list.

Democracies always fail. They always end up being mob rule. All it takes is for one group to become more populous than the other people that have lived there for centuries and they have more votes and do and elect who they want and do what they want. Socialism is responsible for more than 70 million deaths in only a hand full of nations. I wouldn't be too proud to admit that on here.

I hope it doesn't come as a shock to you but look into German history during the 1920's through 1930's. HE was elected also. And HE to was a socialist.

The United States isn't a democracy. Hope that doesn't come as a shock to anyone not living here.

:!:


:grin:

If only people were as tolerant to other people's views as you, Sternjaeger.

Any country whose citizens do not have the right to bear arms, is facing real problems. I say that as I view the current banking and economic crisis in the world. Riots and insurrection aimed at incompetency in governments are central topics of international news daily.

People can only give up so much through entitlements until there is no more give up. When people become desperate for their daily needs then all the cautions and high sounding words won't mean a thing.

Failied social experiments won't mean zip, because when someone else has to pay for others to live and they don't have the means to provide for themselves... it's gonna hit the proverbial fan.

I want access to lots of guns and ammo when it hits the fan. :cool:

lol, touche', but it's only a reflection of what I normally get here...

you lot founded an empire on guns and violence and now live in complete denial, puh-leeease! ;)

correcto-mondo! :cool:

I fear the person that is so trusting that they allow persons in power to have so much control over their lives. Such as the food you eat. The food supply itself. Everything I could not allow myself to be so dependent on elected persons to not have a change of heart and decide that I was not the kind of person that should be allowed to inhabit my own land. Don't think that it can't / wont happen. You have an open society? Have a lot of new people arriving that are just hanging around and their numbers grow? When they get large enough to become a voting force in a democracy its all too easy for a movement to plant seeds to take over from within then you will not have any choice. I don't like allowing anyone to have that power. Men are fallible and always will be.

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (deleted word) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.

Not sure what you mean. Go grab The Original Argument and read it. It's a very good read and honestly I can't remember a time where America was alive and interested in their founding fathers. They are alive and are reading so much about our founders. It's an awakening like we've not seen probably since the atrocious Woodrow Wilson era. But it is a fantastic read and a new #1 best seller!

Lixma

I'd suggest you move onto something else, your last posting laced with vulgar expressions indicates frustration with the topic.

Just sayin' because vulgarity will get you a ban.

:?:

It was meant as humour.

No it wasn't.

(Maybe Democrat is considered vulgar in some circles...)

Not really. Today's democrats are not like the ones I use to know. Today they have been infected by people and ideals that are not even of this land. They call it progressive now and they have sickened both left and right. But that word is dicey now days to. I supposed they will start calling themselves blue dog democrats next.
But everyone is onto them now :)

I'll be on my way too so u funboys can have the room for yourselfs.

I'm quite happy living without guns. If the stuff hit the fan I'd much rather that my neighbour has to come and whack me in the face than shoot my head off from across the street. If other countries want to allow guns that's fine, but that doesn't give them the right to criticise the UK, just as it doesn't give us in the UK the right to criticise the internal policies of other sovereign nations (and I'm talking specifically about gun law here, not frolics into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc etc).

As for the argument about guns = crime well who knows. You're better off looking at the type of people who will use guns for crime. Anybody can flip and go on a killing rampage. If you equate the law that guns are not allowed in the UK with the recent riots, then that's plain ignorance. I really can't see an ordinary person (or fact an armed policeman or soldier) in the UK starting to indiscriminately shoot at rioters, and allowing guns would in my opinion simply escalate the fear and death.

And as for Stern's post about how the UK founded an Empire based on guns etc, that's also a teensy bit wrong too. In fact it was based on leadership and force of will, and the leaders were b&stards. The number of professional soldiers involved was small as most of the controlling forces in any territory were local levies. And of course a nations peoples move on from their past.

Don't be too sure about the character of British reserve as it's a veneer - we may not allow guns but scratch us a little bit and we'll bite your face off.

Hood

well frankly I don't think that surviving an apocalypse would be my dream, but if I have to I'd rather be prepared to fight. And yes, you can fight with knives, sticks and stones, but if I can knock you down forever from 300 yds I win.

Your blind faith and narrow sight on our society might fail you before than what you think unfortunately..

I don't understand why some of you folks just can't have a simple exchange of ideas without getting their knickers in a twist. :confused:

Evidently, your conscience must be seared. You don't know from vulgarity.

Well when you get banned for vulgarity you sure won't know why will you?

Your country allows guns, not pistols, not full bore semiautos, but you can have shotguns, carabines and semiautomatic rimfire. That's enough for a good party.. and I have to say that people seem more ok about guns in the north than in the midlands/south..

Yeah, cos you went to India and talked them through the idea of being colonised, didn't ya? :rolleyes:

I always admired and will always admire the determination of the British, the best "can-do" attitude I've ever seen, but it's far from what things used to be me thinks, just like many other countries. At least you kept the positive spirit and the good ales :mrgreen:

Again with the apocalypticism.

Again with the insults.

If you, or anyone, has any evidence that the introduction of free access to firearms will benefit Great Britain I am all ears. If anyone can convince me that the introduction of firearms will not result in more gun-crime, more accidents, more police-shoot-outs or more curious children blowing their faces off; more night-club shootings and lethal gang violence; if you can convince me that these things will be less frequent once we introduce firearms then by all means argue for it.

