Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A UK perspective on the current shootings and threat to ban automatic weapons in US

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


I'm interested to know if any US citizens were telling the UK citizens what they should do when their guns were being taken away.
Do you recall the US or any other countries suggested to the UK residents that they'd prefer it if they were unarmed?
edit on 10-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)


Hi After!

Good question! I suppose it is none of my business to tell anyone what to do.
My sincere apologies if that's how it came across.
My intent was to make more people aware that they are being swayed towards losing their rights for the wrong reasons and by underhand methods (mainly through manipulation of the mainstream media).

On the subject of UK citizens guns "being taken away"...
As I mentioned earlier, the UK has a very different gun culture. I don't think that many people ever owned firearms in the general population of the UK.
BUT - YOU CAN STILL legally own a firearm in the UK if you want to. (A lot of people seem to forget that.)
If I want to own a gun, I can apply for a license and will have to go through the necessary checks (no criminal record etc) and prove that I have somewhere secure to keep it. - No problem.
I actually have several friends who do legally own firearms. (Mostly farmers!) So, we never really had our guns taken away.
Just a few months ago, I was invited to a clay-pigeon shoot with a group of friends and it was great.

regards,
GTD




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
I'm sure if the founders had seen what would of happened they of probably added a "but no guns for those who are nuttier than squirrel poo" as thats the real problem its not guns its the wrong people getting their hands on the guns and until they can work out some sort of nutter filter to gun ownership there will be people going out and wiping out large quantities of people and nothing they do/try and ban like large cap clips etc will really change the fact that when person x flips and if they have to carry 5 clips or 500 clips to do what they want it'll happen

So really gun control should be people looking out for people and stopping them from doing stupid stuff before it causes stupid numbers of dead people


Well said Max!
And I just had to STAR your "nutter filter" comment!!!
Brilliant!
GTD



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jykan

Originally posted by roughycannon
Bad time to make a thread like this 20 minutes after another high school shooting...



Why is it a bad time? The OP isn't condoning shootings.


Yes I know my point is making a thread about the US rights to bear arms when this happens is bad timing...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ruderalis1

...If multiple people broke into your house...Lets say 3 of em. Do you believe that you would be able to defend yourself againt all 3? If 3 people broke into my place and all I had was a bat I think my chance of defending myself successfully against all 3 is a lot more slim than if I bust out an AR-15 or Shotgun.

Im no pushover either and I'd give them all I got. But you gotta admit that defending your castle becomes a lot harder with less tools


Hi Rudy,
Excellent question!
... I think...I'd be happier if I was armed and they weren't!


But given the choice of facing 3 burglars... ALL of us armed or NONE of us armed....
I'd have to say NONE. As there'd be less chance of ANY of us dying.

I'm a pretty big guy and I've been in situations where I was MORE outnumbered than that, and did my fair share of damage before being overcome!
In my own home... especially at night, in the dark, and with the element of surprise... I think I'd have a pretty good chance of taking out one or two of them before they even knew I was onto them, but I guess each situation is different?
Thanks for the interesting perspective though!
GTD



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Then my apologies...so easy to misconstrue meaning on forums.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The reasoning put forward by pro-gun advocates is that you Americans needs these weapons to protect yourself from any potential tyrannical government.

Well....take a look around.

If you look at the laws that have been introduced, the rights that are being eroded surely, the surveillance police state which is being established more and more each passing year.

It's happened in an insidious way, rather than a President just outright declaring himself a dictator one day. It's always been done for your protection.

Yet you've all allowed it to happen. Mark my words they will ban assault rifles and none of you will bat an eyelid. Those that do will be demonised and pilloried by the media which is practically in the pocket of the governments.

Those responsible gun owners who would stand up for the right's of their fellow citizens are in a minority.

The only way to stop any of it would be civil war. The police now have military style equipment and entire arsenals at their disposal which are more akin to those used in war.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Thanks for your insightful reply, Gordi.
I didn't realize that UK residents could apply for a gun license. It makes sense that farmers would need them in the event they had to protect their livestock from predators and it's always good fun picking off rats.

