Legal in the U.K.?

[Kong Soo Do]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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?

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

 

[Dinkydoo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Maybe everybody should take a deep breath.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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.

...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.