# The folly of weapons control



## Deaf Smith (May 19, 2008)

Below is a Brit's take on the incresing crime in Britian. From shootings to stabbings to muggins to robberies they are all going up and in the not to distant future they will suppass the US in all categories (car thefts are already 6 times those of the U.S. and home breakings are more numerious to.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/16/ukcrime.ukguns

. . . it seems increasingly clear that what we have avoided with firearms is now being delivered through another weapon and, terrifying, one which is tougher to control. 

*There have been 100 stabbing in London in the first five months of this year* - including, in the past six days, the Oxford Street murder of Steven Bigby, 22, and the bakers shop killing of 16-year-old Jimmy Mizen, who now joins Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor among the symbolic martyrs of a despairing era of street-life. 

Our biggest mistake was to assume guns are the greatest threat to life. Knives are easier to find - they are present in every kitchen - and simpler to use. It is impossible to improvise a gun from stuff found in the gutter or on a supermarket shelf, but a bottle can become a dagger with one smash. 

Gun control is difficult; knife control is all but impossible.


----------



## Hawke (May 20, 2008)

Many systems have a way to deal with a knife.

A common belief in knife work:  If you're in a knife fight prepare to get cut.

Whether you're in a knife or gun fight when you get a chance to run....run.

According to Marc "Crafty Dog" Denny and Gabe Suarez:

You have a greater chance to survive from a gun than a knife.

The knife wound is considered worse than a gun shot.

There quite a bit of gun control myths flying around.  I put a few in the Gun section forum here.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

Bear in mind that the Guardian is a political newspaper and tends to have one sided views and the statistics are just that -statistics.
Knife crime has been prevelant in Britain since Georgian times. Glasgow was famous for it's knife attacks way back in the fities and sixties,  London too was known for it's gang warfare mostly with knives. It's been a problem that has been with us for centuries not just recently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-uk-the-rise-of-knife-culture-422661.html


----------



## Hand Sword (May 20, 2008)

I would agree with the idea of control being folly. Weapons are everywhere and can be made from almost anything. Take one away and a criminal will find and use another. Look at prisons. Even with the tightest controls, look at the types of weapons created by the inmates. A sharpened stick, rock, etc.. It's everywhere and uncontrollable.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

Does that mean then we shouldn't try to control the amount of weapons on the street, that we should ignore knife carrying youths because we can't stop knife crime?
Should we allow a free for all and have far worse consequences?
I think not! to say we shouldn't have weapons control is naive in the extreme, how can we allow people to carry knives on the basis that they can pick up a stick, sharpen it and stab someone so we won't bother taking the knife off them. What sort of message is it sending? 
Yes theres weapons in prison but how many more would there be if no one did searches for them, how many more people would be killed or injured if it was ignored.
Carrying weapons is illegal, should we ignore the law then just because it's inconvenient or awkward trying to police it? No we have to do our best to uphold the law, to send the message out that carrying weapons is unacceptable *even if that message doesn't get through*. It's what a civilised society does anything else will lead to anarchy.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2008)

I reckon I'm mostly in agreement with Irene on this.

But (isn't there always one of those ?) I do have to admit that my opinions on the subject have been swayed somewhat in recent months.  Having seen the positive effects, of alllowing a responsibly armed population, reported by our American members, I think there is a very strong case for stepping back a century or so in our legal framework.

If nothing else, we tried suppression and confiscation of handguns and it simply made things worse.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

The main problem here is that the knives/weapons aren't in the hands of responsible people. The temptation with carrying a weapon is that you will use it. 
Way back when, the SAS and SBS doing anti terrorist training were always told that if a female terrorist is carrying a gun shoot them first as women feel less able to defend themselves physically than men therefor will always shoot first. men who think the can sort something out physically are less likely to shoot first. the same with carrying weapons. It's the same as carrying knives etc, young people are far more likely to use them first before fighting it out physically.
Americans rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view have always been used to carrying weapons, it's a different culture from ours. I believe if the law were changed to allow us to carry guns etc we'd have a far worse situation on our hands.
We've had a lot of high profile cases of stabbing and shooting recently making it look as if violence is on the increase, quite honestly it's not. In fact violent crimes are actually down, thats not from stats thats from experience.
The past was much worse, binge drinking, muggings, rapes and general violence was far more widespread in Victorian times right up to the last war. It's just we have the media working things up into a frenzy, a government that wants to scare people so it can bring in draconian laws to control us and other pundits who like to pontificate on our violent times which to be honest are largly a myth!
It may not be totally safe in the UK, no where is but the country has never been safer to walk out in!

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/grub/grub.htm


----------



## Grenadier (May 20, 2008)

Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is silly.  It does absolutely nothing to cut down on crime, and only encourages criminals.  

The proven method is to punish those who use weapons to commit crimes.  If someone commits a crime using a weapon, then increase the sentence, and force the criminals to serve their sentence.  Simply put, if a criminal is behind bars, he's not going to be physically capable of commit crimes against the general public.  

It doesn't matter what country one lives in; the logical thing to do is to simply punish the criminals, but then again, politicians have never really been known for logic.  

Weapons do not cause crime.  In fact, there's something to be said about trying to use reverse causation, linking the availability of weapons to crime rates.  If someone honestly thinks that the reverse causation argument holds any water, then he would have to believe that insulin causes diabetes, just because a much higher percentage of diabetics are in possession of insulin...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 20, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is silly. It does absolutely nothing to cut down on crime, and only encourages criminals.
> 
> The proven method is to punish those who use weapons to commit crimes. If someone commits a crime using a weapon, then increase the sentence, and force the criminals to serve their sentence. Simply put, if a criminal is behind bars, he's not going to be physically capable of commit crimes against the general public.
> 
> ...


 
Well thought out and a strong reasoned approach to dealing with criminals.


----------



## Ahriman (May 20, 2008)

Ahem, due to my sometimes parasitic and immoral behaviour I get fresh info on the prices of black markets about twice a year. There IS black market, there IS support to it, and there IS a huge selection of hardware from pistols to portable missile launchers. Criminals have access to firearms and explosives anywhere, anytime - after all, they are criminals right because they IGNORE laws. This won't change even if you sentence illegal gun owners to death.
Now having police is nice but having them everywhere is short path to a dictatorship. Hungarians experienced this when our favourite soviet friends stayed here for that 50 years. And even if they try to be everywhere, they just can't be. And an unarmed civilian is an unarmed civilian...
Even if some would manage to totally eradicate weapons from the world, criminals would still exist and would use sticks, stones and the like. If you eradicate EVERYTHING usable as a weapon, criminals would exist even then - using their fists and feet and elbows and........


Now making an overly broad statement as an idea maybe worth considering: if a country would have a classical militia, ordering inhabitants to wear and use weapons, even a crime rate of 20% would mean that the criminals are outgunned 1 to 4.


----------



## Langenschwert (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Does that mean then we shouldn't try to control the amount of weapons on the street, that we should ignore knife carrying youths because we can't stop knife crime?


 
You can't ignore the crime, but you also can't use solution that doesn't work and say "at least we're doing something", because if the solution doesn't work, then you really aren't doing anything at all.  The faulty solution may even make things worse.



> Carrying weapons is illegal, should we ignore the law then just because it's inconvenient or awkward trying to police it? No we have to do our best to uphold the law, to send the message out that carrying weapons is unacceptable *even if that message doesn't get through*. It's what a civilised society does anything else will lead to anarchy.


 
A civilised society is one where people follow a code that allows for a free and stabile existence.  There is nothing contradictory between having a well-armed population and being civilised.

The fact of the matter is that concealed carry laws appear to lower crime rates.  This may not be the appropriate solution for every society but it's efficacy has at least been _confirmed_ in the U.S.  The jurisdictions that introduce strict gun control have their crime rates spike.  After all, if you know that there are no guns in the house you're about to rob, you feel much safer as a criminal.  Criminals will migrate to gun-free areas because simply put, the hunting is better... the prey can't fight back.  Take a look at how the rape rates plummeted in Florida with the introduction of concealed carry and defensive pistol courses offered by the police for women.

So what's the solution for Britain's crime rate?  I don't know.  What I believe is that introducing concealed carry in a certain jurisdiction might be in order.  That way a change in the crime rate can be recorded if there is one.