The main problem in the US is that they have sanctions put in place so that those who shouldn't have guns have a more difficult time getting them, but the officials aren't following their own regulations. For example, in Florida, the State received a 'D' for not following their laws on who they approved could carry a concealed weapon. If someone has been institutionalized for mental problems, they aren't allowed to own a gun, yet they approve their applications. If the States would be more careful and follow their own rules, we might not have so many problems. As usual, the responsible people are going to suffer for the ones who aren't able to control themselves.
edit on 10-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 





until they can work out some sort of nutter filter


Yes but who defines what a nutter is? Half the people on this site could be classed as nutters....



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The government believes it has reduced the chance of being a victim of crime from 40% to 22% between 1995 and 2008,[5] although conservative figures suggest that the United Kingdom has the second highest overall crime rate in Europe, and that violent attacks have increased by 77% between 1997 and 2009.

I dunno. It does not look like banning guns has decreased violent crime in the UK. It looks to me like violent crime has gone through the roof. If the criminal knew you might have a gun i bet violent crime rates would go down instead of up. As far as banning rifles it is a little known fact that in 2011 less than 400 deaths were attributed to rifles. Which is what they want to ban. If a mentally ill person wants to kill people they will find a way irregardless of a weapons ban. Mental health is the real problem. Not guns.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Thanks for your insightful reply, Gordi.
I didn't realize that UK residents could apply for a gun license. It makes sense that farmers would need them in the event they had to protect their livestock from predators and it's always good fun picking off rats.

The main problem in the US is that they have sanctions put in place so that those who shouldn't have guns have a more difficult time getting them, but the officials aren't following their own regulations. For example, in Florida, the State received a 'D' for not following their laws on who they approved could carry a concealed weapon. If someone has been institutionalized for mental problems, they aren't allowed to own a gun, yet they approve their applications. If the States would be more careful and follow their own rules, we might not have so many problems. As usual, the responsible people are going to suffer for the ones who aren't able to control themselves.
edit on 10-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)


Very well put AfterThought. Yes, I totally agree with all that you say here. Am I right in thinking that there are supposed to be proper checks in place when purchasing a weapon direct from a licensed dealer, but not when buying privately or at gun shows? If so, that seems like a GIANT loophole to me. "Yes! we check every application to own a weapon.... unless it's a private sale... or at a gun show?????" wtf springs to mind!

GTD



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Maxatoria
 





until they can work out some sort of nutter filter


Yes but who defines what a nutter is? Half the people on this site could be classed as nutters....


ONLY HALF??????


I think I'm on the wrong site!

GTD



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Yes, there is supposed to be a three day waiting period to take possession of the gun unless you have your concealed carry (at least that's how it's done in Florida). Many sellers probably don't follow these regulations. One of the reasons for this is not so much to make sure that the person is not a felon or mentally stable, but if they're planning on hurting themselves or someone else, they have time to cool off. This hasn't worked though as there have been many instances where a suicidal person has gone to a gun range, rented a gun, and killed themselves, which is the crux of the issue. If someone wants to harm themselves or others, they will find a way. Even if guns are not readily available, they will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do as a means to whatever they believe is an end.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
The government believes it has reduced the chance of being a victim of crime from 40% to 22% between 1995 and 2008,[5] although conservative figures suggest that the United Kingdom has the second highest overall crime rate in Europe, and that violent attacks have increased by 77% between 1997 and 2009.

I dunno. It does not look like banning guns has decreased violent crime in the UK. It looks to me like violent crime has gone through the roof. If the criminal knew you might have a gun i bet violent crime rates would go down instead of up. As far as banning rifles it is a little known fact that in 2011 less than 400 deaths were attributed to rifles. Which is what they want to ban. If a mentally ill person wants to kill people they will find a way irregardless of a weapons ban. Mental health is the real problem. Not guns.


Hi Jimmie,
Yeah, there's lies, damned lies and statistics!
The governments are brilliant at cherry picking stats aren't they?
I totally agree that the UK's violent crime stats are shockingly high, AND that they are probably much higher than they would be if firearms were much more readily available in the UK.
I think (from the published stats) that overall crime rates are indeed down, but that "violent" crimes are definitely up. Take from that what you will!

