# Britian: Firearms cheap, easy to get and on a street near you



## Deaf Smith (Aug 30, 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1



> "The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.


 


> "You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s," he said. "Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.


 


> "People who use shotguns tend to be lower down the pecking order. There is less use of sawn-off or full length shotguns, and if a criminal wants street cred, he wants a self-loading pistol, a MAC-10 or an Uzi submachine gun."


 
.
.


> According to David Dyson, a leading firearms consultant, it is possible to learn through the internet how to make a firearm, given a degree of skill, and converted deactivated weapons also feature in shootings.


.
.


> Home Office data shows that gun crime is up since last year, despite the recent doubling of sentences for possessing or supplying firearms. There were 9,803 firearms offences in England and Wales in the year to March 2008 with most in London, Manchester and the West Midlands.


.
.


> "Everyone wants to be a gangster now, mainly the kids. You have five or six in a little crew and one of them will be carrying. They want handguns - shotguns are too big and bulky. The sawn-off doesn't look so good but use a machine gun and you get known as a heavy guy. They have them just to be a chap on the street, to pose. Some of them walk around all day with a .38. It's 16-year-olds at it and it's getting like America, silly as it sounds."


.
.


> Few professional criminals would keep guns on their premises. "Only silly people keep it in their homes. Normally, you have a 'keeper' a couple of miles away and some of them have been at it for 20 years. It's best to have an old fellow with no previous or a woman. You keep the ammunition separate because you'll get a much heavier sentence if you have them together."


 
So the honest people have no weapons to defend themselves, but gangs have them a'plenty in England. This is the result of gun control. It will only get worse over there.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2008)

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. 
More advice from the world's police. 
No, guns aren't that easy to get hold of but there's been gangs with guns dating backing to when guns were first invented, arming the populace would solve nothing as *they don't want to be armed*. Rightly or wrongly they don't want their police armed either, my force is the only one routinely armed as we aren't Home Office police and the nature of the job is different.
Nine and a half thousand guns crimes in two countries with a combined population of 63,756,938 isn't bad is it? Oh and btw some of that gun crime is terrorist related as in the Provos and the Loyalists are still at it. Oh and gun crime over here isn't actually using them it's also possession and gun trafficking. the majority of gun crimes involving shootings are drug gang related where they shoot each other, there has been a few high profile cases where kids have been killed in shootings but arming people would not have stopped them, again though they are gang related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

America seems to have a much higher rate of crime in just one of it's cities than all three of our countries, The Channel Islands and The Isle of Man put together. In fact it seems to have more crime than the European Community and that's well over 20 countries.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

I guess we're doing something right.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

*Less than 0.5% of all crime in the UK is gun related*.


----------



## Ahriman (Aug 30, 2008)

To be a bit sarcastic: no wonder gun crimes are at such a low percentage - with these prices who would ever buy any? Hey, they ask more for a sawn-off shotgun than their Hungarian colleagues ask for an AK47...
...
Bottom line is, if you want guns, you can get them - anywhere, anytime, only the time and money needed to be invested into obtaining them changes and in some countries one would need to invest too much of either or both to worth it. It seems the UK is one of those countries - I doubt you could get hand grenades at circa $3 each there in a week, which is *good.*


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 30, 2008)

The catch is this Tez3,

England is a island. If ever one thought gun prohibition would stop guns from being brought in, or produced localy, and 'gun crime' would cease, one would think it would work in England. Well we see it isn't the case.

Do you remember that back in the 1920s and 30s there was very very little crime in England yet guns were easy to get legaly? Funny how the more guns were restricted the more crime went up.

And from what I hear of the British police, they are very very weak in gun handling skills and have many accidental discharges. All because they never learned how to use them before entering service.

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2008)

A small elaboration, Mr. Smith.  Geologically, Britain is an island it is true.  Sadly we did a technologically great but fundamentally stupid thing by linking ourselves to mainland Europe with a tunnel.

All sorts of things are coming through there, ranging from deadly spiders to rabies to illegal immigrants to guns.  

Also, even if the tunnel did not exist, smuggling has been a fact for as long as there has been restrictions on imports.  Passing a law to prohibit the importation of something just means it doesn't come through one of the regular ports - our coastline might not be as wiggly as Norways's nor as long an America's but there are plenty of places to pull up a dinghy running with no lights and off-loading a few boxes of something.

Apart from that, it is something to ponder the differences in crime rates between countries and why they exist.  You would think that the proportion of people inclined to do bad things was a constant from place to place but it seems not.  

I have a personal theory that is related to poverty, or at least exclusion from the means to garner sufficient funds to support yourself.  I might shimph and winge (aka moan) about my tax rate but it's prescence to fund the SS does seem to work to turn our would-be criminal statistics into spongers instead.  In the end I do think that is a better road, even tho' it might cost me more Pounds Sterling personally in the long run.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 30, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And from what I hear of the British police, they are very very weak in gun handling skills and have many accidental discharges. All because they never learned how to use them before entering service.
> 
> Deaf



I've not heard anything negative about British police firearms skills, and I am acquainted with several British officers.  But, even granting that your information on that issue is correct -- I disagree with the leap that accidental or unintentional discharges are linked to lack of training prior to entering police service.  I don't have easy stats, but just thinking about the handful I know -- most had military experience prior to becoming law enforcement officers, thus did enter police service with firearms training.

In fact, based on that reasoning, you'd expect to see ever increasing firearms mistakes here in the US as more and more people who become police officers handle a gun for the first time in the academy.  And we're not seeing that happen...


----------



## jarrod (Aug 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
> More advice from the world's police.
> No, guns aren't that easy to get hold of but there's been gangs with guns dating backing to when guns were first invented, arming the populace would solve nothing as *they don't want to be armed*. Rightly or wrongly they don't want their police armed either, my force is the only one routinely armed as we aren't Home Office police and the nature of the job is different.
> Nine and a half thousand guns crimes in two countries with a combined population of 63,756,938 isn't bad is it? Oh and btw some of that gun crime is terrorist related as in the Provos and the Loyalists are still at it. Oh and gun crime over here isn't actually using them it's also possession and gun trafficking. the majority of gun crimes involving shootings are drug gang related where they shoot each other, there has been a few high profile cases where kids have been killed in shootings but arming people would not have stopped them, again though they are gang related.
> ...


 
admittedly, that is a pretty good percentage.  however you could make the same arguement regarding U.S. gun crime being inter-gang related.  unfortunately we happen to have a greater problem with poverty in the inner cities, which will always lead to increased crime.  i think the solution for decreasing crime in the states will be to strengthen the middle class by increasing work & education opportunities for the poor.  

i'm also not sure i agree with you about terrorist activity.  trying to eject an occupying force from your country isn't exactly terrorism.  of course this is a touchy subject for many, so maybe i should have let that one go.    

in any case, i don't think that anyone is trying to forcibly arm the british people.  if the british like strict weapons prohibitions, that is their business.  i think people point out these articles because if firearm bans don't magically eradicate gun violence in the U.K. (let alone violence in general), it certainly won't do much here, where there are many more guns already in the borders, plenty of smuggling opportunities, & a general distrust of governmental restrictions.  like i touched on before, our problems with violence have more to do with culture & economics.  

jf


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> The catch is this Tez3,
> 
> England is a island. If ever one thought gun prohibition would stop guns from being brought in, or produced localy, and 'gun crime' would cease, one would think it would work in England. Well we see it isn't the case.
> 
> ...


