resist? this isnt resisting. this is taking it in the ass and biting down on your tongue. you take your guns, you load them up and you march into the government building and demand they step down or youll take violent action. stand up for your rights you spineless cowards!
the same are trying to do here in argentina. and now is less safe country.while the outlaws use weapons without restrctions the ex members of the forces and the civilians are forced to disarm themselves and the police is a disaster.it might sound stupid but its the truth
In the US freakin soccer moms who don't understand the constitution and have no idea bout what the right to bare arms is there for are working hard to disarm us. If you're not for the right to bare arms then you're not a true American.
If they come for my guns, I will make sure they remember the day they took them. For when they do take them, the barrel's will be hot, I will be surrounded by shell casings and the bodies of my targets in my wake, and they will pry the gun from my cold dead hands.
@keyanage Thank you very much my friend. You guys in Australia have an outstanding advocate by the name of Steve Lee. Look up his video on YouTube, he's a singer and I think you will like his message. Take care!
Oh yeah, and Brady Center only flunked him because he isn't TAKING ACTION for gun control. That doesn't mean ANYTHING about his convictions. This is only his political strategy.
@DavyCrockett2 He's made it clear that he sees gun control as a state issue, not a federal one. His voting record is consistent with that claim. It's clear that he's not going to push for gun control at the federal level. What, exactly is your beef with him then? He's not going to DO anything you'll object to on gun control, so why are you getting your panties in a twist?
When in the state senate, he never voted PRO-gun EVER. That tells you all you need to know. Do you honestly believe that those convictions just vanish now that he's at the federal level? The best judge of a persons future actions are their past actions. Get real.
1.) I SAW THE POSTING on the White House website. Obama DID want to bring back the JOKE "assault weapons" ban that didn't ban any gun. He DID want to eliminate the Tihart Amendment that protects gun trace information from public use. He DID want others as well, but I am limited on words here.
2.) Don't kid yourself for TWO SECONDS his stance on gun control. He is simply remaining quiet as his political strategy to not lose his ass. Look at his state voting record.
"At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away.""
And there is not a ban on machine guns. They have always been legal. Do not challenge me on this like every other person does. I will make you look stupid. No offense.
This is why I'm glad I live in the United States, where the worst we have to deal with is a ban on fully automatic weapons (Waste of ammo anyway) and in some states a waiting period to get a new gun. Even Obama calls gun control a "state issue" and has vowed to keep the Fed out of it while he's in office.
Australia is suffering just as much as Britain. All this is coming from the UN and IANSA. The country most responsible, reminds me of a good old American saying.... "BLAME CANADA"
I feel deeply for Britain and Australian citizens, and for what ever its worth... My congressmen will here your fears through my words.
Thanks man, we're trying to make an effort here but few legal UK gun owners have the teeth and admit they have there weapons for self-defence or even argue for self-defence as they think they'll lose what guns they have left.
Sorry, but Tony could used a salt shotgun,ruberr ball shotgun or other nonletal weapons.The right to defend your property is not meaning to use a T-72 tank to blows-up intruders.
@cornel10 May I sugest a assalt rifile with either 5.56 ball round or 7.62 A great effective range,Let the enemies now,we are not fooling round.ARM UP.Buy freeze dried food stuffs availle on the net at a reasonable cost.Time is running out my friend.SHOOT BACK~
@cornel10 First off who said anything about a tank. A hand gun or rifle beats a stick any day. Guns are equalizers and if someone had the choice of any stick in the world I could find someone who could beat them barehanded, or any person with hands who could shoot them, but the biggest thing guns can do is prevent attacks. Only an idiot charges a man with a .45 aimed at him. BTW the term is "less lethal" because it is possible to kill with them without proper training.-tazers which wouldn't help
@sovietterran Excuse-me, the problem is not the idiot wich charge with a gun aimed at him, the problem is the idiot wich have a gun pointed to you without a good reason.I'm sick about car accidents in my country , I could'nt tolerate other accidents because those fucking guns.
@cornel10 Unfortunately there will always be those who break the laws with guns, but even with a ban they are BREAKING THE LAW and thus will still have access to guns. Why take away the rights of those who do not break the law and don't do stupid thing like that to defend themselves.
It's not about to be a safer place , it is about to decrease the number of shooting accidents.Look at americans, they have a lot of psycho wich use guns to kill childrens in schools.And those peoples are not criminals, they just have a mental disease.
@cornel10 a mental disease? What like you? oi tell me how you could use a T72 for home defense..... or how it would be practical.All this touchy feely nonsense needs to end.An armed society is a polite and safe society.Liberals have a mental disorder that causes them to be pets,like a typical house cat.You couldn't do anything about it if someone was invading your home.So why bother to even listen to a man that cant even protect himself or his family.You're just another worthless slave.
@Xen5s Excuse me, mister cow-boy , I can use a stick to beat the crap out of you , if you try to invade my house.You are a pussy if you need a firearm to defend yourself. And , by the way, the majority of robbers are waiting until your house is empty.Am I wrong or few days ago some maniac shooted 5 peoples on british streets?