My firm opinion is that personal safety is a personal responsibility.  The State should allow the people the means to defend themselves.  If that means carrying weapons, so be it.  We shouldn't be hung up on what civilised society "looks like".  We should be concerned with how to give the maximum *safety* and *freedom* to the most people.  _That's_ what civilization is.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

I think perhaps people should stop giving solutions to something they perceive as a huge problem when it isn't. The media frenzy about knife carrying would have you thinking everyone carries knives here. That is far from the truth. Whatever you choose to think we don't have a huge crime rate for violent crimes here, not even with the massaging of the statistics by the government. 
I don't understand how we are punishing innocent people here, there is no a great public outcry here to carry weapons. If you ask people here they don't want to carry weapons and rightly or wrongly they actually prefer the police not to either. The crime rate here simply doesn't warrant the carrying of concealed weapons nor is the British pyche geared for carrying weapons. Posters on this board apart very very few British people know how to use weapons, it would appall the majority if any motions was made to carry weapons.
What we do have is increasingly a youth population who copy the American gang scene. They see it on the televison, films and in music, the American 'gangsta' has become the new 'hero' to many British young men. The violence that goes with these gangs has also been copied by youths who have a prediliction for violence anyway. Add this to the drug dealing culture and there you have a powderkeg of violence waiting to kick off. 
a great deal of the youth stabbings have been gang related. many of the gangs are also West Indian, the Yardies. If you look at the ages of the nearly always young men who are stabbed you'll find they are between about 14 and 20. They are always nearly in the same parts of the country too.
It's not knife or weapons control you should be railing at but looking closer into where the actual crimes involving weapons are taking place. the general population carrying weapons isn't going to defeat the gangs anytime soon.

http://gangstersinc.tripod.com/GangsofBritain.html

http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-41117.html

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...rpetrators/perpet_pdf/2002_Bullock_Tilley.pdf


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2324346.ece


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

I apologise if I come over snippy in my last post but it really annoys me well outsiders albeit well meaning start saying oh the solution to this or that problem is such and such. 
As I said there is no public will here to carry weapons, a minority will of course say we should but by far the majority don't want American style weapons carrying.
Maybe we are trying to hold back a tide of weapons crime but we will do it in our own way. Well meaning criticisms and accusations that we are punishing the innocent by stopping them carrying weapons only serves to put 'Brits' backs up as does calling us Brits. I don't post up criticising American laws or your customs. We're not perfect by any means but an onslaught from non British people telling us where we are going wrong does nothing for international understanding. :uhyeah:


----------



## Ahriman (May 20, 2008)

Every human being and country have the right to solve problems as they wish or feel correct. Now neither humans nor countries like to get too much input in their own ideas, which makes for such a diversity.
Time will tell who or which country is/was right. As long as it is not that time, mine and I stay prepared.
Opinions expressed by me weren't intended as attacks or "I know soooo much better"-like posts, they were only opinions based on observations. _ (the part about criminals having access to hardware is not opinion though, it's a fact)_


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> Every human being and country have the right to solve problems as they wish or feel correct. Now neither humans nor countries like to get too much input in their own ideas, which makes for such a diversity.
> Time will tell who or which country is/was right. As long as it is not that time, mine and I stay prepared.
> Opinions expressed by me weren't intended as attacks or "I know soooo much better"-like posts, they were only opinions based on observations. _ (the part about criminals having access to hardware is not opinion though, it's a fact)_


 
You're right and I understand that, I just don't believe doing things the American way is right for this country just as I don't believe that people who haven't expeienced our way of life can understand how things work here.
Much is being made of a problem we have with young people, gangs and violence. It's this that is making the headlines. Of course we've always had violent criminals here but on the whole not on a huge scale that warrants the general populace arming up. 
Gun/weapon control is an emotive subject in the States, *it's not here*.We don't have debates about gun carrying, conccealed weapons etc. people are free to start these debates but they don't apart from one commentator in a liberal newspaper. We don't have the same views about carrying guns and weapons that Americans do so criticising our laws as regards weapons is unfair at least. Our laws whether you approve of them or not do for the most part more good than harm. Nothings perfect but we try. The glamorisation of American gangs that is contantly on our screens and radios etc is something we are trying to deal with.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2008)

I agree completely that a large part of our 'problems' comes from those of teenage years aping the styles and actions of those that they have come to see as glamorous via the auspices of TV and film.

I think that this has happened before to an extent with the gangster movies of the B&W era but, then, even the core characters that were 'bad guys' generally got their comeupance and by police/agents didn't compromise themselves down to the villains level to 'win'.

Of course, that was fiction but do not underestimate the power of such things to mould young minds.  I grew up with 'heroes' who aspired to a certain code of ethics and that transcended the violence that was there to make the films exciting.  The current generation(s) have grown up with anti-heroes.

I think we see the difference in how they behave - that lack of an aspired-to image of honour (fallacious as it might be in the real world) combined with no discipline and no consequences (unless they happen to kill themselves) leads to a value system that does not involve the same tenets of general decency that people of my age grew up with.   

I can hear an example of this right now as 'ricers', that have been ousted from the local city of Stoke are now (at gone midnight) using the A34 that passes by my house as a 'race track', complete with the delights of dance 'music' (oh for ironic quotes).

Anyhow, cleaving more tightly to topic, I know that Irene is speaking in good-faith and from a position of knowledge when she tells that things are safer now than they used to be.  I have a lingering question tho' - why doesn't it *feel* safer?  Fifteen years or so ago I would think nothing of walking through any part of Stoke at any time of day and night and would not have any trepidation.  Now there are places I will not go unless I am driving through them.  Is it just a symptom of middle-age?

I'd feel much safer if the laws against wearing swords openly in public were repealed - at least I might have a chance of enforcing my right to peace then .


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 20, 2008)

A while back on a 'animal world' channel on TV they had a special on young rouge elephants that were causeing all kinds of damage and death in Africa. The reason? They had lost their parents to poachers and thus never been brought up correctly as they would have been if the older elephants had still be around.

Well that's the real problem. Not guns or knives (Cain killed Able with a rock, hint hint...) but broken familes that end up with youths on the streets meeting the wrong crowd and turning to a life of crime. Easy divorce, pregnancy out of wedlock, no elders to counsel or correct when they do wrong, all lead to young adults with no set of morals. No set of good values. And many become socialpaths. No empaty for other people.

Yea, that's the real problem. But it's so easy to ban an object instead of strengthning the family. Real easy for politicians to do.

Deaf


----------



## thardey (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> You're right and I understand that, I just don't believe doing things the American way is right for this country just as I don't believe that people who haven't expeienced our way of life can understand how things work here.



Too true, it's too easy for _anybody_ to assume that the rest of the world works the same way as their own little corner does.



> Much is being made of a problem we have with young people, gangs and violence. It's this that is making the headlines. Of course we've always had violent criminals here but on the whole not on a huge scale that warrants the general populace arming up.
> *snip*
> The glamorisation of American gangs that is contantly on our screens and radios etc is something we are trying to deal with.



I guess that's where we, as Americans, feel like we do have some advice to offer -- you're dealing with _our problems_, in your country. That is, we've exported our problems to you by way of TV and movies. What makes matters worse is that those who want to "ape" what they see on American movies don't understand the reality of American culture that goes on behind those movies.

And it's not as though you inherited our problems because we can't control them, and they grew -- you've inherited the fictional version of our problems. So when we look to the U.K. and see gang violence there -- essentially our version of gang violence, as though a foreign weed has begun to take over your crops -- we tend to say "This is how we dealt with the _reality-based _version of gangs here, or at least slowed the growth. Perhaps, if you're dealing with _American-style_ gangs, you should consider _American-style_ countermeasures."

The gun does seem to be growing into the same iconic symbol of power as it is here in the States, it's just doing it in the sub-culture of gangs, and no where else. It _is_ an emotive subject to gang members -- here, in the media, and in the minds of any who want to copy it. They're introducing "American Rules" into your culture.

If you were dealing with the British version of gangs, of which I'm sure there is a rich history, we would probably be more likely to keep our nose out of it. Though probably not - we're pretty nosy by nature!


----------



## theletch1 (May 21, 2008)

thardey said:


> Too true, it's too easy for _anybody_ to assume that the rest of the world works the same way as their own little corner does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Often times, though, it isn't just being nosy.  Nor is it attempting to say "You must do it this way or that way."  Here at least (on MT) it's a simple matter of discussion.  It IS a discussion forum, after all.  Feel free to point out why what America does wouldn't work for your particular country.  Heck, most of what America does doesn't work for America in this situation.  Discussing the matter in no way means that we here on the board are attempting to bash our British cousins.


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

Sukerkin, you feel less safe these days because everything that happens these days is reported in the media and people are less distant from each other. Crime has always been with us, obviously, but you simply didn't hear about it as much. There's always been peadophiles but public knowledge of them has become more widespread.

