The United Kingdom, gun control, and what it really means

a reply to: EvillerBob

True, if someone passes the police checks then cool.
...getting twatted on Buckie at the local corner shop is not a good indicator though, but I don't know if the police take such things into account?

originally posted by: mash3d
Isn't that the same time the Irish were trying to gain thier independance from being part of the United Kingdom??
1919 o 1921? Was Ireland was still under UK laws at the time and did the passing of gun control measures have anything to do with the problems they were having in Ireland at the time?

The Easter Rebellion was in 1916.

While that was undoubtedly part and parcel of the overall tone of the time, it's generally considered that the legislation was in response to post-war disillusionment and post-Russian Revolution sentiments. Europe changed massively in character in the early part of the 20th Century.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: EvillerBob

True, if someone passes the police checks then cool.
...getting twatted on Buckie at the local corner shop is not a good indicator though, but I don't know if the police take such things into account?

If they're known to police it would factor in.

Also, do you think that kid will know two people that the police will accept as suitable referees, who would be willing to be interviewed and vouch for him?

Maybe he does. I'd love to write him off automatically, but it would be wrong of me not to give him the same chance as everyone else.

originally posted by: EvillerBobI'd love to write him off automatically, but it would be wrong of me not to give him the same chance as everyone else.

Agreed.
I like the regime we have in place now, it helps keep undesirables from owning firearms, and gives a chance to those who could be victim to prejudices which people such as myself may or may not be influenced by.

a reply to: EvillerBob

You obviously didn't read what I was replying to. And I didn't speak on behalf of everyone (the lowest form of debate that comeback). You are talking about sports, I was not. Don't know what you are attempting with that strange response.

Thankyou for the thread. I WILL speak on behalf of everyone and thank you for educating both the US and UK.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: EvillerBob

You obviously didn't read what I was replying to. And I didn't speak on behalf of everyone (the lowest form of debate that comeback). You are talking about sports, I was not. Don't know what you are attempting with that strange response.

Actually I scrolled back through and read all of the possible posts by that member, seeing as you didn't see fit to tell us which one you were replying to.

Regardless, I'm not exactly sure how else the following should be interpreted:

originally posted by: rossacus
...
Its the rationale that many members in the UK members struggle to relate to. Why after war would you need a gun? A question that has no plausible/valid answer.

I know you weren't talking about sports. That was the point. Guns are only for war, apparently, there is no other plausible/valid reason to have one. Rather disingenuous to all the sporting shooters over the years who have brought home a ton of medals and trophies, without spilling so much as a drop of blood.

On a matter of pride, I would like to conclude by pointing out that there are many forms of significantly lower comeback in debates, some of which I even claim credit for inventing (or stealing from Jimmy Carr in some cases). While I enjoy exercising my mastery of them, I try to avoid it on ATS as the mods are a bit more touchy-feely here

Good post but two issues with it:

First Issue is WW II England's home guard. There had over 1.6 million people in it, but only half of them had a gun. Thinking your nation will never be invaded, just isn't logical. Even the Swiss get invaded. Do the percentage of what the largest mass murder spree does to a population then compare it to one invasion.

On the same lines, compare one mass murder spree of any individual vs democide by any government.

in both cases, I will take my odds with the individual.

How does one get ride of an oppressive government? An easy answer is to look at the US, Canada and UK's paper money. Two of them have the same lady on them, one doesn't.

a reply to: woogleuk

Hopefully the chains of oppression and control fall lightly upon the collective shoulders of those who will give up liberty for security. When you put the rights of the masses before individual rights the slope is so slippery you will always fall into outright tyranny..........This can take some time before happening.



If the UK is so gosh darn safe why do need to also give up the right of privacy?

A serious question for all of you. How many brits would have been killed in Tunisia is a couple of brits were carrying. Always the authorities are after the event. The same day as Tunisia London police carried out an opperation for the aftermath of an attack.
But this is always after the event. Now me, I'd like to be able to defend myself before the fact, before I die and if anyone comes for me with a gun, legal or illegal, I want something to defend myself with and I don't mean running away or trying to talk my assailant out of killing me especially as the recent deaths were going to happen no matter what, except killing the shooter.

a reply to: crayzeed

It would be a good question to ask that at some random beach in the USA someone decided to go postal how many in the land of the free would be packing guns/body armour and constantly checking the area for threats verus firing up the grill and downing a gallon of beer.

