Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Incidentally: I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to turn this into an America-v-Britain thing. I wasn't insulting to America or Americans in the discussion about guns. I was interested in a seemingly distinct cultural difference. One that is apparently distinct between different parts of America as much as it is distinct between our two nations. ...

... But as your intent was clearly to insult, I'll take it as one. And again ask the question: why be insulting?

People are products of their environments and their history. Part of our history is sending over thousands of basic firearms, rifles and handguns, for Britain's Home Guard defense against potential invasion by Germany during WWII. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ... ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II.

I've met British and French military personnel, those who've seen how fragile social stability can be up close and personal, who were embarrassed by their civilian populations' apathy in this regard today and how they had resigned themselves to it. I felt sorry for them. That's what I think of when someone espouses political action as the only proper course; so, they themselves will never be considered responsible for countering violence with return violence, not on their own streets, not even in their own homes. That's someone else's job. Unfortunately, the divisions here are the result of too many people, well kept insulated by politicians in government, heading them in that direction too.

I find that aspect of you (collectively*) loathsome. Many in your own military find you* loathsome. Many in our military find people like you* here, loathsome. More and more civilians here now are finding people like you* loathsome; because, more of them are veterans now ... people who have seen first hand that price of freedom is not only eternal vigilance; but, that this price can't always be met by contributing to political action alone.

To hold the position that a civilian population shouldn't be armed; because, they can't win is to hold the position that they shouldn't even try after all hope is lost politically. We don't ascribe to that. That's why our culture's declaration of independence from your culture's includes within its specified inalienable rights the "pursuit" of happiness. To hold the position that the odds against all hope being lost politically is so great the civilian population shouldn't be armed is to hold the position that the government won't impose martial law on the citizenry. The government just did that in Ferguson, Missouri. As part of the front end analysis, we'll do our own threat analysis for both internal and external threats (we saw how you got caught with your pants down during WWII and we learned, thank you).

I was going to do a Jeff Foxworthy parody on You might be a redneck if , something like the one Grav posted, titled You might be loathsome if; but I didn't want to hurt your feelings. No insult intended. Your welcome.

[DanaC]

Part of our history is sending over thousands of basic firearms, rifles and handguns, for Britain's Home Guard defense against potential invasion by Germany during WWII. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ... ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II.

It wasn't just because of disarmament. Britain ploughed everything it had into arming and supplying its regular army - up to and including melting down or reusing anything that could be used to make weaopns and ammunition. The Home Guard was always a 'back up' plan in case of invasion - the biggest push was the army itself. The Home Guard was armed with odds and sods of stuff. Much of it bought in or, yes, donated by the US. But had the population been better armed, those arms would have been commandeered for the regular army, so it is a moot point. We were melting down pots and pans and park railings for our bullets ffs. The army took absolute precedence in all of that. Why on earth would we have left the better weaponry in the hands of the home defence when the main action wasn't on our home ground?

The main reason for the formation of the Home Guard was political pressure and a huge upswell of people wanting to form a home defence, primarily ex-servicemen and people who couldn't qualify for full military service. The vast majority of the weapons used for that home defence were purchased not donated. The rush to arm that home defence was more a response to that internal political pressure and the morale boost it would provide than actual expected military need.

I've met British and French military personnel, those who've seen how fragile social stability can be up close and personal, who were embarrassed by their civilian populations' apathy in this regard today and how they had resigned themselves to it.

And I have met military personnel who really do not want to see our population routinely armed. Who consider it their job as trained professionals and don't want civvys sticking their noses in where they might get blown off. Many of those same soldiers are pretty disdainful of the 'toy soldiers' who 'play weekend warrior' and civilians who play with guns.

Might surprise you to know I have a few friends in the service and my wider family has a history of military and naval service. Including, funnily enough, my dad being in the Home Guard in the late 50s because he didn't pass the medical requirements to enlist.

At times of war, when the country's security is threatened even those who are nominally pacifists enlist in large numbers. In times of peace we leave it to the professionals.

Many in your own military find you* loathsome.

And many don't. And would be deeply insulted by that statement.

[sexobon]

Due to the extremely high probability that my further discussion of this subject with you would be construed as trolling, I find it necessary to terminate the interaction at this time. So sorry for any inconvenience it may cause. HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Due to the extremely high probability that my further discussion of this subject with you would be construed as trolling

Nah. I get the impression this is a subject you are serious about.

But yeah. You too :P

Oh incidentally: when I said gun control was broadly supported, and not imposed on an unwilling populace I was talking about modern gun controls enacted by a modern parliament. The gun controls between the wars were absolutely about disarming the populace for fear of socialists and strikers with their ranks filled by large numbers of disgruntled and armed former soldiers. But that was a very different political culture with more in common with the 19th century than a modern democratic system.

