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

not into guns my self and think we over take them way to seris .
But having said that . One point is true you brits sure pushed the idea on us to begin with .
Well guess what mr oo so proper wile you tell teh terrorists how uncoth they are us and our low brow wild west shootum up will do just that shoot um up lol.
your right we have more gun murders then any one . Your right they rarly stop crime .
and your right any one and i mean anyone brit commie terrorists who thinks they can just blow us away will learn and learn quick we dont take kindly to it .and we dont know no fancy words we just let our guns do the talking .
why just look what we did because they hit some buildings and killed our people .
two countrys flatened and more on teh way .
yep we are definitely uncouth so stay out of our way partner .
ps calling us yanks is a complement .
Nijas hu well inde showed who to deal with that lol .
and bruce lee was killed with a gun.

I've actually checked into a comparison of US and UK statistics. The first thing most places mention is that it's difficult to do a true comparison, different reporting methods and particular circumstances.

I will give you that the UK has less crimes involving guns. However, the UK actually has more crime in terms of rates; most notably assault, robbery, rape, and murders involving any other type of weapon.

Essentially what the comparison shows, if you are living in the UK you are far more likely to be the victim of a crime.

Something I've always been curious about, here in the states, where terrorists have used guns, were those gun friendly states? The attack with the dude and his wife in CA, well CA is an anti-gun state. I'm just trying to think of an attack that occurred in a state that doesn't really have gun laws. I don't know of a terrorist attack in Nevada, Arizona, or Texas. I'm not saying there hasn't been I just don't recall any. I've heard Las Vegas is a target...but that would be the strip with all the tourists, and not gun totting locals. I live in NV and conceal carry, and own what CA would consider big scary assault rifles.

I'll risk it and keep my guns, I for one would much rather be shot than stabbed to death, and if I have a gun and they have a gun, well at least we are on a level playing field...and if they bring a knife, well I'll send them to whatever awaits on the other side.

I suppose those countries that have banned guns, should now ban knives and vehicles. Maybe cover everything in foam padding, wouldn't want any sharp edges.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Depending on the size of the vehicle and crowd, motor vehicles have a demonstrably higher fatality rate than legally purchased and most illegally acquired firearms. The Nice, France attack far exceeded the lethality of an AK-47 or AR-15. The weaponized airplanes at 9/11 proved as fatal as larger bombs or missiles, only surpassed by nuclear weapons and sustained trench warfare or repeated artillery/naval cannon weapons.

AK-47s are made from stamped steel, and most cities have milling machines and lathes. Disarming people is therefore a non sequitur in the long run. Terrorists and other organized criminals have a historical bias toward long term planning, infiltration, false jobs, and access to military equipment from old wars.

Civilians, on the other hand, seldom have the resources or time to go work in a factory long enough to fabricate their own weapons. They rarely have contacts sufficient to acquire something like a flight schedule or Rocket propelled grenade, or even the resources to afford an automatic weapon.

Processing these factors, it appears disarming law abiding citizens on an honor system makes it easier for criminals and terrorists to increase the total casualties.

originally posted by: midnightstar
not into guns my self and think we over take them way to seris .
But having said that . One point is true you brits sure pushed the idea on us to begin with .
Well guess what mr oo so proper wile you tell teh terrorists how uncoth they are us and our low brow wild west shootum up will do just that shoot um up lol.
your right we have more gun murders then any one . Your right they rarly stop crime .
and your right any one and i mean anyone brit commie terrorists who thinks they can just blow us away will learn and learn quick we dont take kindly to it .and we dont know no fancy words we just let our guns do the talking .
why just look what we did because they hit some buildings and killed our people .
two countrys flatened and more on teh way .
yep we are definitely uncouth so stay out of our way partner .
ps calling us yanks is a complement .
Nijas hu well inde showed who to deal with that lol .
and bruce lee was killed with a gun.

Enthusiasm is one of the better human character traits.

Bruce Lee died of a brain aneurysm from an allergic reaction to something in his Nepalese marijuana.
Bruce Lee's son, Brandon, was killed by a gun on set that someone had loaded with live rounds rather than blanks.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
Good afternoon ATS.

I've spent many years on this here site and others arguing with Americans about gun control, I've been through all the arguments over and over again and it always ends with the comment "If you take away all the guns, only the bad guys will have them"... or "If someone wants to carry out a mass killing they will get a gun by whatever means, banning/grabbing guns will not stop this, it just means we won't be able to protect ourselves"... And similar arguments....

My main point in all these discussions is a simple one, that a country with less guns, is a safer country.

Now as we all know this comes down to mentality/culture as well, other countries have a high percentage of weapons in citizens hands, Canada, switzerland etc, but these problems don't seem to occur with anywhere near the frequency they do in the states...