@cornel10 I wouldn't be in anyones home without obvious consent. stick aint gonna do anything against a gun you would have to be very close and very lucky.Yea I feel for the English they gave up their rights far to easily.
If any of you anti-gun persons read about the Cullen Enquiry after Dunblane& those who covered up for the killer,by granting him a firearms license renewal,you'd know who was to blame
I live in N J and I can guarantee you government is your enemy , they basically want to enslave you keep you indentured in a polluted environment that is only getting worse and deny their role in the degradation of human rights and increasing pollution. The only ones with rights are the criminals, victims are blamed for being an attractive nuisance in other words crime against citizens is excusable because they have played by the rules and accumulated a minuscule amount of basic necessities.
Yeah, in America we got the Patriot Act, enough Patriots didn't fight it, and the Tea Party types were sipping tea because their party pushed it through, so I don't want to hear any Big Government BS from American Tea Party hypocrites. And the Iraq War too, they cheered with the Bush league liars, pushing America into a never-ending expensive life-ending (choose life???) boondoggle.
Moderates and Liberals in America, get your guns!!!
"unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." Notice in each case of gun control, or banning firearms, each sentence ended in this way. Someone suggested that rather than banning guns, we should ban murder. Sounds like a simple solution, except the criminals don't adhere to laws. If we ban everything that may be dangerous, I guess cars, knives, air travel, and most sports will be next. Its time to really punish crime, and let the citizens keep their firearms.
instead of banning guns we should ban murder...oh wait we did...wonder why it keeps happening?...yea go ahead ban guns...it won't matter I know lots of legal gun owners that admit that if the Gov comes for there guns there stashing them.
wow what stupid propaganda. in canada here we arent allowed to own guns yet we're one of the safest countries in the world.
wtf is this shit in the description "exterminated" u do realise this isnt the early 1900s anymore?? there are no wars in north america! just cuz u dont own a gun doesnt mean ur gonna die! wtf.
What part of canada do you live in?We can own guns it's just that curtosy of the liberal government we all need to be rectaly probed and penatrated before we can own one.
The only guns we are not allowed to own in Canada are fully automatic weapons like machine guns. Rifles, shotguns and OH NO handguns! are all legal in Canada. There are an estimated 7 to 20 million guns in Canada, depending on who you ask. DESPITE the number of guns Canadians own, Canada is one of the safest countries in the world.
I 'd say that Britain needs to start a citizens' revolution. If this happens to me here in New Jersey, then I will consider the government an enemy and a dangerous threat. They would be no better than the criminals.
@opsmanprime Your goverment and mine no longer care for our great common heritage,past history ect.They hate whites,although we are the backbone.It is a one world adgenda that our idiot prezidunce approves of,as well as your leaders,My friends,the only way to end this is no longer thru preacful protest,but thru all out urban war.Arm up.It is the British and American way.In America,our founding fathers approve.
@DavyCrockett2 Well no one is trying to take guns from Texans. Even Obama has made it clear he sees gun control as a "State Issue" and has vowed to keep the fed out of it while he's in office.
@DavyCrockett2 I just PMed you the text of the Chicago Tribune article "Obama anti-gun? No, anti-gun control" by gun enthusiast and journalist Steve Chapman. Obama's public stance and record in office is very anti-gun control. Anyone claiming he posted a gun control agenda on the white house web site is lying to you.
@DavyCrockett2 Funny, after two years and a lame duck congress that was willing to do anything he wanted he STILL hasn't even PROPOSED any gun control. You'd almost think he was telling the truth when he said he didn't think the Fed had any business in limiting gun ownership.
Truth is, he doesn't want to cost himself re-election. He knows people are sick of the gun-control crap. Especially after the mid-terms I don't think he will try.
@DavyCrockett2 "He knows people are sick of the gun-control crap"
That's probably why he was very vocal in his opposition to federal gun control during his initial campaign.
Why in God's name do you think he would favor federal gun control when everything he has ever said and done points towards him seeing it as a state issue? Are you just assuming because he's a Democrat he must be a closet gun control fanatic?
When in the state senate, he never voted PRO-gun EVER. That tells you all you need to know. Do you honestly believe that those convictions just vanish now that he's at the federal level? The best judge of a persons future actions are their past actions. Get real.
@DavyCrockett2 "Read my previous comment again there Howdy Doody."
Why are you so determined to pretend he WANTS to pass gun control laws at the federal level even though everything he's said and done in his entire career makes it clear he thinks it's a state concern?
Is it REALLY that hard for you to comprehend a Democrat who things states should have the final say in gun control legislation?
@timhenson08 You do know Obama pushed to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban in his first six months don't you? He failed, but he did try and he did lie.
oh and if archery is a sport, so is shooting. i should know, i shoot competitively. and im not a nut. i think the most responsible people are law abiding gun owners and i would trust them with my life. Skater3shefik - u are very much right with the idea of respect. people are just afraid of what they dont know.
that poor bloke. What has society come to?? We are telling people that they can rob, rape and pillage, get a slap on the wrist, and then sue afterwards. The laws look after the crims better then they do the law abiding citizens.