And you are bang on with the rifle deaths fact as well.
That is one of the primary indicators that TPTB are operating to a specific agenda.
Rifles (auto or otherwise) are not the problem. Looking at banning them is a 1st step on the horrible spiral ladder, down into a loss of rights with specific regards to bearing arms, and just the latest step on the slippery slope of a loss of rights and freedoms generally.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer


I totally agree that the UK's violent crime stats are shockingly high, AND that they are probably much higher than they would be if firearms were much more readily available in the UK.




This may be true...or maybe not. The fact is though, you cannot argue that it is easier to subdue someone with a knife or a bat than it is someone with a gun.

How long do you think it would realistically take for your average person to comprehend what is happening, nevermind react in a shooting? In that time how many people could a man with a gun intent on killing people kill?

Now, take a man with a knife and ask the same questions.

As mentioned previously I am not against gun ownership, I just think people need to be responsible for one another.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jykan

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer


I totally agree that the UK's violent crime stats are shockingly high, AND that they are probably much higher than they would be if firearms were much more readily available in the UK.




This may be true...or maybe not. The fact is though, you cannot argue that it is easier to subdue someone with a knife or a bat than it is someone with a gun.

How long do you think it would realistically take for your average person to comprehend what is happening, nevermind react in a shooting? In that time how many people could a man with a gun intent on killing people kill?

Now, take a man with a knife and ask the same questions.

As mentioned previously I am not against gun ownership, I just think people need to be responsible for one another.


Hi Jykan,
Yep, no quarrel from me on any of your points (and your previous ones too btw)

I myself, am not pro-gun at all. If anything I am more anti-guns, but I'm aware that the USA has a very different gun culture, that it is well established and would be almost impossible to change without some cloak and dagger manipulation by TPTB.
It is the rights of the people affected by this manipulation that I am concerned about. Even if it contradicts my own sentiments about guns, their rights are more important than my sentiments in the grand scheme of things.

And yes, as in all things, personal responsibility is the key!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jykan
 


A valid point ,it is easier to kill more people with a gun than a knife. That however does not take into account the other million ways to kill people in mass if a mentally ill person decides to. Our youth are computer savvy. They can Google how to make a bomb and print it out inside 3 minutes. What will a gun ban do to stop that? I mean you can make bombs from so many common chemicals it is alarming. How do you stop that or even stop them from driving a car through a crowd? It is just not a gun issue. It is without a doubt a mental health issue and should be addressed as such. There are many players in this mental health issue. Guns are not the issue at all. They will find other ways to kill.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Seriously, I do agree with you. I was more pointing to the point made about the UK's violent crime being lower if people were armed.

I don't think I've ever heard of many members of the public making and using bombs over here...I am sure it has happened, but I can't recall it.

Now, I have been a victim of knife crime and have quite an impressive scar from it and putting myself in that situation against a guy with a gun, even if I were armed I would be dead.

Using the scenarios of mentally disabled people, then yes, gun control will have no effect, they will find a way if they are so inclined. I do however believe that gun control would help in crimes of opportunity.

I will reiterate however that I am not for gun control. Cars, alcohol, tobacco...the list goes on, also kill people. I wouldn't want them banned anymore than I would guns.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


We can work backwards and look at those who decide that killing loads of people is normal and anyone who comes close to that sort of profile may be worthy of some extra looking at or we can follow the standard American model which is "he's got 500 police rounds in him, pity he had to kill 20 kids to earn them" model



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
hi i am not new to the site but just signed up and as am interested in the subject and there is a few fellow scots posting i thought id throw my view in

i can kind of see both sides of the argument nothing is more sick than seeing some crazy waste of air hurting weans or bursting into the pictures on a killing spree
but the way i see it your normal human being with a inch of humanity can responsibly own a firearm i know a good few people who own guns legally and there is no problem and cant see there ever being a problem so i dont think normal folk should be discriminated against



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
SnF

You have so elequently put into words what I think
We see on this very website some of the tyranny already happening and clues of what may come
As a European I fully support US citizens rights to bear arms
And without wanting to inflate already disproportionate ego's
I also believe in the possibility that an armed US populous may be all our last hope against a tyrannical US gov at some point in the future






top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join