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.

In Australia for instance, after the Port Arthur massacre, there was an amnesty...... A large percentage of guns were handed in, the people understood that a society is safer if people don't have hand held killing tools in their homes. The cost of obtaining the same gun used in the Port Arthur Massacre went from 250 Dollars to 40,000 dollars.... See what happened?

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?

That is all.

PA

Gun debate in the US is actually about transferring guns from the populace to the state
should a government that wont let you have a gun be trusted.

Why are the politicians and governments always calling on everyone else to give up their guns?

If they are against guns, why have they in recent years purchased millions of them, and billions of rounds of ammunition to go with them?

Why not lead by example? Why not cancel all these orders for guns and billions of bullets?

Why don’t all the people who are "afraid of guns" to divest themselves of all firearms they have? Nobody is going to complain or try to stop them from disarming themselves.

Let those who are anti gun demonstrate leadership by being the first to destroy their gun or hand it in so it can be destroyed.

Guns the push for citizen disarmament seems to be uniformly worldwide therefore the it must that the govt of the respective countries is doing the bidding of a higher power

Gun control was effectively achieved, nationally in Australia within weeks of the Port Athur massacre in 1996. As the push for citizen-disarmament is rather uniform, worldwide, it must be that Australia is doing the bidding of outsiders.

a reply to: TonyS

Excellent post sir...

PA

originally posted by: uninspired
Something I've always been curious about, here in the states, where terrorists have used guns, were those gun friendly states? The attack with the dude and his wife in CA, well CA is an anti-gun state. I'm just trying to think of an attack that occurred in a state that doesn't really have gun laws. I don't know of a terrorist attack in Nevada, Arizona, or Texas. I'm not saying there hasn't been I just don't recall any. I've heard Las Vegas is a target...but that would be the strip with all the tourists, and not gun totting locals. I live in NV and conceal carry, and own what CA would consider big scary assault rifles.

I believe that the majority of recent successful mass shooters (not restricting this to just terrorist attacks) have occurred in places where firearms are restricted. Schools, theatres, etc.

The change in many police forces' tactics from "sit and wait for backup" to "enter and engage as soon as possible" was driven by the finding that many, if not most, nutjobs would continue until they met first serious resistance, at which point they get shot or shoot themselves.

Terrorists have slightly different objectives to most nutjob shooters, however.

originally posted by: skynet2015
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

AK-47s are made from stamped steel, and most cities have milling machines and lathes. Disarming people is therefore a non sequitur in the long run.

I've said this before in many discussions. For a couple of grand... ok, maybe several rather than a couple... I could use off-the-shelf components to build a workshop that could churn out AK47s and 1911s. Heck, the benefit of the AK design was the simplicity to build in a cave with some rocks, with a proper workshop you can make an AR15. It's not going to be commercially competitive, but it's going to be good enough.

With the growth and accessibility of CNC, you don't even need a big workforce. One guy with the skills and maybe some helpers for the grunt work.

I'm still surprised that people waste stupid amounts of time and money on trying to smuggle guns in, when it would be easier and cheaper for them to just fund a workshop in some out-of-the-way industrial estate. That just leaves the problem of acquiring ammunition, which is much less of a challenge.

Just to be clear, I have no intention of doing the above, just pointing out that it is quite easy to do

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: skynet2015
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

AK-47s are made from stamped steel, and most cities have milling machines and lathes. Disarming people is therefore a non sequitur in the long run.

I've said this before in many discussions. For a couple of grand... ok, maybe several rather than a couple... I could use off-the-shelf components to build a workshop that could churn out AK47s and 1911s. Heck, the benefit of the AK design was the simplicity to build in a cave with some rocks, with a proper workshop you can make an AR15. It's not going to be commercially competitive, but it's going to be good enough.

With the growth and accessibility of CNC, you don't even need a big workforce. One guy with the skills and maybe some helpers for the grunt work.

I'm still surprised that people waste stupid amounts of time and money on trying to smuggle guns in, when it would be easier and cheaper for them to just fund a workshop in some out-of-the-way industrial estate. That just leaves the problem of acquiring ammunition, which is much less of a challenge.

Just to be clear, I have no intention of doing the above, just pointing out that it is quite easy to do

With all your post in on mind. Let's also add that we can 3D print them as well! They are worth a few shots after completion. I'm not sure how many at a fast pace due to the heat, but it is doable.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

3D metal sintering is a better bet for firearm production than is standard 3D printing, using ABS plastics.

Things created via this method are far less fragile and temporary. In fact, I am sure there is a manufacturing company who put together a 1911 with materials created using the 3D metal sintering process...



