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

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


That is the problem with the Brits . You think you are smarter than the Russians who were turned into a Communist nation by revolution . Who led the revolution ? . You people have it all together . That's why you were living like common serfs back in the day . You have a closely monitored nation with all the facial recognition cameras now and you have the highest percentage of your population in prison of the whole world . That British pride will be your undoing .
The whole gun story over here is not to reduce gun violence , it's to reduce the ability to resist the heavy handed government and the NWO.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I can't see how having a gun could make me feel more safe. Is having a gun to compensate for some self-perceived inadequacy or something? I certainly don't feel the need for it.

To each their own opinions...and as the OP said, the survey says otherwise for a good % of your fellow citizens. Sans competing data to show otherwise? I take his OP and data as valid for what it shows. It would seem your opinion is certainly not the prevailing one, based upon that.

edit on 31-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Sure if that poll had polled all 60 million citizens - in fact, if we had a referendum, I'd lend an ear. Indeed, why haven't we had a petition which has passed the threshold in order to be discussed in Parliament?

If polls were anything to go by, Mitt Romney would be President of the United States and Britain would have left the EU and UKIP would be in power! Let's have an actual referendum where you can actually see a massive cross-section of the population before going for "polls".

If people really badly wanted guns here in Britain, we'd see much more protest and movements and whatnot. We, being British, are mostly sensible and not in need of such.

reply to post by seabag

I'm saying that the results are skewed and unreliable for two reasons.
Both of them are in my first reply, but I can repeat them at more length.

Firstly, it doesn't allow for the huge number of people who won't be inteested in bothering to fill in an online poll.

Secondly, the result is skewed by the manner of posing the question.
The question was not "Do you want hand-guns, yes or no?"
The question was "Which of these half dozen new proposals would you prefer?"
This leaves out of consideration, altogether, all those who would want NONE of the proposed changes.


So your headlline is a false conclusion because 85 percent of people who want something different to happen and can be bothered to say so in an online poll is not the same thing as 85 percent of the country.

It doesn't matter if a hundred percent of Brits want guns, the law is the law and it will not be easily changed anymore. They shouldn't have been naive enough to let it happen in the first place. Precedence should always be considered.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


You reply as if I came up with this idea and am looking to force it upon you and your nation. Personally, it's of absolutely no concern to me if England has guns or not. It doesn't change my life, either way. You are absolutely against guns being more accessible or carried in Britain. Yes... You've restated that several ways now and I get it. I also read the OP, realize there are other opinions...equally valid..that exist on this matter in England. Others seem to feel quite differently, within your nation and about your nation's policies on this.

It was that topic I was replying to and still am, for context. Not to some personal desire to see anything in your nation change. Again, what difference could it really make to me personally? It's your fellow countrymen it would seem to matter for.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens

The Woolwich Two come along and suddenly we're all shivering in our boots - when in fact, they're just random crazies and this has been the first Islamic extremist attack on British soil since 2005? Wow, we really need them guns don't we?

Muslim extremists aren't the problem entirely. It's funny that so many act as though violent crime simply doesn't exist in UK.

Laughable!

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by seabag

 

85 percent of the people who bother to fill in an online poll is not the same thing as 85 percent of the country.
The process of asking "what different thing do you want to happen?" is automatically skewed in favour of those who want something different.

Are you saying these results mean nothing?

Or are you saying polls only mean something when there is an outcome you agree with?

I realise that you did not pose the post to me, but I shall answer anyway:

Regardless of whether polls agree with my sentiments or not, I take them with a pinch of salt. If polls were anything to go by, Mitt Romney would be President, Labour would be a majority government in the UK and Britain would have left the EU.

The thing is, if you try to show how guns "saved" people, i can show you quadruple amount of massacre guns did, and this is just domestic as well.

many places you think "guns are banned" is not exactly banned, you can still get buy guns, for ex.. in Canada, but how often you see a shoot spree here?

You get the 1-2 a yr gangs shooting at each other, and thats it.