 A cross section of women were asked how they felt about going out on their own at night, nearly all said they were afraid because of what they had seen on televison programmes and read in newspapers. when told the actual proportion on lone women who were attacked they would _not _believe the figures were so low.

I not saying there aren't dangers to lone women but much of it is urban myths, like someone who knows someone who knows someone who had their organs removed after being knocked unconcious. 
The other part of not feeling so safe is the governments we have! It's always been a campaigning point that whoever gets in will 'do' something about crime, maintaining the myth that crime figures are horrendous is always a good vote catcher as you can promise quite easily to reduce crime. Remember the slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?

Another thing that makes crime figures appear higher is there is more reporting of crimes.The way crimes are reported has also changed. Rape is a crime that is not on the increase but appears to be because women at last are reporting it instead of suffering in silence or having their allegations dismissed. Domestic violence is another case in point, spousal abuse was shunned by most police forces and either reported as a 'domestic' or not even noted, now of course it's reported and treated as what it is..assault but the downside is that assault figures appear to be up.

Newspapers keen to make political points and in need of sensationalist headlines find crime a godsend and to be honest the British public has a fascination with it! Look at the countless murder mysteries and detective/police series we have on the box! This too gives the impression there is a lot of crime. Oxford for example is hardly the murder capitol of the world which is what is seems if you watch Morse! Same as Murder She Wrotes Cabot Cove, I doubt New England has that many murders! 

These things do sink into our subconcious though and we do think there is more crime that there is, this isn't to say that the crime we have is trivial.
Crime sells, note the lack of big headlines and questions in the House about the Welsh suicides as opposed to the knife murders. All are equally tragic but only a couple of journalists have followed the Welsh story. (over 20 young people from the same small area in Wales have committed suicide) 

Gang warfare isn't new here, remember the Krays (incidentally my instructor was at the last ones funeral..don't ask lol but do google 'Dave Courtney', a mate of his!), Glasgow, London, Manchester and Liverpool have always had no go areas for the public. However apart from the Krays who liked a showbiz lifestyle the general public weren't aware of the sheer amount of violence that went on, newspaper didn't report it nearly as much unless it was very sensational.

I don't despair about the crime figures here, we're not perfect but are far from being a lawless society.


----------



## matt.m (May 21, 2008)

Well I am a former Marine Corps Sgt. as well as a well as a combat vet.  Not only does it get better, but I am also full Scot with Highlander Blood running through my veins.  I dont believe in bashing the British.  They are supposed to be U.S. Allies.  However, it is interesting how so many people get so touchy about certain things.

I have had a lot of brawls with the brit marines and navy.  However, it was all in good fun.  A lot of us Scots and Irish.  But after we won for the most part then we would pay their tabs and run up bigger ones.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> ...like someone who knows someone who knows someone who had their organs removed after being knocked unconcious.



That's no myth, that happened to my sister's best friend's cousin's former roommate!


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

thardey said:


> Too true, it's too easy for _anybody_ to assume that the rest of the world works the same way as their own little corner does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

The gangs tend to be a weird sort of British/American/West Indian type of thing! A lot of it has to do with football where 'massives' will fight each other for the sheer 'pleasure' of fighting! You may have seen that recently in Machester when the Scottish Rangers fans went on the rampage, beating up police officers. Excuses were made that the fans were upset at losing or that a big screen had gone down but frankly they would have fought even if their team had won, perhaps especially because their team had won. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7402858.stm

Guns are coming into the country more and more, many of them from America via Northern Ireland. However gang members or other criminals carrying guns hasn't reached the levels of America where from what I've seen on the television every gang member seems to be armed with some sort of gun. Killings by guns is still relatively rare here, knives are and I think always will be the favourite weapon of most young people. They are easy to obtain and easy to carry. They are easy to dispose of too.
No one is being complacent about gang crime and many hope to stop potential gang members before they actually join. I think too that perhaps while we have poverty, unemployment and social problems they are not on the scale of the American ghettos. One increase we have seen though is of Asian gangs, Muslim youths who are trying to turn where they live into a Muslim enclave. less criminal in the old fashioned term more 'political' perhaps but still breaking the law.this is something that frankly worres senior police officers I think more than old fashioned criminal gangs American style or not. Whether you can do anything about the gangs or not at least you know who''s who and who's on what side doing what!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

matt.m said:


> Well I am a former Marine Corps Sgt. as well as a well as a combat vet. Not only does it get better, but I am also full Scot with Highlander Blood running through my veins. I dont believe in bashing the British. They are supposed to be U.S. Allies. However, it is interesting how so many people get so touchy about certain things.
> 
> I have had a lot of brawls with the brit marines and navy. However, it was all in good fun. A lot of us Scots and Irish. But after we won for the most part then we would pay their tabs and run up bigger ones.


 

No wonder they fought if you called them Brits! 
Quite frankly British soldiers will fight with anyone! And when they run out of people to fight they'll fight among themselves lol!
I believe there was a booklet produced by the American powers that be advising American GIs not to gamble or fight with the British soldiers as they'd lose at both! You will understand by the way why we are battening down the hatches and boarding up the windows as later this year we have *The Black Watch *(shivers with fear) posted into the Garrison here.


----------



## CoryKS (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I apologise if I come over snippy in my last post but it really annoys me well outsiders albeit well meaning start saying oh the solution to this or that problem is such and such.


 
Yeah, we get a lot of that too.


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

http://gangsinlondon.piczo.com/northlondon?cr=2&linkvar=000044

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Murray I'm making no comment about this one!

This is another problem we face with the gangs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-war-torn-countries-fuelling-gang-crime.html


----------



## thardey (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The gangs tend to be a weird sort of British/American/West Indian type of thing! A lot of it has to do with football where 'massives' will fight each other for the sheer 'pleasure' of fighting! You may have seen that recently in Machester when the Scottish Rangers fans went on the rampage, beating up police officers. Excuses were made that the fans were upset at losing or that a big screen had gone down but frankly they would have fought even if their team had won, perhaps especially because their team had won.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7402858.stm



That's definitely not part of our culture here - it's something that mystifies us.



> Guns are coming into the country more and more, many of them from America via Northern Ireland. However gang members or other criminals carrying guns hasn't reached the levels of America where from what I've seen on the television every gang member seems to be armed with some sort of gun. Killings by guns is still relatively rare here, knives are and I think always will be the favourite weapon of most young people. They are easy to obtain and easy to carry. They are easy to dispose of too.
> No one is being complacent about gang crime and many hope to stop potential gang members before they actually join.



Knives are probably the weapon of choice here, too. TV and movies about gangs in America are probably as accurate as "Murder She wrote, Cabot Cove." Think about it this way: If every gang member had a gun, then it wouldn't be a status symbol, would it? The movie and TV gangsters have guns to set them apart. Most gang members can't afford one, or if they had one, they would probably sell it to a higher-ranking member.

Also, you're spot on about the sensationalist news. It's as bad here, as anywhere in the world, particularly when it comes to reports about gangs. So take what you've read in the newspapers, and cut it by a 10th, an you may be getting closer to what some people may deal with in certain parts of select cities. Take whatever you've seen on TV and throw it away completely.

As for me, we're surrounded by "Nortenos" and supposedly the "Surenos" are moving in for some kind of turf war. There has been a couple of drive-by shootings this year, our first ever. Still, the closest I've ever been was when I could actually identify a gang member last month by the clothes he was wearing.



> I think too that perhaps while we have poverty, unemployment and social problems they are not on the scale of the American ghettos. One increase we have seen though is of Asian gangs, Muslim youths who are trying to turn where they live into a Muslim enclave. less criminal in the old fashioned term more 'political' perhaps but still breaking the law.this is something that frankly worres senior police officers I think more than old fashioned criminal gangs American style or not. Whether you can do anything about the gangs or not at least you know who''s who and who's on what side doing what!
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece



That's exactly one of the things I had in mind when I was talking about the "reality based" gang culture here. From what I understand, you don't have the same causes for gang membership that we have here. Generations of poverty have produced many of our gang members - they join because they have no where else to go. They don't "Choose" to become members so much as they are born into it, and affiliating yourself with a powerful gang is an issue of survival. Many, many members are initiated in prison. The two major gangs in our area started out as prison gangs, then people keep their loyalties when they get out, and help their "brothers" in prison. Gangs offer security and safety - family. I think many would prefer to live in the kind of situation that doesn't require gang membership, but they do, and they've committed, so they're in. One may as well make sure that the gang they belong to is the strongest.