There are other videos online of this weapon or another iteration of it, being tested by hand, as opposed to vice gripped.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It's against the law in this nation to arm yourself/carry a weapon, whether it be a gun, knife or cudgel, in public or on our streets for defensive purposes.

Christ even if you keep a weapon located in your own home, in a strategic location, for home defence, you can be charged with concealing a weapon with the intent to use the thing should the Police ever come a knocking, and they find it near you, or you disclose its purpose or location.

The argument being that our Police are there to protect us.

Fact of the matter is that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't with respects to protecting oneself with anything other than our hands and feet should our authorities feel the need to question the matter.

It's a horrendous state of affairs really but that being said i still would never wish to see firearms being legal or abused in the same manner they are in the USA on our own towns and streets.

End of the day the law implies people are allowed to use whatever comes to hand to protect themselves should someone threaten there life as long as they are deemed to have used reasonable force, but its a bloody minefield riddled with conflicting values and opinion.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: notsure1

We're not debating about bombs, there aren't 300 million citizen owned bombs in America....

Stick to the subject matter please...

PA

No we are debating if its actually safer from terrorist attacks if you make guns illegal. And it keeps being proved time and time again that its not safer.

They will just use bombs or planes or trucks or knives. If you dont want to protect yourself and just count on your idiot government to protect you then you deserve whatever you get.

a reply to: notsure1

Cant see how its not safer without guns being in the hands of the public considering the statistics.

Look at it this way, if those terrorist scum had gained access to assault rifles or machine pistols, instead of only being armed with big knifes and fake explosive vests there may well have been a hell of a lot more people murdered and maimed that just 8 and 48 respectively.

Not to mention that fact that an armed siege including a potential hostage situation would probobly also have materialised as apposed to them being shot dead.

End of the day guns offer up a force multiplier to these terrorist swine, if they are only armed with blades they are obviously a hell of a lot easier to contend with, stands to reason really.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

I believe that the majority of recent successful mass shooters (not restricting this to just terrorist attacks) have occurred in places where firearms are restricted. Schools, theatres, etc.

The change in many police forces' tactics from "sit and wait for backup" to "enter and engage as soon as possible" was driven by the finding that many, if not most, nutjobs would continue until they met first serious resistance, at which point they get shot or shoot themselves.

Terrorists have slightly different objectives to most nutjob shooters, however.

I was thinking about that too, interestingly here in NV, a teacher can conceal carry with permission from the school. It's always a soft target that gets hit where guns are restricted. Food for thought. A terrorist attack using a bomb, pretty much eliminates the usefulness of armed citizens that may be in the area.

a reply to: uninspired

That would depend, would it not, on the ability of the bomber to remain unrecognised as such until they prime the device, and indeed on what triggering mechanism is involved. Obviously, a bomber with a dead mans switch is a worse threat than a plunger activated bomb, but if they are spotted before they prime the device, they could be taken out before posing a mortal threat.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Agreed, I'd still rather go out fighting than not. It's just Bomb > Gun > Knife/box cutter > Fists. Vehicle attacks...well if you shoot the driver you could lessen the attack. I'm just glad I have the means to defend myself, someone jumps out and starts shooting, well I can shoot back, they jump out with a knife, well then they've miscalculated and will be met with superior force.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

3D metal sintering is a better bet for firearm production than is standard 3D printing, using ABS plastics.

Things created via this method are far less fragile and temporary. In fact, I am sure there is a manufacturing company who put together a 1911 with materials created using the 3D metal sintering process...

There are other videos online of this weapon or another iteration of it, being tested by hand, as opposed to vice gripped.

That's cool, thanks!

I'm just fascinated with patent laws and others that 3d printing is ruining/changing.

Government cannot keep the pace of free information

I hate to use logic to rain on a smug parade, but if anything, these attacks have vindicated Americans. They've validated a claim gun-toting Americans have made for years: that even without guns, those who want to commit mass murder will find a way.

And they have, as those poor saps in the U.K. have found out the hard, bloody way.

Homemade explosives, vehicles, and knives, just in the past month alone. But, hey, no guns. Way to go, U.K.!

Banning guns doesn't stop terrorism, no. Banning guns merely disarms those who are capable of neutralizing terrorists.

There's a reason a gun-or-knife-based terrorist attack in a non-gun-free zone has never succeeded in America. They're dead before they get to "Akbar."

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Take away the gov'ts guns first..
then we'll talk.

That's legitimately one of the single dumbest comments I have ever read in my life. I can't even wrap my head around how incredibly stupid it is. yes, by all means, take away the guns from the government and military that are tasked with defending the country. Their right to have guns is somehow analagous to the right of every random shmuck in the country to have them. That seems perfectly reasonable and intelligent.
The fact that so many people were dumb enough to star that comment is sincerely depressing.