 

Since when has *England* been an island?
Crime in the 30s and 40s in the Uk was rife, violence much more common than it is now, razor gangs were notorious, unemployment was high and many took to crime. Crime levels didn't fall until the 1950s when the standard of living went up. I think that proves Sukerkin's point about poverty and crime.Whoever thought England was a green and pleasant land in the 30's and 40's was wrong, it was a very miserable time in history ( which despite your post suggesting I do I don't remember personally lol!)
You seem to think gun control here is a modern thing, it's not. Gun licences were first made mandatory in *1870*, then there was the Pistol Act in *1903*. IN 1920 fearing weapons could be got hold of easily after the war there was the *Firearms Act 1920* then fully automatic weapons were banned under another *Firearms Act in 1937*. 
What you may hear about the police is hardly the truth, do you think then they are issued weapons without first being taught how to use them? Where would these NDs being taking place? Not in public that's for sure. The officers training police officers to use firearms are extremely competent, many are ex military, and know how to do their jobs as do the officers who are issued firearms.
As for the terrorist issue, Northern Ireland had very little to do with fighting for freedom and loads more to do with drugs and crime than people imagine. Co-operation between the two 'sides' when carving up terrority for their drug gangs was and is a common practice.  I was also talking about what happened on mainland UK not the Province, I  mentioned too that we have Loyalist 'terrorists' who can hardly be fighting for freedom.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2008)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

Interesting reading.


----------



## jarrod (Aug 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I was also talking about what happened on mainland UK not the Province, I mentioned too that we have Loyalist 'terrorists' who can hardly be fighting for freedom.


 
point taken.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 31, 2008)

Since gun crime has dropped in Britain do to the firearm laws has knife crime sky rocketed?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Since gun crime has dropped in Britain do to the firearm laws has knife crime sky rocketed?


 
No it hasn't rocketed, it's actually dropping. However, the deaths of young people has grabbed the news headlines and it seems as if the problem while bad, is worse than it is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/13/ukcrime.boris
For the media violent crime sells, it's sensationalist and will attract comments from all sides of the political spectrum, it's also an easy thing to appear to crack down on for governments. The figures however put a lie to this. Last year there were 1201 murders in the UK, 14 of these were firearms related.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&b_cite=1&b_define=1&all=1

What should worry people in the UK is deaths in hospitals from the so called superbugs. These are preventable but are rising.
In 2007 there were 8324 deaths where the superbug C Dif are mentioned, in 2006 there were 6489, this is for one of the bugs only. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/28/health.nhs.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 31, 2008)

It is just that all of my british friends report that knife crime has risen drastically and that they indeed are concerned because the young street punks have taken to it. :erg:


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 31, 2008)

Hi Brian.  

It could well be that your British friends (hey!  I thought I was your friend and I'm British ) believe in good faith that knife crime has escalated beyond all reason in recent times but it is not so.

As Irene was saying above, the media focus on the incidents that have happened this year in London has given the impression that every street has some young thug knifing another to death but the collected statistics tell a different story.  I do admit that, despite my being aware of the media manipulation of perception, I too thought things were going from bad to worse.  Then I saw the official reports.

As a reassurance that this not just another 'figures massage' to make the police look good, the data on deaths is very rigorous in it's collection and analysis - it's not like some crimes where a significant percentage goes unreported (common assault for example).


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 31, 2008)

As twisted as it may sound I'm glad to hear that the US isn't the only place in the world that the media distorts facts to sell ad space with the result being that people around the world get an off kilter view of the country from which they're reporting.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 31, 2008)

Hey Sukerkin I have no doubt that in the UK your knife crime has increased but not to the proportions that the media or other people would like everyone to believe. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The media over here in the States blows things way out of proportion as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> It is just that all of my british friends report that knife crime has risen drastically and that they indeed are concerned because the young street punks have taken to it. :erg:


 

It's a strange situation we have here at the moment, knife crime _appears_ to have risen but actually hasn't. what we've had is a lot of young people killed by other young people with knives, that of course has made big headlines and lots of hand wringing by the politicians. Lots of headlines in the papers with campaigns by them ( sells papers of course) for tougher laws for carrying weapons. Our laws are more than up to the jobs but people want something to be seen to be done which will magically make the problem disappear. 

_According to the British Crime Survey, knife-enabled crime (any crime involving a knife) over the past decade has remained stable at around 6-7% of all crime, comprising 30% of all homicides. _
_In fact, the most recent crime survey by the Metropolitan police showed that knife crime has actually dropped by 15.7% over the past two years, from 12,122 to 10,220 incidents_

Knives have always been the weapon of choice here and many people have always carried them. In the 70's and 80s we had the football gangs carrying them before that the London gangs who always preferred bladed weapons (The Krays etc) Young people are being interviewed on tv news programmes telling how they carry them for protection. It's the perception that knife crime has gone up as well as gun crime that makes people especially people outside of the UK who glean what they know of our country from the media think this a far more of a problem than it is.
It is a problem, there's no doubt about it, gangs are more common than they used to be copying from America. Racism is coming into a lot with white gangs v Muslim ones, anti Muslim feelings run high in some cities and young Muslims feel they need to protect themselves as well aas the fact they are being pushed by cynical 'mullahs' who would like to see their youth fighting the British establishment.
In other places drugs play a large part and the rival drug gangs will fight it out. There's also a large amount of lads playing at being macho, emulating what they see in the media, the gangs you see in the American dramas.
Ther is little danger for the ordinary citizen in the UK, violent crime is still very rare but if you are young and personally this is what shocks and worries me you are far more likely to be the victim of crime usually committed by other youths.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2008)

There was another thread on MT wasn't there about the perceptions people had drawn purely from the media. I think that was about the people in the southern states of American but I find it also true of what people think of the UK.
Contrary to popular belief and probably wishful thinking Britain has never been a sort of peaceful green and pleasant land. Crime may seem bad now but thats because we are living in these times and it affects us but the crime figures in this country are decreasing not increasing. This is partly because the UK was a very violent place to live until relatively recently!Probably right up until the 1950s. Even through the war it was unsafe to walk the streets of our capital and not because of Germans bombs. Without modern media though it never seemed that way. 
None of this is new it's just perhaps more newsworthy now, I don't know. The first article shows that gangs in Manchester have been there for over 20 years. the second is a history of London gangs.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/233/233750_history_of_moss_sides_gun_gang_culture.html 
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/kray/away_4.html


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 31, 2008)

Let's get some things strait about gun control and crime in England or any place else.

