# The British want their guns back...



## billc (May 31, 2013)

A recent poll showed that the majority of British citizens would like to have their God given right to defend themselves returned...by getting their right to own guns restored...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/84_of_brits_in_online_poll_want_ban_on_handguns_lifted.html




> In  a poll asking readers what laws they  would like to see introduced or  changed, an overwhelming number of  voters chose "repeal the ban on hand  guns and re-open shooting clubs."
> 
> "After  all, why should only criminals  be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot  unarmed, defenceless citizens and  police officers?" reader Colliemum  wrote.
> The Blaze provides a screen shot of the results:


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> A recent poll showed that the majority of British citizens would like to have their _God given right_ to defend themselves returned...by getting their right to own guns restored...



The majority of them don't believe in god:
[h=1]Two-thirds of Britons not religious, suggests survey[/h]


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

Give it time Arnisador...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm



> *Islam is widely considered Europe's fastest growing  religion, with immigration and above average birth rates leading to a  rapid increase in the Muslim population.*




I do believe that Mohammed is the most popular name in Britain as well...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324194/Mohammed-popular-baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html




> The official list, which covers all births in 2009 in England and Wales, has *Mohammed at number 16 but this does not include the many different spellings, which are all ranked separately.
> 
> When they are added in, Mohammed zooms all the way up to top spot for  the first time.
> In order of popularity, the variant *spellings used during the year  were: Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.
> ​



​


----------



## K-man (May 31, 2013)

> It should be noted that the poll is not very scientific and since it was published online, the chances of more than a few Americans participating in the vote are considerable.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ant_ban_on_handguns_lifted.html#ixzz2UtjaajWi


Be careful what you wish for! :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> Give it time Arnisador...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
> 
> ...


Now let's see if my powers of deduction are correct. There is a rapid growth in the number of Muslims in Europe. The most popular name in Britain is Mohammed. Therefore the British overwhelming, with perhaps a little help from US voters, want handguns to defend themselves. Wow! 
:hmm:


----------



## ballen0351 (May 31, 2013)

K-man said:


> Now let's see if my powers of deduction are correct. There is a rapid growth in the number of Muslims in Europe. The most popular name in Britain is Mohammed. Therefore the British overwhelming, with perhaps a little help from US voters, want handguns to defend themselves. Wow!
> :hmm:


I think he was responding to the post about most not believing in god.  He was saying in time more will, only the god will be allah


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

Actually, that would be an innacurate conclusion...Arnisador stated that the British do not believe in God, and are not religious.  My post was pointing out that the British may not believe in God now...but if they are not careful, they will be believing in Allah...or else...the popular name point was to show that Britain may be eventually becoming more religious and it may not be Christianity...


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

Exactly Ballen...I wish I could have said it as plainly myself...


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> ...but if they are not careful, they will be believing in Allah...or else...the popular name point was to show that Britain may be eventually becoming more religious and it may not be Christianity...



believing in Allah is evil?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2013)

Do you all realize that Allah is simply the Arabic name for God, the same god of Judaism and Christianity?  In fact, it is the same name used by Arabic Christians, for...drumroll please...GOD.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2013)

A serious problem with such polls is that you have really zero idea of who the sampled population is. The article even admits that it's not a scientific poll and may be contaminated by outsiders.

OK, so a large population OF RESPONDERS indicated they would like to have gun bans removed. But who are the responders? Are they mostly the segment of the readership who wants guns and therefor feels strongly enough to respond to the poll? Perhaps a much larger portion of the population simply doesn't care enough to even answer the poll. There is no way to tell if those who responded to the poll are accurately representative of the population as a whole. 

I don't deny that there are probably Brits who would like to see gun bans removed. That goes without saying. But presenting this kind of a poll as difinitive proof of how the majority feels is just irresponsible reporting. And those who try to push these things as believable would do well to take a course in basic social research methods.  Learn a little bit about how these things are done, and stop posting this garbage.

It's typical of the tripe that Billc likes to post and link to, and pretend it is THE ANSWER. All it does is appear to give credibility to Billc's pet political positions. It takes very little examination to recognize the problems with the data and see that it's mostly nonsense.