Also the bit about unarmed police is important to remember, in the USA all police have guns, but if 90% of our police force in this country is able to police the UK without firearms, it clearly shows citizens dont need to be mass armed.
If alot more citizens need to be given guns then the police must ALL be given guns, then you get into the situation where more criminals want guns! A criminal wouldnt rob a house here with a gun , that might change if everyone else has guns.
Here, criminals will always have guns. Point being that they will whether the US bans firearms or not. So with low percentages of crime being from legally owned weapons, a ban would do little good, violent crime coming from a suprisingly small percentage of people.
People don't kill each other only because they have a gun. They have reasons and that's what society should be concentrating on figuring out, because it is simply too easy to gain access to illegal firearms here.
i dont know about britain but in australia the people had no say the government passed the law and told people to hand them over, simple as that.the government recieved around 60 percent of illegal weapons back and are aware that 40% are still out there in criminals posseion. so how does that make my country safer?
I have a new found respect for the British people after seeing this. But it's too late for them. They chosen foolishness over common sense and are paying for it.
This kind of thing will never happen in the United States. The weapons will will be taken by force taking both military, police and civilian life in a blood bath.
The Queen is not responsible for policy, she must remain neutral from such things and would only act with the will of the British people. She has too much to lose as any future monarch would if they tried for more power
Where as Obama as president, is able to implement policies that give more power to him, be it taking over more american companies or undermining state rights. Thats how someone takes power bit by bit taking more and more power
The Queen cant do that, it would be all or nothing
One other thing dont know if i mentioned it before in a conversation with you but i say it from time to time.
The USA locks up 2 million, we only lock up 100,000. So taking into account population differences far more of your population is in prison than ours and we know US hands out longer sentences. If we went around and locked up 100,000 people we know to be criminals then we could see a radical reduction in crime here.
The US also labels EVERY killing as a "Homicide" from the time of it's discovery. But the UK doesn't officially label them until full discovery and sometimes not until conviction. This also skews the numbers. Source; A Constable I knew from Bristol.
The figures i look at from the UK are for both murder / manslaughter. Neither the UKs or the US figure includes suicide etc.
Even if we addressed certain differences in gathering the date, i doubt it would change the fact we are safer in the Uk to you being safer in the USA.. thats just too far a jump to make.
Ill take a look at the most recent figures i can find on these matters, the numbers i go by at the moment are from the last couple of years.
government says guns are bad. aren't the military fighting for our freedom. what about gun freedom? The government is no longer a legit entity. Everything is obvious to the public who were taken for granted by the politicians and the wannabe social scientists that work for them.
I read a story last month on the BBC's website about some chaps in Northern GB who hacked up their own family members with knives and a machete at a funeral too. It doesn't matter where you live,or what you have in your hands to harm others.If you are a sick bastard with no regard for the welfare of others no law can stop you from commiting crimes of mass bloodshed. I have a natural right to defend myself against all who try to harm me....and a conceal,and carry gun permit insures that right!
I can just about live with a limited few people being allowed firearms in their homes. lmao at letting millions of people carry guns around with them to work.. my god thats not going to happen here.
Its true you can kill someone with anything, but its alot easier to kill or hold agroup of people hostage with a firearm than it is a small knife with limited range.
I dont know when the last time somebody in this country went into a church and shoot dead the priest, but it happened in America a few days ago. We would be mad in this country if we followed the advice or policies from the United States when it comes to guns. I understand ur gun rights, but pls tell me why is a handgun so important? Handguns are a more serious threat than a shotgun because its easier to hide when in public. So why not allow every home to have a rifles but ban hand guns
You miss the whole point of allowing an armed populous. A government has less to fear from an umaprmed public than an armed one. The politicians in the UK knew whatthey were doing. Teh gun ban was meant to disarm the law abiding citizens not the criminals since criminals don't buy their guns in a gunshop. they buy them on the street. No gun law will govern the blackmarket.
Im sorry but a bunch of armed red necks can not take on the US marines so i really dont buy into this issue. Ofcourse in the past when democracy was unstable and America was at risk of being invaded being armed made sense. But today no country is going to try and "occupy" the USA and a shot .gun can not be any use against the US military.
the greatest threat to democracy is lack of free press. Im sorry but Americas media is more biased and corrupt than the UKs. Well keep our free media thanks
No the greatest threat to a democracy is an ignorant population. We are seeing that here in the US. Our voter turn out is embarassingly low. You never get the form of government you want but you ALWAYS get the one you deserve. When I talk to people on my way to and from work their ignroance of how the system works and who is in office is depressing. It's made more so due to the fact that the information is just a few key strokes away.
I agree an ignorant population is a big threat to democracy, but that is influenced more by the media than if someone owns a gun or not.
The US media is corrupt, at the moment you have some clearly biased towards Obama and then theres fox which is anti democrat. Such bias media is dangerous, and i see it as a far bigger threat.
Having guns really doesnt make a huge difference to defendng democracy in the 21st century.. not in the western world anyway
"Im sorry but a bunch of armed red necks can not take on the US marines"
They said the same about a bunch of rag tag colonists taking on the British Army.