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

This does not break down by weapon type. Notice Israel has a low murder rate but has lots and lots of guns (and lurking terrorist.) And Switzerland, were people are required to keep military rifles and ammo in their home, has one of the lowest. Yet Mexico, were gun control is very ridged (if a U.S. traverl has just *ONE bullet*, to jail they go) has a huge murder rate.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000055.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

I thought 'nationmaster' would be interesting cause of the comments on how many nations compile their stats (that is define murder or even record it.) Some of the ones commenting are officials. A very acid comment was over Middle Eastern countries and their view of murder .vs. 'honor killings' (in other words it ain't murder.)

Now this below has to do with crime rates in general.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

Apparently Scotland is one of the top ten! U.S. is not on the list.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#guns

Show some very interesting stats on murder in countries with or without guns (yes 'gun violence declines, but it's mearly substitued with other means to commit murder.)

Oh, and about England being an island (or not.) Even with the tunnel it's still just as much an island as Tahiti (you can get there buy air or ship just can't drive.) The tunnel should be easy to control as it's one point of entry. Unfortunatly smugglers are always happy to find new methods.

One should notice smuggling of drugs has not be stopped in ANY country, so why would guns? And that is why, showing more and more guns are being introduced into Enland, it will only get worse.

The trouble with British laws is innocent people do not have the legal means to defend themselves. Criminals do not wait for the police to be around and know well how to evade camera detection (I hear there has been a MP request to ban the wearing of hats in public now and DNA test done on everybody.)

And about the English police and AD/NDs.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...emselves+and+colleagues+by+mistake/article.do

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ter-gun-mistakes-are-revealed-89520-20591754/

and read Christopher Heim on Unintentional Discharges of Firearms.

http://www.eptk2007.de/policetrainerconference/Bulletin 2007.html

Crime and violence is a product of culture, broken homes, and to an extent poverty. Culture that belives in here-and-now pleasure, broken homes were children are not taught right from wrong, and yes lack of abilthy to earn a living.

Guns? No, *guns don't cause crime no more than matches cause arson*. 

Someone always has to pull the trigger.

Deaf


----------



## jarrod (Sep 1, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Oh, and about England being an island (or not.) Even with the tunnel it's still just as much an island as Tahiti (you can get there buy air or ship just can't drive.) The tunnel should be easy to control as it's one point of entry. Unfortunatly smugglers are always happy to find new methods.
> 
> Deaf


 
britain is an island, england is country on that island, along with wales & scotland.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 1, 2008)

jarrod said:


> britain is an island, england is country on that island, along with wales & scotland.


 
Thank you!
Deaf Smith, England is only one country in Great Britain, there's also Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. England has a land border with Scotland so cannot be an island.
There's also different laws in these countries, for example in Scotland in a trail there are three possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty and not proven. You talk about British laws but we don't have 'British' laws. Also you mention English police but we also have Irish, Scottish and Welsh police.

Thank you so much for the lectures on my country, I love it when people try to put a picture of how we live together from 'facts' they get from newspapers. Who is Ben Best and what is maps of the world? The wikipedia article says it need citations to prove whats there btw. 
Of course you don't have to believe Home Office figures, why would you when you have a point to prove. Try living and working here as a police officer and see for yourself. 
As for the NDs of weapons you've the word of one tabloid newspaper and the blog of an unknown person? I think you need to come up with some better proof than that.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 1, 2008)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/crime-statistics/

http://www.sussex.police.uk/foi/policies/docview.asp?id=828/2006

http://www.gwent.police.uk/documents/f_o_i/policies/Firearms Policy.pdf

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0F1F7AAC-B3FD-4DC3-A46E-726A1AE2A6FA/0/04100.pdf

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

http://www.connected.gov.uk/


fill ya boots!


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 1, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you so much for the lectures on my country, I love it when people try to put a picture of how we live together from 'facts' they get from newspapers.


Same could be said of anyone attempting to get a mental picture of another country when they haven't been there first hand.  Kind of like the picture you have of the US in your head.  Where did that picture form?  Have you lived here or have you created a picture of it from reading newspapers, watching the tv and listening to tales of folks visiting your country from here?  It would be very much like me attempting to lecture someone from Egypt on their country.  I've never been there.  Of course, comments like 


> Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
> More advice from the world's police.


would seem to be you lecturing someone from America when you haven't lived here as well.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 1, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
> 
> America seems to have a much higher rate of crime in just one of it's cities than all three of our countries, The Channel Islands and The Isle of Man put together. In fact it seems to have more crime than the European Community and that's well over 20 countries.


 
Yet, by using Washington DC, you end up proving the pro-gun argument, that lawful ownership of firearms has nothing to do with the crime rates.  

You may want to pick a different city other than DC, if you wish to assert that guns cause crime, since DC has forbidden handgun ownership for the last few decades, along with severly restricting long gun ownership.  

Bad people who want to get guns will find ways of getting guns, whether or not lawful firearms ownership is forbidden.  All one has to do is look at the island country of Jamaica, to see one of the highest rates of violent crime, and see how gun-grabbing has failed to produce any meaningful results.  

It's a cultural issue, not a gun issue.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 1, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> It's a cultural issue, not a gun issue.


 
As for gun control, that's the whole point. Banning weapons does not affect crime except to keep good people from defending themselves. The how young people are brought up has far more to do with it.

As for England, even Scotland and Ireland have stiff gun..., no weapon control, just as the British do and still the weapons come in (as does drugs.) And that was my whole point. Even an island with such strong gun control in all it's countries still have guns in the wrong hands.

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 1, 2008)

Aye, that is true, *DS*.  

It has in fact always been true.  Britain has historically been a very violent place; not just in recent times but for over a millenia.  How else do you think we got the wherewithal to have a global empire whilst fighting everybody else for the priveledge?  Letting the America's go cheap to the French because we thought the Caribbean was more profitable was a bit of a mistake but you get the concept.

In recent times, however, crime in Britain has been less because social inequality has been less.  Gun, knife or bassoon based violent crime, the trend has been downwards as peoples legitimately obtained wealth increased (no matter that some of this has been gained by leaching the sweat of my brow ).