[DanaC]

None of that is to say that I agree with the level of gun control in the Uk. I happen to think it has gone too far and become too restrictive. I wouldn't want a gun free for all. But some of the recent legislation to my mind was not well-thought out and was a knee jerk reaction to tragic gun deaths. I am similarly against the recent changes to laws on carrying knives - in particular the heavy sentences applied for those who do.

The element of the restrictions I disagree with is that 'home defence' is not considered a reasonable use and justification for gun ownership - though if you have a gun for professional sporting reasons and you then use it in home defence that is considered reasonable use.

I have a problem with the draconian sentences that are imposed for illegal gun ownership where no other crime has been committed. In particular the sentences imposed on soldiers who have brought guns home with the. It seems excessive if the gun hasn't been used to commit a crime to impose sentences that outlast the sentences for rape and some violent crimes.

[Big Sarge]

It looks like Great Britain is increasing the number of armed police on the streets in response to an unspecified IS attack. If 10 or 20 terrorists attack an area, I bet some folks would wish they could protect themselves. An armed populace can really be of assistance such as at Coffeville, KS.

[DanaC]

They do that occasionally when the terror threat levels rise. We do have armed police, particularly around airports and train stations etc.

And in some places (some parts of Scotland for instance) it's not uncommon for specialist armed police to also do routine policing for some of the time and still have their guns with them.

If 10 or 20 terrorists attack an area, I bet some folks would wish they could protect themselves. An armed populace can really be of assistance such as at Coffeville, KS.

Maybe. Or maybe it would lead to even more people getting shot :p

Seriously, would you trust someone like me with a fucking gun?




"Everybody who isn't an American put down the gun!"

I can think of waaaay more people I wouldn't want armed in that situation than I can of people I would. All fine and dandy if someone's been trained in the use of a firearm or been shooting since they were knee high to a grasshopper, out hunting deer in the wild. But there really aren't that many people in the Uk who hunt and not many places to hunt. Guns for sport is a thing - but not nearly as big of a thing as it is for you guys.

If some of those people were ex-military who know what they're doing, then awesome bring them on they'll probably not hit any bystanders. Or if they were people who had taken an interest in guns and gone to shooting ranges and learned how to use the weapon. Trouble is the people most likely to go out and get themselves a weapon and then have it with them in the event of an incident are people like my old mate Paul and frankly he'd be more dangerous than the terrorists to the people around him.

[Big Sarge]

Here's an interesting story.

Armed & dangerous: 89-year-old World War II veteran shoots armed robber

Arthur M. Lewis may be elderly, but criminals are learning the North Palm Beach man is no easy mark.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

The two men wrestled for several minutes and fired shots at each other. Despite battling someone half his age, Lewis got the best of it. A man identified by the sheriff’s office as Lennard Patrick Jervis, a Miramar resident, was shot six times by Lewis, including four times in the chest. Lewis’ left arm was grazed by a bullet, but he was otherwise unscathed.

No one else was in the store at the time.

“I thought he was going to kill me as soon as I saw the gun,” Lewis told The Palm Beach Post on Monday afternoon. “I thought, ‘This time, I’m dead.’ ”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...s-shoot/ng9Dc/

[DanaC]

89-year-old World War II veteran

Awesome story.

less awesome story:

A crew member with the long-running TV show Cops has been shot dead by police while recording officers trying to foil a robbery.

Sound operator Bryce Dion, 38, died from a gunshot wound when police opened fire, hitting him by mistake.

The robbery suspect, 32-year-old Cortez Washington, was also shot dead by police.

The incident began when a police officer responded to a request for back up at a Wendy's store in Omaha, Nebraska.

Two Cops crew members were with the officer, and accompanied police as they entered the restaurant.

As police confronted the suspect, Mr Dion, who was wearing a bullet-proof vest, became separated from his cameraman.

Officers then fired upon Washington as he fled the restaurant. He collapsed and died of his injuries.

Police later discovered that Washington was armed with a pellet gun, which officers thought was a real handgun.

I do genuinely mean that the old man foiling the robbery and defending himself was awesome btw. I just think that more guns in general circulation makes for more danger. He was able to protect himself - that is good.

[Big Sarge]

Some interesting view points from stars about guns. Note that many live in very liberal non-gun friendly locations.

James Earl Jones is a member of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and once said, "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

Miranda Lambert is packin' heat and she's not afraid to admit it: "I carry a weapon," she told Self magazine. "I got a death threat a few years ago and was really scared. But I don't want bodyguards. I am my own security."

Although he isn't currently a licensed gun-holder, Johnny Depp recalls being quite familiar with the weapon in his younger years -- a skill he's hoping to teach to his own children.

"We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns," Depp said in 2009. "When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren't shooting at humans -- we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."