Problem here is the mentality that gun solves everything, that is whats the difference between America and rest of the developed worlds who has restriction on guns.

If you look at the statistics of gun deaths, US is probably the only "1st" world country to have a 3rd world statistics.

How would an American who grew up behind a gun would handle a situation when there is no gun available. Sadly many Americans don't leave anywhere other than the US, TV tells them how other countries are like.

reply to post by seabag

I quite agree that we in the UK should have the option of carrying hand guns.If Drummer Lee Rigby had had that option,the chances are that he would be alive today.

bs poll, if you had a vote in the morning with the british public it would be overwhealming NO.....more NRA propaganda

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens

 

The Woolwich Two come along and suddenly we're all shivering in our boots - when in fact, they're just random crazies and this has been the first Islamic extremist attack on British soil since 2005? Wow, we really need them guns don't we?

Muslim extremists aren't the problem entirely. It's funny that so many act as though violent crime simply doesn't exist in UK.

Laughable! :lol

And guns would suddenly make that better will it? Surely, guns would massively increase such? I didn't say we lived in a perfect society, but guns would only add to our problems, not magically solve them. We here in Britain don't think of ourselves as Captain America types - we're not just going to go storming in and save the day (and injure ourselves or get ourselves killed in the process). You seem to presuppose that guns would do more good than bad - that is erroneous and incorrect. Guns would themselves bring their own problems.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens

Regardless of whether polls agree with my sentiments or not, I take them with a pinch of salt. If polls were anything to go by, Mitt Romney would be President, Labour would be a majority government in the UK and Britain would have left the EU.

That's a reasonable position. I do think that it's safe to say there are many in UK who would welcome a change in gun ownership laws. Violent crime is a real problem.

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by seabag

 

I quite agree that we in the UK should have the option of carrying hand guns.If Drummer Lee Rigby had had that option,the chances are that he would be alive today.

Or he would have still been run over and shot dead instead and then a firefight would have ensued with public, most likely ending up with several injuries and deaths on both sides (and probably with the Woolwich Two attempting to storm the nearby barracks because they feel bold with their guns).

Some people and their fantasy worlds. They seriously think that a gun would magically solve lots of crimes - how's that working out in the US of A?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens

 

Regardless of whether polls agree with my sentiments or not, I take them with a pinch of salt. If polls were anything to go by, Mitt Romney would be President, Labour would be a majority government in the UK and Britain would have left the EU.

That's a reasonable position. I do think that it's safe to say there are many in UK who would welcome a change in gun ownership laws. Violent crime is a real problem.

edit on 31-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

It isn't a problem that warrants guns. That needs to be dealt with by government, by communities and by changing cultures. Guns won't suddenly make everything better - it'd just start an arms race. Suicides would increase and gun-related incidents would of course increase. Kids would get hold of daddy's gun and go and play with it etc etc - it goes on and on.

We don't need guns - it won't turn you into some superman. Learn some freaking self-defence and karate or something.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens

And guns would suddenly make that better will it?

Ummm....did you see where US ranked in comparison?

Surely, guns would massively increase such? I didn't say we lived in a perfect society, but guns would only add to our problems, not magically solve them. We here in Britain don't think of ourselves as Captain America types - we're not just going to go storming in and save the day (and injure ourselves or get ourselves killed in the process). You seem to presuppose that guns would do more good than bad - that is erroneous and incorrect. Guns would themselves bring their own problems.

To each his own but I would like to point out the fact that in US guns ownership continues to rise proportionately to the decrease in violent crime. I'll let you make your own decision about what that means.

Originally posted by luciddream

The thing is, if you try to show how guns "saved" people, i can show you quadruple amount of massacre guns did, and this is just domestic as well.

many places you think "guns are banned" is not exactly banned, you can still get buy guns, for ex.. in Canada, but how often you see a shoot spree here?

You get the 1-2 a yr gangs shooting at each other, and thats it.


Problem here is the mentality that gun solves everything, that is whats the difference between America and rest of the developed worlds who has restriction on guns.