The media image of the same, fuelled as it is by the overweaning requirements of the establishment, would have it that things have never been worse and that the only solution is ever greater control of the individual members who make up society.

Sound familiar?

The illegal prevelence of arms over here is a direct result of government policy, shortsightedly implemented, as always, in myopic perception of a response that would garner votes.  Well that and a dumb aping of modern Hollywood 'gangster' stereotypes, such that any thug now feels himself not a 'man' unless 'carrying'.

Why we constantly import the worst of American traits is beyond me.  Is there nothing good we could learn? :raises hands to heavens:.  Ah, no.  Fundamentalism we could do without, ta.  We have enough of that sort of thing from the BNP already.


----------



## jarrod (Sep 1, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Why we constantly import the worst of American traits is beyond me. Is there nothing good we could learn? :raises hands to heavens:. Ah, no. Fundamentalism we could do without, ta. We have enough of that sort of thing from the BNP already.


 
america has plenty of fine traits, along with plenty of bad.  i get frustrated with current american culture (very frustrated) but to imply that there is nothing good in america is insulting & ignorant.  america did not invent fundamentalism, & though it is at it's zenith here at the moment, we are learning from it's errors & we will find a balance.  however we may be acting now, the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation, & people are beginning to figure that out.  things are a bit rough now, but we know, & we're working on it. thanks for your concern.

ta,

jf


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Actually I'm not lectoring anyone I'm replying to posts made by Deaf Smith who made several statements about England that were factually incorrect not a matter of opinion, his insistance that englad is an island when it has two land borders with Scotland and Wales, his stating Engand had very little crime in the 1930's and 40s among others. i was merely pointing out that taking articles from newspapers and unkown sources to prove his point about a country he;s never been in was at best mistaken at worse a slur. I don't know why everyones so sensitive it seems commonplace on this forum to use briain to prove points in the arguments about guns and crime, this is the *second thread about Britain in as many days*.If you do a search you will find many more in the same vein, do you wonder I get exasparated by them? I don't make OPs about America and really you can't blame me if I answer when people do about my country and try to defend it.
If you want to know where I get some of the views I do, gentlemen, of your country I get it from people who post here. Americans have issues, as they say about guns, some are pro being armed some aren't and are trying to stop people being armed, it has nothing to do with us so why so many posts about gun control in the UK? I have no views about whether Americans should be armed or not, it's none of my business.
_If you look at that article about Washington it states crime is going *down*. _


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2008)

jarrod said:


> to imply that there is nothing good in america is insulting & ignorant.


 
Just in case this was directly aimed at me, I fear that either I did not express myself clearly enough or you misread me.  

The point I was trying to make is that we over in here in Blighty seem to absorb only the bad things that the American media disseminates.  Please don't think that I was attempting to infer that there is nothing good in America.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 2, 2008)

If I know Tez and Sukerkin like I think I know them then I am sure neither mean any offense to any Americans. (just like the Americans here also do not mean any offense to our British friends 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)  Great Britain and the United States will always be connected and in truth we have allot more in common than differences. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  We are in the end each others strongest allies! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





As to gun control and the UK well it is interesting because the measure of gun control put in place in the UK is relatively new.  People are naturally going to be interested in what is happening there.


----------



## jarrod (Sep 2, 2008)

sukerkin, thanks for the clarification, i must have misunderstood you.  my mistake!  

jf


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2008)

Neither Sukerkin nor myself were getting at Americans!! What is making me frustrated though and perhaps it's my fault for not explaining properly is that we've had what you call *gun control since the 19th* *century,* the culture of our country isn't one of guns and being armed, its the way we are and it's the way we want to be. However we are not a gunless country, you can have weapons if you want they just must be licensed. 
We know guns are coming into the country as are drugs, we don't however rely on laws to stop that. Criminals have always had guns probably since they were first invented but the 'old fashioned' type of professional criminal knew when to use them and when not to, they ween't used against the ordinary punter but now we have American type gangs inspired by the media to deal with.  I've being ringing around other forces trying to find statistics on armed robberies in peoples houses and I can find none. I assume there must be some somewhere but obviously too few to document, there are armed robberies in commercial premises, most in Glasgow Scotland and Liverpool but them I'll get to in a minute. There was a rather large one in London, they got £54 million pounds and that was a bit odd for me as one of the suspects is a well known MMA fighter. he's in Morocco and can't be extradited. 
Now Glasgow, it's always been known as a very 'hard' city, hard drinking, hard fighting. Home of the Glasgow 'kiss' the headbutt, poverty has wracked the city and produced some of the toughest people in the world with maybe the best sense of humour in the world.

 If you are familiar with Billy Connelly you will know what I'm talking about.
Crime and Glasgow are sort of the same thing! it's a port as it Liverpool which is sort of the English version of Glasgow, Manchester is much the same. London has parts of it that are hard. It's these places that the gun crime is focused, where the criminal gangs are. It's also where the criminal activity has always been, going back to the Industrial Revolution. 
Manchester in particular suffered greatly during the American Civil War when the cotton mills the main source of employment for the city couldn't get the cotton from America and the workers were laid off. Poverty breeds crime, it's no different now in many of these places and they have a 'tradition' of crime which carries on through generations. Add drugs, immigrants, high unemployment, poor education and the glamourisation of gangs by the media and we're off and running! 

The gun and knife crimes have been given a huge amount of publicity by the media. The crime figures aren't that high as it is but the public have been frightened by the spate of unfortunate shootings and stabbings of young male teenagers by other young male teenagers which are due to the gang culture. Every day one newspaper or another is making a story out of one of these tragic deaths, the stories of course are dramatic. One story went on about the tragic shooting of a 'perfect student' but it turned out he was a drug deler 'eliminated' by a rival gang! Others have been shot in mistake for someone else, a couple were in the way when shots were aimed at someone else.

The problem is very serious and something has to be done but the problem is not one of criminals being armed and threatening the general public, it's a very specific problem of youth and gangs. There is a very low likelihood that the average person in the UK will become the victim of a violent crime however ask them and they will say they feel unsafe due to the amount of media coverage of crime. it's the perception and the fear that we have to overcome.

I remember writing on another thread very similiar to this one on here about the gang culture that's sprung up here, there's been schemes that have helped to get people out of gangs but the government cut the funding nor are they willing to sort out the education system or bring new work into the inner cities where making money from dealing drugs is seen as a fast easy way to get what you want.


----------



## chinto (Sep 2, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yep gun control like every attempt to control the possession of any weapon by the public since the stone age has failed!! its historical fact all it does is make sure the criminals have weapons and the law abiding type person does not.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

chinto said:


> yep gun control like every attempt to control the possession of any weapon by the public since the stone age has failed!! its historical fact all it does is make sure the criminals have weapons and the law abiding type person does not.


