Anti-Weapons Nuts in the U.K.

Originally posted by jimboman

Originally posted by ubermunche
I'm a forty year old man, I carry something now, most of the middle aged men I know now carry some form of protection, be it a hammer, scredriver or knife, sure it's wrong but the govt wont bother to make our streets safe, what are we supposed to do?

Where do you live? I'm forty and I don't carry a weapon. Of course, round here it's not as bad as some parts of England. (don't mention the little problem we had up until 10 years ago).

I live in a nothing little borough on the borders of Kent and the SE London suburbs, it wont make any crime league tables and that’s the worrying thing because the amount of random violence that occurs here seems to grow every year. Most of it is down to gangs of youths and/or p*ss heads coming out of the pub and looking for trouble. The part of the borough I’ve lived in for over 15 years has always had a bit of a reputation but it’s only been in the past three years that I’ve really started to feel really wary when I’m out of a night, although we’ve had incidents occuring during the day too.

It’s not an everyday event but it is frequent enough to be worrying. You expect a certain amount if you go to the wrong type of pub, hang around with the wrong type of people but when your just mooching along minding your own business it’s reached another level. Of course it’s a mixture of clued up sadistic little f**k all teenagers, going around mob handed and virtually invincible and the usual chavvy sink estate morons behind most of it, and a police service that doesn’t really want to know. It’s not even peculiar to this area most places seem like it now.

Bet the police were happy that this guy was wondering the streets with a sword. True super hero

www.tv3.co.nz...

Originally posted by thesaint
Bet the police were happy that this guy was wondering the streets with a sword. True super hero

www.tv3.co.nz...

This guy is my hero. Id buy him a box of girl scout cookies if they werent being banned for fat content.

I love this guy!

Originally posted by thesaint
www.tv3.co.nz...

I remember that story. I love this part:

Police are especially keen to trace the man with the sword who came to the aid of their officers, and have asked for anyone with information to call them.

I bet they were. You know they'd arrest the dude. I wonder if they ever tracked him down.

Originally posted by thesaint
Bet the police were happy that this guy was wondering the streets with a sword. True super hero

www.tv3.co.nz...

Good on him!

Although if they do find him he'll probably get life and the scumbags a six month suspended.

Originally posted by antuk
a solution would be more armed police, to stop incidents like p.c sharon beshinisky's death.

But would it actually be a solution, or would there be more tragic cases like that of PC Beshenivsky?

Arming the police routinely would mean that criminals are more likely to carry guns too, which means that a shoot-out is more likely. So, paradoxically, there may be more officers killed by giving them guns. I also recall a poll (might have been on the news) showing that the majority of officers (in the 70%-80% region... I'll try to find the survey online if I can) don't want to be armed as a routine measure.

I also think that giving a police officer a gun puts a bit of distance between them and a person in the street who wants to ask for directions, for instance. I don't know about you, but I think it's a bit intimidating going up to a guy holding an MP5 and asking the way

[edit on 6/3/07 by Ste2652]

Sorry I don't live in the borough of Fluffly Bunny where you obviously reside, flicking thru the Gaurdian and feeling smug and oh so better informed than the rest of us plebs.
I'm also sorry my experiences don't help feed YOUR irrational paranoia about a news paper mate but I can only tell it like it is.

The way you seem to have pidgeonholed me is interesting. I do not read the Guardian nor do I live in a "fluffy-bunny" area. My parents house, for example, has been broken into 3 times in the last 5 years and they live in a reasonable area on the outskirts of Glasgow. Neither of my parents feel any need to have weapons in the house and certainly do not require any form of weaponry whilst out and about.

I have friends that live in Easterhouse (one of the infamous sink estates) and the East End of Glasgow, none of them feel the need to carry weaponry. One of my colleagues was stabbed 32 times after he intervened in a fight between two women after a nightclub had thrown them out. He spent 2 weeks in ICU and he definately does not wish to carry any weapons.

Another of my friends is a policeman with Strathclyde Police. He is also a union rep and he is very much against beat cops carrying firearms. In his 12 years service he has only had to use his baton once and has never had call to use any of the other items he has at his disposal. There is no doubt that drug fuelled crime is increasing, but much of the knife and firearms crime is directed at inter-gang warfare. To paraphrase my friend; As long as the crap is shooting at the crap it saves us cell space.

Guns exist for one reason and one reason alone, that is to kill. Ownership of a gun means you are only a fingerslip away from becoming a killer.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by Flypuppy]

Originally posted by Flypuppy
Ownership of a gun means you are only a fingerslip away from becoming a killer.
[edit on 7-3-2007 by Flypuppy]

But not having one means that you are only someone elses fingerslip away from being dead. I guess there's nothing you can do about it though, if someone wants to kill you, they'll kill you. It's the mindset of these idiots that's wrong. They know that they can get away with roaming the streets and being aggressive because they are backed up by the gun in their pocket. And if they don't have a gun then the police won't do anything to stop them anyway.

Police are especially keen to trace the man with the sword who came to the aid of their officers, and have asked for anyone with information to call them.

