It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-Weapons Nuts in the U.K.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Oh, there's that "Divert attention" effect again.

Justifying your countries bad sides because, somewhere out there, another country is worse.

I'm seeing that on both sides.


You see, if someone points out a flaw in my country, I will likely admit it to be a flaw if I see that they are correct, and then I would typically explain how this flaw came to be, and my views on how to correct that flaw.

Seriously, drop the diversion tactics everyone. It doesnt help the conversation at all.




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
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.


You seem very anti-British from a number of your posts, XphilesPhan.

1) Why?

2) Care to elaborate on your comment that the UK "has less freedoms"?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
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.


You seem very anti-British from a number of your posts, XphilesPhan.

1) Why?

2) Care to elaborate on your comment that the UK "has less freedoms"?


Xphiles and co usually trot out that one. The only thing I can think of that they have and we don't is the ability to own a gun. For every other "freedom" they have in the US, I can think of a better example in the UK or the EU. In some states, they can't even get a pint until they're 21! But, I digress.

As for gun ownership, I don't think that the UK public want guns, let alone have a need for them. Granted, they're are gun related crimes, but less than 1000 throughout the whole country in a year (with only a handful of murder's). This totals to less than 0.5% of ALL crime in the UK. It isn't anywhere near as bad as the media would have you believe.

I notice some of you here complain about "chav" kids who roam the streets. You ALL make the assumption they are up to no good and tooled up. They are not. Most are just kids, bored because the government has cut funding for youth clubs and other programmes that would keep them busy. Most don't do anything more than share a bottle of white lightning and, if they are lucky, get some sexual relief off an equally pissed young teenage girl. Hardly any are either looking for a fight, or even equipped with any weapons should one arise.

Before I am pigeonholed into being a Guardian reading liberal professor type who lives in Surrey, let me tell you I live in Reading, which, like any other large town/city, has it's share of problems. I even live in the roughest part of town. I still feel perfectly safe going home at night. In fact, should you talk to a "hoody" type in the course of your travels, you'll find they are normal human's like the rest of us. I have even had them help me with shopping before.

Having said that, I have been mugged twice. However, rather than it being done by a "chav" kid, it was done both times by African illegals, who seem to have no moral worries about threatening to knife me in front of my sprog. In fact, most violent crime, at least in my area, seem's to be done by black's and immigrants, usually on each other. Some jamaican's tried once to mug me after I picked up my sprog from the childminder. Those bugger's should have thought about pulling the knife BEFORE threatening me, as I was upon them before they even knew it. A gun or any other weapon didn't save me, but rather my quick thinking and quicker reflexes. Not had any trouble since....



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
you dont need a gun to feel safe in britain, you need to learn to not be an arsehole.
if guns became more avaidable to the public there would be an increase in gun crime, and that would mean police would need guns to combat the criminals who now have guns.
i know a police officer and he told me if the police got guns in britain hed leave the force and move to a diffrent country because they dont solve problems because there are always the police who will take it a step further then needed and shoot someone.

i dont hate guns infact im joining the army in 2 years time, but there shouldnt be guns on the streets atleast nothing more powerfull then a air rifle.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
In fact, should you talk to a "hoody" type in the course of your travels, you'll find they are normal human's like the rest of us. I have even had them help me with shopping before.


Yeah if you talk to a 'hood' type on their own i'm sure they're very nice. But the whole gang culture revolves around outnumbering you, that's when they start getting aggressive.

You go to London at on a Friday night and walk through (or even around) some groups of hooded youths, then see if they want to help you with your shopping.

I've been jumped the last few times i've been into the city and it's put me off going ever again tbh. It's not a great impression to give of our cities.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I think the recent posts from British members - which are pretty unanimous in saying that they don't want to own guns (i.e. the government hasn't forcibly taken them) - show the gulf between American and British ideas on this issue. It's really not going to work by applying an American solution to a British problem (despite a lot of cultural similarities), and vice versa. Americans might think owning guns makes you a freer nation, and there is a point there, but if the majority of people voluntarily don't want guns to become mainstream (as is the case in the UK) then it's difficult to argue with that.

Like I said, a big cultural difference here and I can't see either American or British values and opinions on this issue changing for the foreseeable future. It's all about respect, and understanding that people across the border/ocean think differently to you and trying to keep that in mind when making your replies, as opposed to making claims such as the UK having "fewer freedoms" than the US. All it demonstrates is a lack of understanding about other people's cultures and how their nation works, and Americans hate to be tarred with this brush - and rightly so, because the vast majority of Americans aren't ignorant (my only niggle - and its a minor one, I suppose - with some Americans is that they call the UK 'England'
). It's just that the ignorant ones get in the media and have the loudest voices, and it isn't just an American problem - I wonder how many people think "Chav" when they think about the UK, for instance.

And for the record, I'm a big fan of the USA. Every time I've visited I've enjoyed it thoroughly and felt very welcome.


