# Legal in the U.K.?



## PhotonGuy (Aug 24, 2016)

Im not sure about this but I heard somewhere that in the U.K. that handguns are not banned per se but rather a gun has to have over a certain barrel length and over a certain overall length to be legal and with the minimum requirements for barrel length and overall length, anything you can get would be too long to be called a handgun. As I am not from the U.K. and not overly familiar with their regulations I am not sure of this but Im wondering, would this be legal in the U.K.?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Im not sure about this but I heard somewhere that in the U.K. that handguns are not banned per se but rather a gun has to have over a certain barrel length and over a certain overall length to be legal and with the minimum requirements for barrel length and overall length, anything you can get would be too long to be called a handgun. As I am not from the U.K. and not overly familiar with their regulations I am not sure of this but Im wondering, would this be legal in the U.K.?


..of course, that guy may be simply a very very small person! 

Here is the actual fact of firearm ownership in UK if you are interested.  If you even check the first parts (para 1.4 etc.) you will see how gun ownership in the UK differs from USA.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> As I am not from the U.K. and not overly familiar with their regulations I am not sure of this but Im wondering, would this be legal in the U.K.?



so why do you want to know? More pro gun and how awful the UK is about gun ownership?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> so why do you want to know? More pro gun and how awful the UK is about gun ownership?



No I just like to do research. And I though this might be a bit humorous. As for how the UK is about gun ownership or any of their other laws I don't care. After all I don't live there. If they're happy with how things are there than good for them.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> No I just like to do research. And I though this might be a bit humorous. As for how the UK is about gun ownership or any of their other laws I don't care. After all I don't live there. If they're happy with how things are there than good for them.



Ok fair enough, I hope anyone else posting also bears that in mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Ok fair enough, I hope anyone else posting also bears that in mind.


Frankly, this is the majority view in the US, in my experience. Yes, there's a very vocal fringe that thinks the 2nd Amendment (the part of our Constitution that has been used to guarantee the right of gun ownership) is the only good way. Most, however, know that different cultures are okay, and at worst simply don't want to live there.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Frankly, this is the majority view in the US, in my experience. Yes, there's a very vocal fringe that thinks the 2nd Amendment (the part of our Constitution that has been used to guarantee the right of gun ownership) is the only good way. Most, however, know that different cultures are okay, and at worst simply don't want to live there.



You should have been here a couple of years ago, dear me the posts about guns and the countries that don't have the same laws! I think your 'very vocal fringe' were mostly members here at that time. 
I could see the thread veering off again which luckily would have meant it being closed down on the 'no politics' rule here now.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, there's a very vocal fringe that thinks the 2nd Amendment (the part of our Constitution that has been used to guarantee the right of gun ownership) is the only good way. Most, however, know that different cultures are okay, and at worst simply don't want to live there.



Could you define 'vocal fringe'?  



PhotonGuy said:


> As for how the UK is about gun ownership or any of their other laws I don't care. After all I don't live there. If they're happy with how things are there than good for them.



I would think that most are quite happy.  Well, except the ones that have been the victims of violent crime.  They may not be quite as happy now that they've been denied a means of self-defense.  However, the Queen and PM and other government officials set a good example by having their bodyguards also go unarmed.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> They may not be quite as happy now that they've been denied a means of self-defense.


"now"?  You make this sound like a new development


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> "now"?  You make this sound like a new development



I don't think you ever saw The Study' then in full vitriolic flow then? No politics is a fairly new thing here, guess it depends how long you've been here lol.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> "now"?  You make this sound like a new development



Not at all, you could substitute the word 'now' for 'once' as in 'once they've become a victim'.  I trained with Peter Boatman back circa 2000 give or take.  At the time he was the Chief Inspector of the North Hamptonshire P.D.. He was showing the level of edged weapon violence in G.B. with footage of people in the larger cities standing at bus stops and people for no reason running up and stabbing/slashing them.  These folks weren't allowed many tools of a defensive nature to stop the threat before or as it happened.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Im not sure about this but I heard somewhere that in the U.K. that handguns are not banned per se but rather a gun has to have over a certain barrel length and over a certain overall length to be legal and with the minimum requirements for barrel length and overall length, anything you can get would be too long to be called a handgun. As I am not from the U.K. and not overly familiar with their regulations I am not sure of this but Im wondering, would this be legal in the U.K.?



