A Disarmed British Public The Sole Option?

#41
Perhaps some of our Septic friends can conform or deny this; States that allow people to hold a Concealed Firearm Permit have some of the lowest rates of firearms crime against citizens(as opposed to scum kiling other scum)?
 
#42
Werewolf said:
Perhaps some of our Septic friends can conform or deny this; States that allow people to hold a Concealed Firearm Permit have some of the lowest rates of firearms crime against citizens(as opposed to scum kiling other scum)?
I think one could google-up stats, that would prove your point, especially in the State of Florida.

The other side of the coin, is those States or especially Cities in the USA that have the most strict firearms laws. Usually, you'll find their gun crimes run rampart! :roll:

New York, NY
Washington, DC
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA

To name a few.
 
#43
Trip_Wire said:
Werewolf said:
Perhaps some of our Septic friends can conform or deny this; States that allow people to hold a Concealed Firearm Permit have some of the lowest rates of firearms crime against citizens(as opposed to scum kiling other scum)?
I think one could google-up stats, that would prove your point, especially in the State of Florida.

The other side of the coin, is those States or especially Cities in the USA that have the most strict firearms laws. Usually, you'll find their gun crimes run rampart! :roll:

New York, NY
Washington, DC
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Los Angeles, CA

To name a few.
Does'nt surprise me at all. To quote a certain Dark Knight, criminals are a cowardly lot.

If a scumbag thinks there is a good chance his potential victim is armed, he will look elsewhere for prey.
 
#44
There is nothing wrong with guns. It is the people/criminals who ruin it for everybody in the UK and elsewhere.

We have the strictest gun laws in the world, but gun crime is rocketing through the roof.

It must be something the media and politicians dare not speak about.
 
#45
Refer back to what I said earlier about handguns - it is still illegal to have one in this country. If you have one extended to 24 ins. as stated above, that might be another thing. Anyone stating this should produce the legislation on this thread.

Whatever - don't own, possess, procure, import, or attempt to commit any of these firearm offences, or arrange others to do so . Because as far as I see it - you'll get 5 years mandatory.
 
#47
JoseyWales said:
Refer back to what I said earlier about handguns - it is still illegal to have one in this country. If you have one extended to 24 ins. as stated above, that might be another thing. Anyone stating this should produce the legislation on this thread.

Whatever - don't own, possess, procure, import, or attempt to commit any of these firearm offences, or arrange others to do so . Because as far as I see it - you'll get 5 years mandatory.
Only if you are CAUGHT. And lets face it, that's getting less likely every day... :roll:
 
#48
My take on the gun position is this. If you want to have a gun and go shooting people there are plenty of opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan. All you need to do is be prepared to sign on for a few years , be taught a responsible attitude to weapons and wear a DPM suit.
As for the police, they don't want to be armed as they reckon , and I do too, that if the police are going to have weapons then more criminals are going to carry them .
It's not macho to go round shooting at pheasants and rabbits. Iraqis and taliban yes .
If it's guns thet want sign up and get down to the armoury.
 
#49
craftsmanx said:
My take on the gun position is this. If you want to have a gun and go shooting people there are plenty of opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan. All you need to do is be prepared to sign on for a few years , be taught a responsible attitude to weapons and wear a DPM suit.
As for the police, they don't want to be armed as they reckon , and I do too, that if the police are going to have weapons then more criminals are going to carry them .
It's not macho to go round shooting at pheasants and rabbits. Iraqis and taliban yes .
If it's guns thet want sign up and get down to the armoury.
Thank God police don't carry firearms then. I mean, if more criminals were incited to carry weapons, ANYTHING could happen. Why, we could have bouncers shot on nightclub doors, kids murdered while playing football, police cars shot at etc.

Oh, hang on.... 8O
 
#50
Craftsmanx,

I think that your understanding of why criminals carry guns is a little naïve:

“If the Police carry guns more criminals will carry guns!”

Criminals carry guns for two reasons;

1. To big themselves up in front of their peers.
2. To terrorise, threaten, kill or injure their victims.

Not to engage into a fire fight with the Police.

In fact the last thing a criminal wants to do is to bump into an unarmed copper never mind a Trojan Unit.

