Paging, Piers Morgan: Gun Violence Explodes In England

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ok, apologies, will give you that one.

We just have never ever needed guns in any way shape or form unless it is for culling or as a previous poster said, farmers have shotguns etc.
I could never understand why you need to have weapons anyway and how easy it is to get them especially in your gun fairs where you don't need any identification if you have the cash and someone will sell it to you.
A recent documentary here had undercover people with cameras showing how it was not difficult at all to walk in and walk out with virtually any weapon within ten mins or so.
This would never happen here.

Xcathdra


Is there any reason people from the UK dont want to engage in debate about their gun control laws?

Speaking purely for myself, yes, because all that happens is the debates deteriorate into sterotypical insult cliches and e-penis waving and the British getting constantly told that 'they can't be free because they're not armed...they're slaves not citizens...they all love the queen etc'.

Nothing good ever comes of them. Neither side recognises the vast cultural difference in how guns are viewed by both parties.

Good luck on this though. Hopefully this one will be different.

High Level Summary of Statistics Trend Last update: Wednesday November 20, 2013
Crimes Involving a Firearm
In 2012-13, Scottish police forces recorded 365 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been involved, a decrease of 32% from the 535 offences in 2011-12. The number of offences in which a firearm was discharged and subsequently caused fatal or non-fatal injury to a person decreased by 31% from 95 in 2011-12 to 66 in 2012-13.

Scotland Gun Crime

scotsdavy1
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Not deadly force required to take him down, they can use a tazer or mace ....

Maybe im not asking this question the right way. Here in the states we can use a Taser / mace on a person armed with a knife.

My department requires that when less than lethal options are being used (deadly force encounters - person armed with a knife and threatening people qualifies here), a second officer must be present with lethal options present.

IE if one officer has his taser out and pointed at a person armed with a knife who is refusing verbal commands, the second officer must have a duty weapon out for lethal should less lethal not work out.

We have a 21ft - 26ft rule. If a person is armed with a knife, and is within 21 to 26 feet from you, they can reach you before an officer can draw his weapon and stop the threat.

Coming back around - Is the same standard present there (Scotland or other) when it comes to a person armed with a knife.

Under your laws, does that allow for the use of lethal force or no?

khimbar

Xcathdra


Is there any reason people from the UK dont want to engage in debate about their gun control laws?

Speaking purely for myself, yes, because all that happens is the debates deteriorate into sterotypical insult cliches and e-penis waving and the British getting constantly told that 'they can't be free because they're not armed...they're slaves not citizens...they all love the queen etc'.

Nothing good ever comes of them. Neither side recognises the vast cultural difference in how guns are viewed by both parties.

Good luck on this though. Hopefully this one will be different.

I hope we can be an exception here. The stereotyping and bickering annoys the piss out of me sinply because I am trying to educate myself on this topic.

I get it, the US has massive issues with gun control laws when viewed from the outside. Its not as simple as just passing a law to ban guns since it would restrict the 2nd amendment.

Add to that the fact that we are 50 soveriegn entites affiliated with a FEderal government, further complicating things here in the US.

With that being said my intent was to engage on the topic and the country it affects. Back and forth wont advance the debate I agree..

I am hoping people will read some of my posts and realize that I want to discuss the topic with those it affects directly.

just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Our police answer every call without a gun so lethal force cannot be used at once anyway regardless of what they are doing unless someone calls it in that someone has or is getting killed.
An armed response team would have to be called and then be decided if it was needed.
A lot of crime has involved the use of a knife and our police have stab proof vests which help at times. Our police don't want to be armed, a recent poll showed this and our public don't want them to be either.
As a matter of interest, how many guns do you have at this moment in time?

Under your laws, does that allow for the use of lethal force or no?

No.

reply to post by Xcathdra

This is about British gun control laws.

Is there any reason people from the UK dont want to engage in debate about their gun control laws?

Then maybe Americans should stick to the topic of how gun control figures from 2009 are related to the amount of gun violence and stop trying to angle in violent crime involving any other weapon.

Try and stay on the outdated topic you started.

scotsdavy1
Ok, apologies, will give you that one.

No apologies needed.. Your request was valid for the topic so thank you.

scotsdavy1
We just have never ever needed guns in any way shape or form unless it is for culling or as a previous poster said, farmers have shotguns etc.

Which was the intial carry over to the US mentality on weapons.

scotsdavy1
I could never understand why you need to have weapons anyway and how easy it is to get them especially in your gun fairs where you don't need any identification if you have the cash and someone will sell it to you.