[edit on 8/3/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
What? I agree with something centurion said? HAHAHA. This banning thing is very stupid, and a big point in a police state, near yours in the US with Hillary or any other republican. Republicans are now against guns... and they keep saying that they are conservatives.. yeah right.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
What? I agree with something centurion said? HAHAHA. This banning thing is very stupid, and a big point in a police state, near yours in the US with Hillary or any other republican. Republicans are now against guns... and they keep saying that they are conservatives.. yeah right.


Again with the Police State garbage. What is it? Where are you from, Vitchilo? Share with us this Paradise you live in where everyone is free to do as they will.

How on earth is the Uk going to be a police state when the police don't even carry guns, let alone want them?

Ignoring the fact Police are people too....



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
We don't need guns we need a sensible and proactive justice system that engages with the communities it's supposed to be working for. If people started seeing long term mandatory sentences for violent cime being handed out 99 out of a hundred of these kids will go back to being merely the surly little sods they're supposed to be at that age rather than wannabe gangsta meat.

I have to say that most of the migrants in my area are decent law abiding people, they are just as appalled by the activities of young white people in our streets as the rest of us, admittedly down the road in the next town they have bad problems with Somali gangs though.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
We don't need guns we need a sensible and proactive justice system that engages with the communities it's supposed to be working for. If people started seeing long term mandatory sentences for violent cime being handed out 99 out of a hundred of these kids will go back to being merely the surly little sods they're supposed to be at that age rather than wannabe gangsta meat.

I have to say that most of the migrants in my area are decent law abiding people, they are just as appalled by the activities of young white people in our streets as the rest of us, admittedly down the road in the next town they have bad problems with Somali gangs though.



I agree that there should be very harsh sentences for violent crime, it would put them off being unruly little... anyway. I don't agree with "the activities of young white people". Race isn't really the concerning factor here, it's age.

Just a thought, in countries with compulsory military service for teenagers, do you think the teenagers/young adults are better behaved? Because I would have thought putting a teen through that would make them more disciplined, respecting and respectable and also make them fully aware of what weapons are really about rather than glamourising them.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
Race isn't really the concerning factor here, it's age.

But is it even age? People all of ages commit crime. I'd argue that it's not age but upbringing, possibly with education, neighbourhood and even income. Especially today, upbringing is so important. As a kid I was taught what was right and wrong, and I have a pretty strong conscience that stops me doing stupid things anyway... but some people (disproportionally younger people, yes) seem to just think it's acceptable to be violent and threatening and break the law.


Originally posted by malganis
Just a thought, in countries with compulsory military service for teenagers, do you think the teenagers/young adults are better behaved?


I'm not really sure... did you have any nations in mind? Conscript militaries are of a lower quality than a volunteer army and I don't think it'd work if you introduced universal military service for all teenagers. As a punishment on par with community service (think Bad Lads' Army) then yes, it might work - not actually being part of the armed forces, but being put through a military lifestyle for minor offences could be a good way for people to get their lives back on track.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

[
I agree that there should be very harsh sentences for violent crime, it would put them off being unruly little... anyway. I don't agree with "the activities of young white people". Race isn't really the concerning factor here, it's age.

Just a thought, in countries with compulsory military service for teenagers, do you think the teenagers/young adults are better behaved? Because I would have thought putting a teen through that would make them more disciplined, respecting and respectable and also make them fully aware of what weapons are really about rather than glamourising them.


I wasn't trying to bring race into the argument, it was a balancing comment regarding another posters observations about the problems in their area, I'm merely trying to point out the problem is endemic amongst many communities, apologies if this was misread.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
People all of ages commit crime.


True, but older people committing crime usually do it for a valid reason, e.g. they need some money so they rob a house.

It's only really youths that you see standing in gangs on street corners shouting "Whatchoo lookin' at bruv? Buy me some fags or i'll knife ya!"
or roaming housing estates every night looking for old people to beat up. Half the time it's not even for monetary gain, they just do it for fun or to feel accomplished.

It's the mindset of criminals, especially youths, that they know they can get away with anything short of murder and maybe receive a slap on the wrist. In the end of it all we just need harsher punishments and more criminals caught to fulfill them.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Before I am pigeonholed into being a Guardian reading liberal professor type who lives in Surrey, let me tell you I live in Reading, which, like any other large town/city, has it's share of problems. I even live in the roughest part of town. I still feel perfectly safe going home at night. In fact, should you talk to a "hoody" type in the course of your travels, you'll find they are normal human's like the rest of us. I have even had them help me with shopping before.
You live in Reading, I know someone who went to Uni there and she said it was the Beruit of southern England.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I don't want you all to forget the orginal premise of this thread. That the government in the U.K. seems to think it can stop violence by banning the weapons of choice as soon as they are adopted by their criminal elements. First guns, then swords. I guess knives and then clubs are next. Followed by what? Anyone can see the logical progression here as this plays out. People in the U.K. will eventually be down to bare hands and feet - but still attacking each other. Taking away everthing will not in the end have stopped violence and crime, because it's human nature.