Your using what is termed as “Fuzzy Logic” in which there is no factual evidence that one action premeditates the second. A good example of this is my anti-bear attack watch – as I have never been attacked by a bear whilst wearing my watch, it must stop bear attacks. You could also say that banning legally held handguns will reduce gun crime. Sorry my mistake, this statement has been proved - proved completely wrong.

If you can cite evidence of your statement I will be more than happy to be proved wrong.

As for shooting little furry woodland creatures – you’re right it’s not macho, it’s food. If you weren’t supposed to each little furry animals they would not be made of meat! :D
 
#51
It is still possible to legally own handguns.
A Section 7.1 FAC allows a handgun (certain restrictions) to be held (without ammunition) as part of a collection.
A Section 7.3 FAC allows a handgun (same restrictions) to be owned and fired at shooting club, with the weapon held on the club premises.

There are a number of restrictions, for example, a .455" Webley must be made before 1 January 1919. Some calibres, such as 9 mm are banned.

Anyhelp?

Tom
 
#52
As long as you have unelected organisations like the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO),and the Gun Control Network (GCN),"advising" the government,about gun control and ownership issues,nothing will improve.

There are now so many groups jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon,shouting down anyone who disagrees with their views as wierd,dangerous,psychotic,not normal,etc. that the law abiding ex shooters of this country are forced to go across the Channel,or to Northern Ireland to indulge in their hobby.

Thus allowing those smug self-righteous citizens,who can't get their heads round the idea that firearms are inanimate bits of metal,that can't kill somebody until it is picked up by a total "tool", to go to bed secure in the knowledge that they have made the world a slightly safer place? :roll:
 
#53
Flying Felix said:
Craftsmanx,

I think that your understanding of why criminals carry guns is a little naïve:

“If the Police carry guns more criminals will carry guns!”

Criminals carry guns for two reasons;

1. To big themselves up in front of their peers.
2. To terrorise, threaten, kill or injure their victims.

Not to engage into a fire fight with the Police.

In fact the last thing a criminal wants to do is to bump into an unarmed copper never mind a Trojan Unit.

Your using what is termed as “Fuzzy Logic” in which there is no factual evidence that one action premeditates the second. A good example of this is my anti-bear attack watch – as I have never been attacked by a bear whilst wearing my watch, it must stop bear attacks. You could also say that banning legally held handguns will reduce gun crime. Sorry my mistake, this statement has been proved - proved completely wrong.

If you can cite evidence of your statement I will be more than happy to be proved wrong.

As for shooting little furry woodland creatures – you’re right it’s not macho, it’s food. If you weren’t supposed to each little furry animals they would not be made of meat! :D
As you obviously have more knowledge on this subject than the policemen who deal with the criminals on a daily basis and are convinced that arming the police force will exacerbate the problem I'll let you believe that. I on th eother hand will side with the police.
 
#54
craftsmanx said:
Flying Felix said:
Craftsmanx,

I think that your understanding of why criminals carry guns is a little naïve:

“If the Police carry guns more criminals will carry guns!”

Criminals carry guns for two reasons;

1. To big themselves up in front of their peers.
2. To terrorise, threaten, kill or injure their victims.

Not to engage into a fire fight with the Police.

In fact the last thing a criminal wants to do is to bump into an unarmed copper never mind a Trojan Unit.

Your using what is termed as “Fuzzy Logic” in which there is no factual evidence that one action premeditates the second. A good example of this is my anti-bear attack watch – as I have never been attacked by a bear whilst wearing my watch, it must stop bear attacks. You could also say that banning legally held handguns will reduce gun crime. Sorry my mistake, this statement has been proved - proved completely wrong.

If you can cite evidence of your statement I will be more than happy to be proved wrong.

As for shooting little furry woodland creatures – you’re right it’s not macho, it’s food. If you weren’t supposed to each little furry animals they would not be made of meat! :D
As you obviously have more knowledge on this subject than the policemen who deal with the criminals on a daily basis and are convinced that arming the police force will exacerbate the problem I'll let you believe that. I on th eother hand will side with the police.
I meet coppers on a weekly basis(same dojo). Obviously, they observe OPSEC. but are happy to talk shop in general terms. Not one of them has said that arming police will cause an increase in gun crime. Most street coppers I've met say the reason the police are not armed is due to logistics - it would take years to train them all - lack of political will/courage to admit the scale of violent crime and a lack of confidence amongst police officers who don't want to carry a firearm under any circumstances.
 