I could be way off, but this is the image I see -- it seems that many of the "American gang imitators" you are dealing with in the UK are either doing it because they're otherwise bored, or have political motivations. Is that even close?


----------



## thardey (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> http://gangsinlondon.piczo.com/northlondon?cr=2&linkvar=000044
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Murray I'm making no comment about this one!
> 
> ...




Right, race issues as well. But if I'm not mistaken, didn't many of the race wars between whites and asians involve otherwise well off whites? (At least, they weren't in total poverty?)


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

I think if you talk to poor people here they will define poverty differently than poor people in America. Poverty here isn't as grinding and all encompassing perhaps as there are always benefits to be had, health care is free, as is schools meals, medical prescriptions etc when you are on benefits. There's unemployment benefit if you don't work and housing benefit which means while you may live in a B&B hostel type place you have got a roof over your head and local councils do try to house you. You can get one off payments for childrens clothes, furniture etc. None of these benefits despite what the paper say are huge but it does mean poverty here is less pernicious than other places.
One way todays society here has gone is that celebrities, footballers etc seem to have everything for very little work and the average youth wants that too. It used to be you worked and saved until you could afford the things you wanted, now youth has become accustomed to demanding their rights ie a colour televison, designer clothes etc. They don't see that working for things is the right way so if they can make easy money selling drugs, stealing etc they will.
I think violence in this country is often looked at as a leisure activity. With the football gangs meeting up for battles. Luckily outsiders aren't often caught up in these battles.
If you can, see if you can watch this film. This is the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=551-QfYJymI&feature=related

You will need a strong stomach though I'm afraid but it may explain how the football violence is connected to crime and perhaps why they do the footbal fighting.


----------



## thardey (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think if you talk to poor people here they will define poverty differently than poor people in America. Poverty here isn't as grinding and all encompassing perhaps as there are always benefits to be had, health care is free, as is schools meals, medical prescriptions etc when you are on benefits. There's unemployment benefit if you don't work and housing benefit which means while you may live in a B&B hostel type place you have got a roof over your head and local councils do try to house you. You can get one off payments for childrens clothes, furniture etc. None of these benefits despite what the paper say are huge but it does mean poverty here is less pernicious than other places.
> One way todays society here has gone is that celebrities, footballers etc seem to have everything for very little work and the average youth wants that too. It used to be you worked and saved until you could afford the things you wanted, now youth has become accustomed to demanding their rights ie a colour televison, designer clothes etc. They don't see that working for things is the right way so if they can make easy money selling drugs, stealing etc they will.



Right, it's a matter of convenience, rather than survival. While many members here probably *could* have other options, the actual driving force of those who are heavily involved often join because there is no other workable choice.



> * I think violence in this country is often looked at as a leisure activity.* With the football gangs meeting up for battles. Luckily outsiders aren't often caught up in these battles.
> If you can, see if you can watch this film. This is the trailer.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=551-QfYJymI&feature=related
> 
> You will need a strong stomach though I'm afraid but it may explain how the football violence is connected to crime and perhaps why they do the footbal fighting.



If that's true, then I definitely see your fears about arming the general public. Even in the "Bad Old, Old West" days, (again, no matter what movies you've seen), violence wasn't a leisure activity. Granted, some competitions get violent, but that's not the same. At least in S. Oregon, being given a gun by your father or grandfather is an endorsement that you understand what a gun is to be, and not to be used for. Particularly a handgun. One of our most famous guns was called a "peacekeeper" and that image has stayed strong with us. Guns are for ending violence, not contributing to it. My first pistol was called a "Lawman Mk III" and was a gift from my Grandfather, who was a retired police officer. 

There seems to be a completely different attitude towards violence between our cultures.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> You're right and I understand that, I just don't believe doing things the American way is right for this country just as I don't believe that people who haven't expeienced our way of life can understand how things work here....



Speaking as a Canadian, I relate very strongly to your comments. I am a member of a society that does not equate gun ownership with freedom. It's not in the cultural fabric of my country; there's no constitutional language upon which to build a discussion about gun rights. Apart from bureaucratic red tape that makes it harder for Canadians to get guns legally -- a complaint among a couple of my friends who shoot -- there is not the divisive debate that exists south of the border. 

There is a debate here to be sure. It's passionate at time, but it is not one that makes or breaks political careers. No one's patriotism or love of freedom is particularly called into question when they choose up sides here on gun control. 

It's not always a rational discussion. Some members of one side of the debate ignore the reality of illegal weapons smuggled across the border. Those who argue passionately for the other side conveniently forget that many weapons used in crimes or seized by officers from criminals were once-legal weapons that were stolen, lost, unsupervised, etc.

What intrigues me about the Guardian article at the top of the post is not the strengths / weaknesses of gun control, or that knives are used in place of guns, but (if facts are stated correctly) that so many people are prepared to kill -- up close and personal. Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.


----------



## Ahriman (May 21, 2008)

"nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer."
_(my statement goes for all kind of weapons, not only for firearms)_
Simple, there are more people out there who prefer safety and stability than criminals. There were a few minor riots here in the past 2 years, and quite some of us would've loved the chance to aid cops' work a bit.

But Hungary is a place where some laws from "our Soviet friends" are still in place just as the mentality that made those laws. Since 2006's October having a b'vest with_ (not on, only WITH) _you in public is considered "especially dangerous to the public safety", just because some 'sholes wore a few in the riots.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.



Gordon,

You mistake all violence as being bad. Self defense, were violence is used to defend oneself, is not bad. It is not evil. It's a necessity to survive a wrongfull assault. Legal weapons don't make it less violent, they make it where the decent people survive and not the criminal element.

And safer? Read the article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5793973.html

that's how it makes people safer.

Deaf


----------



## Grenadier (May 22, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> It's not always a rational discussion. Some members of one side of the debate ignore the reality of illegal weapons smuggled across the border. Those who argue passionately for the other side conveniently forget that many weapons used in crimes or seized by officers from criminals were once-legal weapons that were stolen, lost, unsupervised, etc.


 
You've just proven the point that I have been making all of these years, that it's not a weapons issue, but rather, a cultural issue.  

Bad people are going to do bad things, regardless of what methods are available to them.  Even in a world of pink unicorns, where firearms somehow magically disappeared, there's always someone who will use another method, such as the one used in the Bath school massacre (truck loaded with explosives).  

Law abiding citizens are not the problem, since they obey the laws.  Law abiding folks tend not to go out and slash people with knives.  They tend not to rob other folks at gunpoint, or engage themselves in drive-by shootings.  Nobody can dispute this fact, that law abiding folks generally obey the laws.  

While there may be an occasional bad apple in the bushel, it's foolish to assume that the bad apple represents the overwhelming majority, despite what a sensationalist media may tell you.  If the media's portrayal of such situations were really valid, then one would have to think that Israel is a land filled with constant rocking explosions, bombs, etc., when in reality it's actually a really nice place to visit.  



> Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.


 
Yet, how will it make things more violent?  Criminals already have weapons, including firearms.  They are going to cause problems, no matter how strongly you decide to punish the law-abiding citizens for crimes that were committed by the criminal element.  

The flawed argument used by the gun-grabbing crowd, where they assert that the streets will be flowing with people who are going to kill each other with their new weapons, is complete garbage.  Having anything potentially dangerous in your possession doesn't change who you are.  

Even here in the "violent USA," I'm still waiting to see the waves of shootings committed by law-abiding, concealed firearms permit holders, that the gun-grabbers predicted would occur.  Certainly there have been a few isolated incidents, but if you look at the crime rates amongst concealed firearms permit holders, versus the rest of the populace, you'll see a significantly lower crime rate amongst them.  

Having potentially dangerous items in one's possession doesn't turn them into killers.  It's not a weapons issue.  It never has been, and never shall be.  It's a cultural issue, plain and simple.  Good people obey the laws, and abide by moral standards.  Bad people don't.


----------



## tellner (May 22, 2008)

Some weapons control laws actually work. For all of its problems the 1934 NFA - which the NRA supported - put a real dent in the supply of destructive devices and automatic weapons. 

Yes, I know. There are all the standard arguments:

The gunnies will reflexively say "The only crimes committed with legally owned full auto have been one or two that belonged to corrupt idiot cops." The tax stamp was very high for the 1930s. That and the required proctoscopic background check along with very restrictive national laws made full auto expensive and difficult to get. It got people out of the habit of thinking of submachine guns and rocket launchers as something that they might realistically own. *It changed people's minds which is where the real battle always lies.*

The next argument is that full auto isn't that hard to make. A good machinist can put a Sten gun together in a few hours out of scrap. A bad machinist can do it in a day. The point is that they don't. Most people even most gun owners have gotten out of the habit of even thinking about Class III. The penalties are ferocious; law-abiding types aren't willing to risk jail and fines just to own one. 