It is like that in Australia. So you cant saw the end off your shottie and conceal it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Could you define 'vocal fringe'?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that most are quite happy.  Well, except the ones that have been the victims of violent crime.  They may not be quite as happy now that they've been denied a means of self-defense.  However, the Queen and PM and other government officials set a good example by having their bodyguards also go unarmed.



You fixed violent crime? 

When did that happen?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

And we are off on the bash the Brit's laws again just as I said. Perhaps the mods might like to stop it before it goes too far.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You fixed violent crime?
> 
> When did that happen?



What are you even talking about?  Do you actually read posts before you quote them?  Seriously.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> And we are off on the bash the Brit's laws again just as I said. Perhaps the mods might like to stop it before it goes too far.



I don't see where anyone has bashed British law.  It is a fact that edged weapon violence has reached an unacceptable level when people are attacked while simply waiting for a bus.  That is from British law enforcement sources and caught on camera(s).  No bash, simply fact.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't see where anyone has bashed British law.  It is a fact that edged weapon violence has reached an unacceptable level when people are attacked while simply waiting for a bus.  That is from British law enforcement sources and caught on camera(s).  No bash, simply fact.




Actually that's bollocks. Violence has not reached an 'unacceptable' level, and people aren't attacked at bus stops _in the manner you describe_. We have had knife attacks, one was a Muslim who was killed by another for 'heresy' but most are gang members against gang members with young people mostly being the victims though not all victims were gang members. Knife crime however is going down, it remains the domain of the gangs who are always going to be a problem as the US knows and everyone stands at bus stops now waiting for buses nothing else. You have grasped the wrong end of the stick and it's the shitty end. Perhaps this can explain what you think you know. I notice that you don't quote your sources, please, you don't live or work here you actually have no idea what is happening here, I suspect you also believe our cities have no go areas for non Muslims too ( a hint, they really don't)
Whatever happened to London's knife-crime epidemic?
_"While there are myriad statistics available to paint whatever picture you want, most criminologists agree that violent crime has been in persistent decline since the mid-1990s."_


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Actually that's bollocks. Violence has not reached an 'unacceptable' level, and people aren't attacked at bus stops _in the manner you describe_. We have had knife attacks, one was a Muslim who was killed by another for 'heresy' but most are gang members against gang members with young people mostly being the victims though not all victims were gang members. Knife crime however is going down, it remains the domain of the gangs who are always going to be a problem as the US knows and everyone stands at bus stops now waiting for buses nothing else. You have grasped the wrong end of the stick and it's the shitty end. Perhaps this can explain what you think you know. I notice that you don't quote your sources, please, you don't live or work here you actually have no idea what is happening here, I suspect you also believe our cities have no go areas for non Muslims too ( a hint, they really don't)
> Whatever happened to London's knife-crime epidemic?
> _"While there are myriad statistics available to paint whatever picture you want, most criminologists agree that violent crime has been in persistent decline since the mid-1990s."_



Oh dear me, someone has their nickers in a twist.  And that's odd because you don't read my posts, at least that's what you've stated.  Oh, perhaps someone told you again?

Let's see,



Tez3 said:


> I notice that you don't quote your sources,



Actually I did.  Sir Peter Boatman who was Chief Inspector of the North Hamptonshire P.D. using traffic and street surveillance footage from several of your major cities.  This was not gang on gang, unless all those folks walking down the street and/or waiting for the bus were gang members?  



Tez3 said:


> you don't live or work here you actually have no idea what is happening here



Actually I have lived and worked in Great Britain while in the military (Mildenhall AFB).  I am half British on my Grandmothers side and have family in London and several other parts of London.  I also have members of my SEP forum that live in Great Britain.  None of them paint the rosy picture you do.  

I think you're carrying a rather large chip on your shoulder.  That's a shame.  But as always, very nice talking with you and have a lovely day.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Knife crime however is going down...



Let's see, knife and gun violence up 14%, rape up 36%, violence against persons up 26%.  How's your end of the stick Tez?  Mine is clean as a whistle.