Plus you're thinking that the US Marines would take up arms against the Lawful population of the US. Sorry, but the USMC are not mindless lackies to blindly follow the unlawful orders of a tyrant.
Lol the British Army didnt have air power and heavily armed tanks / body armour. But if the US marines and other American armed forces didnt take up arms against the people who exactly do you need to keep ur guns to defend you from?
The British Army had major assets and vast experiance in warfare. Supplies in abundance, Naval support, etc. The Colonists didn't have air, tanks and body armor either. Though the British cavalry did still use curaiss' I do believe.
As to who would we need weapons to defend against. Do a google for "obamas civilian security force". There will always be "useful idiots" who will throw in with a tyrant in exchange for money, power, percieved importance ie. Brown Shirts, Hitler Youth, etc
Whilst the British Army was clearly the well trained force which should of been able to take out the rebels it is slightly different to having the huge air assets available today to every military allowing complete control of an environment. And its not like the colonials had no help, backed up by French naval; forces which prevented British reinforcments.
As for Obamas youth lol ive seen a couple of those videos but if the US army is going to be on ur side, why do u need guns?
As i said before the greatest threat to democracy is corrupt media. Your guns have not stopped Americas media becoming totally corrupt and biased which really is dangerous.
What use is having a gun in your home if your media brainwashes people to think there isnt a problem.
The argument of defending yourself from the government in the 21st century just doesnt make sense, in the past ofcourse but not today.
I'll pray for you. If the majority of people in the UK have decided that defending their individual freedom against tyranny "just doesnt make sense" due to the passage of time,then I have little faith in your continued freedom. Good luck with dealing with a nation under sharia law.
Umm MIT, defending individual freedom against tyranny is important but we dont need to all have guns to do that. As i said the most important thing is fair and balanced media, The BBC which is paid for by the British people is constitutionally bound to be fair and balanced when it comes to politics. This prevents one party buying media power and corruption.. its happening in the USA. Most media was inbed with Obama.
As for Sharia law, you talk nonsense. Muslims will never form a majority here
And ofcourse we have a monarchy here with the ability to remove the prime minister from power and suspend parliament if needed. In the USA you put all power in one man, the president.
Our armed forces serve the monarch not a politician.
"In the USA you put all power in one man, the president."
That may be how THIS administration thinks it is but the way it's supposed to work is that the 3 branches of our Govt are supposed to be equal. Congress can impeach the president if needed but theyrewed it up the last time they tried it and let slick willy slither on through.
Theres no real respect here for the office of the Prime Minister, he simply leads Her Majestys government. But in the US nobody is higher than the president, power can corrupt.
If the Prime minister went nuts, he can be removed from power without the need for the Parliament (where the PM holds a majority) voting him out. The Queen can dissolve parliament if needed and the British Armed Forces are loyal to her not the Prime Minister.
Anyway media / political power is more important than guns.
"Bill O Reilly for example is clearly republican yet he thinks people should have respect for the office of the presidency" Talk show pundits aside, there are few actually who have no respect for the OFFICE of the President. It's the same as when I would salute an Officer I had no respect for while in the Marines. I was rendering respect to the uniforn and the rank. Not the person.
What if HRM went bonkers? Looks to me like you have the same situation only titles are different.
But thats the point most americans have respect for the office, even if they hate the guy. That kind of respect breeds loyalty, and having such loyalty to an elected official is dangerous
How can you feel a need to be loyal to someone whos responsible for policy, it creates a conflict of interest?
Her Majesty go bonkers? :O never lol. We put our faith and trust in our monarch, id trust her more than someone who seeks political power. The Queen cant secretly take more power, unlike a President
I have posted on a few videos like this one for over a year now. They are about the United Kingdom or ENglands gun bans, but the vast majority of people i always find debating this matter with are Americans not British people.
we have a very different culture when it come to guns. You may be prepared to see school shootings every year or 10,000 murders with firearms, well we are not. As far as im aware the last major School shooting in this country was the dunblane massacre 13 years ago
And that is where parenting should be enforced. His parent should be haeld responsible for his actions, for he obviously wasn't raised right. My children are tought about guns, and are allowed to shoot them when they ask. therefore, it is no "seductive but resricted unknown" so if they see a gun, they are aware of it, and prefer to let me know, they wont touch one with out asking me, and then its only on a range. I've tesed them here and there on it, leave my pistol on counter, see what they do.
If you'ved trained them well, they should stop and say, "Let's tell dad his gun is out." then they go get you. Mine do. They are 3 and 5. They've never failed a est and picked up the gun. Ever. It's called training, and its a parents job.
Training is an important matter. Now i can understand a country which has conscription where all the men do military service and have to learn about using the gun and responsibility, that seems far more sensible than just letting any fool purchase one but i would not want that here.
You let ur 3 and 5 year old children be around guns like that? I can maybe understand a father with his teenage gun, but 3?? Im sorry but that is just dangerous.
what makes a gun dangerous sir? just that it's a gun? or is it the ammunition that is dangerous ? when i test my children, it is not at all dangerous, there is no ammunition, nor a box magazine in or near the firearm, and I am always only a few feet away pretending not to watch.Training is THE issue. see, the reason humanity is the world top of the food chain, are tools. Guns are a tool. nothing more. If guns didn't exist, Ninjas would kill as many people with swords! lol.
