It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Guns or No Guns?? Your views.

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Essan

I'd rather the customers in my shop were not packed, even if it does mean that if a madman comes into my shop they won't be able to stop him in his tracks.

I'd rather my customers spent their money on an asteroid shield to prevent a comet hitting my shop overnight.
I am picturing a mild mannered English shop owner on his knees behind the counter as a robbers illegal bullet slams through his skull.
Then I wonder, was the last thought going through this guys mind about an asteroid coming, and why his stupid customers never bothered to build a shield?

[edit on 3-6-2010 by butcherguy]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by blupblup
I have made this thread because there has been much arguing on the thread about the UK gunman's rampage....

Some people decided to come into the thread and gloat about how it would never happen if we Brits had guns, even when examples were presented that shootings can and do happen, far more frequently in the US than here in the UK.

So rather than derail that thread even further, I have made this one so people can argue their case and gloat and belittle each other about how their respective country has it right on firearms laws and who has the biggest penis.

And can we please keep all the gun talk on here and leave the other thread for those to mourn the dead and get info on people who may be injured and so on.


A disarmed society is a enslaved society. This is precisely why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. If a government has all the guns, just how is the population supposed to defend themselves when that government decides to impose it's tyrannical will upon the people?

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by FearNoEvil

I know, I was just harassing you. I understand where your coming from.

no probs

I live in a state where you can carry a gun openly in public without a permit. I don't carry a gun in public and I don't see many people that do. When I see a person with a gun, I actually feel safer. It's like having a police officer around.


In comparison, if I ever saw a policeman with a gun I would be very, very worried. Thankfully, I never have.

The day a policeman walks down my high street with a gun is the day I move away.

We come form different worlds. Who's to say which is best?

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by butcherguy

Well IMO the asteroid is far more likely than the gunman. Which is the point of the analogy.

It's sad that some people live in places where the idea of a gunman attacking them is a genuine fear.

I guess I'm lucky.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by Essan
I sincerely hope that you are right!
And I will wish you luck!

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The normal everyday man in the street never carried firearms, they couldn't afford to.
They may have done in rural areas but that was for catching rabbits and shooting rats more than anything else!

In urban areas people worked long hours and had a very basic standard of living.

Up until the the first world war drinking was simply a way of life for a high proportion of working people.
As a results fights were always common place.
Usually just without weapons but knives were carried by lots of people and it wasn't uncommon for them to be used.
Far more frequently than today.

Violence in Victorian and Edwardian Britain was far more common than what it is today.

There was a significant change with the advent of the first world war.
Increased working hours.
More women in the work force.
Reduced drinking hours.

Whole communities were decimated in WWI.
Those that came back had a different outlook on violence.
They had stared in the face of evil and seen the full horror of extreme violence, war.
Lot's of people were physically shaken and it had an effect on how they viewed violence.

The Labour movement made great in roads and some social reforms occurred.

Of course violence was still there, but it had subsided a bit.

Then WWII occurred and it was a fight merely to survive.

But violence frequently occurred especially between squaddies.

The years after WWII were ones of austerity and further demands for social reform.
About 10 years after WWII things were looking up and it was the advent of The Teddy Boys and violence became front page news.
Since then there has been a constant stream of youth sub cultures which have had violence associated with them to varying degrees.

But there has always been gangs of youngsters fighting with each other in most of the UK's towns and cities.
In most industrial towns and cities it has never been uncommon to see grown adults sorting their disputes out with a bout of fistycuffs!

It was also not uncommon for the youths of neighbouring villages to fight each other.

The big difference today is that previously youth fought with other youths who wanted a ruck.
It was either other gangs fom the same sub-culture or other sub-cultures or as with the football hooligans people from another town or club.
This culminated in the casual culture who would commit acts of extreme violence against each other but if any deliberately hurt a non-casual then they were subject to extreme ridicule and at times violence themselves.
Today's youngsters are prepared to turn on anyone, regardless and their peers actively encourage attacks upon innocents at times.
A golden rule has been breached.

That is a very brief and far from in depth synopsis.
It is far more complex than that.