Homicides in England and Wales up 14%

After UK Gun Ban, Knife Murders Skyrocket - UK Urges “Save a Life–Surrender Your Knife” - Freedom Outpost

Matt Vespa - In The UK, Guns Aren't The Problem, It's Knives. And The Number Of Attacks Are Surging

And how could gun violence be up...no one in G.B. is allowed to have a handgun?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Peter Boatman (he was not knighted by the way) is a discredited former police officer with the Northamptonshire police who committed suicide after he was discredited. He wasn't police officer for very long and became a businessman.
 I do not paint a 'rosy' picture, I paint a realistic one. Your friends will of course agree with you as you know, birds of a feather etc.
No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I have a deep dislike of people who twist things to make them say what they want them to say, I dislike people who preach that they know best, I dislike people who think they can patronise and who frankly are just  plain smarmy.
That you were at Mildenhall  is of no account, it's an outpost of the USA and not the UK, you will of course still believe what you want to.
Oh and yes I am kept very well informed of your postings when they concern things about the UK.

Oh and it's 'knickers' and mine are firmed untwisted and do you think you should be making lewd comments on here anyway....................... you never fail to amuse.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

> That means that, based on these statistics, you are _more than twice as likely_ to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.



Chad Perrin: SOB » Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy, do you see now why I asked?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Peter Boatman (he was not knighted by the way)



Odd, I've seen him referred to as 'Sir' by other Brits.  



Tez3 said:


> is a discredited former police officer with the Northamptonshire police



Really?  Seems I recall him retiring to private business.  What was he discredited for Tez?  



Tez3 said:


> who committed suicide



Yep.  So?  Had nothing to do with his time as a Chief Inspector.  And it also does not invalidate the police security footage of all of the knife attacks.



Tez3 said:


> That you were at Mildenhall is of no account, it's an outpost of the USA and not the UK



Umm, it's still in the U.K. right?  Which means I've lived there (we were allowed off base and could read local papers and watch U.K. T.V. and talk to people and everything.  



Tez3 said:


> Oh and yes I am kept very well informed of your postings when they concern things about the UK.



Sure you are.

I see you didn't mention anything about all those sources that say violence is up in G.B...(I have more if you need them).


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling



> *A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling*


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

By the way Tez, I have nothing against you personally.  I really don't.  But you come off with some 'stuff' sometimes that frankly needs to be corrected with facts.  And that really seems to set you off.  I can't help your negative reactions or remarks.  And I'll stand by my posts.  The facts are that violent crime in G.B. has increased rather dramatically and that includes both knife and gun violence.  Fact, citizens in G.B. are not allowed some tools to protect themselves.  That isn't us vs. them, that's just stating the facts as they exist.  Ignoring them doesn't make them cease to exist.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> PhotonGuy, do you see now why I asked?



Yes I can see why but its the other people on this thread who are arguing about British law, not me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Could you define 'vocal fringe'?


That term refers to any group whose voice is louder than their proportional size.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Not at all, you could substitute the word 'now' for 'once' as in 'once they've become a victim'.  I trained with Peter Boatman back circa 2000 give or take.  At the time he was the Chief Inspector of the North Hamptonshire P.D.. He was showing the level of edged weapon violence in G.B. with footage of people in the larger cities standing at bus stops and people for no reason running up and stabbing/slashing them.  These folks weren't allowed many tools of a defensive nature to stop the threat before or as it happened.


It is unlikely any of them could have deployed a weapon in any useful manner under such circumstances, unless they were both trained and highly aware of their surroundings. My .40 cal. Glock is useless if I don't know what's coming or can't use it effectively under stress.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That term refers to any group whose voice is louder than their proportional size.



Okay.  You're reference from that post I quoted was in regards to those that held to second amendment beliefs.  In this regard I would say vocal is correct, but not fringe.  Of the 330 (approx.) million Americans there are (approx.) 74 million under the age of 18.   This leaves (approx.) 256 million adults of which over 80 million are gun owners.  That isn't a fringe.  As an example, the FBI stats are out for the month of April in which 2 million background checks were run for firearm purchases.  That is up 600,000 from the April of the previous year.  I support vocal and that generates discussion in which facts can be presented and myths dispelled.  For my part, I'm vocal about all of our Constitution and my profession concerns supporting Constitutional rights be it the 2nd, 1st, 14th etc.  



gpseymour said:


> It is unlikely any of them could have deployed a weapon in any useful manner under such circumstances, unless they were both trained and highly aware of their surroundings