 


*Guns are not illegal in the UK just licensed.*


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> *Guns are not illegal in the UK just licensed.*


But only shotguns correct?  And are you allowed to have pump-action or semi-auto shotguns, or only break-action (single or double barrel) shotguns?  Also, what are the storage requirements, can you keep them in your home or do they have to be stored at a gun-club/range?

IMO, being allowed to own only a couple of types for hunting or sporting purposes (and being required to register them) doesn't really count for much...

Another question:  What would the response from the police and government be like if someone were to use their legally owned weapon for defense...I'm guessing it wouldn't be good.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

Burglars don't carry weapons and will enter a house when the householder is out. To use or threaten with a weapon is a higher charge, aggravated burglery with more prison time. Most thefts in this country are burglaries, nasty but the householder never sees the criminal. The very few and high profile cases of armed criminals entering your house are almost exclusively the 'celeb' robberies. These are the very rich who keep their valuables in safes etc which have to be opened hence taking a weapon and threatening the householder to open or reveal where their jewellery is. These robberies with violence are planned not random and executed by gangs of criminals, using a weapon to defend your self is unlikely to be an option.
Ok if you did use a weapon any weapon, any weapon to defend yourself/family/others and you can prove reasonable force nothing will happen to you. If someone is threatening you with a gun and you believe your life was in danger yes you can shoot him and you will have no charges against you. It's investigated of course otherwise we would have murders dressed up as self defence but you would not be penalised for it, I think that's misconception about our laws which also say you can strike first if you believe you are in danger ( you being yourself, family etc)

We had one case where someone killed an intruder and was imprisoned but that was complicated. He shot a boy in the back who was running away from the house down the path, there was no threat to life so it wasn't reasonable force, the householder had also threatened to kill his own brother, and also threatened the police with a weapon.

Weapons kept at home are kept in a gun cabinet securely locked. Other are kept at gun clubs where basically only the people who are interested in such weapons go, there's not a lot of interest in guns here tbh. Very few people want to be armed, it's not a case of the government keeping us down they'd change the law if enough people campaigned, it is actually a case of the government following the peoples wishes, I think that's often misunderstood too. I think from the outside looking in it seems as if controlling guns is a government plot to keep the people down but it's not at all. It never gets brought up at election times nor are there people demanding to be armed, we just don't seem bothered by not being able to carry guns all the time. 

There are campaigns by the media to get some control over the gangs and the knives they carry sometimes guns too but the biggest issue with us and in the forefront of everyones minds is the housing market and the recession.. 'the credit crunch' it's being called. One of our banks invested heavily in the American housing market, lost millions and we had a run on the bank for the first time in a hundred years, the Bank of England had to bail it out at a cost of billions of pounds, our money! the value of houses has gone down,repossessions are going up, pay isn't and the price of fuel has pushed all other prices up making times increasingly hard. That's the issues here, guns and gun control aren't even on the radar.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 3, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> there's not a lot of interest in guns here tbh. Very few people want to be armed, it's not a case of the government keeping us down they'd change the law if enough people campaigned, it is actually a case of the government following the peoples wishes, I think that's often misunderstood too. I think from the outside looking in it seems as if controlling guns is a government plot to keep the people down but it's not at all. It never gets brought up at election times nor are there people demanding to be armed, we just don't seem bothered by not being able to carry guns all the time.



I personally find that to be a little scary...the idea that people have become so conditioned that they don't even want to have the means to protect themselves...that they are perfectly _content_ to be _subjects_ (and that they probably think it's their idea).
Despite your assertions, I _personally_ have my doubts that even if "enough people campaigned" the government would restore broad firearms ownership rights.  Governments don't have a very good track-record of relinquishing their power.

I know or know of a couple of people who specifically left England because the did not have the right to keep their firearms.  One of them, a collector, lost a large and valuable collection in '98 (IIRC) when the big ban was passed (he is now a US citizen, has a CCW permit, and has replaced most of his collection).  Another spent his career serving his country with the SBS.  However, on the day he retired, he was no longer "trusted" to own the very same types of weapons he had used in the service of his country...I find that pretty sad.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 3, 2008)

Whilst I can understand your views given your own circumstances, *Tex*, it is important to remember that things are very different over here.  

Even now, with the torrent of media flames being fanned ever higher, when you say "people have become so conditioned that they don't even want to have the means to protect themselves", my reaction is instinctively to reply "Against what?".  

Despite my having said earlier about Britain having been a violent place for a long time, it has also, paradoxically been a largely law biding place too (an oddity given our very high population density).  

Fights have ever been common around pub closing time but it has been my experience that if you didn't seek trouble then it didn't find you.  It is my perception that that has changed but I do feel that that just could be my grumpy middle-aged "youth of today" bias comming out (tho' they really do need to get a handle on their self-destructive drinking habits).

Even the crooks, as *Tez* pointed out above, prefer not to use weapons and violence in their 'work'.  Some of that is, however, changing as younger generations of criminals grow up with glamourous views of 'armed bloods', which is what we've referenced when we speak of the aping of American style 'street culture'.

The specifics of the law on the 'Pistol Ban' I don't know well enough to comment on but a professional like *Tez* probably is.  I do recall it happening and saying at the time pretty much as has been said here repeatedly viz that banning something usually only ensures that the law abiding don't have it.  

That is indeed what we have seen, with a rise in gun crime as people got rid of their handguns to the dodgy bloke down the pub rather than seeing them destroyed.  I think that the real problem was that the 'cure' applied to rising gang violence worked to make it worse by boosting the availability of weapons at just the wrong time.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I personally find that to be a little scary...the idea that people have become so conditioned that they don't even want to have the means to protect themselves...that they are perfectly _content_ to be _subjects_ (and that they probably think it's their idea).
> Despite your assertions, I _personally_ have my doubts that even if "enough people campaigned" the government would restore broad firearms ownership rights. Governments don't have a very good track-record of relinquishing their power.
> 
> I know or know of a couple of people who specifically left England because the did not have the right to keep their firearms. One of them, a collector, lost a large and valuable collection in '98 (IIRC) when the big ban was passed (he is now a US citizen, has a CCW permit, and has replaced most of his collection). Another spent his career serving his country with the SBS. However, on the day he retired, he was no longer "trusted" to own the very same types of weapons he had used in the service of his country...I find that pretty sad.