But here's some things that are not going to persuade me.....

a) The fearmongering "Oh, you wait and see! You'll be sorry you didn't have a gun when....blah...blah".

b) The insults..."You think you know better....head in sand...blind faith...."

c) Aphorisms such as "An armed society is a polite society".

d) Dreadful analogies along the lines of "Automobiles have a higher accident rate so let's ban cars!"

e) Comparing gun-control as just a short hop away from Nazi Germany.

e) 'History' books by the likes of Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK !

I don't have anything against guns or the people who like shooting them. I just happen to believe that the introduction of free access to firearms in Great Britain will result in a rise in all those things I listed above - and for no tangible benefit as far as I can tell. So at this time and on balance I prefer the current situation*.

* That doesn't mean it's ideal, optimal or beyond improvement.

You are probably right, if you don't already have guns it's a bit late to start.

The insurgents in Iraq taught the world you don't need guns, you just need explosives and cell phones to cause havoc.

Guns don't prevent crime. Never was intended to prevent crime. But one by one is prevents recidivism. I can prove it.

I hope that those of you with the "I'm happy w/out guns" attitude never have to be placed in a situation where someone else has one and is intent on hurting you. I'm posting here because the man that entered my home (I was 15) was intent on hurting anyone present. I was armed. I won. I don't feel bad about winning either. I never thought it would happen to me. I lived in an upper middle class neighborhood. No gang activity, no drug dealers and no deviants. But the man had a car, he drove from his neighborhood to mine. And my home looked ripe for the picking.

I pray you never have to be forced into a situation and once in a while I have a bad dream about it, but I wake up and tell myself "you survived, you have nothing to be ashamed of". It can happen to you and if your country or city or state has disarmed you your government is saying it doesn't trust you nor do they care if you live or die. They don't care about your god given right to live a happy life free from persecution. Remember something folks, the bad guy can always get a gun, even in a country where guns are outlawed. I'm sure you know that drugs are illegal to have inside of prisons, where the population is controlled and watched 24/7. Yet drugs are one of the biggest problems in prison. Outlawing something doesn't really do anything, except make it possible to prosecute the person at a later date. If he's caught. Apply that to firearms. How are outlawed guns going to help keep you safe?

Bing-Go! People outside of the US never think that they might be writing someone that actually had to defend themselves from an attacker using a weapon. They've never experienced 2 persons kicking down their front and back doors at 4 AM and they be armed with a shotguns and wearing a ski masks.

I'm not insulting you.. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but you must be very confused..

What do you mean exactly with "free access to firearms"? :confused:
If deemed suitable by your local authorities, you can already own a gun in this country, as long as it's not a pistol (unless it's a muzzle loader), a semi-auto or fully auto full bore gun.

The irony is that the legislation has been randomly adapted following the gun massacres where lunatics (who were as culpable of what they did as much as the geniuses that gave em licenses) went on a shooting spree with semi-autos, but you can still have a .22 rimfire semiauto (still lethal), a full bore bolt action rifle (VERY lethal indeed) and a plethora of smooth bore guns.

My point is that whenever politics get in the way, it's always citizens that have to pay for it. I too am comfortable with armed people around (heck, I was raised in a country where even private guards have a holster and a Beretta in it!), and you definitely have way less petty crime and vandalism as you have here.

How can a police force act effectively if deprived of the means to do it? The existence of armed response squads mean that the Government itself reckons there is a threat that needs to be counteracted effectively, so why giving the possibility to do it only to a small minority of police agents?!

Again, the Cumbria shooter could have been stopped from the very beginning, since he was chased at a distance from unarmed police officers, which could only assist powerless to the massacre he carried on..

Exactly.

Some years ago here in my area in the UK a man, who apparently was insane, randomly entered a house in a residential area and killed 3 members of the family, actually chasing one outside in the park and finishing him there and then. This bad stuff happens here as well, but again, as long as it doesn't bother you directly..

Very true. But with a wider availability of guns the probability and method by which illicit guns find themselves in circulation increases and expands.

The dumb teenager who sneaks his dads gun out. The children who go rooting around the house. The burglar who comes across a 'safely' locked gun cabinet. The responsible gun-club member who accidentally left his pistols on the train. It's also the chancers who during a riot helped themselves to some armament from the gun store.

This is but a taster of how guns slip out from their preferred habitat and into irresponsible hands regardless of gun-control. And this is what Great Britain has to look forward to.

I lived on Walworth Road in London a few years back. I was only there 2 years and there were 2 shootings within 200 yards of my flat (heard them, didn't see them). One was a drive by, the other, I think, was an argument in a club that spilled out into the street and got tasty. With more guns in Great Britain I believe we will see more of these things, not less.

I actually think marijuana is informally encouraged these days. Safer for the staff that way.

I'm not arguing for putting the genie back in the bottle, I don't want him let out in the first place. Mercifully, in Great Britain we still have that option.

You have a woman's purse!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOEehh_i_v8

You cannot live in a free society with guns available and have no control over your kids. <-- BIG HINT Almost all problems can be traced back to this. Kinds having kids.

I grew up around them. They were not mysterious objects or things that I was told not to touch by my mom or dad. Dad like me had every thing loaded in the house all the time. It's just that way it's just loaded. But we never thought about using them for any other reason than sport and defending yourself or your family.

I was hunting with my family at 7 and shot my own deer at 9 and processed the entire deer all by myself with my dad telling me what to do each step of the way. He did that so as to get it out of the way that if you shoot it you eat it and you process it entirely. I did the same thing to my son. That way he will know what is involved at each step from shot to dinner.

There was no fascination with firearms that you may have by this statement that these kids in your example had in my house. It was always seen as a tool. It's looked at very differently.

You never played with them. They are tools.