----------



## K-man (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> Actually, that would be an innacurate conclusion...Arnisador stated that the British do not believe in God, and are not religious.  My post was pointing out that the British may not believe in God now...but if they are not careful, they will be believing in Allah...or else...the popular name point was to show that Britain may be eventually becoming more religious and it may not be Christianity...


Which is a sentiment I have expressed in other threads and been told there is no problem. :asian:


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> Actually, that would be an innacurate conclusion...Arnisador stated that the British do not believe in God, and are not religious.  My post was pointing out that the British may not believe in God now...but if they are not careful, they will be believing in Allah...or else...the popular name point was to show that Britain may be eventually becoming more religious and it may not be Christianity...



And you want to arm them. Am I following you now?


----------



## ballen0351 (May 31, 2013)

arnisador said:


> And you want to arm them. Am I following you now?


He doesn't want to arm anyone.  The people that answered the poll want to be armed.


----------



## K-man (May 31, 2013)

arnisador said:


> And you want to arm them. Am I following you now?


Good point! Wish I had thought of that.


----------



## K-man (May 31, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> He doesn't want to arm anyone.  The people that answered the poll want to be armed.


Yes, but they were Americans, not British.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 31, 2013)

K-man said:


> Yes, but they were Americans, not British.



Who?  The people that answered the poll?  I must have missed that part


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2013)

:meekly holds up hand:  It will be no surprise that I am one of those who would like the gun laws rolled back to what they were when I was a lad.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 31, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> :meekly holds up hand:  It will be no surprise that I am one of those who would like the gun laws rolled back to what they were when I was a lad.


You were the first person I thought of when I saw this topic


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

> believing in Allah is evil?​



I don't think anyone actually said that...since Allah does work out to be "The God," in English, I worship God as well...I just won't cut off your head if you don't...:angel:

Do I want to arm them...if they want to own guns I want them to have that ability...I believe in the God given right to defend yourselve...and I am a believer in our 2nd amendment.  

Is it "THE" answer, no...but it does show that British people would like to own guns for personal self-defense...

They also want the death penalty reinstated but that is another thread...
​


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

I thought about mentioning you Sukerkin, but didn't want to drag you into my play time...without your approval...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2013)

:grins:  Thank you for the consideration :tup:.  I am, of course, only one 'data point' and there are others (usually non-country folk) who buy into the "Guns are evil" nonsense and would vote for us all to be helpless because they genuinely believe that makes us all safer :shrugs at the odd things people believe sometimes:.

That's despite it being just as true over here as it is in America that if a villain wants a gun he will have no trouble getting one.


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

I have to say that it is just odd to hear that the first police on the scene had to call for more police...with guns, when those guys killed that soldier.  And that woman was extremely lucky they just wanted to "chat," with her instead of racking up a bigger body count...

She would have been much safer armed...


----------



## Takai (May 31, 2013)

billc said:


> ...since Allah does work out to be "The God," in English,...



Mostly correct. "Allah" is a compound for the word "Al-Ilah". Al meaning the and Ilah meaning "deity/god". 



Flying Crane said:


> Do you all realize that Allah is simply the Arabic name for God, the same god of Judaism and Christianity? In fact, it is the same name used by Arabic Christians, for...drumroll please...GOD.



Incorrect. It's historical reference is actually to the Moon God that was worshiped by the Sabean's in Pre-Islamic times. It was his personal title. The Kabah in Mecca was primarily built for him as he was the "Chief  Deity". The Moon God was married to the Sun Goddess and the had daughters and son accordingly. So it actually refers to a deity from an ancient polytheistic religion that predates Muhammad's writing in the 7th century.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2013)

Takai said:


> Mostly correct. "Allah" is a compound for the word "Al-Ilah". Al meaning the and Ilah meaning "deity/god".
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It's historical reference is actually to the Moon God that was worshiped by the Sabean's in Pre-Islamic times. It was his personal title. The Kabah in Mecca was primarily built for him as he was the "Chief Deity". The Moon God was married to the Sun Goddess and the had daughters and son accordingly. So it actually refers to a deity from an ancient polytheistic religion that predates Muhammad's writing in the 7th century.



yes that's true, I saw that in Wiki too.  But currently, the translation as it is used is correct.