If you look at the statistics of gun deaths, US is probably the only "1st" world country to have a 3rd world statistics.

How would an American who grew up behind a gun would handle a situation when there is no gun available. Sadly many Americans don't leave anywhere other than the US, TV tells them how other countries are like.

Many of these guys just don't understand that lots of us do not at all feel the need to carry weaponry on our persons. We don't live in the Wild West for crying out loud. Sure I like a good action flick, but I don't want to carry a gun because of it. America has grown up with a diet of guns (amongst other things :lol and so, many Americans just can't understand societies that aren't so keen on having guns.

I still think the poll is flawed because anyone from any nationality can vote. That doesn't give a fair representation of what Brits think.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by seabag

 

85 percent of the people who bother to fill in an online poll is not the same thing as 85 percent of the country.
The process of asking "what different thing do you want to happen?" is automatically skewed in favour of those who want something different.

A statistical sub-set typically scales up well to the whole set, or population, if the sample is homogeneous enough. Of course, there is an error and confidence level that provides information about the statistical analysis of the collected data as well when you account for the various factors of inhomogeneity.

Probability mathematics prove that the population size is irrelevant unless the sample size is greater than a few percent of the total population, so it actually works better as the total population n approaches infinity.

If we take the case of the UK with a population of 62.74 Million, we can have a 95% confidence that the margin of error is about 1% with a sample size of just 9,603 people.

This is no different from asking 100 random people if they like pizza. The percentage you come up WILL scale up to the entire population if your sample is unbiased.

Of course, without stratification, your sample size of 100 will probably be limited to your localized area, giving you just a picture of that area; however, this will scale up to the entire population, with some margin of error.

If you take a greater unbiased random sample that includes... say, people from all over the country doing a poll via the internet, then you have a much greater confidence that the sample is random.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


Captain America types? It's probably important to note here that an American Concealed Weapons class is far more about when NOT to shoot and how to AVOID ever getting into the situation than what to do and how to handle it once it's too late to do anything but use deadly force. The use of deadly force is considered a failure situation. A CCW handgun is about not extending the failure into an innocent body count to add to it.

The entire point is to never enter that position .....but if it should end up happening, have more than the tender mercies of a criminal to rely upon for you and your family's lives.

If carry isn't someone's fancy, that's fine too. Owning guns isn't entirely about carrying them. Having them at home is equally important. I happened to catch the penalty phase of this trial on Satellite radio for testimony. The evils of that case for what was done are beyond description ....and this, not paranoia, is why people are armed here.

CT Home Invasion Rape/Murders

^^^ That isn't a rare event. Perhaps it doesn't happen at all in England but it's common enough in America to be a serious issue to give thought to. Violent home invasions were Hollywood stuff years ago but now bad guys have realized nothing really stops them from just up and doing it. It's become enough to have as a thought for home defense. That's in addition to burglary and door to door confrontation.....or similar happening with a neighbor/loved one at their home.

In Missouri, Carjacking or deadly force to defend against it, is also covered by defense laws. Enough people were being stabbed, beaten to death, kidnapped or shot on the street for their cars for that to be included, specifically, in the law.

It's just important to understand that while you rightly note that Americans get a lot of their 'facts' about other nations from Hollywood....so too do others get their facts about America. Neither one is an accurate depiction, by any stretch. The media? They're only a hair better these days.

reply to post by WhatAreThey

I don't think the sample is homogenous enough, and I made the point at more length in my second reply
Remember, the question asked was not "Do you want hand-guns, yes or no?", but "Which of these half-dozen new proposals would you prefer?"
This means that the sample is automatically weighted in favour of those who would like at least one of those half-dozen measures. Those who want no changes at all, or those who would like a change which is not among the listed half-dozen, are completely ignored. So that is not a genuine random sample.

Also, as Intrepid has just pointed out, we don't even know that all the voters are genuinely from the UK.
That would explain why the only proposal which would have any interest for those outside the UK has so many more votes than those proposals with a UK interest only. That is another kind of skewing.