Here in the U.S. I know I can't stop a criminal element from existing. But I can and will try and stop my family and myself from being victims. I see that right as being lost in the U.K. It's like your government is telling you, "Dont worry, mate, we got all these cameras so we'll get the ones that did this to you and yours." Not good enough for me and way too late at that point. The damage has been done to you already. Good example is the subway bombings. Your cameras helped you figure out who did it after the fact, but to the people killed and injured, so what? So to us, you seem helpless and defenseless - sheeple, not people - if anything were to happen. Maybe it is a cultural difference, but I don't think many here would settle for that kind of life. Matter of fact, there is a sign in my garage over the door to the inside of my house. It shows the muzzle of a pistol pointed at the viewer of the sign and says simply, "We don't dial 911". For those outside the U.S., 911 is the emergency number to phone the police. So, the meaning is clear for all that see the sign - we'll take care of it ourselves - before anything happens to us.

[edit on 3/8/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I know this is the wrong thing to say and the wrong way to think but a lot of the time now I kind of wish that the public do take a stand and there's a backlash, it's so deeply humiliating to think that a nation is being intimidated and brutalised by stupid little youngsters and scummy chavs on a daily basis and putting up with it, but then this is also a positive in that it shows what a naturally tolerant and law abiding lot we are and how this has been used against us by the powers that be.

Maybe we need to start being a bit more bolshy. I've got involved three times and three times it was just luck that it all worked out ok but one of those times it was because the guy I went to help pulled a knife on the little bastards that were about to jump him and I'm glad he did because the gang dissolved faster than alka seltzer, if he hadn't had that blade it would have gone very badly for him and subsequently for me too.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   

I don't want you all to forget the orginal premise of this thread. That the government in the U.K. seems to think it can stop violence by banning the weapons of choice as soon as they are adopted by their criminal elements. First guns, then swords. I guess knives and then clubs are next. Followed by what? Anyone can see the logical progression here as this plays out. People in the U.K. will eventually be down to bare hands and feet - but still attacking each other. Taking away everthing will not in the end have stopped violence and crime, because it's human nature.


It is taking quite some self control not reply to your post with expletives. You must live in an odd contorted and frightening world, centurion. There is no "logical progression" certainly not how I experience life in the UK. There is no requirement for 99% of British people to go around tooled up ready to blow away all and sundry. In general the only people attacking each other are the various gangs and drug dealers who, quite frankly, deserve all they get.

The reason the UK government banned hand guns and automatic weapons was in reaction to the massacres in Hungerford and Dunblane. It had little or nothing to do with general crime. The banning of sales of samurai replica swords is little more than common sense, there really is no requirement for anyone to own such a weapon - even if it is for decorative purposes. As has been mentioned before the number of crimes where swords have been used is negligable and the banning of sales of these weapons will reduce the potential for this kind of weapon to fall into the wrong hands.

Centurion, your above assertion is hogwash, naeive and ill considered. Ownership of firearms in the UK is considered the exception rather than the rule (as it seems to be in the US). I also get the impression that you have not bothered to read some of the well thought out and presented arguments that have been given in this thread.



we'll take care of it ourselves - before anything happens to us.


The fact you seem to regard yourself as judge, juror and executioner only confirms some of my less complimentary suspicions about certain groups of US citizens. I would want stay as far away from frightening people like you as much as possible.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Flypuppy]

[edit on 9-3-2007 by Flypuppy]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
People in the U.K. will eventually be down to bare hands and feet - but still attacking each other.


The vast majority of crime in the UK use hands and feet already.


Originally posted by centurion1211
Good example is the subway bombings. Your cameras helped you figure out who did it after the fact, but to the people killed and injured, so what?


Terrorism isn't really a good example to use - petty crime is more relevant. Could guns or knives have stopped, say, 9/11? No. In fact, it was a sort of knife (boxcutter) which was used to cause it. Average people on the tube and the bus that morning had no way of knowing that these people were going to blow themselves up and murder 52 other people. I doubt any kind of weapon could have helped that, as it's essentially a matter of the security services and the police.

As I've said, this is mainly a cultural difference I think. The US is a young country, and 150 years ago people living out in isolated areas in the frontiers would have to look after themselves, which I think is part of the reason why Americans have the attitudes that they do towards guns and protecting themselves - their ancestors had to do it. A lot of people lived on homesteads quite far away from towns and settlements (it's a huge area) so they had to protect themselves.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
i personaly think its rather amusing someone thinks they need to have a gun in order to defend themselves. Pretty stupid arguement really, taking the antiqauted law of right to bear arms to ensure the fact the citizens of america would be able to arm themselves if the need to over throw a tyranical goverment ever arose and apply it to other industrialised nations. Im glad though we dont have them though becuase its #ing stupid.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It's pretty ****ing stupid that someone can burgle your house and threaten you but if they injure themselves doing so or if you injure them they can sue you and get compensation.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join