----------



## K-man (Jun 1, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Who?  The people that answered the poll?  I must have missed that part


It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting.  :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 1, 2013)

K-man said:


> It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting.  :asian:



So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans


----------



## Scott T (Jun 1, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans


 Any non-Briton voting is going to skew results, but the breakdown between nations would have to be made public before being sure. BUT... judging by the responses on this thread alone (including BillC's rather retarded _God-given right_ statement) an American conservative would give no second thought to voting in such a foreign poll, thereby skewing the results.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2013)

K-man said:


> It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting.  :asian:



any reputable social researcher who values his professional reputation would consider the results junk once it's been discovered that there are no controls over who the population is, and that there is a good chance the results were contaminated by other sources.  At that point, it's time to throw the whole thing away.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 1, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans



The point is that there's no way to tell. The British are pretty heavily surveyed by their govt. Has this question been asked before?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 1, 2013)

No one has ever directly asked me my opinion, Arni but surveys have been done which suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of laws prohibiting and controlling ownership and use of firearms.  They are unthinking in their views in my opinion and are reacting to 'foreign' experiences rather than any actual experience of their own (we didn't really have a problem with gun violence before the laws were changed (knee-jerk style in response to a singular bad event)) but the majority gets to have their way most of the time in a democracy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 1, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> No one has ever directly asked me my opinion, Arni but surveys have been done which suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of laws prohibiting and controlling ownership and use of firearms.  They are unthinking in their views in my opinion and are reacting to 'foreign' experiences rather than any actual experience of their own (we didn't really have a problem with gun violence before the laws were changed (knee-jerk style in response to a singular bad event)) but the majority gets to have their way most of the time in a democracy.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx



First, I think we need to disabuse you of this notion that you must wait for an invitation to comment. You've been on MT since 2006? That's reserved even for the British.  And your point is taken. The founding fathers attempted to protect us from the "Tyranny of the majority" with the Senate.  Well, the jury may still be out, but I'm guessing that didn't work out like they planned.


----------



## K-man (Jun 1, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying British citizens couldn't possibly feel this way it must have been Americans


No, the footnote to the article says that!'


----------



## Riffix (Jun 2, 2013)

You can keep your guns thanks, I don't know anyone personally who would want guns legal in England.


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

> You can keep your guns thanks, I don't know anyone personally who would want guns legal in England.




Hmmm...perhaps you could poll some of the people who had to just stand around while those two guys hacked that young soldier to death?  Perhaps, they have a different opinion today?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 3, 2013)

Riffix said:


> You can keep your guns thanks, I don't know anyone personally who would want guns legal in England.



Have you asked any?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmm...perhaps you could poll some of the people who had to just stand around while those two guys hacked that young soldier to death?



I notice the soldier wasn't shot. It makes no difference to him but there would likely have been more deaths and injuries had they opened up with gunfire.


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

> It makes no difference to him but there would likely have been more deaths and injuries had they opened up with gunfire.



That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events.  That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene.  I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man.   The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people.  There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it.  The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns.  It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose.  There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.

It would probably be better as well if we were to teach classes in schools for witnesses to crimes of a brutal nature.  In the class we could teach the school kids to immediately kneel and touch their heads to the ground if they happen to see an attack, that way the authorities can be sure there will be no accidental injuries incurred by anyone other than the brutal attacker.  Also, if the attacker decides to attack more people, it will be less chaotic if they simply submit to whatever he decides to do by kneeling and exposing their necks...yeah, I can see that point of view.

I can see it...the woman who "chatted up," the killer should have dropped down and quietly waited for whatever he decided to do next instead of increasing the likely hood that more injuries might be created by her "engaging," the attacker with conversation...I wonder if she was ticketed for aggravating the situation?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events.  That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...



If he had had a firearm he would've shot other people.


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events.  That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene.  I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man.   The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people.  There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it.  The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns.  It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose.  There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.


I must admit we have had no mass killings with meat cleavers in Australia despite us not all running around with guns. We did have mass shootings in the past but 'luckily' none since we got rid of military style weapons.