This is a case-by-case basis and quite situational.  If someone attacks a bus stop full of people that are unarmed the result is injured victims unless they can use an improvised weapon.  On the other hand, someone attacks a bus stop where some or all of the people are armed the threat could be stopped.  I've posted about this in another thread i.e. private citizens use their weapons to lawfully defend themselves (or others) tens of thousands of times a year (and one study suggests over a million times a year).  And of course being situationally aware is a prerequisite.  Government statistics suggest that quite a staggering number of people can and do have enough situational awareness to stop threats when confronted.  The major point is that you need to have a means of self protection available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Okay.  You're reference from that post I quoted was in regards to those that held to second amendment beliefs.  In this regard I would say vocal is correct, but not fringe.  Of the 330 (approx.) million Americans there are (approx.) 74 million under the age of 18.   This leaves (approx.) 256 million adults of which over 80 million are gun owners.  That isn't a fringe.  As an example, the FBI stats are out for the month of April in which 2 million background checks were run for firearm purchases.  That is up 600,000 from the April of the previous year.  I support vocal and that generates discussion in which facts can be presented and myths dispelled.  For my part, I'm vocal about all of our Constitution and my profession concerns supporting Constitutional rights be it the 2nd, 1st, 14th etc.



You're simply citing the number of gun owners. Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws. That would be a smaller proportion than the entirety of gun owners. I am one of those who owns guns, but doesn't have any issue with those countries that have other laws. Frankly, there's not a lot of evidence that either heavy gun control or open gun access is a good fit for everyone.



> This is a case-by-case basis and quite situational.  If someone attacks a bus stop full of people that are unarmed the result is injured victims unless they can use an improvised weapon.  On the other hand, someone attacks a bus stop where some or all of the people are armed the threat could be stopped.  I've posted about this in another thread i.e. private citizens use their weapons to lawfully defend themselves (or others) tens of thousands of times a year (and one study suggests over a million times a year).  And of course being situationally aware is a prerequisite.  Government statistics suggest that quite a staggering number of people can and do have enough situational awareness to stop threats when confronted.  The major point is that you need to have a means of self protection available.


I'm not saying weapons are useless (remember, I own guns, too). My point was - and remains - that someone just having a gun or other weapon is very little help. They must be capable of using it properly under stress (and many of the gun owners I know in the US aren't all that good with them when NOT under stress), and they must have the awareness/time to deploy the weapon. In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way. Those who train to use them, prepare their minds for the situations and stress, and have the awareness would be capable of deploying them in some of those situations, but others would never clear the holster.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws.



And that was not my point either, my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying.  



gpseymour said:


> In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way.



Again, depends upon the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, depends upon the situation.



Agreed. I was responding to the situation described, as I saw it in my head.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm with tez3.   These threads never go well, and were a large part of the vitriol from the old study.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> What are you even talking about?  Do you actually read posts before you quote them?  Seriously.



Sorry. I will simplify the concept.

If you have violent crime. Then people are not able to defend themselves from it. The more violent crime you have the less people are able to defend themselves.

The best defence?

Move somewhere where there is less violence. And mabye more girls in bikinis.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes I can see why but its the other people on this thread who are arguing about British law, not me.



I know it wasn't you but you can at least see why I was asking why you were posting. It's just a pity your post answering wasn't heeded.
Now I'm done on this thread.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling



So I went and had a look at the crime survey for England and Wales that is mentioned in the article.




 
That is the violent crime rates.

Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You're simply citing the number of gun owners. Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws. That would be a smaller proportion than the entirety of gun owners. I am one of those who owns guns, but doesn't have any issue with those countries that have other laws. Frankly, there's not a lot of evidence that either heavy gun control or open gun access is a good fit for everyone.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying weapons are useless (remember, I own guns, too). My point was - and remains - that someone just having a gun or other weapon is very little help. They must be capable of using it properly under stress (and many of the gun owners I know in the US aren't all that good with them when NOT under stress), and they must have the awareness/time to deploy the weapon. In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way. Those who train to use them, prepare their minds for the situations and stress, and have the awareness would be capable of deploying them in some of those situations, but others would never clear the holster.



And you will even find gun owners in countries without gun rights. Don't want gun rights. And prefer a controlled gun ownership system.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Aug 26, 2016)

We don't need firearms for protection. Scotland, the land of where being a terrorist means the general public are going to get "set in right aboot ye" if you give us a chance  

'This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye'


----------



## Dinkydoo (Aug 26, 2016)

And when talking statistics on gun control I always go back to a little piece by Bill Hicks - because I enjoy humour with my politics






This is also worth a watch, very funny...if nothing else

(Strong language - he is Australian  - but not in bad taste)


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Now I'm done on this thread.



