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.
I am picturing a mild mannered English shop owner on his knees behind the counter as a robbers illegal bullet slams through his skull.
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.
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.
Thanks.
Originally posted by FearNoEvil
I know, I was just harassing you. I understand where your coming from.
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.
Peace
I appreciated the entire post that went with this and it cleared some issues up for me, thanks for that.
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.
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.
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]
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'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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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