----------



## Steve (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> That is usually the mistaken response to one of these non-shooting events.  That it is better that no one have a weapon, except the attacker, because there might be an accidental shooting...and better to let the criminal go on about his business even though we know that there was for sure one killing on the scene.  I don't understand the willingness to rely on the good will of the guys who just used a meat cleaver to kill an innocent man.   The people at the scene were lucky these guys didn't go on a further rampage and attack more people.


How many people do you think he could run down?  Or was this a special boomarang machete, which he could throw and would come back to him, akin to Mjolner, Thor's hammer?  





> There would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The first police on the scene couldn't have stopped it either, considering they had to call for "special," police, the ones allowed to use guns.  It took them 14 minutes to get to the scene...that is a long time to let a nut job with a meat cleaver run around loose.  There are people being brutalized around this country and Britain and it is better for us to just accept their being brutalized because there "might," be a chance someone will be accidentally shot...vs. the people who are unaccidentally being targeted for murder, rape and robbery.


Wasn't there a thread somewhere talking about police response times?  I could swear you participated in that thread.  Frankly, 14 minutes seems pretty darned good compared to what we can expect here in the USA from even the regular old police.  Why are you holding the UK to a standard we can't even meet?





> It would probably be better as well if we were to teach classes in schools for witnesses to crimes of a brutal nature.  In the class we could teach the school kids to immediately kneel and touch their heads to the ground if they happen to see an attack, that way the authorities can be sure there will be no accidental injuries incurred by anyone other than the brutal attacker.  Also, if the attacker decides to attack more people, it will be less chaotic if they simply submit to whatever he decides to do by kneeling and exposing their necks...yeah, I can see that point of view.
> 
> I can see it...the woman who "chatted up," the killer should have dropped down and quietly waited for whatever he decided to do next instead of increasing the likely hood that more injuries might be created by her "engaging," the attacker with conversation...I wonder if she was ticketed for aggravating the situation?


I wonder why you study martial arts, if you believe that people are helpless victims unless armed specifically with a gun.  Unless you're a bad guy.  In your world, it seems that bad guys are capable of anything, regardless of how they are armed.  A bad guy with a machete can go on a killing spree to put any mass shooting to shame.  But a good guy... well, you might as well kiss your *** good bye unless you have your trusty AR-15 with a 30 round clip at your side.

Edit:  Since when do you put so much stock into polls anyway?  If you put so much stock in this one poll, then how could you be against background checks when polls put support for them up over 90%?   It's partisanship, pure and simple.  Once again, you're finding information to support a partisan position.


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

> We did have mass shootings in the past but 'luckily' none since we got rid of military style weapons.



Yeah, most of our shootings involve handguns...not military style weapons either...go figure.



> How many people do you think he could run down?



Depends on where he decided to do his attack. That woman and those around her were extremely lucky this guy didn't choose to continue killing, because no one there could have done that much against the two of them without probably being serioualy injured themselves.



> Why are you holding the UK to a standard we can't even meet?



I Didn't hold anyone to any standard, I simply stated how long it took for the police with actual guns to arrive...14 minutes is an eternity considering that in mass shootings most of the killings take place in the first 5-10 minutes the attacker is on the scene...ask the police at Sandy Hook.



> I wonder why you study martial arts, if you believe that people are helpless victims unless armed specifically with a gun.



Firearms are a martial art in the most effective sense of the word first of all...also, never said they were helpless, just at a massive disadvantage against an armed attacker or two.  The gun is exactly as it has been reported...and equalizer.  So much so that if that woman had had a gun, she could have actually saved herself if the two killers had continued attacking.  I don't think this woman could have stood a chance of surviving against two full sized men, armed with knives and a meat cleaver no matter how many hours a week spent in a BJJ class or a Kraz Maga class.  Fighting being fighting, she "might," have been able to do it...but it is highly unlikely.  Put a gun in her hand, with training...and she would be equal to the two full sized men with the meat cleaver...and she could have been in a wheel chair, or on crutches, or had a broken arm to boot...




> In your world, it seems that bad guys are capable of anything, regardless of how they are armed.