 
That's an insulting thing to say about the British people who have a long history of being non conformist and not being brainwashed by their governments. Still there's nothing I can say that will convince you if you think I've been brainwashed and you know better than I. If you don't understand this country and are influenced by what a couple of people say there's no discussion to be had.
Your friend btw will not have spent his career in the SBS, there is a time limit on how long anyone spends in that unit.
Which 1998 Act would that have been? there is a 1997 Act which bans hanguns from private use ( but could easily be kept in a designated place such as a gun club.) but allows specifically collections 'of interest',  as I know plenty of weapons collectors who have never had their collections taken away or had to give them up. The 1997 Act came about after the Dunblane massacre when there was a big public outcry to ban handguns, rightly or wrongly whatever in your opinion thats what the people wanted and thats what they got.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

Surely it's a given that what is fine for the citizens of one country may not be fine for the citizens of another? I don't see the need to insult the people of one country just because they don't think or go about things the way you may in your's. It doesn't mean that any country is necessarily right as I don't believe there is any one right answer to problems that afflict our societies.
I know it hards to imagine living under a different system especially if it's radically different but that doesn't make that systme wrong or the citizens brainwashed. the truth still is if you don't like it one one country you are free to leave and live where you feel comfortable. Thats become increasingly easy for the citizens of the UK as we have rights of entry and of work in the EC now. 
Can we not accept and embrace our differences whithout howls of abuse calling us stupid, brainwashed or sheeplike because we like the system we have? We could easily turn round and say Americans are brainwashed into believing they need guns and that the government won't spend enough money on policing so people have to defend themselves! Is that the truth? No, of course not! it's horses for courses, you have your way and we have ours. 
Rather than suggest we all need to be armed, suggestions on how to beat the gang culture would be welcomed, how to keep the young men of this country form killing each other. What engages young men and would get them out of this spiral of gangs, death and drugs? Are there schemes in America we can follow?
I have an interest in this as I'm in a position to implement and suggest schemes that will reduce gang activity in our area or perhaps even preents lads from jining gangs.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

The majority of handgun owners before the ban were actually collectors and people who had something their dad brought back from the war, tucked away and forgotten about. Very few people bought or obtained weapons with the intent to use for defence.
The bane of my life at the moment is the military who are smuggling back weapons from warzones and selling them and a certain Liverpool regiment who nicked weapons from their own armoury and sold them in their home town. Ah scousers they are just scallies lol.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 3, 2008)

If my understanding of events is wrong regarding what I said about a ban, my apologies.  Perhaps you can clarify *exactly what types of firearms people are allowed to own, and under what circumstances *(said clarification would be helpful).  Are there different requirements for rifles, handguns, and shotguns?  And, what _types_ of the aforementioned weapons are legal, and which ones are illegal.

As to the other stuff, I have my opinion and you have yours.  We are probably never going to actually agree given our different cultural backgrounds, and obviously, different views on the specific topic at hand.  
No insult was intended...trust me, when/if I decide to insult someone you'll know it...I'm not very subtle.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> If my understanding of events is wrong regarding what I said about a ban, my apologies. Perhaps you can clarify *exactly what types of firearms people are allowed to own, and under what circumstances *(said clarification would be helpful). Are there different requirements for rifles, handguns, and shotguns? And, what _types_ of the aforementioned weapons are legal, and which ones are illegal.
> 
> As to the other stuff, I have my opinion and you have yours. We are probably never going to actually agree given our different cultural backgrounds, and obviously, different views on the specific topic at hand.
> No insult was intended...trust me, when/if I decide to insult someone you'll know it...I'm not very subtle.


 
Here you go, you can look it all up yourself lol!
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

I'n not sure its so much that we can't agree because I can agree you solution to your problems is the right one but you seem to think your solution to our problems is also the right one! I'm not insisting that you should all have your weapons taken off you to suit what I think. Actually I'd have to look a lot more deeply into your policies before I even passed an opinion on them,_ if I did at all_. I have no idea whether you all carrying weapons is good bad or indifferent.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 3, 2008)

In Australia we have pretty much the same gun and knife laws as they do in Britain and even no cartwheel laws now.  But the police do walk around with hand guns on them and so do some security guards . 

Like Britain we are also getting this gangster rap culture where you have young aboriginal boys , lebanese boys and pacific islander boys going around like they are boys in da hood. We are a big island and we can't stop the guns coming in either , they seemed to get smuggled in inside car parts etc from China .

 The gangs will also hold up security guards when they are emptying the atms and take their hand guns off them as well . But even though we have this crime , we are not really a gun culture. 

I myself have not even fired a real gun , not unless you count an air rifle and i don't know anybody who has guns. So don't go giving the Poms a hard time , Australia and New Zealand are pretty much the same as Britain except we can play cricket


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 3, 2008)

mook jong man said:


> So don't go giving the Poms a hard time , Australia and New Zealand are pretty much the same as Britain except we can play cricket


 

Ooh!  Me, stumped for words .{yeah, cricket based pun attack !}

You were doing so well ... right up until the end :lol:.  I withheld my rage and didn't RTM you for racial abuse ... but it was a close run thing .


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 3, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Ooh! Me, stumped for words .{yeah, cricket based pun attack !}
> 
> You were doing so well ... right up until the end :lol:. I withheld my rage and didn't RTM you for racial abuse ... but it was a close run thing .


 
Yeah well , you lot seem to kick our backsides in rugby these days every chance you get , and you blitzed us in the olympic medal count . 

So please leave us poor convicts with some dignity . 
ps Let this be a warning to you if you don't let us beat you in something soon we shall continue to inflict "Neighbours " and "Shane Warne " on to you until you surrender.  :lol:


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 3, 2008)

Ken,

It's like this: 

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed.

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

All firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a firearm certificate (FAC) or a shotgun certificate.

Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, *no revolving cylinder*, and *either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges*. This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. 

To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except, optionally, where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range).

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. 

Since 1946, *self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun*. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a license is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.

In addition, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 increased restrictions on the use, ownership, sale and manufacture of both airguns and imitation firearms.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Ken,
> 
> It's like this:
> 
> ...


 
That's reasonably correct except the bolded bit, I don't know where that came from. Special Branch, hmm think not! it's much much easier than that I can assure you which may not be a good thing or may, who knows.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 4, 2008)

I don't really know that we can actually gain anything from continuing to beat this horse...

I know that there are many people in America who would never stand for or submit to those same types of laws and I find myself in total agreement with both their philosophy and their willingness to do whatever is necessary to thwart the attempts of those in positions of power to implement such measures.  I do not agree with those laws or the "rationale" behind them but that's just my opinion which is worth exactly what you paid for it. 

That said, If the people of England are happy with their government and the laws that are in place, so be it...I wish them well and hope that they never have cause to regret their choices.


----------



## thardey (Sep 4, 2008)

I've been biting my tongue on this thread, since it's like what? the fourth or fifth on this subject anyway?