So let's see;  you make some absurd statements and when challenged on them you play the victim.  When called out you get pissy and when you're statements are shown to be incorrect you leave without addressing the situation.  Well, at least you're consistent.  

Bye.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And you will even find gun owners in countries without gun rights. Don't want gun rights. And prefer a controlled gun ownership system.



Even though you still don't know what proper punctuation means, this time I understand your point.  And yes, folks that are in countries and are now allowed to have firearms are usually content without them.  Why?  Because they've been brainwashed.  And yes, that IS a strong statement but I'll explain why.  If people give up or are forced to give up their basic right of self-protection...whose job is it to protect them?  That falls to the government.  It is a natural tendency for those that can't/won't or are unable to do for themselves to depend on government.  Yet how well is the government doing in these countries to protect their citizens?  Not very well.  According to the articles/studies above gun violence has risen in G.B..  My question is how can gun violence increase when no one is allowed to have a gun?  Oh that's right, criminals still have guns...because they're criminals and really don't care about the law.  But wait!  Then who has given up the guns?  Oh that's right, the law abiding citizen gave them up.  So that leaves criminals with guns and law abiding citizens without firearms to defend themselves.  But I guess that's okay because the government will keep them safe...except violent crime rates have risen.  

Anyone else following this very simple premise?  The government CAN'T keep every citizen safe.  People DON'T carry a cop in their back pocket.  Criminals WILL have guns and don't care if you have one law or a thousand laws banning them.  Only the law abiding citizen...who is unarmed, suffers because they lack a basic tool or protection.  Yet that same government that can't protect you will go on and on about how 'evil' guns are.  A car in the hands of a mother driving her son to soccer practice is a rather useful tool.  That same car in the hands of a drunk is a deadly weapon.  A gun in the hands of that same mother may allow her to defend herself and her child against a rapist/predator/attacker.  It isn't the tool it is the hand that wields the tool that is good or evil.  

If citizens of other countries don't want firearms then that is there concern.  What happens to them as a result is on them and fully their concern.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> So let's see;  you make some absurd statements and when challenged on them you play the victim.  When called out you get pissy and when you're statements are shown to be incorrect you leave without addressing the situation.  Well, at least you're consistent.
> 
> Bye.


So, what of the graph another poster inserted? It apparently shows declining violence in the UK.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Aug 26, 2016)

Criminals are always going to have guns, but not every petty criminal has access to a gun in the UK due to the effort required in actually obtaining one. 

Kong Soo Do, it's a catch 22 situation - nobody legally has access to firearms which leaves the average person (and most criminals) pretty defenceless against an armed assault or, you give everyone access to one (which includes every nut job who fancies taking out a lifetime of grievances on innoncent civilians in schools, cinemas, nightclubs...etc). 

I think the difference in culture between UK and the US makes it difficult for you guys to imagine a society where every criminal doesn't have access to a gun...but for us, it's a reality. Now, give everyone in the UK a gun and then, 50 years later, ask the good-guys for them all back and I'd definitely be concerned as well. It's difficult to know how far to take back that freedom without immediately putting the population in danger. It is something, from a utilitarian perspective, that needs to happen - in my opinion...but, I appreciate there isn't an easy answer. That however doesn't mean we should accept the status quo forever though.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, what of the graph another poster inserted? It apparently shows declining violence in the UK.



Which graph do you want to believe?  In the same article it has a graph were violent crime and rape have increased in just the last year.  And some of the articles I linked have studies that indicate the increase as well as the government reporting a decrease despite some studies showing an increase.  



Dinkydoo said:


> Kong Soo Do, it's a catch 22 situation - nobody legally has access to firearms which leaves the average person (and most criminals) pretty defenceless against an armed assault



Do you really think the criminals are defenseless?  If they can't get their hands on a firearm they'll use a knife, club, crowbar etc.  All are lethal.  Which is why a law abiding private citizen needs proper tools for self protection.  

For example, someone breaks into your house, or worse several home invaders break into your house.  They may be armed with firearms or they may be armed with edged or blunt weapons.  Either way it's a bad situation.  So, in countries where law abiding citizens aren't TRUSTED to have a firearm...what do they do?  What's the plan?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Which graph do you want to believe?  In the same article it has a graph were violent crime and rape have increased in just the last year.  And some of the articles I linked have studies that indicate the increase as well as the government reporting a decrease despite some studies showing an increase.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've clearly decided to only acknowledge evidence that supports your claim. Such confirmation bias is beyond all logic.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Do you really think the criminals are defenseless?  If they can't get their hands on a firearm they'll use a knife, club, crowbar etc.  All are lethal.  Which is why a law abiding private citizen needs proper tools for self protection.
> 
> For example, someone breaks into your house, or worse several home invaders break into your house.  They may be armed with firearms or they may be armed with edged or blunt weapons.  Either way it's a bad situation.  So, in countries where law abiding citizens aren't TRUSTED to have a firearm...what do they do?  What's the plan?