In general...the bad guys are armed or come in numbers using surprise against an opponent they usually target because they think they will be defenseless...and they are capable of anything because once they decide to use a weapon to enforce their will on someone else, they have crossed a line that regular people do not cross.  They are capable of rape, murder, torture and maiming to get what they want, and the law doesn't constrain them.



> A bad guy with a machete can go on a killing spree to put any mass shooting to shame.



Odds are the damage a guy with a machete can do will depend on where he sets up his killing ground...say a chinese school where over 20 children were killed...or say the bus that pulled up to the scene of the attack in Britain.  If he had forced his way on the bus he could have done serious harm to a lot of people.
I personally don't think you are required to accept a hack to your body by a guy with a meat cleaver or machete just because it may not kill you, therefore you aren't entitled to use deadly force to stop it from happening...but hey, if that's something you would accept...more power to you.



> f you put so much stock in this one poll, then how could you be against background checks when polls put support for them up over 90%? It's partisanship, pure and simple.



As  I have posted before, most people only hear the word background check without knowing what the gun grabbers actually mean.  Ask that 90% if they support background checks that would mandate a gun registry and see how high that 90% stays.  Ask that 90% if they want to pay huge fees to have that background check done...and see how high that 90% stays...or if they want to be required to do a background check when they give their kids their guns...or if the guns they have from 10 years ago will become illegal because they don't have reciepts for them and doiing a background check would require proof that the gun was purchased legally...the partisanship comes from the fake question that the 90% are asked without follow up.  

The funniest thing I have seen in a while is when you guys thought Ballen and Tgace would support background checks...until you asked them and they said that any backgroung check that required a registry was a non starter...you guys must have cried...


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

Correction...the knife attack I was thinking of  killed 7 children and 2 adults...so a guy with a knife could kill seven children and 2 adults...before he was stopped.  Another attack left 23 wounded. 

Is that body count to high or too low for a knife killer...and is it more acceptable because he didn't use a gun?

Like I said, I don't think anyone is required to accept a knife stabbing or cut just because some people don't think they should be allowed to use lethat force...but if you do...more power to you...keep in mind to run away...if you can...perhaps slower people will use up the attackers time...  

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/



> A man wielding a knife attacked students Friday at a school in central China, leaving 22 children and one adult injured, according to state-run media reports.





> The following month, on May 12, a man named Wu Huangming killed seven children and two adults with a meat cleaver at a kindergarten in Shaanxi Province. That attack was followed by an August 4 assault by Fang Jiantang, who killed three children and one teacher with a knife at a kindergarten in Shandong Province.




Hmmmm...he attacked kids in a gun free zone...I guess killers are smarter than gun grabbers even in China...


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

Oh, See...they just don't use meat cleavers in Australia...they use knives...what is the word in the article...an "epidemic," of knife attacks in the Land Down Under...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/knife-epidemic-concealed-20100108-lyvm.html



> *Knife epidemic concealed*
> 
> DateJanuary 9, 2010
> 
> ...





> By the time Ben Thomson got to the emergency department at 4am last Sunday, one stabbing victim was dead and the lives of two were teetering on a knife edge.
> The surgeon on call, Susan Shedda, had been operating all night - as she would for another four hours - and a dozen tired police milled around a crowd of shocked relatives and friends in the waiting rooms.
> It was the tail-end of another bloody Saturday at Royal Melbourne Hospital. The usual tally of bashings and car crashes was predictably tragic enough, but it was three serious stabbings over the new year weekend that had prompted Thomson to be dragged from bed by a phone call at 3.30am.
> Apart from being a trauma surgeon with 15 years' experience, Thomson specialises in liver surgery. And all too often serious knife attacks require liver surgery.





> The perception that knife crime is a growing menace was sharpened because two of the three serious knife attacks in Melbourne last weekend were newsworthy - Garg's and the apparently premeditated stabbing of a man in a Fitzroy street after his 44th birthday dinner at a nearby restaurant.
> Understandably, knife attacks catch attention. Knives are nasty, potentially deadly, and cause instinctive revulsion - particularly in a country where their use as weapons was rare.
> But statistics do not overwhelmingly support the perception that knife crime is rampant or even that is growing worse quickly.
> 
> ...