The risks of getting shot anywhere are pretty low so its like expecting a grand piano to drop on your head as you walk along the street

a reply to: Maxatoria
That's true, but the US at the moment has not got any of that group trying a to kill a large amount of people or as many as they could kill before they were killed. Just have one of those attacks (but god forbid you don't) and I'll guarantee you there would be a lot of people packing on the beach.
The whole of the North African coast Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and even Egypt ALL have factions that would see "infidels" killed. The truely sad part is the tourists trusted the locals for their safety and the locals were found to be lacking. Don't give an answer "well they are now" AFTER THE EVENT, AFTER THE EVENT. Three people who lived not 2 mles from me were killed there.

a reply to: crayzeed

I appreciate your input, but how does British gun laws affect what happens in Tunisia? I seriously doubt if any of the tourists had owned guns that they would have been able to take them on the plane or into the country anyway.

Also, even if tourists had them, the shooter would have still got a few people before being taken down.

Tunisia has restrictive laws on firearms, with only 3,408 licensed firearms (9000 inc illegal) and 11 inhabitants.

They have no recorded stats for gun homicides and total homicides for the year (2008) was just 117.

That seems very low for a country with hardly any firearms and strict laws, and it's location.

What happened on that beach, as tragic as it was, sounds like a once in a blue moon incident like in other countries with tight firearms laws, including Britain.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: woogleuk
If the UK is so gosh darn safe why do need to also give up the right of privacy?

We haven't given up any privacy, if you are referring to CCTV, they are usually only found in the city/town centres to keep an eye out for drunk behaviour, violent crimes and theft. They are also cutting back the amount of cameras in those centres, probably for budgeting reasons, but cutting back nonetheless.

a reply to: woogleuk

Great thread!

I am Canadian and we too have some strong gun laws; I am a firm believer that these laws make things safer and reduce the amount of mass shootings.

It sure seems to me that there is a lot more stress and tension within society and the last thing we need is for a person to have a mental break because societal pressures just become "too much" and they need to release their anger.

The US is in a funny position (no disrespect intended to my American friends) but there are simply so many firearms available that perhaps the only solution is to have everyone armed in order mitigate the damage caused when someone does break?

I'll never forget when I visited a factory in Louisana (I think... it could have been Corpus Christi) and they had a sign when entering saying that employees had to check their guns. There was a caged area and numerous lock-boxes. This was pretty eye opening for a good ol' Canadian boy and made me a wee bit uncomfortable. Can you imagine having to fire someone? Jeez, you would be taking your life in to your hands.

Who knows the right answer though.

a reply to: woogleuk
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. Any attempt to enact gun control is against the law... Protection Against For "We The People". This Criminal Cabal is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. The Constitution in itself is also Untouchable and any attempt
to change it is an act against " We The People" and our guns are the teeth and backbone of a free society everywhere. As Moses let the People of God from Pharaoh our for fathers fought a Revolution for "We The People" from a British Tyrannical Government and ratified a Constitution for " We The People " to protect our rights.

a reply to: The only 1 who knows the

You do know this thread was to better shed light on UK gun laws right?

It has nothing to do with US gun laws, nor is it suggesting that the US should have stricter gun laws.

I was just trying to help those outside of the UK to have a better understanding of what is actually true over here....

a reply to: woogleuk

Your wasting your time mate. I respect your attempt though, but the people you are trying to explain this to won't want to listen. You already tasted a little bit of it, beating their chests ('we the people' lol) and going on about their own gun 'laws'. Most of these people have probably never left their own country and won't see anything wrong with that so to try and discuss laws that work from another country is completely futile. If they are going to go around gunning down children I just wish they wouldn't put it on the news for us all to have to watch.

a reply to: grainofsand

Have to say laws or no laws if i find some burglar in my home im slicing and dicing them repeatedly with what ever comes to hand until there ether on the floor in a pool of there own blood or they surrender. If that somehow seems harsh then its probably because i have two kids and my Mrs to protect and think upon. In such an instance the only law that really applies is the law of survival.

End of the day stopping to think upon the consequences of your actions in the eyes of the law in such a situation could be rather counterproductive to the outcome both financially and personally.

The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World

But if you take out just 4 cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans , the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the entire world, for Murders.

These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U.S.

ALL 4 of these cities are controlled by Democrats.
It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data right?

Well, I'm off to check on my spoons.
I hear they're making people fat.