#55
a lack of confidence amongst police officers who don't want to carry a firearm under any circumstances.
Last time the polis had a survey on this wasn't it an overwhelming 'no' to being armed? We don't need armed police, gun crime may be increasing, but it's still not as widespread or bad as the media hype makes it out to be. Reading newspapers, you'd think every time it kicks off in the kebab shop or outside the off licence, people are pulling 9mms and blastign away.
 
#56
Oh_Bollox said:
a lack of confidence amongst police officers who don't want to carry a firearm under any circumstances.
Last time the polis had a survey on this wasn't it an overwhelming 'no' to being armed? We don't need armed police, gun crime may be increasing, but it's still not as widespread or bad as the media hype makes it out to be. Reading newspapers, you'd think every time it kicks off in the kebab shop or outside the off licence, people are pulling 9mms and blastign away.
Well, not in Glasgow. We usually stab each other. :wink:

Guns are reserved for those "special occasions"...like Gangster Night(every Thursday). :twisted:

Oh, and the police survey included office types, training staff etc who definately did'nt need to be armed.
 
#57
A poll conducted by the Police Federation (Police rank and file not senior officers interested in sound bites and political careers) conducted last year found that the majority of the police questioned, believed that they need to be routinely armed, but wished they didn’t.
So the requirement is there, but not the desire.

The only comparison that can be found is in the State of Louisiana, where a law was passed that allowed the use of lethal force by civilians to protect life and property. As a direct result, the number of “home invasions” (American term for burglary) dropped overnight when the law was implemented. The huge increase in the number of criminals shooting the owners as predicted by the anti-gun lobby proved to be completely wrong.

It is an extreme example, and you have to take UK and US cultures into account, but it is backed up with the reduction in muggings in states that have implemented concealed carry permits.

Senior Police Officers claimed successes on the knife and two firearms amnesties on the basis that weapons were handed in, and not on the fact that neither gun nor knife crime reduced as a result.
 
#58
Senior police officers are part of the problem, not the solution.

During the build up to the farce that was the Scottish Elections, the SNP(I think, they all sound alike)promised to put 2,000 extra police on the streets.

At which point the Scottish ACPO chucked their toys out the pram and declared that they alone had the right to decide where any extra officers would be placed. Priorities for the use of police officers could not be set by politicians, the Scrambled Eggs whined.

So, obviously, protecting the public who pay their wages is NOT a priority for Command Rank Scottish police officers... :roll: :roll:

The majority of Chief Constables are political animals who have'nt done a real days work since they passed Probation. As a result, they are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by shouting loudly and hitting it with a big stick.

I bow to no man in my hatred and contempt for politicians, but at least we have a chance to vote the b@stards out every few years. Senior police officers have a job for life, no matter how badly they fcuk up.

That's how you end up with a cnut like Blair II running one of the biggest police forces on the planet. 8O
 
#59
FrankCastle:

I don't think politicians should ever involve themselves in where or how police manpower is deployed. Pressure from the media, felt by such politicians, is usually the root cause of them trying to dictate police manpower and management issues, without any real basis or understanding of the true needs, of a given geographical area's crime problems.

Most Law Enforcement agencies now days, have computerized crime statistical units, which provide a break down, of types of crimes, by number, and sector, times, days, dates and other meaningful factors.

Such data, is than analyzed and provided to senior police management, as well as the area commanders, so they can assign their manpower, based on the needs shown by such data.
 
#60
The United States is Often cited in relation to gun crime and levels of Ownership, within the British Media. But it is by no means the sole example.

Is it not true though, that Canadian have a VERY high level of Personal gun ownership, without the ills of rampant Firearms Crime? Would I also be correct, that in the face of this Potential threat, most Canadian Police Officers are armed. Perhaps pointing to the need for greater numbers of Police in the UK being armed?
Is Violent crime (the Firearms or otherwise) not in reality, a social issue? Rather than simply a "means" issue? Perhaps, sociologically the UK and USA are simply creating more people more willing to commit violent crime? The solution, if there is one, is why people behave in that manner.

Additionally, I think it is a given that to some degree the Police in the UK should be armed, the issues just what percentage is "enough" to Persuade potential criminals that they have entered in to a zero sum game by carrying them, themselves?
 

Similar threads

Top