But go into any UK town or City centre at a weekend and that feeling of impending violence is never far away and can frequently be observed.
And it is not self-contained amongst themselves.
They will turn on anyone they see fit to do so.
And over any deemed slight or insult at times, no matter how trivial.
And with guns if available.

The reasons why are many and complex and it requires open and frank discussion, something our politicians are loathe to allow.

Sorry if that was long winded and boring, but hopefully it may give some insight into Britain.

Of course it isn't all doom and gloom, but that is a reality of part of the UK today.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Freeborn
Increased working hours.
More women in the work force.
Reduced drinking hours.

Of course it isn't all doom and gloom, but that is a reality of part of the UK today.
I appreciated the entire post that went with this and it cleared some issues up for me, thanks for that.

With regard to what I left up there, I don't know anyone who couldn't feel for you, having to put up with that kind of thing!

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Not sure what you mean by "everyday man" or what qualifies as "expensive" but some documentation would lend one to believe they were as common as shoes:

In the final decades of the last century, Great Britain was much like the United States in the 1950s. There were almost no gun laws, and almost no gun crime. The homicide rate per 100,000 population per year was between 1.0 and 1.5, declining as the century wore on.[31] Two technological developments, however, began to work together to create in some minds the need for gun control. The first of these was the revolver. Revolvers had begun to achieve mass popularity when Colonel Samuel Colt showed off his models at London's 1851 Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry in All Nations.[32] Revolver technology advanced rapidly, and by the 1890s, revolver design had progressed about as far as it could, with subsequent developments involving fairly minor tinkering.

As revolvers got cheaper and better, concern arose regarding the increase in firepower available to the public. And in fact, the change from one or two shot weapons to the repeat-firing, five or six shot revolver represented perhaps the greatest advance in small arms civilian firepower that has ever occurred. Compared to the seemingly more benign single-shot muzzle-loaders of the past, the revolver seemed a frightening innovation.[33]

Revolvers were also getting less expensive, and concerns began to grow about the availability to criminals of cheap German revolvers.[34] Cheap guns were, in some eyes, associated with hated minority groups. For example, in the late 1860s, the London Lloyd's Newspaper blamed a crime wave on "foreign refuse" with their guns and knives. The newspaper stated that "[t]he revolver's appearance ... we owe to the importation of reckless characters from America .... The Fenian [Irish-American] desperadoes have sown weapons of violence in our poorer districts."[35]

All of these developments have their parallels in modern United States. The current popularity of semi-automatic pistols, with a magazine capacity of thirteen, fifteen, or seventeen rounds, frightens some people who view the old six-shooter as a harmless traditional weapon. Furthermore, the fact that semi-automatics were invented over 100 years ago does not stop the press from portraying them as dangerous new guns, just as the revolvers of the 1850s were portrayed as dangerous new guns in the 1880s.

Prejudice and discrimination against ethnic groups persist. While United States gun control advocates do not complain much about Irish immigrants with guns, they do warn about the dangers of Blacks armed with "ghetto guns." The derisive term for inexpensive handguns, "Saturday Night (p.406)Specials," has a racist lineage to the term "'n-word'town Saturday night."[36] The phrase "'n-word'town Saturday night" apparently mixed with the nineteenth century phrase "suicide special," which is a cheap single action revolver, to form "Saturday night special."

Revolvers were one technological development that began to make some Britons rethink the desirability of the right to bear arms. The second development was the growth of the mass circulation press. Newspapers, like guns, had been around for quite a while, but the late nineteenth century witnessed several printing innovations that made printing of vast quantities of newspapers extremely cheap.

If there were popular fears of immigrant criminals were picking them up how expensive could they have been?

The official attitude about guns was summed up by Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury, who in 1900 said he would "laud the day when there is a rifle in every cottage in England." Led by the Duke of Norfolk and the mayors of London and Liverpool, a number of gentlemen formed a cooperative association that year to promote the creation of rifle clubs for working men. The Prime Minister and the rest of the aristocracy viewed the widespread ownership of rifles by the working classes as an asset to national security, especially in light of the growing tension with imperial Germany.[40]

Slippery Slope

[edit on 3-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by blupblup

I dont recall being able to replay anything. auto wrecks - pregnancy...
you just cant stop the honest people from having guns when they still exist, someone is going to have one and it aint you, on your knees and and beg - when authorities and or criminals (some times it hard to tell the difference in America) are suspects of victimizing the public. when the law fails, smith and wesson prevails...