> One unintended consequence of tightening the gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 is that knives have tended to fill the gap.





You were saying?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Like I said, I don't think anyone is required to accept a knife stabbing or cut just because some people don't think they should be allowed to use lethat force...



Who are these people who think you shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force against a knife attack?


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

The ones who don't want to allow people to carry concealed firearms...considering a gun is the most effective means of self-defense that individuals have at their disposal, require little practice to be effective, and can be used by people in wheelchairs, on crutches, with a broken arm, pregnant without fear of endangering the baby, a senior citizen....


----------



## billc (Jun 3, 2013)

Hmmm...a highly trained police officer in Melbourne...killed by a knife...in 2012...

http://melbournecrimewave.wordpress...n-brutal-knife-attack-friday-december-7-2012/



> A highly respected police officer was killed when he was allegedly stabbed in the neck while trying to break up feuding neighbours yesterday.
> Detective Inspector Bryan Anderson, 45, was fatally attacked moments after he and a colleague arrived at a rural property at Oaksville, near Windsor in NSW, after a call-out about a man firing a bow and arrow over a fence.
> Police were called about 2 pm and, as a senior officer, Inspector Anderson arrived a couple of hours later when the situation escalated. He had been at the Scheyville Road property only a few minutes when he was allegedly knifed from behind.
> It is understood he had walked over to the fence to speak with the neighbour on the other side, when a 19-year-old man allegedly attacked him.



I guess this isn't so bad since only one person was killed...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> The ones who don't want to allow people to carry concealed firearms...



It doesn't at all follow that such individuals--whomever they may be--oppose the use of deadly force when appropriate.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> I guess this isn't so bad since only one person was killed...



Weren't you one of the ones arguing that children dying of accidental gunshots was negligible at only 70 or so per year?


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmm...a highly trained police officer in Melbourne...killed by a knife...in 2012...
> 
> http://melbournecrimewave.wordpress...n-brutal-knife-attack-friday-december-7-2012/
> 
> I guess this isn't so bad since only one person was killed...


What point are you trying to make Bill? This is a case that bites you on the bum.   This policeman *WAS* armed. Just that in Australia our police don't shoot first and ask questions after. In this case carrying a firearm didn't help. Oh! Just for the record. It was Sydney, not Melbourne!
 :asian:


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

I was responding to this...



> I must admit we have had no mass killings with meat cleavers in Australia despite us not all running around with guns.



You just have people running around with knives...which my post pointed out...




> This policeman *WAS* armed.


  He was attacked from ambush by an armed attacker...as I pointed out was the way criminals usually attack their victims...now are you going to tell me that his colleague, and his fellow officers apprehended this guy with polite words to surrender...or did they use guns to capture him?



> Weren't you one of the ones arguing that children dying of accidental gunshots was negligible at only 70 or so per year?



Actually, Bob argued something like that, and I agree but not with the tone you use.  70 children dying from accidental gun shot wounds is terrible and tragic...but can't be used as an excuse to deny millions of lawful gun owners the ability to excercise their constitutional right to bear arms, especially considering how many lives are saved by using firearms for self-defense each year.


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

> It doesn't at all follow that such individuals--whomever they may be--oppose the use of deadly force when appropriate.



I guess if they approve of deadly force, they expect you to use a "Rapier," wit,  to kill the meat cleaver, wielding maniac, because they don't want you to use a gun to do it...so what are you supposed to use to make the guy stop breathing?  ...let's see how that works out...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2013)

billc said:


> I guess if they approve of deadly force, they expect you to use a "Rapier," wit,  to kill the meat cleaver, wielding maniac, because they don't want you to use a gun to do it...so what are you supposed to use to make the guy stop breathing?  ...let's see how that works out...



As usual, it suits your agenda to recast gun regulation with gun elimination. It's different in the real world.


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2013)

billc said:


> You just have people running around with knives...which my post pointed out...
> 
> Yes, we do. But it is a relatively small number and no justification for putting guns into the hands of everyone walking around. And, BTW, the reason most people don't carry knives is because it is illegal  .
> 
> ...