People who are in the habit of breaking the law have other things that work well enough. For robbery, rape, everyday murder and most other crimes a pistol or shotgun or in exceptional cases a rifle works perfectly well. There's no need to run the extra risk and expense of getting a bullet hose. A dozen shots from a handgun will do the job much more cheaply. If you want to blow something up there are always dynamite and homemade pipe bombs. Fights between criminals are almost always settled with semi-auto. Sometimes improvised explosives or re-purposed improvised explosives get used. The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is long past.

The market for homemade automatic weapons is tiny.

An argument can easily be made that full auto and things which explode are easy to steal from the military or smuggle in in routine cocaine shipments. It's true. They are. But when it's discovered it makes the local and regional news big-time. It's pretty rare. And even when it happens the guns are usually just found sitting in their stashes unfired. There isn't that much machine gun crime. It tends to be confined to a very small subset of the criminal world. 

The same thing happened with automatic knives _aka_ "switchblades". Banning interstate commerce made them less popular and more expensive. Associating them with Mexicans, Negroes, Italians and other criminal low-life subhumans, not Real Americans, was an effective psychological tactic in the 1950s. The majority wasn't interested in them anymore. Since criminals don't appear out of thin air but come from the general population they became less prevalent there, too.

Now yes, there are some people on the wrong side of the law who have push button knives. But they are not what they once were. Even in states like Arizona and Oregon where they are legal they are expensive, rare and not very popular. The only real markets are the serious knife aficionado, the oddball collector and the weapons fetishist who won't be happy until he's as loaded down with ordnance as Damon Runyon's Tobias the Terrible.

It was almost thirty years before Sol Glesser came up with his combination of pocket clip and thumb hole that made pocket knives as quick and easy to deploy as the spring-powered ones. They became popular with law enforcement early on which was not entirely accidental. Now automatic knives are a curiosity

So what sort of weapons laws work? I think there are a few factors that contribute:

The law needs to be implemented all at once on a nationwide scale. The anti-gunners are right. As long as people in part of the country have some sort of weapon it will be impossible to keep it away from other parts if only because those affected think of it as something that regular people somewhere else might have.
The law has to effectively raise the price beyond most people's means.
The weapon needs to be easily demonised, particularly if it can be associated with a despised outside group.
There should not be an effective existing infrastructure for making it clandestinely.
The barriers to creating a new production network should include fierce penalties.
The weapon should be substantively different from other ones people are used to. A 1950s Schrade pocket knife is much different than the pushbutton imported Italian items. A revolver or bolt rifle is manifestly not a Thompson gun. There's a reason the "assault weapons" ban was a failure. The things that were banned weren't that much different than weapons which most people considered legitimate. There's a reason it was ultimately successful; it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> So what sort of weapons laws work? I think there are a few factors that contribute:
> 
> The law needs to be implemented all at once on a nationwide scale. The anti-gunners are right. As long as people in part of the country have some sort of weapon it will be impossible to keep it away from other parts if only because those affected think of it as something that regular people somewhere else might have.


 
Firearms and ammunition are not mystries. Secret factories were used by the Israilies before independance. They built one of them under a laundry right under the noses of the British! I have no doubt they can be produced in any machineshop, and nitrates are not hard to find nor make.



tellner said:


> The law has to effectively raise the price beyond most people's means.


 
Legaly that is. That's what the black market feeds on, just like Prohibition did! Just like drugs do! Imagine how powerful the mob would be if 80 percent of the people, who feel the 2nd Amendment is about owning firearms and other weapons, decided to buy them from the mob, black market.... Bet the mob would be happy to supply them.



tellner said:


> The weapon needs to be easily demonised, particularly if it can be associated with a despised outside group.


 
Oh yea, the anit's do that all the time, does not matter that gun. From snub-nose to 'sniper rifes' to 'assault rifes' to dangerious shotguns.



tellner said:


> There should not be an effective existing infrastructure for making it clandestinely.


 
That will be the day! No, even a high school machne shop and chemistry dept can make guns and ammo. Not real fancy ones, but they can be made. And no telling how many real factories would be built by enterprising engineers in some back woods or basements.



tellner said:


> The barriers to creating a new production network should include fierce penalties.


 
Well with the prisons already releasing violent criminals cause of overcrowding, that would be interesting. Turn the good people into bad, and the bad become the good. We have real real 'fierce' penalties for drug smuggling, see how well that works?



tellner said:


> The weapon should be substantively different from other ones people are used to. A 1950s Schrade pocket knife is much different than the pushbutton imported Italian items. A revolver or bolt rifle is manifestly not a Thompson gun. There's a reason the "assault weapons" ban was a failure. The things that were banned weren't that much different than weapons which most people considered legitimate. There's a reason it was ultimately successful; it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination.


 
Enland as banned carrying pocket knives like the Schrade. 'Offensive weapons' you know. 

Weapons like the AR-15 are legitimate not because they are used for deer hunting, but because they are combat weapons. *The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting!* And that is what the anti's really don't understand (or maybe they do, but feel an Empire is better than a democracy.)

The bad will always find a way to get weapons. Breaking the law is just part of their job description. And dictators will aways fear an armed populance. That's just their nature.

The Bill of Rights was put there as a check on the central government. Every one of them is an individual right. And the 2nd protects the others from being lost. Lose the 2nd, and one day you will lose them all.

Deaf


----------



## tellner (May 22, 2008)

Deaf, you slipped right past the points.

The NFA *was* effective. It reduced both supply and demand for fully automatic weapons. And it decreased the amount of crime committed with these weapons.

The 1950s ban on interstate commerce in spring operated knives *was* effective. It reduced the supply and the demand for them. 

I said that it *would* be technically simple to make automatic weapons from scratch. But in spite of that we haven't seen a great Renaissance in home machine gun manufacture. The laws and the social changes they caused were very effective in making them hard to get and socially unacceptable. Not 100%. Nothing man-made works all the time. But they showed that weapons control laws can certainly have an effect under certain conditions.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> Deaf, you slipped right past the points.
> 
> The NFA *was* effective. It reduced both supply and demand for fully automatic weapons. And it decreased the amount of crime committed with these weapons.


 
Mearly reduced the crime used with that type of weapon. The criminals simply went to other weapons. I think the crime reduction had more to do with the LEOs killing off alot of gangsters than the law. Keep in mind many of the full autos used were taken from military armories, and not bought over the counter.



tellner said:


> The 1950s ban on interstate commerce in spring operated knives *was* effective. It reduced the supply and the demand for them.


 
Yea, they simply used other knives. In Texas you can own a switch blade as a 'curio or relic' and at the Arkansas IDPA state matches they sold them ($200 bucks, real nice ones.) So I guess the supply didn't dry up enough.



tellner said:


> I said that it *would* be technically simple to make automatic weapons from scratch. But in spite of that we haven't seen a great Renaissance in home machine gun manufacture. The laws and the social changes they caused were very effective in making them hard to get and socially unacceptable. Not 100%. Nothing man-made works all the time. But they showed that weapons control laws can certainly have an effect under certain conditions.


 
It has an effect. The criminal class mearly gavitate to other weapons if it's not much of a hassle. If the demand is there, they will be supplied I assure you.

But if you try to ban guns in the U.S.A., expect rebellion. And that will create quite a demand for them!

Deaf


----------



## Langenschwert (May 22, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> I am a member of a society that does not equate gun ownership with freedom.


 
Speak for yourself.  I'm as Canadian as you.



> It's not in the cultural fabric of my country;


 
I grew up shooting.  Nearly everyone I knew grew up with in Nova Scotia had guns.  It's certainly part of MY cultural fabric, thank-you.  Many, many Canadians own firearms, whether pistols, rifles, shotguns or whatever.  If firearms are that ubiquitous in Canada, then they're certainly part of the cultural fabric.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Langenschwert (May 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds *which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination*.


 
Quite.  This is quite necessary when implementing whack-job legislation that is the essence of much firearms-control policies.

@ Deaf Smith: The forum won't let me "rep" you anymore for a bit.  Just putting it on record that I would if I could.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Empty Hands (May 22, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> But if you try to ban guns in the U.S.A., expect rebellion.