Paper work, identification and back ground investigations are required by Federal and State Law. If you are not a dealer you cannot purchase a weapon in one state while being a citizen of another. TRansfer has to go through an FFL (Federal Firearm License) in the state the person is from.

I am assuming its the same but 100 times harder over there?

scotsdavy1
A recent documentary here had undercover people with cameras showing how it was not difficult at all to walk in and walk out with virtually any weapon within ten mins or so.
This would never happen here.

Let me clarify - Handguns are restrictive. Rifles on the other hand are not and can be purchased from retail stores that carry them.

The documentry - What did it cover? Hand guns or rifles?

I ask because herethere is a huge difference between them. Are they lumped together over there - IE firearm or are they broken down like here - Handgun and Rifle?

reply to post by muse7

Well considering that School massacres/Mall/Movie theater shooting sprees are not a monthly occurrence in Britain I think most Britons are very happy with their current gun laws

first let be preface my comments by saying to EVERYONE:

let us not have this devolve into a "my country is better than your country" debacle. what matters most is that we are all human.

news stations love to sensationalize things, and any shooting with more than 3 deaths is classified as a "mass shooting". most mass shootings in the u.s. occur between gangs in big cities where gun control is very strict but these rarely see the light of day. it is also rare to hear about guns being used by private citizens to protect private citizens, though it happens many times a day. shots don't even have to be fired to scare away home intruders, robbers, rapists, thugs, etc.

in short, the "gun violence epidemic" is a worldwide violence epidemic stemming from societal decay, not the presence of guns. in these violent times i'd much rather have a gun in my house and car so i know i can keep myself and others safe if it comes to that.

Bob Sholtz
reply to post by muse7

 

Well considering that School massacres/Mall/Movie theater shooting sprees are not a monthly occurrence in Britain I think most Britons are very happy with their current gun laws

first let be preface my comments by saying to EVERYONE:

let us not have this devolve into a "my country is better than your country" debacle. what matters most is that we are all human.

All very well and good. But if you dont want to "devolve into a "my country is better than your country" debacle" stop talking about America

news stations love to sensationalize things, and any shooting with more than 3 deaths is classified as a "mass shooting". most mass shootings in the u.s. occur between gangs in big cities where gun control is very strict but these rarely see the light of day. it is also rare to hear about guns being used by private citizens to protect private citizens, though it happens many times a day. shots don't even have to be fired to scare away home intruders, robbers, rapists, thugs, etc.

in short, the "gun violence epidemic" is a worldwide violence epidemic stemming from societal decay, not the presence of guns. in these violent times i'd much rather have a gun in my house and car so i know i can keep myself and others safe if it comes to that.

Yes the source article is talking about gangs in the uk as well.

reply to post by Xcathdra


It is easy to get a firearms licence as long as you

complete an application form
provide 4 passport photographs
have 2 referees for a firearm certificate and 1 referee for shotgun certificate
pay the fee for the certificate you are applying for
Also you have to have a locked box to store the weapon in and have no objections from the police.
We do not/want handguns after Dunblaine and public opinion helped outlawed them after it.

Iam currently enjoying clay pidgeon shooting and may try to get a Shotgun Licence.
I will get Shotgun from my local gunsmith.

www.aaronwheelergunsmith.co.uk...

But it is outdated stuff you have in the OP also from the Daily Fail.

scotsdavy1
Our police answer every call without a gun so lethal force cannot be used at once anyway regardless of what they are doing unless someone calls it in that someone has or is getting killed.
An armed response team would have to be called and then be decided if it was needed.

Interesting.. Do you know if any stats have been put together detailing situations where deaths have occurred because of the wait for armed police?

I ask because deadly force encounters can occur within seconds and generally a delay in response can result in death.

scotsdavy1
A lot of crime has involved the use of a knife and our police have stab proof vests which help at times.

The problem with stab proof vests is they will not stop a firearm no more than a bullet resitant vest will stop a knife.

What is the death rate for stabbings?

scotsdavy1
Our police don't want to be armed, a recent poll showed this and our public don't want them to be either.

For the same reasons spelled out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. A standing Army in cities was not what the founding fathers wanted. Armed police can be viewed as a standing military.

That being said do you have a link to the poll? I am curious to see how the poll was conducted and how the questions were asked.

By the way its not that I dont beleive you. I have seen poll results that are a direct result of whats called a Push Poll.

scotsdavy1
As a matter of interest, how many guns do you have at this moment in time?