I'm not sure what world you live in where 1) people are likely to break into my inner city flat armed, in the middle of the night and 2) where you're in a constant state of being ready for said attack....

What happens if I'm asleep, on the toilet or in the shower when this break-in happens? My hypothetical gun probably isn't going to be much use then. 

I too have access to blunt or sharp make-shift weapons - my friend for instance has a climbing axe in his bedroom, good luck trying to steal his tele at 3am. Looking around me right now I can see a heavy bicycle lock, a screw driver and a pen knife. Take my television if you like, but mess with me and it's going to be a lot of hassle for you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You've clearly decided to only acknowledge evidence that supports your claim. Such confirmation bias is beyond all logic.



No, I've pointed out the conflicting information within the same article as well as between it and other studies.  Don't make unwarranted assumptions.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> For example, someone breaks into your house, or worse several home invaders break into your house. They may be armed with firearms or they may be armed with edged or blunt weapons. Either way it's a bad situation. So, in countries where law abiding citizens aren't TRUSTED to have a firearm...what do they do? What's the plan?



  I would assume that they would do the same thing I would do, keep a dog. Although Texas is quite liberal in its firearm laws, I do not currently own a handgun. I don't have any plans to purchase one because I do not feel the need for one. I don't feel that there's any need to take anyone else's handguns away, but that doesn't mean that I need to have one myself. I also don't sit around worrying about home invaders (or space invaders for that matter).

  People such as you that rabidly insist that the entire world would be better off armed to the teeth are the ones that are creating such problems for the rest of us. If you weren't so rabidly insistent on attempting to ram your own ideas down other people's throats, there wouldn't be nearly the backlash that we currently have from the anti-firearm fanatics in this country. I enjoy shooting the firearms that I do have, and occasionally shooting my friend's handguns. Therefore I implore you to please stop giving the anti-gun zealots ammunition to argue with.

  Thanks!


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Even though you still don't know what proper punctuation means, this time I understand your point.  And yes, folks that are in countries and are now allowed to have firearms are usually content without them.  Why?  Because they've been brainwashed.  And yes, that IS a strong statement but I'll explain why.  If people give up or are forced to give up their basic right of self-protection...whose job is it to protect them?  That falls to the government.  It is a natural tendency for those that can't/won't or are unable to do for themselves to depend on government.  Yet how well is the government doing in these countries to protect their citizens?  Not very well.  According to the articles/studies above gun violence has risen in G.B..  My question is how can gun violence increase when no one is allowed to have a gun?  Oh that's right, criminals still have guns...because they're criminals and really don't care about the law.  But wait!  Then who has given up the guns?  Oh that's right, the law abiding citizen gave them up.  So that leaves criminals with guns and law abiding citizens without firearms to defend themselves.  But I guess that's okay because the government will keep them safe...except violent crime rates have risen.
> 
> Anyone else following this very simple premise?  The government CAN'T keep every citizen safe.  People DON'T carry a cop in their back pocket.  Criminals WILL have guns and don't care if you have one law or a thousand laws banning them.  Only the law abiding citizen...who is unarmed, suffers because they lack a basic tool or protection.  Yet that same government that can't protect you will go on and on about how 'evil' guns are.  A car in the hands of a mother driving her son to soccer practice is a rather useful tool.  That same car in the hands of a drunk is a deadly weapon.  A gun in the hands of that same mother may allow her to defend herself and her child against a rapist/predator/attacker.  It isn't the tool it is the hand that wields the tool that is good or evil.
> 
> If citizens of other countries don't want firearms then that is there concern.  What happens to them as a result is on them and fully their concern.



So like Australia which is safer.  The result of less assaults and less murders. Less police shootings.  More freedom. Better living conditions. And less mass killings is on us being brainwashed?

A plane is a tool.  We don't put them in the hands of drunks or soccer mums.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Which graph do you want to believe? In the same article it has a graph were violent crime and rape have increased in just the last year. And some of the articles I linked have studies that indicate the increase as well as the government reporting a decrease despite some studies showing an increase.



