Gun control...

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

.

Its a lot better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.
David
[/quote]

It's a lot better to make sure the situation doesn't arise.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

And when we get to the point where that's actually possible, I will happily surrender my firearm.

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Yeah, we're not starting from the same place. I think that is pretty much the case over here. Guns are not completely eliminated, but criminals tend to use guns to commit crimes, they don't tend to go on the rampage with them.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There should be a distinction--maybe there is--between unarmed and armed crimes. If the latter were far more severely punished perhaps, in some instances, at least, the use of guns in crime would be deterred. I'm guessing of course.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

There is a strong distinction over here. I don't know about Stateside though. Carrying a handgun will get you five years over here. That's just carrying it.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

There should be a distinction--maybe there is--between unarmed and armed crimes. If the latter were far more severely punished perhaps, in some instances, at least, the use of guns in crime would be deterred. I'm guessing of course.

It doesn't work. A person who has no care for the law nor the punishment will commit a crime with a firearm regardless. The reasoning comes from how strict Mexican laws are on firearms. You can get a jail sentence for carrying a bullet on your person, you don't even have to have a gun anywhere nearby. Some of the most strict punishments dealing with firearms also comes from Mexico, yet it has one of the highest rates of crime dealing with firearms.

Heavy punishment, or strict laws does nothing to stop or prevent gun related crimes. The ONLY thing gun control does is help criminals become more effective in their crimes. It makes illegal weapons more valuable to sell on underground markets which makes them harder to track if they are used in crimes.

The only way to fix gun crimes is to adopt a policy where the people are free to arm themselves with heavy attention to gun safety and education. It takes time to develop a society that respects gun use but once a criminal understand that their victims are possibly armed they will have to think twice about committing a crime. This creates a stale mate situation. It is no different than the nuclear stale mate situation, since you know your enemy has them, you are less likely to threaten them with your weapons. It creates a peaceful resolve because the threat is equal.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Your position is not illogical as far as I can tell. The Mexican example might be unique; individuals there are using guns as members of paramilitary groups rather than as individuals. I never carry a gun, as an individual, in Mexico, but then at the time I lived there (mainly off and on in the seventies) there were no paramilitary (narcotraficante) groups. Not even the Zapatistas (until the early nineties).
Is there not a danger that if criminals think their victim may be armed that they are more inclined to shoot first and check out the situation afterwards?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Is there not a danger that if criminals think their victim may be armed that they are more inclined to shoot first and check out the situation afterwards?

Well to be honest, I would have to say yes. You can use gang violence as an example of what you are referring to. Chances are high that their victims are also armed so they don't hesitate to ambush their victims. But other types of crime don't necessarily set up an ambush situation, such as a robbery or home break in attempts. If the robber knows that there is a high probability the home owner will be armed and even well trained in how to use a firearm it makes them far less likely to try and break in. Street crimes might be different, perhaps robberies might end up in ambush attacks but the criminal knows that there is still a possibility of failure and even death with a failed attempt if the victim is armed.

Think of the opposite though? If a criminal knows for sure 100% that their victim is unarmed then their confidence goes up far more than if they are unsure or very low if they know for sure that their victim is carrying.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

My guess would be that the certainty of some punishment would be a much greater deterrent the the possibility of severe punishment. I'm also guessing.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Its a lot better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.
David

izzythepush wrote:

It's a lot better to make sure the situation doesn't arise.

That is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

I do not and I cannot believe
that the English are so stupid, nor
so inept as to be unable to make their own guns
( using known engineering plans that r freely available ) with electric tools
considering the fact that guns were manufactured long before
the advent of electric powered tools.

Guns are very simple, simple tools; ez to make,
including fully automatic weapons. Guns are among
the earliest of man 's invented machinery with moving parts.

Thay are valuable emergency equipment
that u can use to save your life.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

We don't want them David.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We don't want them David.

Its a matter of Individual rights,
REGARDLESS of what u want.

In other words,
any Englishman who wants the means
to competently defend his life from predatory violence
is within his natural rights to arm himself accordingly.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, we are a sovereign nation, and we make our own decisions. We don't want them. If that upsets a few sad gun nuts, then they can get out. This isn't the 51st State.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

No, we are a sovereign nation, and we make our own decisions. We don't want them. If that upsets a few sad gun nuts, then they can get out. This isn't the 51st State.

Yet. Good to know that there aren't any guns around though. Texas will be over shortly to set up the new Republic.

*eyeroll tongue-in-cheek*

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Questioner wrote:

Texas will be over shortly to set up the new Republic.

*eyeroll tongue-in-cheek*

That should be a logistical nightmare. How do you plan on separating Texas from the mainland?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

No, we are a sovereign nation, and we make our own decisions. We don't want them.
If that upsets a few sad gun nuts, then they can get out. This isn't the 51st State.

Yes; its sad. U don 't have any 2nd Amendment.
U don 't live in freedom. U can die in its absence,
at the discretion of a violent predator
who lacks interest in your gun laws.

If I were a violent criminal,
for sure I 'd want all of my victims to be HELPLESSLY UNarmed.
I 'd be very disappointed if thay turned out to be more powerful than I was, in my capacity as predator.

I guess, in England, if a victim of violent crime
turns out to be well armed, that is considered to be CHEATING
the predator, right????? Is that like hitting the bad guy below the belt????

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We don't want them David.

Has there been a survay of English opinion on that point???
(I have a hunch that it woud favor u.)

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I guess, in England, if a victim of violent crime
turns out to be well armed, that is considered to be CHEATING
the predator, right????? Is that like hitting the bad guy below the belt????
David

If he's well armed he's no victim. Look we don't wan't all and sundry armed. We prefer there to be less gun crimes, not more. Don't try to force your crackpot ideas on us. We don't want them. If any political party suggested relaxing the gun laws, they would be wiped out electorally. We are a free society, we make our own laws. We don't take orders from Americans.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I guess, in England, if a victim of violent crime
turns out to be well armed, that is considered to be CHEATING
the predator, right????? Is that like hitting the bad guy below the belt????
David

izzythepush wrote:

If he's well armed he's no victim.

That statement is logically untenable.
For instance:
if a well armed Englishman is taken by surprize,
he can be robbed. If he is the target of an intentional, malicious murder
(e.g., a contract for a mob hit) then he can fall victim to a well planned ambush
regardless of how well he has armed himself.

Guns are valuable emergency equipment,
but thay are not an invincible panacea.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Carrying a handgun is a crime over here. If he's carrying a gun and he's not a policeman he is a criminal. Regarding surveys, public reaction is more anti-gun. When Derrick Bird went on the rampage last year people wanted to know how he had a rifle AND a shotgun. The mood is for tougher laws.

If relaxing the gun laws were a votewinner both parties would have jumped on the bandwagon by now.

1 Reply

Gun control...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know