2 handguns.
1 is my Duty Weapon - 9mm
1 is my personal weapon - Glock 22 (.40)

At my department I can check out a patrol shotgun / patrol rifle (have to be qualified on both in order to carry one on duty).

scotsdavy1
No.

Interesting - Follow up question.

Is a civilian allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or others if they feel their life is in immenent danger? Or do the laws there require a person to retreat from an encounter if its possible to do so?

Here, the State of Michigan comes to mind -
Their laws require a person to retreat from a situation. If retreat is possible, and the person fails to retreat and takes action, they can be charged right along with the criminal threatening their life.

That changes when it comes to a person breaking into a residence.

Anything similar therE?

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This is about British gun control laws.

Is there any reason people from the UK dont want to engage in debate about their gun control laws?

Then maybe Americans should stick to the topic of how gun control figures from 2009 are related to the amount of gun violence and stop trying to angle in violent crime involving any other weapon.

Try and stay on the outdated topic you started.

edit on 20-11-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I am on topic...

The stats are still valid, regardless on whether you like the end result or not.

The questions / debate is valid.

If you want to derail the thread because you dont like the topic, I respectfully ask you move on. There are plently of threads taking the US to task over our gun laws. You made your position clear.

If you want to engage in the topic then by all means, stick around and add substance / insight.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The documentary covered all types of weapons for sale from small hand guns to guns the military use, they even bought one that a sniper uses as well.
It is nigh impossible to get a gun here unless you are a criminal or have a legitimate reason to have one. Just to say its for self defence is no good, they would laugh in your face.
It's not that guns kill, it's people who use guns that kill. There are a lot of rules and regulations here to attempt to try to own a gun. It's not just 100 times harder, try at least 1000 times....

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra a few posts back you were moaning about people going off topic because you intention was to talk about gun control laws and the relation to gun violence and now you want to bring in knife crime as an excuse to say police or the public should be armed. thats a different subject to the one you claimed to wanted to stick to.

Is there any reason people from the UK dont want to engage in debate about their gun control laws?

My intent was to engage in conversation / debate on British gun control laws and their effectiveness in stopping gun violence.

This is about British gun control laws.

Your words ..before you started to go off your own topic by trying to bring knives into the discussion.

Im not interested in your countries ideas about guns.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

All very well and good. But if you dont want to "devolve into a "my country is better than your country" debacle" stop talking about America

i thought being an american, mentioning american problems (instead of criticizing another country), would be the best course of action.

i'm all about bettering the world for the inhabitants of earth, and one way to do that is to talk about the root causes of violence instead of blaming violence on a tool.

let's be honest, if americans are happy with how things are in our country, and those across the pond are happy with things in their country, then why are we arguing?

i would love for people to become less violent, and i try to promote that sentiment in a kind, respectful way; however the world is a dangerous place. i don't own guns for the fun of it, or to feel macho, i do it out of necessity.

put 10 calm, kind-hearted strangers in a room with guns for a week and you will find them in the same state as before. do the same with people who have anger issues with violent tendencies and i'd be surprised if half of them would survive the ordeal.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Well the op is whining about anyone bringing up US gun issues or comparisons in 'his' thread.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I take it that you are a police officer?
If someone breaks into a residence here, a householder can only use deadly force if the circumstances require it. Saying that, a few have been jailed for doing just that same thing. Some have been let off, while others have not.
Personally, if someone broke into my house, I would have no hesitation to put him in hospital but to kill him is not one I would think about unless he tried to kill me.

Read about this police officer who was sitting in his police car, minding his own business , when he was shot and blinded by the gunman Moat.
Officer eventually took his own life because his marriage broke down and he couldn't live being blind and also the psychological effects it had on him.
If you read on about Moat for instance, you will see our police who were armed, surrounded him but didn't fire at him. A tazer was fired at him but they reckon either the jolt of it hitting him made his own gun go off, he was holding it ready to kill himself, or whatever but he ended up,dead.

Policeman shot and blinded by Raoul Moat found dead in home gu.com... via @guardian

Crime of all type has probably gone up in Britain over the last few years, it usually does when there is a recession and a lot of people have no work. Nothing to do with gun laws.

If we had more guns on the streets around here at this time, it would be utter madness.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I didnt raise the knife issue, someone else did.

I asked about the knife stats and asked for clarification on whether they woulod be considered a deadly force encounter, which pivots back to the firearm debate.

As for your last comment I could care less what you think about US gun laws or our opinions on them. If you noticed I am asking about the gun laws there and if they are effective, which they are not.

As I said before, move on if you dont want to engage. Stop derailing the thread simply because you have issues with the topic.