Online Poll Shows 85% of Brits Want to Repeal the Ban on Hand Guns

Originally posted by ANNED
Here in the US in states with easy to get concealed weapons permits you see a lot less mass shootings or stabbings.

Also less robberies muggings and street crime.

Texas and Arizona being cases where crimes and mass shooting have gone down when the laws were changed after a mass shooting.
in the case of Arizona after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting they relaxed there laws allowing people to carry without a CCW

This forces the mass shooters to find gun free zones to do there shooting in where they know its unlikely for some one to be armed.

All the UK is is a large gun free zone with no border controls for people/weapons coming from the EU.

I am just waiting for one of the arab terrorist groups to bring a load of AKs across the EU to the UK and do a mass shooting.

Arizona is way up there in gun crime, and number of homicides.
There are UK border patrols for all areas including firearms and anything else illegal, to have none is just stupid. Detection of the same, is as debatable as anywhere else.

In the United States, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 10.26

Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 0.25

(Source: www.gunpolicy.org...)

reply to post by DeeKlassified


The Bilderbergers meeting will have private security which your government will ok . And yes there was several studies done where violent crimes are way down since Concealed Carry has been up .
Think about it . An old women gets her Pension Check and a thug wants to steal it to buy drugs . He sizes her up and then sees her reach into her pocket book while eyeing him . What would you do if you were him . She might have a gun or maybe she is bluffing . Do you want to call . She is scared and might kill you before you can back off . In Florida a half a million people at least Carry concealed guns . I do ! . The Florida report said violent crime was down and was also trending downward .

reply to post by Shining Beneath


How about beating deaths where the new rage is for young thugs to break into an old persons home and beat and rob them for drug money. Did you include that in your death by gun or THE LACK OF A GUN .
How about all those late term abortions and the like .
Gun deaths are far behind drunk driving deaths and deaths from smoking . Alcohol is responsible for many more deaths than gun violence . Why doesn't Britain ban Beer and alcohol ?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by gortex

 

Can you not trust yourself to have a gun ? Do you think it is Dodge City on a Saturday night over here everyday . There has been years that I have not seen my gun , but when I need it is there . What if Cameron decided to turn the UK into a communist nation ? How far is it from a totalitarian nation now with all the cameras ? What if he put your queen in prison . What if he outlawed beer and brandy ? How would you take back your country ? How would you stop him ? We aren't going to save you again the Elite control our politicians too .

I trust myself with a gun - just not anybody else. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to trust me with said gun either.

And if Cameron were able to somehow instill communism, install a prohibition on alcohol we'd take it back through confrontational but not violent protest and non-compliance (See: Magna Carta). Although if the queen was put in prison I'd probably come out in support provided she had committed an actual crime.

You know, contrary to the imbecile assumptions of "red blooded American patriots" most of the successful revolutions in the world were done without anyone being hung or shot in the streets. And most violent revolutions end in conditions worse than they started - If the US population went up in an armed rebellion and it was squashed (which it easily would be, and with global support.) the government would have its way. If revolution was non-violent, the revolutionaries would have the global support and the government would only be able to back down.

And funnily enough, if 60,000,000 people walk out onto UK the streets and refused to go along with how things are going the people "up there" have no choice but to listen because their power only exists because we give it to them and acknowledge that they have said power.

The American civil war was completely avoidable, and America would still be its own country today just like Canada, India, Australia etc etc if bloody minded bravado wasn't the sole and eternal desire of the American population - I think there's something weird in the groundwater over there.

Also, I'm interested in what this "saving us" thing is? When was the first time? I mean, if you're talking about World War I, you were a bit late to the party. And World War II was America saving it self from a communist Europe (Note: D-Day only happened AFTER the Russians broke the siege on Leningrad and Stalingrad and began to push towards Berlin - And believe me they would have gone all the way to Lisbon and not given any of it back had the US not begun to race East to meet the Russians as soon as possible.)