If only the American people had such respect for their own liberties!  No, I'm afraid banning guns will fail to raise the masses to rebellion, no more than all the other encroachments on our liberty over the past 50 years have.  For the few hardened and passionate enough to do so, a bright future full of Ruby Ridges awaits you.  The worst part of it is, most of the rest of society will not only fail to defend those who rebel, they will think they deserve their fate.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 22, 2008)

Langenschwert said:


> Speak for yourself.  I'm as Canadian as you.
> 
> I grew up shooting.  Nearly everyone I knew grew up with in Nova Scotia had guns.  It's certainly part of MY cultural fabric, thank-you.  Many, many Canadians own firearms, whether pistols, rifles, shotguns or whatever.  If firearms are that ubiquitous in Canada, then they're certainly part of the cultural fabric.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I professed to speak for an entire country and got called on it.

I know that many Canadians own firearms. I'm also not arguing for more controls on legal ownership in our country. Realistically, I think that envelop has been pushed as far as it will go. Removing long guns from the national firearms registry was a sane response on the part of the government IMO.

As for the "cultural fabric" comment I made, that was a poor choice of words. To my knowledge, however, we cannot lay claim to an enshrined constitutional right to the ownership of firearms. Perhaps I'm wrong. I tend to see gun ownership in this country as a privilege reserved for people who observe rules. I do not hold legal gun owners responsible for those who don't obey rules, provided they take care in securing their weapons.

As you're no doubt aware, our Mayor David Miller has repeatedly advocated for a ban on handguns in the City of Toronto. I'm pro-gun control, and _I_ know how preposterous and fundamentally dishonest that is.

I am certainly not naive enough to suggest we could reduce gun violence in this country by placing more controls on a group of citizens that is already highly scrutinized. Rather, I would like to see a serious effort in this country to deal with smuggling across our borders.

I hope I've clarified my position, and I apologize for speaking for others.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 22, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Gordon,
> 
> You mistake all violence as being bad. Self defense, were violence is used to defend oneself, is not bad. It is not evil. It's a necessity to survive a wrongfull assault. Legal weapons don't make it less violent, they make it where the decent people survive and not the criminal element.
> 
> ...



Deaf and Grenadier,

I was describing my experience as a Canadian. (And not doing a terribly good job of that.) On these open forums, I have made a habit of not arguing for gun control in the USA because: (1) I don't live there, and so your individual right or decision to own or carry a weapon doesn't involve me; (2) An argument can be made -- and has been made by run rights advocates -- that the US already has thousands of gun laws at the federal, state and local levels; and, (3) Given the vast numbers of firearms currently in the US, I think sweeping gun laws would be as effective as trying to control socks.

Now, here's what grinds my gears when people speak to me personally (not what has been said on this forum) of their gun rights. Just because my next door neighbour feels safer with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have to. He didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, "I think I'll pick up that gun, so Gord and I are safer." He probably bought it for his protection or recreation. If he thinks he bought the gun to protect me, he is making a choice for me that he doesn't have the right to make. If, on the other hand, he bought the gun because he wanted it, observes the law, and is respectful of my safety and my family's safety, it's really none of my business.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2008)

I can see your point of view, *Gordon* and very much applaud your approach when it comes to Net discourse - very well done that man :tup:.

I think tho' that we all have to consider environment when we speak of such an issue as gun/A. N. Other Weapon control.

In your own circumstance, in a city, strong circumspection of handguns makes sense to you.  However, when I was in Canada for work purposes in 2001 (I think it was), I was very strongly advised that if I was to stray out of the urban areas and into the rural I should seriously consider carrying a firearm ... and a heavy duty one at that.  Apparently anything less than a magnum just pisses the bears off :lol:.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 22, 2008)

Gordon,

I'm gonna have to introduce you to Garand. I'll get what forum he is on now but he's Canadian like you, and well you know what he ment with his handle... Garand, right? As in M1.

He's a reall good guy and shooter. Knee deep in guns he is.

Deaf


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> ...I think tho' that we all have to consider environment when we speak of such an issue as gun/A. N. Other Weapon control..



That's a very good point.


----------



## Langenschwert (May 23, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Fair enough. I professed to speak for an entire country and got called on it.


 
Hey, we're flame free and that's cool with me.  Movin' on. 



> I know that many Canadians own firearms. I'm also not arguing for more controls on legal ownership in our country. Realistically, I think that envelop has been pushed as far as it will go. Removing long guns from the national firearms registry was a sane response on the part of the government IMO.


 
You might be rational and have no problem with law-abiding gun owners, but politicians have come right out and said that their goal is the disarming of the Canadian public...

To wit: *"disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy*



> To my knowledge, however, we cannot lay claim to an enshrined constitutional right to the ownership of firearms.


 
True enough.



> As you're no doubt aware, our Mayor David Miller has repeatedly advocated for a ban on handguns in the City of Toronto. I'm pro-gun control, and _I_ know how preposterous and fundamentally dishonest that is.


 
Yeah, Miller is an *** in that regard.  Every American city that bans handguns sees their gun crime skyrocket.  Look at Washington D.C. for a good example.  He just wants to ban pistols so as to appear to be doing something.  Tackling the root causes of crime is hard, and requires thought, social responsibility and hard action.  Legislating against already law-abiding citizens is easy.  Canadians have a habit of lying down and taking it.



> Rather, I would like to see a serious effort in this country to deal with smuggling across our borders.


 
While in theory this is an excellent idea, in practice it's hardly possible.  I'm from the East Coast, and let me tell you, it's a smuggler's paradise by the simple virtue of its geography.  There's simply no way to patrol such a vast, underpopulated shoreline.  Let's not even start about the Western border.  Talk about porous.  We'd have to build the Great Wall of Canada to keep stuff out... literally.  If there's a market for something in Canada, it'll find its way in.  What we need to do is ensure proper support for law enforcement and a culture of self-defence.  There have been 45 minute delays to 911 responses for home invasions here in Canada.  The police can't always protect you, and neither are they required to, unless you are a) a criminal in custody or b) a ward of the crown.  The citizens (without whom a country is nothing) must be entrusted with the means to lawfully defend themselves from those who don't follow the law.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## chinto (May 29, 2008)

historically no matter how draconian the penalty's for weapons possession or use they have never worked! 
the only one ever kept from a weapon by such weapons bans is the honest law abiding  citizen you would want armed well in any sensible society!


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

chinto said:


> historically no matter how draconian the penalty's for weapons possession or use they have never worked!
> the only one ever kept from a weapon by such weapons bans is the honest law abiding citizen you would want armed well in any sensible society!


 

The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?


----------



## Ahriman (May 29, 2008)

When I'll have the time to search through my archives, I'll edit this post to add the exact source and date of the quote, but sometime in the late 19th century, an English judge was questioned what to do if one finds a thief in one's house. *"As silently as you can, get your shotgun, load both barrels, and shoot him in the back."* So while in the past decades or in the past century the UK's population is disarmed, it wasn't always the same...
...
Now to the question. Being Hungarian I can't really speak for the UK, I can only say what would most likely happen here if I don't consider the actual political problems. If weapons would be at an instant considered legal to get with only criminal record as an obstacle, the first wave of buyers would be idiots who have problems with someone and those who really care about SD. The first group would try killing a few, the second would most likely stop some crimes in time. Activity of both groups would ensure a second buyer wave, now with the majority adding to the second group of the first wave, either being afraid of the remains of the first group or understanding the efficiency of armed civilians and the impossibility of an omnipresent police.
Now sad as it is, Hungary is in a situation where easy to get guns would most likely result in a civil war, as the first group is rather... big here and aided by a political party. So making guns reachable here is not really an option right now... but I can always make a crossbow, an onager or a polybolos......
If a country is in a more stable situation, making guns easy to get may work as described. Oh, and criminals wouldn't really rush to get legal guns - it's always cheaper to get hardware illegally. The first group I mentioned is those who are too stupid to be criminals, but would use the opportunity if present.


----------



## thardey (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
> Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?



Good question, and one I was wondering about myself as this thread progressed. First you would have to start with the police. The media would be the key to making the whole thing work. You've got to associate guns with protection, aka the police. Even the bad guys here use the the police model as the "gold standard." The media would have to begin showing the police as heavily armed and responsible. It sounds like the police have a lot of respect there already, more so than in America, so this wouldn't be to hard to show, *if* the media cooperated.

Once you've done that, the next image would be to associate "good people" with helping the police. You could set up a Public relations program where people could see what the police do, how they handle situations, how they are trained, etc. At the completion of this program, you could issue a gun permit. Then you would keep the image of "good people" being armed. That is, it is the "responsible citizen" that works _with_ the police to assume the heavy burden of protecting his own family.