Haha yeah I bet the original criminals wanted to sue the saviour because he used a sword against them. The worrying thing is though, the guy with the sword would probably get a longer sentence than the burglars

The way you seem to have pidgeonholed me is interesting.

In response I’ll quote your original post…..

As shackleton points out, I too have never felt threatened enough to have to walk around with some form of weapon on me as self defence in the UK. Should anyone feel that need I would suggest it is born of paranoia brought on by reading too many copies of the Daily Mail.

Little bit of pigeonholing going on there too eh!

I have friends that live in Easterhouse (one of the infamous sink estates) and the East End of Glasgow, none of them feel the need to carry weaponry. One of my colleagues was stabbed 32 times after he intervened in a fight between two women after a nightclub had thrown them out. He spent 2 weeks in ICU and he definately does not wish to carry any weapons.

Another of my friends is a policeman with Strathclyde Police. He is also a union rep and he is very much against beat cops carrying firearms. In his 12 years service he has only had to use his baton once and has never had call to use any of the other items he has at his disposal. There is no doubt that drug fuelled crime is increasing, but much of the knife and firearms crime is directed at inter-gang warfare. To paraphrase my friend; As long as the crap is shooting at the crap it saves us cell space.

That is entirely their choice and I don’t condemn or condone it either way but in the area I live, with the kind of attacks being increasingly committed I, and many other people choose to. I may not even use it, at the time I might be too scared to do anything but if it comes to getting jumped by two or more people because I'm outnumbered and an easy target when I’m just minding my own business I reserve the right to be able to even the odds, that’s all. Of course I don't like the idea, I find it obscene that an area is so inefectually policed and the ones who are caught are treated so leniently that this crap is allowed to propogate but thats the reality.

Originally posted by malganis
But not having one means that you are only someone elses fingerslip away from being dead.

That makes it sound as if having a gun makes you somehow safer, and I'd disagree. As you rightly said, if someone's going to kill you then the likelihood is that you're not going to have time to draw your own weapon and use it.

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by malganis
But not having one means that you are only someone elses fingerslip away from being dead.

That makes it sound as if having a gun makes you somehow safer, and I'd disagree. As you rightly said, if someone's going to kill you then the likelihood is that you're not going to have time to draw your own weapon and use it.

Yeah it depends on the situation I guess. The only time in which a shootout would occur is between gangs. If you're a normal law abiding citizen then I guess it doesn't matter if you're allowed a gun or not, if someone pulls one on you then you're dead either way.

That just goes to show that banning guns doesn't really make a difference. It's the actual criminals who use them that need to be taken care of.

Originally posted by malganis
That just goes to show that banning guns doesn't really make a difference. It's the actual criminals who use them that need to be taken care of.

I think it does make a difference in that fewer guns mean less gun crimes (simply compare the numbers of incidents involving guns between the United States and the United Kingdom - I suppose it's logical, really...), but you're right - the problem is the criminal elements that get hold of and use these guns. That's where the focus should be, and it needs a concerted effort between the government, MPs, the police and more importantly local communities to help put a stop to it. If this is going to be solved then it's absolutely essential that the communities are at the core of the debate and their views are listened to and indeed acted upon - don't invite them to Downing Street for a photo op then ignore them. Act on what they say, because the people who live in these communities are the ones who have the best knowledge as to why people carry guns in the first place and how best to tackle the problem as opposed to some civil servant in Whitehall.

And there is a lot of opposition to guns - just look at the marches organised after the recent shootings in London. I think more of these would help - if we stopped being a silent majority and started saying that crime is unacceptable then I think crime (all crime, not just gun crime) would decrease significantly. It's as much down to ordinary people as it is down to the government and the police.

Originally posted by shackleton

Originally posted by Flyer
The US is the world murder capital.

while i agree with your sentiment, the USA is not the murder capital of the world..

you agree with the sentiment? you agree with an opinion that uisnt based on facts but perceived prejudice? yeah, I see where this is going.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by shackleton

Originally posted by Flyer
The US is the world murder capital.

while i agree with your sentiment, the USA is not the murder capital of the world..

you agree with the sentiment? you agree with an opinion that uisnt based on facts but perceived prejudice?

yeah, I see where this is going.

soz, i was trying to be polite and not wind people up too much, they tend to be wound up enough on ATS

The USA is not the murder capital of the world.

Columbia is

bet that makes all the Americans happy, "its not as bad as Columbia! (although the charlie is twice the price)"

the USA may not be the murder capital of the world, but it sure as hell is the prison capital of the world.

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by malganis
That just goes to show that banning guns doesn't really make a difference. It's the actual criminals who use them that need to be taken care of.

I think it does make a difference in that fewer guns mean less gun crimes (simply compare the numbers of incidents involving guns between the United States and the United Kingdom - I suppose it's logical, really...), but you're right - the problem is the criminal elements that get hold of and use these guns. That's where the focus should be, and it needs a concerted effort between the government, MPs, the police and more importantly local communities to help put a stop to it. If this is going to be solved then it's absolutely essential that the communities are at the core of the debate and their views are listened to and indeed acted upon - don't invite them to Downing Street for a photo op then ignore them. Act on what they say, because the people who live in these communities are the ones who have the best knowledge as to why people carry guns in the first place and how best to tackle the problem as opposed to some civil servant in Whitehall.