If you said it to the French, then that'd make a bit more sense seeing as you actually DID save them with your French, Russian, Spanish and Dutch funded War of Independence, and again in World War II (From the Russians).

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by gortex

 

There may be a very small minority who would like it to but the vast majority feel we are American enough without having the right to bare arms .

I hate to point out the obvious but based on the poll I provided I beg to differ.

Do you have poll results or another survey to back that up?

Its a Telegraph readers Poll, as such its self selecting and not representative of society as a whole.

I read the Telegraph (when i bother to buy a paper, its a broadsheet and as such a pain in the ass to handle) but you should be aware its a paper with a predominantly right wing biased readership.

I suspect a national poll conducted scientifically by somebody like Gallup or Mori would reveal a different result.

I don't believe the poll results are accurate. I don't think the Telegraph believes the poll results are accurate. What has 'possibly' happened is the US gun lobby or affiliates have skewed the results.

Why would I say that?

...because in the past 12 months, US gun proponents have been posting comments on UK news websites. This means they are actively promoting 'guns for all' outside of the US and looking for any opportunity to spread the word. We're a large market so it's good business for the gun-lobby and suits the citizen gun proponents too.

Beyond that suspicion, I've never heard another person in the UK complain that we should have guns...even on ATS less than a handful of British members have supported guns for all. That alone makes the poll results glaringly biased against the norm.

85 % of people are backing the legalisation of handguns...

Those numbers alone prove it's a bad idea.

Originally posted by Danbones

Have you Brits ever won a war since the 16th C without the colonies or allies to help you?

Yes. Anglo-Turkish war of 1807, Anglo-Russian war of 1807, The Gunboat War of 1807, about 8 very minor conflicts and The Falklands of 1982. Also colonies were set up for just that purpose - extending military influence and global available manpower. I don't see why using them would be considered a concession.

But even then, when was the last major conflict the US won without pseudo-colonies or Allies?

War of Independence? That was largely won for you by the French, Dutch, Spanish, Russians, Indians, Danish, Swedish and Indians.

Mexican-American war? Gotta love those Indian allies.

War of 1812? No one lost or won that one as the agreement was the "return to pre-war conditions" (Even though the white house got burnt down, the UK was more worried about Napoleon), and even then both sides had Indian allies.

American Civil War? I'm not sure this really counts seeing as it was a civil war.

American-Spanish war? Nope, you had the Philippines and Cuba with you then too.

Vietnam? France, Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc etc etc

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
In the United States, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 10.26

Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 0.25

(Source: www.gunpolicy.org...)

That's true, but what was it prior to the UK gun ban? About the same, if I had to guess. I do know that it had virtually no impact on total homicides in the UK, as the number remained around 500-600 per year with the exception of a few years above average about 10 years ago.

This is the thing that's never mentioned in comparing US statistics with those of the UK. The UK simply never had a major problem to begin with. Neither did Australia, or a number of others.

Firstly, how on earth does 85% of Telegraph Readers who bothered to respond to this poll, equate to 85% of Brits - that is ridiculous and very misleading. Even to say 85% of Telegraph readers would be wrong, it is only 85% of those who responded and I would find it hard to classify Telegraph readers as a broad representation of the British public anyway. Recently published figures for June 2013 show the Telegraph as having a circulation in the UK of just over 500,000 compared to 2.5 million for the Sun, just under 1 million for the Daily Mirror and 1.5 million for the Daily Mail so that is hardly 85% of Brits is it?

Before Britain introduced the The Firearms (Amendment) Act in 1988 as a consequence of Michael Ryan's rampage in Hungerford when he killed 16 people and injured 15 more, Michael Ryan was able to legally hold the following weapons:

Zabala shotgun
Browning shotgun
Beretta 92FS semi-automatic 9 mm pistol
CZ ORSO semi-automatic .32-caliber pistol
Bernardelli .22-caliber pistol
"Type 56" 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle[7] (Chinese copy of the Kalashnikov AK-47)
M1 Carbine .30 7.62x33mm semi-automatic rifle (a rare "Underwood" model)

At the time when licensing checks were made on him, no reason could be found as to why he should not be allowed to own all of these weapons. Yet as we now know, something snapped in his mind which led to him carrying out one of the worst gun massacres in British history. Half of Michael Ryan's victims were shot with a handgun.