Well im glad u keep the guns unloaded. I agree with u that training is important, however even with training we do not need guns here.
See its ashame about this slaughter in Germany. 15 dead because the nutter was able to go home and pick up his parents legally owned gun. We shouldnt take such risks. sorry.
Id rather someone come at me with a sword than a firearm. I doubt that kid could of killed 15 people in a school if all he had was a sword.
You should research the killings in Japan within the last few years. People armed only with knives, running through the unarmed populous. Many killed.
Oh my god you're an idiot. School shootings are rare. Last I checked Crim in the UK has risen while crime her ein the US has been on a fairly steady decline. Over all the US is a much safer place then the UK is.
Lmao im sorry but that is simply not the case. Certain crimes have risen, yes that includes violent crime but that isnt with firearms.
In England (population 50 million) there are 60 firearm homocides a year. In the USA (300 million) there are over 10,000 firearm homocides.
You are 30 times MORE likely to be shot dead in the USA, you are 3 times more likely to be murdered (anyway). We are safer here than in the USA. The figures overwhelmingly prove this to be the case.
Only so long as you and your family bend over for the nice criminal who happens to pick you for their next target. I sure hope they don't behave with the increasing level of violence that has been climbing ever since the gun ban. Sorry, we learned a long time ago that; "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
The rise in violence crime is not linked to the gun bans. There has been a trend in serious crime for decades, it didnt suddenly happen a decade ago when we imposed some very strict gun laws (although the laws before were tough anyway).
The fact is guns are still very rare in this country and criminals with them are treated very seriously. Im sure its a very small number of home robberies with firearms, far more happen in the USA.
The fact remains we are far safer in the UK than in the USA.
Well all those with the exception of robbery show Britain is a safer and better place to live.
30 times more likely to be shot dead, 3 times more likely to be murdered.. im sorry but these are correct figures and clearly show its far safer here.
Yes but in the US if you remove the number of gang and drug related killings. Killings that would take place with or without a gun! Then remove the number of lawful shootings by Police and Law abiding citizens in self defense, then our numbers are lower than most European countries. It's a pitiful case of coddleing criminals throughout the judicial system. Here is against the law to deny convicts access to cable TV.
Who the victim is shouldnt matter, much of our gun crime is linked to organized crime or gang culture. It is still deaths which are unacceptable, There are alot of lawful shootings by US police, its very rare someone is killed here. As for lawful killings by citizens, thats a joke. Some guy from texas was found innocent even though he shot two criminals running away. That is NOT self defense.
Its americas fault they have allowed the gang culture to get as out of hand as it is today.
they were not approaching his house, they were running away from the scene. This idea you can shoot and kill people in self defense in such circumstances is a bloody joke
"well you got to teach them a lesson so they wont do it again!"
Exactly!!!!! thats punishment, not self defense. Punishment is for the courts not for individuals to dish out on their own, especially to murder someone.
If you please, I can send you a link of gun defense stories you'll never hear about on that island of yours. They're all true, they even come with the links to the news story they were taken from.
That might change your perspective on how many people use their legal firearms to defend themselves.
I dont deny guns have saved some lives, but how many have been lost because guns are so freely available there?
A very simple question..
There were just 38 firearm homocides in England last year, 38 for a population of 50 million is good. If we give a million more guns out would that 38 go up or down? it would certainly go up, so why should we do it?
Also 90% of our police dont even need guns, i fail to see why citizens need them
Well I'm afraid it isn't really that simple, unfortunately....there aren't really stats showing how many people have been saved by guns who DIDN'T use them...and they are ILLEGALLY easily able to access but buying them legally can be quite difficult (depending on the state you're in).
I'd rather compare your firearm homicide rate in england compared to when guns WERE legal first.....was it ever very bad there? Was there very much lawlessness? I don't know, but you might..,.
not sure what firearm homocides were a decade ago. The murder rate is at a 20 year low. there have been several clamp downs on guns, weve not had the mass ownership like there in the US. There were 52 firearm murders a year or two ago, so it can come down but i honestly dont know how many there were in 1998
All i know is following the deadliest school shooting in British history that left 16 children and 1 adult dead in 1996 by a legal handgun owner.. weve had no deadly school shooting since
yes gun violence may have gone down a little...... but jsut a little, and knife crime has gone way up, and so has the homicide...... criminal are happy that their was a ban over their..... no gun for them means, easier to get away with crime...
The people are happy that there is a ban over here, we demanded it following a deadly school shooting which left 15 kids dead because of a legal gun owner.
Firearms are completely illegal in Germany too, but they seem to have mass shootings just as the US does.
Just your island of UK banned them doesn't mean someone can't get them if they really want.
Sure the US could ban firearms and save a few lives....but then again we could ban car and save thousands of lives. See where that thinking goes? It's tragic that people do things like shoot up schools, but by making firearms illegal to eveyone is going to do more harm than good.
um firearms are not completly illegal in Germany although they do have some tough restrictions. The kid who shot dead 15 people in march of this year in germany got the guns from his home, His dad was a LEGAL gun owner
Ofcourse some will always get guns, but the majority dont need them. If loads of police have guns and loads of home owners have guns, criminals are more likely to want guns. At the moment very few criminals see the need to get hold of them.