Its is the same graph.  It has increased over one year but decreased over ten years.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Dinkydoo said:


> Criminals are always going to have guns, but not every petty criminal has access to a gun in the UK due to the effort required in actually obtaining one.
> 
> Kong Soo Do, it's a catch 22 situation - nobody legally has access to firearms which leaves the average person (and most criminals) pretty defenceless against an armed assault or, you give everyone access to one (which includes every nut job who fancies taking out a lifetime of grievances on innoncent civilians in schools, cinemas, nightclubs...etc).
> 
> I think the difference in culture between UK and the US makes it difficult for you guys to imagine a society where every criminal doesn't have access to a gun...but for us, it's a reality. Now, give everyone in the UK a gun and then, 50 years later, ask the good-guys for them all back and I'd definitely be concerned as well. It's difficult to know how far to take back that freedom without immediately putting the population in danger. It is something, from a utilitarian perspective, that needs to happen - in my opinion...but, I appreciate there isn't an easy answer. That however doesn't mean we should accept the status quo forever though.



You also have more resources to deal with gun crime. 

Here you get tactical teams and the high ranking investigators and task forces. When there are guns involved.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

Dinkydoo said:


> I'm not sure what world you live in where 1) people are likely to break into my inner city flat armed, in the middle of the night and 2) where you're in a constant state of being ready for said attack....



I live in a realistic world, not fantasy land like apparently some of you.  For a moment I thought, 'well...maybe there are no home invasions in the U.K'. but then as simple google search revealed;

Burglary victims attacked in their own home once every 30 minutes

Re: Is the incidence of home invasions higher in UK or US?: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review

How The UK Covers Up Murder Stats

And the list goes on.  So it seems that there are burglaries and home invasions in the U.K. after all.  So if it HAS happened to someone then it CAN happen to someone else again.  That's called realistic logic.  Of course you can always go with 'it can't happen to me' as your line of defense.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I live in a realistic world, not fantasy land like apparently some of you.  For a moment I thought, 'well...maybe there are no home invasions in the U.K'. but then as simple google search revealed;
> 
> Burglary victims attacked in their own home once every 30 minutes
> 
> ...



Oh i agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves from home invasion. Good locks. security screens. Decent lighting should be available to everyone.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 26, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I would assume that they would do the same thing I would do, keep a dog. Although Texas is quite liberal in its firearm laws, I do not currently own a handgun. I don't have any plans to purchase one because I do not feel the need for one. I don't feel that there's any need to take anyone else's handguns away, but that doesn't mean that I need to have one myself. I also don't sit around worrying about home invaders (or space invaders for that matter).
> 
> People such as you that rabidly insist that the entire world would be better off armed to the teeth are the ones that are creating such problems for the rest of us. If you weren't so rabidly insistent on attempting to ram your own ideas down other people's throats, there wouldn't be nearly the backlash that we currently have from the anti-firearm fanatics in this country. I enjoy shooting the firearms that I do have, and occasionally shooting my friend's handguns. Therefore I implore you to please stop giving the anti-gun zealots ammunition to argue with.
> 
> Thanks!



Rabid?  Let's see, I've expressed my beliefs and provided sources to support those believes.  That's called a conversation.  Use of the word 'rabid' is a lot like the word 'tolerant' in that folks say others should be tolerant of others opinions...unless it conflict with their own in which case they can label the opposition.  So I'll apply a label here, folks like you are victims-in-waiting.  They use the '_I do not feel the need for one_' and '_it can't happen to me_' line of defense.  Good luck with that.  Criminals LOVE people like you.  How do I know?  Well I've been in L.E. for nearly a quarter of a century and I interview and talk with criminals on an almost daily basis. 

Owning a firearm is like owning a spare tire.  I don't go looking for flat tires.  I don't want to get a flat tire.  A flat tire is a pain in the rear.  But if I should get a flat I want to make sure the spare tire is in the vehicle.  Same with a firearm.  I don't go looking for trouble and avoid it whenever possible.  But if trouble presents itself and all of my non-force options are taken away and I'm forced to use force then I want the appropriate tool for the job.  People in countries that don't trust their citizens to be armed have taken away that option. 