On 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held. He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times. The subsequent police investigation revealed that Hamilton had loaded the magazines for his Browning with an alternating combination of full-metal-jacket and hollow-point ammunition.

15 children died together with their class teacher, who was killed trying to protect the children. A further eleven children and three adults were also shot.

Again, Hamilton was subject to checks but no reason was found as to why he should not own these weapons.

These two horrendous incidents alone go to prove that no screening process can reliably predict the future behaviour of those who choose to own firearms. Both Ryan and Hamilton were deemed of sound mind and responsible enough to be allowed to own the weapons they later used to destroy so many lives. To take the step of placing these weapons in the hands of any that request them is a recipe for disaster.

The British public were deeply affected by the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, for us having to see on our screens and newspapers the innocent smiling faces of those 15 children aged just five and six who had their lives ripped from them in the most brutal way possible was enough. We demanded a change to gun ownership legislation and we got it, unlike in the US where it seems over and over and over again their children are the victims of gun violence and massacre and nothing is ever done. We do not want another Dunblane, or another Hungerford in this country ever again, Higher gun ownership in this country will create a higher risk of gun violence.

To say that 15.5 thousand votes means that 85% of British people want a repeal of the ban on handguns really does not make the slightest bit of sense!

reply to post by SimonPeter

If it were not for our guys coming to your rescue the UK would be no more

Zzzzzzzz

Had this arguement so many times here on ATS, you really need to stop mistaking everything Hollywood portrays as real and factual, I suggest you read some real, unbiased history.

I appreciate the sacrifice so many made in WWII, regardless of nationality, and to reduce it to 'we saved your asse's' ignorance is an affront and dishonour to ALL who served.

. I really can't see the problem with guns .

I can.

Can you people not be trusted with them .

No.
And we don't want to become a replica of the USA.

With your growing Muslim population you might need guns or become dead infidels .

Don't be silly.

Sometimes I wonder what happened to the men in the UK .

So owning a gun makes you a man?

I assure you, the British spirit and pride is still alive.

Why are they so docile ?

What, unlike men in the USA?

Are they so unconcerned about the Globalist and Agenda 21 .

Most are, exactly the same as in America.
How would owning a gun make anyone more aware?

Originally posted by cluedup
The British public were deeply affected by the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, for us having to see on our screens and newspapers the innocent smiling faces of those 15 children aged just five and six who had their lives ripped from them in the most brutal way possible was enough. We demanded a change to gun ownership legislation and we got it, unlike in the US where it seems over and over and over again their children are the victims of gun violence and massacre and nothing is ever done. We do not want another Dunblane, or another Hungerford in this country ever again, Higher gun ownership in this country will create a higher risk of gun violence.

Another thing we didn't do was scream it was "FAKE!" How times have changed.

reply to post by seabag


These polls mean absolutely nothing. Why? Because they are biased towards those who have a preformed opinion.

If you were asking this question of the public in the street, you would see the reverse.

I also have to wonder how many of those answering that poll were Republican Americans led there by biased discussions on the internet.

If any American here thinks this is actually indicative of the average opinion of people in the UK, you're either delusional or you know nothing about British culture.

Gun ownership is not even on the consciousness of the British public, so this poll is NOT representative of the British people in any way.

reply to post by SimonPeter

.......but you people trust in your Queen to much....

The Queen is irrelevant.
What do you base your assumption on?

to ever question your governments agenda .

We question our government and it's agenda as least as much as people do in the USA.
Why do you think that we don't?

All those cameras should tell you something but it doesn't get through does it ..