The weapon that was used (pistol) was not locked up and secure, as the 14 other firearms that his father owned were.
What works in Britain doesn't work as well in the US. I say this because of course if seizing all guns were possible here, our government would have already done it. But it is impossible to track and seize all firearms here. It is an unrealistic solution to a problem that it deeply rooted to society (poverty, education, etc).
The fact remains the gun was legally owned by his father, so clearly not all firearms are illegal in Germany.
I do not advocate gun bans in the USA, for a start you have a constitutional right to firearms so that makes huge legal problems, u have a huge open border with mexico,(unlike britain which is a small island) and ofcourse so many have guns there it would be impossible to get most handed in
What the US does is up to them, but most people who respond on this video are Americans not Brits
Copperhead, i do not advocate gun bans in the USA. All i want is the UK to have very tough gun laws and border controls to prevent the mass arming of the population be they civilians or criminals.
Cars have a useful purpose. With the exception of hunting and shooting as a hobby (both of which i have problems with unless heavily regulated) then i dont see why guns are needed? someone in the inner city here does not need a gun.
Anyway the British people like gunbans. We have a good record on it
I've talked to quite a few Brits who were bitter about the gun ban.....I would be too. But I'm not trying to tell you how to run things there in the UK either, if it works for you guys, thats fine.
In my opinion though, people living in most inner cities here would have the BEST reason to be armed, for the sole reason of self defense.
Shooting guns here is a hobby, just as archery is. I agree there should be laws regulating who has access to firearms, but we like the freedom to have them
I dont believe the self defense figures. They say every year 100,000s of people defend themselves with firearms in the USA. If thats the case, why are there not 100,000s of arrests of those people that were putting the gun owner at risk. Be it for break ins or attempted murder or some form of violence against the legal gun owner who had to "defend himself"?
Also ofcourse theres examples of people getting off with murder there with self defence. Like a texan who shot two criminals in the back
oh and most likely the guys who defended themselfs killed the guy..... hell if someone was trying to kill me and expecialy my family i would try to stop him too..... and if the sight of me with a gun dosent do the job then no choice but to shoot...
and you say their is no need for a gun, well when you have a passion for them, like any other sport. not having them, kills you inside
and what if a country invades you? how would you defend your self? do you really trust the gov. with you life?
Lmao, if 100,000s in america must defend themselves each year with a gun, u are seriously suggesting they would kill them in most cases? if thats true then its even worse than i thought.
The country invasion thing is nonsense in todays world although i accept it was justified in the past. No country today is going to invade and occupy the USA, what would be the point? An invasion of the USA our western europe would be the start of World War 3, which would be fought with nuclear weapons.
The majority of people who rightfully defend themselves end up not shooting the criminal, and the criminal usually happens to get away. Unfortunately, the saying is true: "they only catch the dumb ones."
I guess there is a difference of morals as well. I personally don't feel sorry for criminals.
I do not feel sorry for criminals either, however i want rule of law and a criminal justice system to punish the criminals, not every man for himself shooting people.
Well its ashame that 100,000s of serious criminals are gettin away every year there then, but im sure police records would put this 100,000s defend themselves every year figure into question .
Well, that heads our governement into separete problem: statistics. They won't always tell you whats going on. In fact, they'll probably only tell you a fraction of the story.
The ratio of firearms used in defense to illegal firearms used in crime is heavy for crime. So why bother making laws that will prevent people from using them in self defense?
You haven't looked at the figures of firearms usage in self defense I sent you I'm guessing...
I don't want every man for himself shooting people either. But there is a clear problem when our justice system is not preventing or catching crime. What would you do if your police were completely incompentent? Would you hope they would save you? Or would you take precautions to defend yourself and your family?
Police average getting to your home in about 20 min, (depending on your homes area). In that time, a lot can happen before they arrive.
i believe that if somone whats a gun they have a right to have it.... and they have a right to defend themselfs from a tyrantical goverment and from criminals...
yes gun control might have worked in UK, but it dirent go so well in Australia..... and it most likely wouldnt work in US either......
by banning guns you are getting rid of freedom, a right... how would you like it if someone took away all your favorite sports equipment so you couldnt do it anymore? or your whole collection?
Skater, a free media is something far more important for maintaining freedom than people having guns, If the US government chose to use its police and armed forces against the people, people with light firearms cant stand up to US military power.
Guns are dangerous, they shouldnt be used for sports anyway. If its a hobby then go to a sporting range where the gun can be secured at all times. You dont need a gun at home for that. A collection belongs in a museum.
"Guns are dangerous".... is the funniest thing i have ever heard now that i think about it..... stupid people with guns are dangerous..... its funny how you fear a lifeless object..... a gun cant load itsself and shoot people because if thats what they do then mine is messed up.
and what about people who collect stamps??? they keep them at home,, so why cant i keep my collection at home??
im not going to try with you anymore... clearly you a retarded, and fear a lifeless object hahah!!!!!
its illegal to carry drunk here in US, and why are you stereotyping americans?? im not american, but i find you british people to be really dumb..... dosent feel so good huh?
id be fine with a good citizen with a conceald gun right besides me, id actualy feel safe..