So it's not a matter of 'sitting around worrying about home invaders' it is a matter of being self reliant and not depending on others to do something you should be taking responsibility for yourself.  People like you don't take responsibility for your own self-protection and leave it to someone else to do.  Not a great plan.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 27, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Re: Is the incidence of home invasions higher in UK or US?: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review



_So it does not seem very likely that "home invasions" where there is violent intent are higher in the UK. In fact I can't find any statistic from a reliable source (UK government, FBI etc) that would indicate anything of this nature._

Gun ownership is higher in the U.S. and you are more likely to be the victim of a violent burglay in the U.S, so you seem to have successfully argued against yourself.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 28, 2016)

No, just the opposite.  The statement was made that knife violence isn't really an issue.  I demonstrated that it was an issue.  The statement was made that home invasion wasn't an issue.  I demonstrated that it was an issue.  The study was comparing the U.S. to the U.K. in a specific area, I am not.  My point is that violent crime exists in both countries and bad guys can be armed in both countries, thus 'gun control' laws aren't very meaningful to a criminal (in the same fashion that a 'gun free' zone sign doesn't stop a criminal/terrorist from bringing a firearm).  The difference is that in one country the citizens have the right to own, carry and defend themselves with a firearm and in the other country the citizens aren't trusted to be armed.  

That is why one study should that gun violence has increased in G.B. despite citizens not being allowed to 'keep and bear arms'.  If citizens can't have firearms...how is gun violence on the rise?  There shouldn't be any guns right?  Of course that only happens in a liberal fantasy.  The fact remains that if a criminal wants a gun...they have the means to obtain one outside of any law that is passed.  Thus the bad guys can be armed whereas the sheeple have to depend on someone else to keep them safe.  In the U.S. one has to choose to be a sheeple because they have the right not to be one.  And I've already demonstrated conclusively in the other gun thread, through private and government studies, that law abiding citizens that are armed have a direct link to crime going down (in those areas where they live and work).  The armed citizen mitigates the number of victims in an active shooter situation.  They decrease the likelyhood of rape.  They use their firearms more than the police on an annual basis.  Those links are in the other thread for any that would like to view them.  

So bottom line, law abiding citizens in the U.S. have a choice.  People in the U.K. do not have a choice.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 28, 2016)

Kong Soo Do said:


> So it's not a matter of 'sitting around worrying about home invaders' it is a matter of being self reliant and not depending on others to do something you should be taking responsibility for yourself. People like you don't take responsibility for your own self-protection and leave it to someone else to do. Not a great plan.


  You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you chose to make that statement. That, in a nutshell, is why I labeled you rabid. I don't rely on anyone else to take care of me thank you. I haven't relied on anyone else to take care of me since I was 15 years old and decided I had to quit running with the gangs. You erroneously *assumed* because I don't personally believe your overly emotional tripe that anyone that isn't armed with an assortment of handguns isn't protecting themselves, that I relied on other people. Nope, not at all. In fact, there *are* no other people close enough to respond to any call for help from me. I'm simply telling you that a handgun is not *necessary* for a thinking person to be able to more than adequately protect themselves. There are alternatives, but I don't expect rabid gun believers to understand that, so I'll stop arguing with you about it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 28, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> _So it does not seem very likely that "home invasions" where there is violent intent are higher in the UK. In fact I can't find any statistic from a reliable source (UK government, FBI etc) that would indicate anything of this nature._
> 
> Gun ownership is higher in the U.S. and you are more likely to be the victim of a violent burglay in the U.S, so you seem to have successfully argued against yourself.



It is because they can't defend themselves over there.  Poor guys.


----------



## Buka (Aug 29, 2016)

Maybe everybody should take a deep breath.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 29, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you chose to make that statement.



I know that you are an emotional person that probably shouldn't be putting labels on other people.  Particularly people they don't know.  Particularly people who know more about this subject than you.



pgsmith said:


> ...so I'll stop arguing with you about it.



I don't see this as an 'argument'.  I see it as a discussion with differing ideas.  If some folks see it as an argument that is on them and there own intolerance to the viewpoint(s) of others.  Doesn't matter to me one bit if you don't have a firearm.  I'm not responsible for your safety.  I have made an informed, responsible decision based on my experiences and I stand by those choices as prudent.  

Bye.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 29, 2016)

*Admin's Note:*

Please note, that if you wish to discuss the legality (or illegality) of various weapons-related details, you are more than welcome to do so in this forum.  

However, if you wish to discuss the politics of weapons-related details, then you really should go elsewhere.  The Forum Foundry does host quite a few avenues for this type of discussion.


----------