Whoopi Goldberg disclosed during a taping of "The View" that she is a member of the National Rifle Association.

If we've learned anything from Angelina Jolie's acting career, it's that she looks good holding a gun.

In 2008, Jolie told the U.K.'s Daily Mail, "I bought original, real guns of the type we used in 'Tomb Raider' for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I'd be able to use it if I had to ... If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

Simply showing that our royalty carry guns and it looks like your royalty do the same. Did you know Prince Philip enjoyed tiger hunting and Queen Elizabet II accompanied him? Prince Charles, Prince William and even Kate own guns and hunt.

[DanaC]

Yeah, I know that. There are some people who hunt. Not just royals. Hunting as a sport is a legitimate reason to own guns, by which I mean it is one of the reasons which is accepted in law as a legitimate reason to apply for a licence and own a gun. Most farmers own guns.

Figures from 2010 for gun ownership in the UK

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 26,072 certificate holders at the end of last year. Some 50,000 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 137,768 weapons are covered by that scheme.

It is difficult to get a gun licence. You have to prove that you have a reasonable justification for owning a gun - sport for instance or professional reasons (farmers for instance usually own shotguns). You have to provide references who will vouch for you. You have to be assessed as fit to own a gun and you have to comply with strict safety rules regarding how those guns are kept and where.


And yeah - sometimes criminal have guns.

But look at the figures for gun deaths and gun crime:

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12
There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population)
Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).

Because criminals aren't as well or frequently armed the police don't have to be as well or frequently armed.

In the year 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers, 12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 5 incidents where conventional firearms were used.[2]

Between 1980 and 2012 there were 19 incidents of fatal shooting by police (not including Northern ireland - which is a very different kettle of cod).

Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan.

In the four years to 2012, armed officers officers opened fire 18 times - nine fatally. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-...ppy-fact-check

I have some sympathy with the American police. I can see why they might get a little itchy on the trigger given the serious danger they face on a regular basis of being shot at. And I can see why someone would want to own a gun for self defence when there is a serious danger of facing criminals who are armed with guns.

But it effectively leads to an arms race. Gun homicides in the US for 2012 were 2.83 per 100,000 population.

And that's just homicides. Thousands die every year to gun accidents. And tens of thousands commit suicide with a gun - which increases overall suicide rates as they are more likely to be successful suicides than most other methods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...United_Kingdom

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/repo...olence-uk.html


Look - I'm not going to convince you that gun control is a good thing. Nor is that my intent. The situation in America is culturally specific. And the problem with an arms race is - being the one who disarms first puts you at risk. But - I do want to show why I don't think it wuold be a good idea for the UK to emulate America's approach to gun ownership.

The dangers of possible invasion though possible are highly theoretical - not saying it couldnt happen - of course it could. But It is difficult to feel that as a real danger when we haven't been successfully invaded in many centuries. We've had invasion scares - but it's not materialised. There was an attempt in 1797 and that was actually the most recent attempt at an invasion - but the last successful invasion was 1000 years ago.

In terms of warfare there hasn't been a need for an actual battle on the mainland since (I think) the mid 18th century. Not counting the Battle of Britain of course which was fought in the air.

And the last time government forces fired on protesting civilians was, I think the 19th century (though I could be wrong on that). Riots and demonstrations haven't been met with deadly force for a very, very long time (again, except for in Northern Ireland).

So the threat of a tyrannical government imposing itself by force of arms similarly doesn't feel like a real threat. Again, that these things haven't happened for a long time doesn't mean they could never happen - but they just aren't as a big a part of our national psyche as they are for yours.

Terrorism as a threat is real, yes. But - actual incidents since the end of the Troubles have been few and far between (and for most of the time during the Troubles the threats were all to do with placed bombs) Horrific when they do occur - unlikely in most instances to have been less deadly had civilians been carrying weapons.


What does feel like a real threat is the idea of a lot more people having guns. And then a lot more police having guns. And a lot more criminals having guns. And a lot more people ....and repeat.

[Pamela]

This chart shows a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Pamela

This chart shows a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

According to that chart the homicide rate is near zero in Iraq and Syria.

It seems the huge numbers of guns in those countries have created a perfectly safe, crime-free, non-totalitarian zone of sorts or something

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

According to that chart the homicide rate is near zero in Iraq and Syria.

It seems the huge numbers of guns in those countries have created a perfectly safe, crime-free, non-totalitarian zone of sorts or something

Awesomesauce. Let's move to Iraq for safety :p

I notice as well that despite the headline and the blurb, Britain is shown in the lowest gun ownership category and also the lowest murder category.

[Big Sarge]

Hmm. It looks like Great Britain in 2010 had a 776 per 100,000 violent crime rate. During the same time, the US had a 403 per 100,000 violent crime rate. I guess our violent crime rate is less because criminals know we fight back.