Yes, because in your little world, responsible people automatically turn into vicious murderers. So I guess someone with pepper spray, baton, kubotan or krav maga skills is no different, even though they are prepared for a dangerous situation.
I guess the Lady Gaga crap has gotten to your head and has lowered your IQ (Not that it wasn't low enough to begin with).
@TheBritishWatcher Oddly enough, here in Australia firearms owners are some of the safest people in the country. The police make sure they are fit & proper, do background checks, inspect their house to see if their guns are stored properly. Its very rare for a gun owner to commit a crime here in Australia. Likewise with New Zealand, where you can get yourself a machine gun, rocket launcher, etc. if you a dedicated collector.
I really do not give a damn what happens in Australia, NZ or the USA when it comes to firearms. Those countries have their own systems and we have ours. The British people do not want the mass arming of the civilian population.
Over 90% of the police are unarmed in this country, if they do not need guns then there is no justification at all for civilians to have em
I would rather put up with the small number of firearm offences each year than the mass arming of the population which will simply mean there are 1000s of times more guns, which means more accidents and more crimes because of them
There were less than 15,000 firearm offences in England in 2008, of those only 2500 resulted in any form of injury. Only 39 resulted in deaths, the lowest in 20 years
These figures are tiny, if we allow millions of people to own guns those figures will radically rise
If someone pointed a gun at you i imagine ud be pretty scared too, even if u had ur own gun in the house or even in ur hand at the time.
The point is we have 3 choices as a nation. We either increase the number of people who own guns, which means there will be more guns in this country and more criminals using them.
We keep the status quo.
Or we continue to be tough on gun ownership and restrict it further. As some murders are still by legal gun owners.. thats what we must do :)
Yeah, because criminals just handed in their guns when the firearms ban was institute, right? Gun bans don't take firearms out of the hands of criminals, legalizing them will not give criminals an avenue for gun acquirement, they already have that avenue through the black market, regardless of legislation.
However the odds off getting your intestines cut out of your abdomen by a knife, are radically higher in the UK. Who cares what device is used to commit the crime, if the crime rate is not reduced.
Then have fun with the rising knife crime, everybody shanking each other is just what you get. Violent crime has risen since the '97 gun ban; obviously the law enforcement system is not working.
@TheBritishWatcher In Northern Ireland,they don't have as restrictive gun laws as the mainland&their country was and is more unstable than the UK mainland.They've had no nutters like Micheal Ryan running amock,because the Loyalists& the IRA,would deal with them.If anyplace should have our bans,in theory it should be Northern Ireland,but in an seemingly unstable country like that,legal guncrime is low.Their gun laws were like ours 23 years ago.
@copperhead46 No Germany permits its citizens the right to own private arms,but on the UK mainland,we have had semi-automatic centrefire rifles&cartridge handguns banned from civillian use.
I also must say that the vast majority of guns used in crime in the US are illegal and/or unregistered....meaning that the government has zero control over them. Law abiding citizens are only law abiding because they don't have illegal firearms. What does that tell you? A ban wouldn't work, because the gov't can't take away a gun they have no idea about....thus rendering it an unrealistic solution.
If there were no guns, there probably would be less violence. But that's not how it is...
I understand there because of the huge border with mexcio its easy for guns to be smuggled in and as ur states have different rules, local gun bans dont work for obvious reasons. But Britain is an island, our government is able to secure the flow alot easier than in the case of the USA
The point about legal gun owners is, plenty of people start out innocent before turning to crime, id rather they not have a gun at hand when that happens. Whilst its only a small %, its still unacceptable deaths
resist? this isnt resisting. this is taking it in the ass and biting down on your tongue. you take your guns, you load them up and you march into the government building and demand they step down or youll take violent action. stand up for your rights you spineless cowards!
Grunt922 4 months ago
the same are trying to do here in argentina. and now is less safe country.while the outlaws use weapons without restrctions the ex members of the forces and the civilians are forced to disarm themselves and the police is a disaster.it might sound stupid but its the truth
kjsh987 7 months ago
In the US freakin soccer moms who don't understand the constitution and have no idea bout what the right to bare arms is there for are working hard to disarm us. If you're not for the right to bare arms then you're not a true American.
mayawarriorprincess 11 months ago
@mayawarriorprincess
My moms a soccer mom. And we own guns.
HHHdahman 8 months ago
keep fighting my british brothers! You were a rock standing against the tide in WWII. Remember your strength and keep fighting for freedom!
sandorsbox 1 year ago 2
If they come for my guns, I will make sure they remember the day they took them. For when they do take them, the barrel's will be hot, I will be surrounded by shell casings and the bodies of my targets in my wake, and they will pry the gun from my cold dead hands.
TangoDownProduction 1 year ago 8
@TangoDownProduction you should come to australia, we need people like you
keyanage 1 year ago 2
@keyanage Thank you very much my friend. You guys in Australia have an outstanding advocate by the name of Steve Lee. Look up his video on YouTube, he's a singer and I think you will like his message. Take care!