Besides, in the last go round, Tez made her point pretty clear, and although it is different than what I was raised with (my grandfather was a retired cop, and always had a pistol within arm's reach), I can see the point of being in a totally different culture, and if that culture is not a "Gun Culture" like America, then guns are less of an issue.

Seriously, though, how many of these threads have been started by England's subjects complaining about their own laws? Why do we, as Americans, have to go complaining about their laws, unless it's to convince other Americans that our own laws are right? Are we really interested in changing the laws over the pond, or do we just want to use them as a "Bad example" to keep our own 2nd Amendment rights? 

If it's the former, then keep our bloody nose out of their business - if it's the latter, the smarter argument would be to defend the right for it's own sake -- "self-evident" I believe is the term used in the past.

Now, Tez asked a good question earlier - our American bad habits are spreading throughout the world, how do we deal with them? This is where the answer gets hard - The way American Communities typically deal with gangs is to arm themselves, and make it publicly known that we will shoot back. For the most part, the average American can afford higher-quality handguns than the gangs, and put in as much, if not more practice. In fact, some stores here have a sign posted in the front inviting CCW holders to carry in their stores!

At least, that's what is happening in Southern Oregon. The California gangs are moving up, and hitting a culture that is much more lax in gun-control than where they came from. It has significantly arrested the growth here. Most gang-related activity is becoming more involved in the business side of drugs and such, rather than "turf wars" over physical boundaries. The police that I know who deal with the gangs here are glad to learn that I carry, and encourage more private citizens to arm themselves.

(In fact one day I was bringing my Dad's AR-15 home to clean it, and do some work on the trigger for him, when my next-door neighbor saw me bringing it in from the truck. He is a retired county sheriff, and his wife still works for the sheriff's dept. His first reaction was: "nice gun, where's your sidearm?" I turned to show him the .45 on my hip [concealed, of course], and then he was satisfied.)

There's still problems with gangs, of course, but they stay within the culture of the gangs themselves. It only crossed over into "civilian life" when there's meth involved.

The problem I see with the American Gang mentality spreading through the world is that it is like introducing a new species to a place where there are no natural predators. In it's native environment, the gangs have a natural enemy that restricts their growth, in other environments, they don't have a natural enemy, so they'll have room to flourish. Even in California, the citizens are allowed to arm themselves at home, if usually not on the streets, and that still is a bit of a deterrent. 

Now - as you've said before, England and Australia aren't "Gun Cultures" -- that means that either you are going to have to adopt our solutions for the problems we created and exported, or you're going to have to come up with your own. 

I won't say that guns is the only answer, but it's worked for us, because they're part of our culture already. If you find a better way to deal with it - let us know, and we'll use it alongside of what we're doing already!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 4, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> That's reasonably correct except the bolded bit, I don't know where that came from. Special Branch, hmm think not! it's much much easier than that I can assure you which may not be a good thing or may, who knows.


 
Only certian reasons are allowed to own any firearm in England, and self defence is not considered one of them.

'Offensive weapons' are not allowed to be carried nor pretty much posessed Tez3. And any firearm is considered an 'offensive weapon'. Thus owning a firearm for self defence would not be considered and the application to own one would be denighed.

Remember Tez3, the weapon must be stored in a very secure device and be unloaded (kind of like Washington D.C. up to now.)

Just try to get an application from your local police and tell them you want the firearm for self defence in your home.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Only certian reasons are allowed to own any firearm in England, and self defence is not considered one of them.
> 
> 'Offensive weapons' are not allowed to be carried nor pretty much posessed Tez3. And any firearm is considered an 'offensive weapon'. Thus owning a firearm for self defence would not be considered and the application to own one would be denighed.
> 
> ...


 
Actually I have weapons in my home and carry weapons at work.

Thardey thank you for a very erudite post! I'm going to make this my last post on this thread, I've tried explaining how things are here and the thread is going round in circles so to save my frustrations I'm calling it a day on this one..........well until the next one comes up lol!


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 5, 2008)

um...never mind.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 5, 2008)

This really should not be an us vs. them kind of debate.  The UK has been our staunchest ally and we theirs.  I am happy with how we do things here and I am sure most people in the UK are happy how things are there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I would like to make one point though and it is not related to guns.  Gangs or their equivalent can be found in every country and every society not just America.  The gang culture over seas has little to do with America other than said culture* possibly *emulating what they see coming out of Hollywood.  The United States of America in general has a great law abiding citizenship and we are simply not all about guns and gangs!  Just my 02.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> um...never mind.


 

Oh go on you know you want to lol!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 5, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would like to make one point though and it is not related to guns. Gangs or their equivalent can be found in every country and every society not just America. The gang culture over seas has little to do with America other than said culture* possibly *emulating what they see coming out of Hollywood. The United States of America in general has a great law abiding citizenship and we are simply not all about guns and gangs! Just my 02.


 
That's what my first instructor, Master John Chu, who came from Korea, said. He said there were gangs in Korea just like the U.S. (and this was in 1977 he was saying that!)

All countries have gangs, drugs, prostitution, corruption.... why you would think we were all humans!

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 6, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
> More advice from the world's police.
> No, guns aren't that easy to get hold of but there's been gangs with guns dating backing to when guns were first invented, arming the populace would solve nothing as *they don't want to be armed*. Rightly or wrongly they don't want their police armed either, my force is the only one routinely armed as we aren't Home Office police and the nature of the job is different.
> Nine and a half thousand guns crimes in two countries with a combined population of 63,756,938 isn't bad is it? Oh and btw some of that gun crime is terrorist related as in the Provos and the Loyalists are still at it. Oh and gun crime over here isn't actually using them it's also possession and gun trafficking. the majority of gun crimes involving shootings are drug gang related where they shoot each other, there has been a few high profile cases where kids have been killed in shootings but arming people would not have stopped them, again though they are gang related.
> ...


 There's a reason we have a higher rate of crime in cities like Washington DC....where guns have been banned since 1978.  Here's a hint.  Compare the gun crimes in virtually EVERY part of America EXCEPT the major urban areas and you'll find identical rates of violent crime as in the safest places in Europe.

America doesn't have a gun problem, or a crime problem....we have an inner-city problem.  Outside the decaying inner-cities of America, America is a peaceful and prosperous place.....where I grew up we have about 1 murder per decade and a half......despite 90% of the population being armed to the teeth.