Even if someone believes that cops are corrupt, or a good-ole-boys system, or whatever personal issues they may have, they'll still tell their kids: "The police are there to help you." They'll always be the "good guys" they just may not always do it in the right way. So, if you associate pistols with police more strongly than with thugs, you'll appeal to the right kind of people.

For instance, in my mind the Glock is a police pistol. Before that, the Revolver. Guess what I shoot? A revolver that my Grandfather gave me (who was a cop), and a Glock! I also strongly associate the Glock with the army, another type of police system. (again, the "Good guys.") When I think of gang-pistols, or armed thugs, I can't picture a specific type of gun. It doesn't have a strong emotional attachment to me. Even if I think of the "Glock fohty" in gang-slang, that's the gangs trying to use police pistols. That is, the police _own_ the Glock, so to speak. When I see my gun, or carry it, or handle it, I automatically associate it with the "good guys." Which means I have to give it the respect that that reputation deserves.

If I associated the gun with the "gad guys" then there is nothing to either draw me to it, or cause me to treat it with respect, only fear. It would be a weapon of random destruction, not the tool of a responsible citizen.

If you could keep that distinction in your media, and in the public eye, I would bet that you could begin to arm your country responsibly.

Like the Katana thread -- it seemed to be less about the Katana, and more about the character of the person possessing it. The same works with Guns.


----------



## tellner (May 29, 2008)

Typical absolutist blinders on lots of people here. As far as chinto and a number of others are concerned "weapons control" can and _*must only*_ mean "absolute prohibition on _*all*_ weapons in civilian hands without _*one single one*_ getting through". If that is the standard for an effective law there has never been a single working law in the history of humanity. 

Politics is the art of the possible. Laws can be effective even if *shudder* people break them once in a while. 

Laws against drunk driving have been effective. There is less of it now than there was forty years ago. 

Laws against lead in gasoline have effectively reduced the amount of lead in the atmosphere. There is still lead out there, but there's a hell of a lot less, and the effects on human health have been dramatic.

Laws against prostitution have not eliminated the oldest profession. But it has lowered the numbers of working whores more than most people can imagine. During the 18th and 19th centuries most men had their first sexual experience with prostitutes. A good case could be made that most men in America got at least as much sex from pros as from girlfriends and wives combined. That doesn't happen any more even though there are still call girls and streetwalkers.

Laws against murder, rape and robbery are broken all the time. Most of us believe we are a little bit safer for them being there even if they aren't perfect.

The only reason for the reflexive bleat of "weapons laws don't work" is that the lobbyists and absolutists have been hissing that particular lie into our ears for about seventy years. I mentioned two laws which absolutely worked in the gun-friendly United States. The use of automatic weapons, destructive devices and automatic knives has plummeted since the 1934 NFA and the 1950s regulations on the production and ownership of automatic knives. There's no doubt about it. None whatsoever.

They didn't get rid of all of them. There are still crimes committed with them. But the number is vanishingly small. The True Believers will say "Well, yeah, but people use other things, so the laws didn't work at all because gun control laws can only be about banning all guns everywhere."  

Listen to what I actually said and repeated. The goal wasn't to get rid of _all_ weapons _everywhere_ except in some of the more paranoid fantasies that the gun lobbyists use to get you to open your checkbook every few months. The point was to reduce the _number,_ increase the _cost_ and reduce the _amount of crime_ committed with these particular items. And it worked like a charm. It did it by changing peoples' minds and perceptions.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 29, 2008)

tellner said:


> Listen to what I actually said and repeated. The goal wasn't to get rid of _all_ weapons _everywhere_ except in some of the more paranoid fantasies that the gun lobbyists use to get you to open your checkbook every few months. The point was to reduce the _number,_ increase the _cost_ and reduce the _amount of crime_ committed with these particular items. And it worked like a charm. It did it by changing peoples' minds and perceptions.


 
Tellner,

If the object was to mearly stop a partular type of crime (like murder), but only if that crime is commited in one certian way(like being shot), then what good did it do as for actual effect?

Like 'gun crime'. If the number of murders are the same but simpley less are shot, more are stabbed, beaten, strangled, ran over, etc... well that law isn't worth a tinkers d&#m. What is more, if in the process it denighs others who can't effecively defend themselves except with those very instruments (cripled, inferm, lame, etc..), then you hurt far more than you help.

And as I posted, I feel far more of the use of machineguns was stopped by the police killing off alot of those rampaging back in the '30s. Dillinger, Nelson, Bonnie&Clide, etc... and they killed them very spectacular and displayed the results. 

And about the 'gun lobbby'. Well I guess I'm the gun lobby. I'm a NRA Endowed member and Texas State Rifle Association Life Member. And I teach Concealed Handgun License (CHL) classes here in Texas. So you kind of know where I stand on this.

Deaf


----------



## chinto (May 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
> Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?


actually before WWI most of the UK's citizens were armed.  often with things like shotguns and muskets and or small pistols, and that was started to be outlawed around WWI as I understand it. 
for centurys the shire reve was required to hold an asembly of all the men over 14 where they had to show that they had a weapon and it was in good repair... initially a bow and or sword or spear, and latter a musket. but I would argue for both in my country the USA and the UK that weapons control does not work and that the UK of Briton should remove the laws that are weapons control from the books and train the people who want it to use their weapons .

oh on  a historical note.. the reason that there were the "rights of Englishman" came from the fact that the common law allowed the peasant and merchant to have and carry arms!    in  France for instance that was not true and so the lower classes there had very few rights.  armed societies tend to be much more free then unarmed ones.
Switzerland is an example much as the UK is historically.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2008)

chinto said:


> *actually before WWI most of the UK's citizens were armed. often with things like shotguns and muskets and or small pistols, and that was started to be outlawed around WWI as I understand it. *
> *for centurys the shire* *reve was required to hold an asembly of all the* *men over 14 where they had to show that they had a weapon and it was in good repair... initially a bow and or sword or spear, and latter a musket*. but I would argue for both in my country the USA and the UK that weapons control does not work and that the UK of Briton should remove the laws that are weapons control from the books and train the people who want it to use their weapons .
> 
> peasant*oh on a historical note.. the reason that there were the "rights of Englishman" came from the fact that the common law allowed the  and merchant to have and carry arms!* in France for instance that was not true and so the lower classes there had very few rights. armed societies tend to be much more free then unarmed ones.
> Switzerland is an example much as the UK is historically.


 
Good heavens that's just not true! where did you get that information from? What is a 'reve'? We've never had them. There is also no such thing as rights of Englishmen as we have no constitution, we are subjects not citizens.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Good heavens that's just not true! where did you get that information from?


 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
*History of gun control in the United Kingdom*

With the decline of Archery as mandatory there were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use[8] As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights.[9]
That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.​The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.[10]
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.​Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the Colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.
Modern restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903, with the Pistols Act. This required a person to obtain a gun licence before they could buy a firearm with a barrel shorter than 9 inches. The gun licence had been introduced as a revenue measure in 1870; the law required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his home, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons, but not to buy one. The licences cost 10 shillings, which is about £31 in 2005 money, lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at post-offices.
A registration system gun law - the Firearms Act - was first introduced to Great Britain in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. The law did not initially affect smoothbore weapons, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork.
Fully automatic weapons were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Firearms Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act.[_citation needed_] Such weapons are nowadays only available to certain special collectors, museums and prop companies. The 1937 Act also consolidated changes to the 1920 Act that controlled shotguns with barrels shorter than 20". This length was later raised by the 1968 Firearms act to 24".
The first control of long-barrelled shotguns began in 1968 with the Criminal Justice and Firearms Act[8]. This required a person to obtain a "Shotgun Certificate" to own any shotgun. The Act did not require the registration of shotguns, only licensing. This act was accompanied by an Amnesty when many older weapons were handed into the police. This has remained a feature of British Policing that following an incident a brief amnesty is declared.[11]
Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime in general also became an issue of concern.



> What is a 'reve'? We've never had them.


 
Yes you have.  Or more properly, reeve:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve_(England)

In England, a *reeve* was an official elected annually by the serfs to supervise lands for a lord. The reeve himself was a serf. He had many duties such as making sure the serfs started work on time and ensuring that no one was cheating the lord out of money. The system was introduced by the Saxons, dating at least to the 7th century, and continued after the Norman Conquest.
The reeve of an entire shire was a Shire-reeve, predecessor to the Sheriff.



> There is also no such thing as rights of Englishmen as we have no constitution, we are subjects not citizens.


