British terrorist attackers obvious lack of firearms.... Take note America!

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I agree. We need to have laws banning knives in the UK and the USA.

Is your angle that guns should be banned. Guns are not banned in the UK. There are over a million guns in circulation. Just (as the OP says) fewer guns in circulation.

Per capita around c. 7 guns per 100 people in the UK. In the US it's over 100 guns per 100 people.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

you missed this one, but then, I would have too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Good afternoon ATS.

...

My main point is something I noticed this week, of the 3 terror attacks in the UK in the last month or so NO GUNS were used, that's right, NO GUNS.... This appears to prove my point that a society with less guns is a safer society, and completely destroys the argument that if people want to kill they will find guns and kill people.... These chaps couldn't get hold of one, and they seemed to be planning for quite some time... That's how hard it is to get hold of a gun in the UK, very hard.

The lower availability does make it more difficult, no real argument there, but the issue is that it doesn't make it that much more difficult.

Police respond to (non-legally-held) firearms incidents on a regular basis. The most recent I can think of happened yesterday, needing two armed response units. Not "terror", just "regular crime".

Firearms find their way across the border and into the wrong hands at a fairly steady flow - though the hard work of the police and customs people keeps it down to a fairly low flow, more of a trickle really.

Also, the lack of firearms is likely to be linked to more than just availability. It is believed that one of the reasons why ISIS have been calling for attacks specifically using vehicles and knives (instead of bombs and guns) is to reduce the risk of early detection. A small but successful attack does the job better than a large attack that is stopped before it happens.

If they want them, they will get them. If they really wanted, all they need to do is import a few of the guys from the link below and they can have as many untraceable firearms as they want.

Gunsmithing in Pakistan

originally posted by: butcherguy
There isn't any appreciable amount of heroin produced in the USA.
Heroin is illegal.You can't even write a prescription for it if you are a doctor.
Heroin is smuggled in in vast amounts.
It is easier to get than trying to buy a gun legally.
What makes you think that a gun can't be smuggled over a border just as easily as heroin?
That is discounting the fact that you don't have to grow poppies in large fields to make a gun. You can build them in a workshop. Ted Kazinski (The Unabomber) made one in his shed in the boonies.

It is all so simple... just write a law.

Y'know, the concept that making guns illegal will stop gun violence just baffles me. It's like the people preaching it are completely naive to the world around them. Twenty years ago, when I was eighteen, I smoked pot for the first time with a friend and loved it. Before I ever did, I thought this stuff was rare, and very hard to come by. Once I was introduced to the world "behind the scenes", I saw that it was very easy to find pot, as well as other stuff: '___', shrooms, coc aine, crack, meth, ecstasy, etc.....yet, all of these things are illegal.

Over the years I moved to a few different states, life happens, y'know?? Within days of moving to the towns I lived in, guess what I was able to find?? Yep, more illegal substances. Funny how that works when they're illegal, huh??

All the people against guns only talk about how dangerous they are, they almost flat out refuse to acknowledge the good they can do as well. Let me use an example my wife told me about yesterday. There was a man who was shot because his neighbor saw him trying to drown his twin babies. He had a knife and kept the mother at bay with it. Their 12 year old daughter was able to sneak away and call for help from her neighbor. So the neighbor came barging in, saw what the guy was doing, and shot him. Last I heard, the babies are alive and well, though probably traumatized for life. Poor things.

Now, the gun was very useful in this situation. What do you think would've happened if the guy had no gun?? Why, if he attempted to save the babies from being drowned there's a very good chance he would've been cut and/or stabbed. A lot. If he didn't succeed, the guy could've then stabbed the mother, then the daughter. Imagine all the slash marks, cuts, blood everywhere, it could have been far worse if he didn't have that gun. Sure, one could argue that you could've talked him down, but if he's got two 3 month old babies held underwater, how much time do they have for you to talk them down??

a reply to: network dude

You're happy today, who's to say you won't be in 10 years time, your guns then may be used for different purposes...

I would say they became dangerous when you bought them, or when one of your children gets hold of one and blows their siblings face off....

That's the only argument you have though isn't it? "I like guns".... Not really great justification.... I may like tanks, doesn't mean I have to won and operate one... That would be dangerous and foolish...

See my point?