Again what we have in America is an inner-city crime problem, more specifically, we have a problem in our African American community which, though only 13% of the American population accounts for 52.2% of the entire murder rate for the entire country.  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Poverty accounts for some of that, but even that doesn't explain it entirely as equivalent groups of other races at the same level of poverty don't exhibit nearly the same levels of violence.  Certainly it's some combination of poverty and cultural norms.  But clearly solving America's violent crime problem isn't found in banning guns....but in figuring out how to solve the core problems plaguing America's inner-cities.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 6, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> A small elaboration, Mr. Smith.  Geologically, Britain is an island it is true.  Sadly we did a technologically great but fundamentally stupid thing by linking ourselves to mainland Europe with a tunnel.
> 
> All sorts of things are coming through there, ranging from deadly spiders to rabies to illegal immigrants to guns.
> 
> ...


 A welfare state is NOT the answer to crime.....in the long run it's a recipe for the collapse of civilization.

One need not just look at Rome to figure out what happens when the government becomes all about providing the people bread and circus.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 6, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This really should not be an us vs. them kind of debate.  The UK has been our staunchest ally and we theirs.  I am happy with how we do things here and I am sure most people in the UK are happy how things are there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely!  If the British people want to live that way, more power to them.  We in the US have a different tradition, we have a bill of rights that has as part of it's core the Individual Right to keep and bear arms.  We have that out of a unique tradition that believes that governments need to be checked by the power of the people, and the knowledge that governments can and do become tyrannical.

America is a unique country in the history of the world in that, among other rights we recognize the right of armed citizenry, which is codified within our Constitution.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2008)

Yes we've always had gangs but now they are emulating the American gangs which if it wasn't so serious would be hilarious. You have youths wandering around our cities in hoodies and jeans way past their backsides showing their underwear talking like Americans 'hard men' calling their girlfreinds 'hos' and each other 'dude' only in British accents ranging from Yorkshire to Birmingham (the Brum accent possibly the worse s it's a funny accant anyway) to broad Scots. Whats quite scary in California comes over as ridiculous in Bradford. 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4YH0LUt8R2k

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4vD7Q22j97A&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9OQnpxlQhcA&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcetr1g2vRA&feature=related

And this one coz i like it lol!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pMx5Z8Q8krg&feature=related


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 6, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> A welfare state is NOT the answer to crime.....in the long run it's a recipe for the collapse of civilization.
> 
> One need not just look at Rome to figure out what happens when the government becomes all about providing the people bread and circus.


 
It hasn't been going long enough to judge yet, *Mac*, so I'm not going to dispute your perfectly valid supposition.

The 'bread and circus's' policy, however, was not done as some form of ancient welfare state ideal.  It was a pragmatic poitical decision to maintain social control; keeping the masses from poking their noses too far into what their 'betters' were doing.  More like the media of today than the Social Services.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 6, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Yes we've always had gangs but now they are emulating the American gangs which if it wasn't so serious would be hilarious. You have youths wandering around our cities in hoodies and jeans way past their backsides showing their underwear talking like Americans 'hard men' calling their girlfreinds 'hos' and each other 'dude' only in British accents ranging from Yorkshire to Birmingham (the Brum accent possibly the worse s it's a funny accant anyway) to broad Scots. Whats quite scary in California comes over as ridiculous in Bradford.


 
Tez3,

That always kills me when I see them with their coat hung down behind their back an their pants almost past their hips. Sad they call their own women such names. I'd never call the people I know such. I have to much respect for them.

What was fun was once in San Antonio about 5 of them passed my wife and I at the river walk. It was a tight place and we were all quite close to each other. They looked tough as for as facial features but I could see their build was not all that tough. 

When we passes I just looked right in their eyes and gave them a nod (that is I acknowledged their presence.) No tough look on my face but no scared one either. They nodded back and we all passed each other.

I have found that to be the best way to handle them. Acknowledge their presence but don't send the wrong signals (one way or another.)

Oh, and it helped I had a Smith & Wesson 64 2 inch .38 on me at the time and the skill to use it well. It gave a confidence that could not be faked.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 7, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It hasn't been going long enough to judge yet, *Mac*, so I'm not going to dispute your perfectly valid supposition.
> 
> The 'bread and circus's' policy, however, was not done as some form of ancient welfare state ideal.  It was a pragmatic poitical decision to maintain social control; keeping the masses from poking their noses too far into what their 'betters' were doing.  More like the media of today than the Social Services.


 It's the same thing, my friend.  Do you really think that the motives of governments have become more pure in 2,000 years?

'Welfare' is nothing more than Bread and Circus....providing the masses with enough to keep them fat and entertained and not really too interested in what is going on.  

The ULTIMATE result of welfare is a whole CIVILIZATION of parasites....who then lose interest in even running civilization, in the sacrifice it takes to defend civilization.  It's what happened to Rome, when the Roman's themselves couldn't be bothered to fill the ranks of the legions that defended the empire....so that barbarians were recruited in to the legions to fill the ranks.  Ultimately those barbarians began to wonder why they were even serving Rome and began making demands of it, and finally turned against Rome!

History is cyclical, civilizations are cyclical.  We've seen this all before.



But then men have become 'better' in 2,000 years.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 7, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Yes we've always had gangs but now they are emulating the American gangs which if it wasn't so serious would be hilarious. You have youths wandering around our cities in hoodies and jeans way past their backsides showing their underwear talking like Americans 'hard men' calling their girlfreinds 'hos' and each other 'dude' only in British accents ranging from Yorkshire to Birmingham (the Brum accent possibly the worse s it's a funny accant anyway) to broad Scots. Whats quite scary in California comes over as ridiculous in Bradford.
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4YH0LUt8R2k
> 
> ...


 Oh and you're absolutely right....that 'gang culture' is taken directly from ours.  The baggie pants look of our gang culture is derived from prison culture where pants are issued in whole sizes and belts are allowed.  The young toughs took that on as a status symbol from the older criminals....a sign that they've been to prison.

Our pop culture has endorsed and propagated that gang culture under the guise of 'celebrating diversity'.....missing the point that diversity doesn't mean you have to endorse a cultures seedier sides wholesale.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 7, 2008)

We do have some home grown ones though, the 'chavs', oh how I hate them! 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6ScmLo9bPqk&feature=related


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2008)

I just watched that video and what sruck me more than anything was the sheer stupidity of the lad getting arrested.  What did he think?  That if he struggled enough they'd just get bored and let him go?!

I have to ask what a camera was doing there tho'?  Was it a training video and hence 'acted' or did it just happen to happen whilst a training video was being shot?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 7, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I just watched that video and what sruck me more than anything was the sheer stupidity of the lad getting arrested. What did he think? That if he struggled enough they'd just get bored and let him go?!
> 
> I have to ask what a camera was doing there tho'? Was it a training video and hence 'acted' or did it just happen to happen whilst a training video was being shot?


 
It was on one of those TV programmes that we have so many of the police at work. Trying to think of the name but it eludes me.


----------