Bill, even you might admit a meat cleaver is an unusual weapon on the street.  I might even suggest it was carried in this instance for a specific purpose.  Sure we have gangs of young people running round with knives and machetes and our police do a great job in the main keeping the situation in check.  If guns, particularly handguns, were readily available I can envisage the same sort of problems occurring that you have and accept as normal.  I live with the reality that criminals have access to illegal firearms. To me, that is a minute risk to me or my family. 

But the OP was that the British want their guns _back_.  That implies that they actually had their guns taken away which is not the case. Nor is it the case here.  I can own more guns than I could ever use, if that was my desire. I can even own handguns under certain conditions.  Most of us just choose not to. :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 4, 2013)

The funny thing here about all this is...whenever those who advocate certain gun controls point to nations such as the UK or Australia as successful examples of gun control, those who are most militantly against gun controls dismiss those examples on the grounds of, well, THEY are not US, and we here in the USA are our own unique culture and we don't care what other people around the world are doing with their guns, we will make our own decisions about is, so shove off.

But now, Billc wants to bring the UK and Australia into the argument, and point to examples and suggest that THEY need to be carrying guns too.

well, ya can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.  It just destroys what little credibility he had in the first place.  Given the problems with the original survey that Billc linked to, well...

Oh, and last weekend I purchased a Ruger Gunsite Scout rifl e in .308, comes with a 10-round box magazine.  I've submitted the paperwork, expect zero difficulties in the background check, and can pick it up as of the 11th of this month.  I still need to select a good safe box, but I need to pick up the item by the end of the month or else we need to re-do the paperwork.  Looking forward to it, and taking it to the range and seeing what it can do.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2013)

K-man said:


> But the OP was that the British want their guns _back_.  That implies that they actually had their guns taken away which is not the case.



I'll be sure to tell my friends that and see if their guns magically reappear in their cabinets.  I take your point, my friend but in this case the reality is that if you wish to own a weapon in this disarmed land you are instantly treated with suspicion by the authorities and the 'sheep' have been so brain-washed that they see *any* person with a weapon of any sort as crazy and to be reported.  There is a reason I cannot practise my Iai in my own garden :shakes head in disgust:.


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

> But now, Billc wants to bring the UK and Australia into the argument



Actually, I brought attention to the poll in the U.K. and K-man brought Australia into it.  I responded to his post about meat cleavers in Australia.  It would be interesting to see a more scientific poll on the gun question in Britain...there are a lot of crime victims there and I would like to see what they have to say about being able to defend themselves.



> the UK or Australia as successful examples of gun control,



I know Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe, so how is it an example of successful gun control...?  Sure, criminals are shooting fewer people, but they are stabbing, clubbing and beating a lot more people...so I guess the victims have to consider how successful gun control is from their hospital beds...or morgues...

The interesting thing to me is that the first police on the scene were unarmed.  Did they rush the two guys with the meat cleaver, machete and knives, and engage them with British police unarmed combatives...?  No.  They waited an additional 10 minutes for armed police, with guns,  to arrive for a grand total of 14 minutes.  They are really lucky those guys didn't continue attacking people.


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I'll be sure to tell my friends that and see if their guns magically reappear in their cabinets.  I take your point, my friend but in this case the reality is that if you wish to own a weapon in this disarmed land you are instantly treated with suspicion by the authorities and the 'sheep' have been so brain-washed that they see *any* person with a weapon of any sort as crazy and to be reported.  There is a reason I cannot practise my Iai in my own garden :shakes head in disgust:.


Are you saying that your friends who lost their guns cannot replace them with other guns?  I was under the impression that, like us, you can purchase a weapon if you have a legitimate need and you are of good character and sound mind.

As to the sword, yep, we need permits for them also, not that that is an issue for genuine martial artists.  :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2013)

Nunchaku were illegal in New York state when I was growing up (maybe still). Switchblades were made illegal but other types of knives weren't. There's no figuring some of these things. But guns are responsible for a lot more deaths than katana.


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

> But guns are responsible for a lot more deaths than katana.



As are cars...


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

> It was an Internet poll and the footnote acknowledges that that particular question may have been skewed by Americans voting.