PA

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly
I also have a suspicion that the criminal gangs running the black market for guns are specifically choosing not to sell their weapons to the terrorists because they simply don't want the hassle of the security services breathing down their necks.

That's a very good point.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not going to get into the argument of "You can kill someone with a spoon, let's ban all spoons"... this is ridiculous and you know it....

Guns have no place in the hands of everyday citizens...

The figure just don't lie, LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE KILLED WITH GUNS IN AMERICA, COMPARE IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES....

This is common sense...

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: network dude
I would say they became dangerous when you bought them, or when one of your children gets hold of one and blows their siblings face off....

That's some pretty stupid logic that can easily be solved with proper training. What happens when you're teaching your children how to cook and properly cut meat/vegetables, and while they're holding the knife out another child comes running in from around the corner and accidentally runs into the blade?? Is that knife now dangerous?? Nope, what was dangerous was not properly teaching that child how to properly hold a knife.

What happens if your child runs up to someones dog and gets bitten?? Is that dog dangerous?? Well, yeah, but at the same time it's also the parents fault for not teaching their child proper methods for handling a dog. It is NEVER ok to just walk up to a strange dog and start petting them.

Same with guns, if you teach your child properly, as well as keep the guns properly locked up, then many of these accidents won't happen. If you look at how many people own guns, and how often it happens, it's actually a small statistic.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Let's ban free speech and first amendment then outlaw radical religious sects and all so called hate speech.

Seemed quite effective for USSR when looked at in the way you are with US's second amendment rights.

Maybe question should be framed "what if legal concealed carrier had been present" or "would you be using same premise had they used bombs"

I suppose knife control is next - after all if nobody had them it'd be safer - what's next? Rocks, clubs?

At what point do you stop the control freak stuff when based on "safety"

Our founders warned about trading freedom for safety - I choose to believe they were right.

a reply to: Necrobile

You make good arguments sir, but I would still argue that if the gun wasn't there at all the house would be much safer....

You argument about knives is valid, but then you hit the nail on the head, you use knives to cut up food and vegetables...

Guns in the hands of everyday citizens just doesn't make sense...

PA

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Most likely the average nutters are having a go first then the organised nutters will do co-ordinated gun/bomb attacks later.

That's when the prepared legislation gets boosted in by drooling, megalomaniac politicians.

a reply to: Phoenix

Your leaders lived in very different times.... Surely you can see that?

Seems that "wild west" mentality never really went away... tell me, are there any Indians left to shoot?

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: network dude

You're happy today, who's to say you won't be in 10 years time, your guns then may be used for different purposes...

I would say they became dangerous when you bought them, or when one of your children gets hold of one and blows their siblings face off....

That's the only argument you have though isn't it? "I like guns".... Not really great justification.... I may like tanks, doesn't mean I have to won and operate one... That would be dangerous and foolish...

See my point?

PA

lol, no, actually I don't.

Take fully automatic weapons for instance. I could go get a MP5. It would cost a but load of money, I would have to do a lot of paperwork, wait time, and hassle, but I could do it. If I had that, the firepower is massive compared to any semi-auto weapon I might have. But even then, without it being in the hands of a bad person, it's just a prop, a tool. Like a shovel. You think shovels aren't dangerous? Ask the no headed snake.

What about your car. You probably have a little tiny one, good on gas, and has a cute little "meep" horn on it amirite? What happens if you upgrade to a lorry? Do you become more dangerous because you COULD kill a group of 30 as opposed to just 3 with the little "meep" car? Or are you not the kind of person who would drive your car into a crowd to begin with?

Be sure you are honest with your answer.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I would propose that my argument for all these years has been seen in action. Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

If you are saying that a country where the average citizen does not have legal access to a gun, has less risk of a terrorist attack than a country where the citizens can legally own guns, then I have to disagree with you.

I know that for this discussion you are likely only taking into consideration Europe and North American as examples, but terrorist attacks take place almost daily, with the majority of them being in the ME. Few of the people in those villages being attacked, are armed. So being unarmed does not increase your likelihood of being safe. It does increase you likelihood of being dead.

Guns are not the issue when it comes to terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks have been a way for man to create fear and compliance from the beginning of time. Man is an expert at killing man, and anything they can hold in their hand is a potential weapon, even a stone or a high heel shoe.