And there is a lot of opposition to guns - just look at the marches organised after the recent shootings in London. I think more of these would help - if we stopped being a silent majority and started saying that crime is unacceptable then I think crime (all crime, not just gun crime) would decrease significantly. It's as much down to ordinary people as it is down to the government and the police.

Well said, you put your finger on the very reason crime has become such a blight upon so many communities, because at present their veiws aren't listened to, sadly you can see this dismissive response to people concerns even on here. I think people have to rediscover there power to influence and change things, even if that means protesting outside police stations or demanding judges who dish out silly sentences are removed from the system.

Originally posted by Ste2652
If this is going to be solved then it's absolutely essential that the communities are at the core of the debate and their views are listened to and indeed acted upon

And there is a lot of opposition to guns - just look at the marches organised after the recent shootings in London. I think more of these would help - if we stopped being a silent majority and started saying that crime is unacceptable then I think crime (all crime, not just gun crime) would decrease significantly. It's as much down to ordinary people as it is down to the government and the police.

You're right that the police need to crack down more on crime, especially gun crimes. And the big marches to spur that are a good thing.

But I don't think there is enough motivation in the small communities of people who are affected by it, e.g. neighbourhood watch kind of things. If someone on a housing estate sees a gang of kids acting suspiciously they would definitely be put off going to see what was going on or tell the kids to move on for fear of being stabbed or shot. I seem to remember a story not too long ago where a father was shot because he tried to help his son out who was getting beaten up outside his house. People on housing estates and neighbourhoods are too scared of gangs to confront them.

The ideal solution would be for them to call the police, but we've all heard the phrase "Sorry sir if they're not being aggressive toward you then there's nothing we can do about it yet".

In other words you have to be dead before you can call the police...

Originally posted by malganis
But I don't think there is enough motivation in the small communities of people who are affected by it, e.g. neighbourhood watch kind of things. If someone on a housing estate sees a gang of kids acting suspiciously they would definitely be put off going to see what was going on or tell the kids to move on for fear of being stabbed or shot. I seem to remember a story not too long ago where a father was shot because he tried to help his son out who was getting beaten up outside his house. People on housing estates and neighbourhoods are too scared of gangs to confront them.

Which is exactly the kind of mentality we need to get out of. The fact is that the UK is a democracy, which means that its based on a rule of the majority of ordinary people - and the vast majority of ordinary people are not criminals. The problem is, as I already mentioned, this majority is (to steal a phrase of President Nixon) a silent majority. It (so far) hasn't got up and told these criminals that their behaviour is unacceptable.

People really don't realise how much power they really have, and the whole 'strength in numbers' idea really is very relevant here. If people got together and decided that they were going to make their communities safer in cooperation with the police, local and national governments, MPs and other community groups then how the hell would the courts justify passing puny 'slap-on-the-wrist' punishments when there's all this public pressure and activity demanding that criminals be shown that their actions won't pay?

It's not just about locking criminals up, though, it's about showing them what effect their actions have on everyone else and helping them mend their ways. I'm sure that, deep down somewhere, they all know that what they're doing is wrong. Whether they listen to that part of them is another story, but if you demonstrated that by stopping committing crimes and getting a job they'd help themselves (via a steady, guaranteed income), the organisation which they worked for (through the tasks they carried out at work) and the country as a whole (keeping the company they worked for going and paying taxes, thus contributing to public services... in addition to the taxes which their company also pays). Crime, on the other hand, just drains money. Money that has to be spent on police, clearing up acts of vandalism, compensating victims and so forth. The carrot and the stick method really needs to be applied here.

The great thing is that the seeds have already been planted. In many places there is a sort of neighbourly spirit that, whilst it isn't on the surface, is nevertheless present and can be developed. You'll find in the most deprived communities an absolute gem of a person who gives up their time and runs a youth group to keep local kids out of trouble, or pops round to their elderly neighbour to make sure they're all right, . The potential is there, and the people power is there. All we have to do is wake up and realise it.

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by antuk
a solution would be more armed police, to stop incidents like p.c sharon beshinisky's death.

I also think that giving a police officer a gun puts a bit of distance between them and a person in the street who wants to ask for directions, for instance. I don't know about you, but I think it's a bit intimidating going up to a guy holding an MP5 and asking the way

[edit on 6/3/07 by Ste2652]

true...true. but the number of pcso rises every year, maybe a split police force a local force (beat bobbies and pcso's) and say regional force (cid,so14 and traffic units (all armed)).

this country does need more police on the street and less behind desks filling in forms.

and like i said in an earlier post a serious overhaul of our criminal justice system and a home office thats "fit for pupose" to quote the recent media coverage.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the USA may not be the murder capital of the world, but it sure as hell is the prison capital of the world.

says who? you and your kool aid drinking friends? Britian has less freedoms than we do, want to live there? I suggest you spend some time in china or russia.