This caught my eye...why is it assumed that Americans voted in this poll at all, let alone more than the native British?   Is it because the results were so one sided for getting their guns back that some want to distract from that fact?  I mean, I keep being told that 90% of gun owners believe in background checks...but it could be British citizens are skewing that poll...

As I stated before, it would be nice to see a more accurate poll, just to see where your "man on the street," who has to deal with criminals stands on the gun issue.


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

Following the link in the original post, I found an article in the huffingtonpost.com that linked to this article on increased levels of gun ownership in Britain...that's right...increased ownership...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates?INTCMP=SRCH



> But there are still plenty of firearms around here, all held legally. These latest figures from the Home Office have released in March 2011 show that more guns have been licensed than ever before.



A little more accurate than an internet poll...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2013)

billc said:


> As are cars...



...which are regulated...


----------



## billc (Jun 4, 2013)

As are guns...and we don't allow 16 year olds to own or carry guns on their own...but we do allow them to drive cars on their own...and they die a lot because of that...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 4, 2013)

billc said:


> This caught my eye...why is it assumed that Americans voted in this poll at all, let alone more than the native British?   Is it because the results were so one sided for getting their guns back that some want to distract from that fact?  I mean, I keep being told that 90% of gun owners believe in background checks...but it could be British citizens are skewing that poll...
> 
> As I stated before, it would be nice to see a more accurate poll, just to see where your "man on the street," who has to deal with criminals stands on the gun issue.



The thing is, you can't assume anything but at the same time you have to assume everything.

For data from a poll to be useful, you MUST be able to know the body of the population from where the answers came.  And then the data is only valid for that particular subset of the population.  If all the answers had come from Manchester, for example, then all they could say is that data suggests that a majority of people from Manchester want their guns back and they can't make any inferences for other parts of the UK.  In that case, perhaps there is something about Manchester that makes the population desire guns, and that may not be the true in another part of the UK.

A poll on the open internet simply cannot claim to give data about UK citizens, because there is zero control over who is answering it.  ANYBODY from ANYWHERE could see the poll and respond to it.  All this poll tells us is, a bunch of people said they want their guns back.  But nobody knows for sure if the people who responded to the poll are UK citizens.  This is absolutely fundamental to legitimate social research.

That's why it's junk.


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2013)

billc said:


> This caught my eye...why is it assumed that Americans voted in this poll at all, let alone more than the native British?   Is it because the results were so one sided for getting their guns back that some want to distract from that fact?  I mean, I keep being told that 90% of gun owners believe in background checks...but it could be British citizens are skewing that poll...
> 
> As I stated before, it would be nice to see a more accurate poll, just to see where your "man on the street," who has to deal with criminals stands on the gun issue.





> It should be noted that the poll is not very scientific and since it was published online, the chances of more than a few Americans participating in the vote are considerable.
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ant_ban_on_handguns_lifted.html#ixzz2VJ25mxSu


 


billc said:


> Following the link in the original post, I found an article in the huffingtonpost.com that linked to this article on increased levels of gun ownership in Britain...that's right...increased ownership...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates?INTCMP=SRCH
> 
> A little more accurate than an internet poll...


Yep.Sixty three million people with less than two million guns. Might be called voting with their feet because as I suggested earlier, if you have a valid reason and are of good character and sound mind you can have a gun *&#8203;if you want one. *Most people don't seem to want them, as do a large number of people in the US.  

In fairness, the poll was about handguns, not firearms in general but I would be incredibly surprised if there was anything like that percentage of stupid people in Britain. Why would they want to have he same issues that you have in the US? :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 5, 2013)

With regard to your last sentence, *K*, the point I was alluding is that we didn't have much in the way of a problem with gun related violence here to start with - knee-jerk legislation was rushed in because of a single incident.  

As noted in the long running discourse about such violence in the States, it's clearly a cultural difference as the humans and the guns are essentially the same on both sides of the Atlantic. 

But, yes, those of us who still remember what it was like to be able to go shooting DO want the laws changing back and it would be nice to see a more recent, decently constructed, poll of opinions on the matter.  I do suspect tho, with the media brainwashing that has been going on for a couple of decades now, that such a poll would be swayed by the majority who live in cities and have never experienced firearms handling, for practical and fun reasons, that we 'country boys' did.


----------