I'm not that comfortable about the number of camera's here in the UK but I find the fact that American's tend to feel at ease with the idea of gun ownership as a crime preventative tool yet are uncomfortable with surveillance camera's being used partially for exactly the same reason goes a large way to explain the difference in UK / USA psyche's.
No camera's ever killed anyone but as much as I hate to admit it they DO prevent many crimes.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

The Bilderbergers meeting will have private security which your government will ok . And yes there was several studies done where violent crimes are way down since Concealed Carry has been up .
Think about it . An old women gets her Pension Check and a thug wants to steal it to buy drugs . He sizes her up and then sees her reach into her pocket book while eyeing him . What would you do if you were him . She might have a gun or maybe she is bluffing . Do you want to call . She is scared and might kill you before you can back off . In Florida a half a million people at least Carry concealed guns . I do ! . The Florida report said violent crime was down and was also trending downward .

Easy. You shoot her. Self defence

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

.......but you people trust in your Queen to much....

The Queen is irrelevant.
What do you base your assumption on?

to ever question your governments agenda .

We question our government and it's agenda as least as much as people do in the USA.
Why do you think that we don't?

All those cameras should tell you something but it doesn't get through does it ..

I'm not that comfortable about the number of camera's here in the UK but I find the fact that American's tend to feel at ease with the idea of gun ownership as a crime preventative tool yet are uncomfortable with surveillance camera's being used partially for exactly the same reason goes a large way to explain the difference in UK / USA psyche's.
No camera's ever killed anyone but as much as I hate to admit it they DO prevent many crimes.

And the majority of CCTVs are in private hands - who is watching who?

This thread should be closed to be honnest.

All it is is just trolling.

It is just insecure pro gun Americans trying to project there insecuritys on to us and while at it bash the UK.

Hell Half these American most likley have never even been to the UK let alone know a thing about our culture or history and know NOTHING about that they are talking about.

Originally posted by crazyewok
This thread should be closed to be honnest.

All it is is just trolling.

It is just insecure pro gun Americans trying to project there insecuritys on to us and while at it bash the UK.

Hell Half these American most likley have never even been to the UK let alone know a thing about our culture or history and know NOTHING about that they are talking about.

I believe this statement would also apply to those Brits that post their anti-gun rhetoric in threads about America as well. SO, what's your point? Doesn't everyone have an equally valid opinion, or just the ones that happen to agree with you?

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by crazyewok
This thread should be closed to be honnest.

All it is is just trolling.

It is just insecure pro gun Americans trying to project there insecuritys on to us and while at it bash the UK.

Hell Half these American most likley have never even been to the UK let alone know a thing about our culture or history and know NOTHING about that they are talking about.

I believe this statement would also apply to those Brits that post their anti-gun rhetoric in threads about America as well. SO, what's your point? Doesn't everyone have an equally valid opinion, or just the ones that happen to agree with you?

There is a diffrence between a few Brits makeing comments on a American thread started by Americans and Americans specificaly starting a UK bashing thread,

I dont see any threads started by Brits saying the USA needs to ban guns? well not since I have been around. Allthough most Brits dont understand American Gun culture and think its silly we respect that its your country and that how you want to do things. It not right or wrong just a diffrent land with diffrent ways. And I for one dont think anyone in the wetson world should be pointing fingers and aclling anyones culture or country inferior. Ok you dont wanna live there fine dont.

If I started a USA bashing thread useing made up stats and stupid polls just to bait pro gun Americans then yes it should be removed.

If this thread had been started by a Brit who new what he was talking about then fine. But it was not it was started by a Pro Gun American and supported by Pro Gun Americans as a excuse to start bashing the UK

Even if it had been started with pure intentions it has already degenerated into stupid uninformed Americans doing the whole "we won World war2" crap. Surely thats a sign this thread has gone into baiting and trolling, and I find those sorts of comments deeply offensive to those that died in the war.

And also hijacking the death of our solider in woolwich I also find deeply offensive and distasteful as you practicaly useing him as a stawman argumanet for your own agenda!