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Anti-Evil]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Mostly right, but I think you paint too gloomy a picture. Most people in Britain never encounter violence. There are thousands of pubs where fights never ever break out. It's only in bigger towns and cities -and even then only certain areas - where fights are common. Exactly the same as in New York, Los Angles, Melbourne and Delhi.

People are trying to paint a picture that Britain is a violent nation. We're not. Like any country, it's just a few isolated spots - mainly inner city - where problems lie.

As an alternative example of drink related trouble, I always remember being in a friend's pub in Suffolk in the 1990s when a coach full of football supporters turned up. They weren't violent but were getting a bit rowdy and began chanting and standing on tables. Some regular customers asked them to get down. They refused. It was looking nasty ........ and the the Landlady Sally (a stunning blonde btw and 8 months pregant at the time ) came storming in .......... and the drunken football supporters meekly apologised and left.

Who needs a gun when you have a pregnant blonde?

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Essan

Ar, but the argument is that if someone just happened to be walking by with a gun on him, he'd have shot the perperator before he could kill so many people.

I wasn't making that arguement, I was just pointing out that a gun is not needed and is not always the instrument used in mass murders.

However since you brought the arguement to the table, yes in most instances if someone were armed with a gun the fatalities could have been severely lessened.

I'd rather the customers in my shop were not packed, even if it does mean that if a madman comes into my shop they won't be able to stop him in his tracks.

You have every right to feel that way, and I respect your opinions as they pertain to you, and your country.

I am not here to try and persuade anyone on the side of guns. I respect the fact that people in your country do not wish to carry guns and am not trying to dissuade your from your decision, or beliefs.

I believe that the decision to own a gun is a personal choice best left to each individual. I have no desire to force my advocasy of gun rights on you or your country, nor do I want anyone to force their advocasy of gun control on me or my country.

I don't bash any country or culture for their choice to be gun free, and I don't think that my country should be bashed for our choice to keep our guns.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Possession of firearms was more common in the mid to late Victorian era, but the common man in a town or city rarely owned one.
Most people would have known who owned one and as such rarely crossed them.
And as usual, foreigners are convenient scapegoats and used to stoke up fears.

But it is hard to compare the mentality of people from that era and people from today.
We have different cares, concerns and priorities.
And society is completely different.

Years ago violence was usually contained within the same social grouping or was viewed as a potential political tool.

Today there are many who are willing, and indeed do, use it indiscriminantly.

Edit; damn spacebar

[edit on 3/6/10 by Freeborn]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Essan

So,what would you recommend people do to defend
themselves,use harsh language and hope the bad
guy's feelings are hurt?

[edit on 3-6-2010 by mamabeth]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by butcherguy
Happy to have a scrap.

You are obviously taking the 'bud' thing in the wrong way.

I was using it as a shortened version of the word 'buddy'. In America, we call our friends buddy, 'bud' for short.

As a fellow ATS member, I consider you my friend.

Not happy as in it makes us happy to have a scrap, but that is the better option... the lesser of two evils.

If I had to choose between having a fist-fight and a gunfight, I would definitely choose fists man...

I thought the Bud thing was sarcasm.... I know what bud means, just thought it was a bit of a dig.
My apologies if it wasn't, we're all mates on here.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
I think the lack of guns is what causes all the brawling. When someone attacks you, you pull a gun on them and perform a citizen arrest. You don't shoot them. You call the police and have them arrested - as they should be.

You see? Less people injured^ - less people in jail. Peace restored.

Again, that's where we disagree...maybe we are more violent, who knows... but performing a citizens arrest on someone for starting some Sh** when drink, seems like a pretty OTT and ridiculous thing to do.

Our cultures are just poles apart man...

You assume everyone carrying a gun WANTS to shoot someone. That comes from ignorance. Most normal people have a high regard for life and would only shoot to wound - and only at last resort.