I know you don't want to talk about bombs, but it is a hell of a lot easier for a terrorist to make a bomb than it is to buy a gun. Most of what they need is just sitting on the shelf of the corner markets. The goal of the terrorist is to terrorize. Killing works well for them to get that affect. Even if there was no guns on this planet, they would still kill. It would just be a lot easier for them to get away with it.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: network dude

I'm not going to get into the argument of "You can kill someone with a spoon, let's ban all spoons"... this is ridiculous and you know it....

Guns have no place in the hands of everyday citizens...

The figure just don't lie, LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE KILLED WITH GUNS IN AMERICA, COMPARE IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES....

This is common sense...

PA

Go one step further. How many of those are gang related killings? I know, doesn't matter right? OK, how many of those shootings were done by a person who had no legal right to even have a gun in the first place? When you look at all that, and factor those out to see real apples to apples comparison, let me know. If you are lazy and intellectually dishonest, just say so, and I'll leave you to your thread. Not being mean, just don't want to waste your time or mine.

a reply to: network dude

I have no need to own a truck, just like you have no need to own a gun.... You have a desire, a desire which makes you, and the people around you less safe.... Do you feel good about that?

Yes, you may be responsible, you may be a good person, but accidents happen, and accidents with guns tend to be fatal.... Accidents with trucks are much less likely to be fatal, just like accidents/attacks with knives are less likely to prove fatal...

Although you don't realise it, you are actually supporting my argument more and more with every comment....

PA

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

COMPARE IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES

That is the basic premise you guys don't understand.
We do not.
We will not.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: grubblesnert

I think that they have something like that in Thailand as well.

Backstreet gunsmiths... very dangerous to get them made like that of course, because shooting one magazine through a weapons platform does not an extensive QC check make.

Yea I hear you.
I own two WW2 era M-1 carbine rifles.
I have probably put around 1500 rounds through both collectively.
These are both either combat or range rifles or both in their service life , meaning they had been fired a lot brfore being offered to public.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: BendingTheTruth
You prove my point for me...

Indiana is "The police" in this situation, the man with the sword is the general public.....

What if "sword man" also had a gun, wouldn't have been quite the same fight...

PA

You're right, the point is proven. This is an excellent post.

If Jones represents the police, IE government, and the man with the sword represents the general public(inferior armed, at a disadvantage), this would indicate the imbalance and danger to the general public due to a lack of rights to protect themselves. As evident by your second sentence.

If the "sword man" had a gun, he would have had the ability to defend himself equally.

Your analogy is a perfect example of the very basic human right every being on earth has, the right to defend themselves. Anything else is just a warmed over version of slavery.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I would propose that my argument for all these years has been seen in action. Tell me, of all the terrorist attacks in the united states how many of them didn't feature guns?

If you are saying that a country where the average citizen does not have legal access to a gun, has less risk of a terrorist attack than a country where the citizens can legally own guns, then I have to disagree with you.

I know that for this discussion you are likely only taking into consideration Europe and North American as examples, but terrorist attacks take place almost daily, with the majority of them being in the ME. Few of the people in those villages being attacked, are armed. So being unarmed does not increase your likelihood of being safe. It does increase you likelihood of being dead.

Guns are not the issue when it comes to terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks have been a way for man to create fear and compliance from the beginning of time. Man is an expert at killing man, and anything they can hold in their hand is a potential weapon, even a stone or a high heel shoe.

I know you don't want to talk about bombs, but it is a hell of a lot easier for a terrorist to make a bomb than it is to buy a gun. Most of what they need is just sitting on the shelf of the corner markets. The goal of the terrorist is to terrorize. Killing works well for them to get that affect. Even if there was no guns on this planet, they would still kill. It would just be a lot easier for them to get away with it.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all, i was merely using the example of the terrorist attacks to prove a different point... Read the OP again.

I would also argue that BEING ARMED significantly increases your chances of being dead.... Being safe is not achieved by arming everyone...

Typically short sited argument this....

"Look, people are getting shot, we need more guns, perhaps less people will get shot then" This is false logic..... Increasing the number of guns in a society DOES NOT make said society safer, this is the fallacy that Americans have believed for years.... It's obvious, you have the highest gun ownership in the world, you have the highest death rate per capita by guns in the world... you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to work it out now do you?

PA