 
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen

The term *Rights of Englishmen* is used to describe the rights granted to English citizens under the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
> *History of gun control in the United Kingdom*
> 
> 
> ...


 

Oh well if it's in there it must be correct mustn't it!

:lol2:artyon:artyon::lol2:


----------



## Ahriman (May 30, 2008)

:semi-off:
While I'm always greatly doubtful when it comes to ANY wiki _(especially since Nyarlethotep corrupts the articles)_, this one has a rather long citation list. If I could get enough time, I'd read through the links and get the books, but I don't have any, in fact I should be still carving waxes... if anyone else does have some, I think we'd be very grateful.
:semi-off:


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2008)

It's in the interpretation though isn't it? the 'Bill of Rights' for example says that Catholics mustn't succeed to the throne, that still stands. It's not a Bill of Rights as the Americans know it, the Magna Carta doesn't give rights to anyone other than the Earls, it is however a basis from which other laws have been based. Merely citing a lot of old acts means nothing. The truth is in England certainly the only people to own guns were and still are the gentry for shooting peasants and other game with, yes that's a deliberate spelling. The common man couldn't afford weapons, the long bow was superceded centuries ago. Having the right to bear arms didn't mean to say you actually could, your feudal lord would only arm you when he had a battle to fight and along you would "volunteer" for it. 
And reeves were not commonplace however reivers were.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 30, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Oh well if it's in there it must be correct mustn't it!
> 
> :lol2:artyon:artyon::lol2:


 

So, rather then actually cite references to refute my source, you just laugh at it.  Thats is really intellectually mature, and makes for great argumentation.



> It's in the interpretation though isn't it? the 'Bill of Rights' for example says that Catholics mustn't succeed to the throne, that still stands. It's not a Bill of Rights as the Americans know it, the Magna Carta doesn't give rights to anyone other than the Earls, it is however a basis from which other laws have been based. Merely citing a lot of old acts means nothing.


 
Considering that we are talking about the historical legal allowence of civilians to own weapons in England, I thing that citing a lot of old facts** is the very issue we are discussing.   

No one said that the Magna Carta is the same as the American Bill of Rights.  All he was doing was showing how it was legal, whether it was practical or not, as to whether English subjects could own the prevelant weapon of the day.



> And reeves were not commonplace however reivers were.


 
Ok, but you said:



> What is a 'reve'? We've never had them.


 
And instead of saying that you were incorrect, you try to justify your mistake.  

Its ok, we all make them.  Just some of us are more readily able to admit it then others.


----------



## chinto (Jun 1, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Good heavens that's just not true! where did you get that information from? What is a 'reve'? We've never had them. There is also no such thing as rights of Englishmen as we have no constitution, we are subjects not citizens.


the shire reve (sp) is where the title sheriff .. but the peasant levies and archers of england came from the commoner freeman. in fact it was a law that you must practice with the bow at the butts for 6 hours as I remember on Sunday up through the Queen Elisabeth I, and it was a punishable offense not to!
King Henry V won agincourt in franc, and his father before him at curacy by the skill of the commoner who was skilled with a very effective weapon in the long bow.  the men who used the bows and the short swords were commoners, not knights or other ranked aristocracy,  but common men who owned their weapons, and were required by law to be practiced and proficient with the weapons!!!  A Scottish minister  was the man who developed the percussion cap lock system for fire arms to help make it easier to shoot water foul! ( yep the same "cap and ball " or " percussion lock" that was used for both the weapons in the US Civil War, and by the British across their empire's lenth and breath by both the military and sportsman.. ( yep absolutely no difference between the rifle or shot gun carried by a soldier or officer of the military and the commoner at that time!  in 1880 you could buy the same martini henry .45 caliber rifle in London with out license that the British military carried and used at Roarke's Drift in the Zulu war! hell the maxim machine gun was as far as I know legal to buy in england in 1890 as in the USA... ( no law against it) but the cost was prohibitive, and besides most I am sure like in the USA felt no need for a heavy machine gun. 
Not to mention a commoner in england up till the 20th century was allowed to have a weapon. weather he could afford a weapon is of question depending of the weapon.  the commoners were in fact raised for defense of the realm in the time of the Spanish armada.  ( let alone the war of the roses or the English "civil war" between Oliver Cromwell and King James.)  hell even in WWII many a farmer in rural england had an old shotgun that was used by them in the Home Guard .. and more then one RAF pilot from the free polish and even a few British pilots faced that shotgun till the farmer was sure they were not German Pilots or Air Crew.

read any of the stories of the battle of Britain that mention shot down pilots from Poland and other occupied country's that were not English speaking.... hell if they did not have a shotgun or rifle, they came after them with pitchforks and scythes!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 1, 2008)

Oliver Cromwell and King James? thats a new one on me.
You're quoting random bits of history which are almost correct but not quite. Henry beat the French yes but it was more than the longbow that won the war, that's a Shakespearan embellishment. There's no doubt it's what gave the English the advantage but you need to look at it as it was, not as a romantic play.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/research/southamptonstories/lawartsoc/agincourt.html

The archers in the English army were professional soldiers, there were also a good many mercenaries employed by the English in the Hundred Years War.
http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/hundred_years_war.html

Most of you seem to think we aren't allowed weapons at all but I can assure you we are. I live in the country, most of us have shotguns, it's quite easy to get a shotgun license if you are reputable. Most of us shoot game here. It's always been a country pursuit, just a few miles from me is the grouse moors where wealthy Americans will pay to come and shoot. We also have lots of gun clubs around the country who use a huge variety of weapons. I believe Britain will do well in the shooting again in the upcoming Olympics in China.
I don't need to read RAF stories, I was in the RAF and at the time I joined up there were still several Battle of Britain pilots in. Yes I am really that old.
If you are interested in the history of weapons visit this site. it's the last word on modern and historical weapons from all over the world. If you ever get the chance to visit any of the musuems  you won't regret it. Interestingly it supports the ban on knives campaigns.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/home


----------



## Ahriman (Jun 2, 2008)

Even as it is off-topic here, let me emphasize something from the article Tez3 posted about Agincourt.
*"Most were killed or injured in the melee, many by a swift dagger to the neck."
*I'm getting very, very tired of the ages-old super-longbow story. The French lost that battle for various reasons, the longbow's ability to penetrate armour _(be it plate or mail)_ is not among these reasons as it does not exist, except against the most inferior armours. And men-at-arms didn't really use inferior armour which is the reason of their low number._ (low compared to later armies' numbers)_


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 2, 2008)

Irony

Guns campaigner stabbed to death



> The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 2, 2008)

There's this as well, truly shocking. I don't know if although the children were stabbed to death it has actually anything to do with 'knife' crime as such.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0106_stabbing.shtml


----------



## thardey (Jun 2, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Most of you seem to think we aren't allowed weapons at all but I can assure you we are. I live in the country, most of us have shotguns, it's quite easy to get a shotgun license if you are reputable. Most of us shoot game here. It's always been a country pursuit, just a few miles from me is the grouse moors where wealthy Americans will pay to come and shoot. We also have lots of gun clubs around the country who use a huge variety of weapons. I believe Britain will do well in the shooting again in the upcoming Olympics in China.



Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? I always wondered about the shotguns, it seems like an ideal weapon for Britain. You can't really introduce hunting rifles, since I don't believe there are many game deer running around, but shotguns make sense. Plus, they're one of the best home-defense weapons available.

Can you own shotguns in the city?


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 2, 2008)

and, adding to the above question:

-What is the process for obtaining a shotgun license?
-What are the criteria for eligibility?
-Can you actually keep the shotguns in your house?
-How badly are you going to be screwed if you shoot a home invader?


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 3, 2008)

The UK is an example of a once powerfull, proud and principled nation that has lost it's balls and reason to socilaist influence and politicol correctness.

 Many Britts I have known bemoan the slow, rot of their Nation's pride and identaty and say their is a good number back home that think like they do, but England is not for the English anymore, it's for all the Commonwealthers who have come nto their country.

 Vote for Obama and you wll be putting us another step closer to that fate or another AMerican civil war.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2008)

There is certainly an element of truth in what you say, *Darth*.  

However, I don't really think it advances this particular debate as such.  That would, perhaps, be a very good topic for another thread if you fancy starting it - might get a bit heated tho'.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jun 3, 2008)

I'd like to hear your take on it, I am not saying I am an expert on the UK (Read about and admire it and the art that come from it and get alonmg well with most Britts I meet.) but I do see some scarry simularities to what has happend there and what is happining here.


----------