We can agree to disagree.
Peace out

Not at all.... I doubt even the majority do... but it only takes one or two idiots to get in an argument and feel that pulling a gun is the answer and then you have deaths on your hands.
Of course I realise that most law abiding, gun carrying citizens wouldn't just shoot someone for the sake of it.... I'm not so uncultured that I have no idea about the world outside my own small nation.... I get it.... you all feel safer and carrying guns, in your eyes, prevents trouble and is a deterrent... that's cool man.

We'll agree to disagree.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
Never ceases to amuse me, the protestations of the violent UK as a result of Blair's Britain.

On another website i was on, an american gentleman had been told that burglars over here knock on your door in broad-daylight, then punch you when you open it and proceed to rob you.

What amazing, utter bollocks some people are prepared to believe in the name of petty national one-upmanship.

Our main problem is not a violent populace, but an over excitable mass-media, keen to spin anything and everything as the coming of the end. This is then picked up by overseas readers on t'internet, and taken without context as "the UK is finished, a socialist, orwellian nightmare".

It used to annoy me, but now i just laugh. Does this sound like an orwellian nightmare?:

I woke around 10 today, took a stroll down the highstreet and got a bacon sandwich. On my return i said hello to an old man i didn't know and had a discussion about Old Mini Coopers (one had just driven past) for about 10 minutes. Then i bid him good afternoon, and went for a walk in the countryside. Politely nodded at several dog-walkers and sat on a bench with the most glorious views of the worcestershire countryside for about 30 minutes, reading a book. (All the while left entirely to my own devices) Then i headed back into town, past some kids playing football and cricket in the park. Came home, turned the internet on and read with great joy about how my country was falling apart at the seams.

I do not lock my back gate, or my car. I live 4 miles outside the city of Birmingham (2nd largest city in Britain and one that is perceived to have a high crime rate) I have rarely felt threatened, and never in my own home.

My old man has a gun upstairs from when he lived on a farm. We have no reason for it apart from sentimentalism, and i've never even seen it in my 23 years in this house.

I am entirely comfortable without a gun.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Certainly no conflict which would warrant or justify a physical confrontation. After all, a physical confrontation doesnt solve or resolve any conflict.

Your premise that people would resort to arms to cause death on something as simple as a disagreement may be true among the mental deviants and those lacking the faculties toward a greater comprehension but it is by no means a blanket statement regarding all use or even the majority of use of firearms.

Intoxication is ridiculous. Conflict even more so. That is unless you are of a lower class of human.

But isn't that the exact reason you have a gun?
For this 10% of people.... for these "Sub-humans" or whatever?
I don't mean if you shoot at ranges and your gun use in general, but I mean the reason for protection...

As I said, I don't fight... haven't done in a long time.... but we've all had it growing up.... and it's mainly 18-25 year old lads who go out drinking and end up fighting and being arrested.

There is a massive binge-drinking culture between this age group here and this, sadly but inevitably leads to violence in many towns and cities on the weekends here.
Also football hooliganism, which I'm sure you're aware of was a massive problem and still causes issues from time to time... those guys take bats, knives and whatever.... no shooters/guns though.
They sort it out without firearms.... if they had guns.... then DAMN...

Point is... maybe we are a more violent people.... and by "we"... I mean the stupid minority who give the peace-loving/law abiding citizens a bad name.. and maybe guns here would be a bad thing.

[edit on 3/6/10 by blupblup]

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Essan

Isnt the act of assault already banned?

Yes. I assume it is in the USA as well?

So no-one needs to defend themselves against an attack because it's illegal to attack anyone

Therefore no-one needs a gun or knife or even a fist

So.. Um. Do you think that since violent attacks are illegal that no one will commit them. Did you even see the thread that spawned this one?

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by blupblup

I think your logic is somewhat flawed. You seem to believe that if they had guns they would use them.. When you almost never see a riot full of people wielding pistols or rifles here in the US.

Why do you think that because there are guns, that they WILL be used? There's plenty of fist fights here in the US that don't end in shootings.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:21 PM
One thing I would like to say, and I hope it's not tempting fate, but this thread is the perfect example of how debate should be conducted here on ATS.
Yes passions get high, as it should when someone believes strongly about something, but everytime it could have descended into a trading insult bitch fest the members themselves have resolved issues and resumed respectful debate.

Of course there are still differences of opinion, that's how it should be.

Just hope it all doesn't go tits up now!

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in