TangoDownProduction 1 year ago
I'll die before you take my guns!
God, Guns, Women, Camping etc. etc. The hell if my rights will get taken away!
canderousordo1 1 year ago
@timhenson
Oh yeah, and Brady Center only flunked him because he isn't TAKING ACTION for gun control. That doesn't mean ANYTHING about his convictions. This is only his political strategy.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@DavyCrockett2 He's made it clear that he sees gun control as a state issue, not a federal one. His voting record is consistent with that claim. It's clear that he's not going to push for gun control at the federal level. What, exactly is your beef with him then? He's not going to DO anything you'll object to on gun control, so why are you getting your panties in a twist?
timhenson08 1 year ago
@timhenson08
When in the state senate, he never voted PRO-gun EVER. That tells you all you need to know. Do you honestly believe that those convictions just vanish now that he's at the federal level? The best judge of a persons future actions are their past actions. Get real.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@ TIME HENSON
1.) I SAW THE POSTING on the White House website. Obama DID want to bring back the JOKE "assault weapons" ban that didn't ban any gun. He DID want to eliminate the Tihart Amendment that protects gun trace information from public use. He DID want others as well, but I am limited on words here.
2.) Don't kid yourself for TWO SECONDS his stance on gun control. He is simply remaining quiet as his political strategy to not lose his ass. Look at his state voting record.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
"At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away.""
timhenson08 1 year ago
@ timehenson08
And there is not a ban on machine guns. They have always been legal. Do not challenge me on this like every other person does. I will make you look stupid. No offense.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@DavyCrockett2 I never said there was a ban on machine guns, just fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are legal in most areas.
timhenson08 1 year ago
@timhenson08
machine gun = fully automatic
And YES you can own them.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago 4
This is why I'm glad I live in the United States, where the worst we have to deal with is a ban on fully automatic weapons (Waste of ammo anyway) and in some states a waiting period to get a new gun. Even Obama calls gun control a "state issue" and has vowed to keep the Fed out of it while he's in office.
timhenson08 1 year ago
perfect proof on why taking guns away from the public only makes things worse
nichovinwulffin 1 year ago
I hate Austraila for this....
AcousticRocks44 1 year ago
@AcousticRocks44
Australia is suffering just as much as Britain. All this is coming from the UN and IANSA. The country most responsible, reminds me of a good old American saying.... "BLAME CANADA"
I feel deeply for Britain and Australian citizens, and for what ever its worth... My congressmen will here your fears through my words.
reddogloc 1 year ago
@reddogloc
Thanks man, we're trying to make an effort here but few legal UK gun owners have the teeth and admit they have there weapons for self-defence or even argue for self-defence as they think they'll lose what guns they have left.
WatchRyder 1 year ago
Sorry, but Tony could used a salt shotgun,ruberr ball shotgun or other nonletal weapons.The right to defend your property is not meaning to use a T-72 tank to blows-up intruders.
cornel10 1 year ago
@cornel10 May I sugest a assalt rifile with either 5.56 ball round or 7.62 A great effective range,Let the enemies now,we are not fooling round.ARM UP.Buy freeze dried food stuffs availle on the net at a reasonable cost.Time is running out my friend.SHOOT BACK~
TheVengence1988 1 year ago
@cornel10 First off who said anything about a tank. A hand gun or rifle beats a stick any day. Guns are equalizers and if someone had the choice of any stick in the world I could find someone who could beat them barehanded, or any person with hands who could shoot them, but the biggest thing guns can do is prevent attacks. Only an idiot charges a man with a .45 aimed at him. BTW the term is "less lethal" because it is possible to kill with them without proper training.-tazers which wouldn't help
sovietterran 1 year ago
@sovietterran Excuse-me, the problem is not the idiot wich charge with a gun aimed at him, the problem is the idiot wich have a gun pointed to you without a good reason.I'm sick about car accidents in my country , I could'nt tolerate other accidents because those fucking guns.
cornel10 1 year ago
@cornel10 Unfortunately there will always be those who break the laws with guns, but even with a ban they are BREAKING THE LAW and thus will still have access to guns. Why take away the rights of those who do not break the law and don't do stupid thing like that to defend themselves.
sovietterran 1 year ago
It's not about to be a safer place , it is about to decrease the number of shooting accidents.Look at americans, they have a lot of psycho wich use guns to kill childrens in schools.And those peoples are not criminals, they just have a mental disease.
cornel10 1 year ago
@cornel10
Gun violence in schools is rare, even in America.
Soothfish 1 year ago
@cornel10 a mental disease? What like you? oi tell me how you could use a T72 for home defense..... or how it would be practical.All this touchy feely nonsense needs to end.An armed society is a polite and safe society.Liberals have a mental disorder that causes them to be pets,like a typical house cat.You couldn't do anything about it if someone was invading your home.So why bother to even listen to a man that cant even protect himself or his family.You're just another worthless slave.
Xen5s 1 year ago
@Xen5s Excuse me, mister cow-boy , I can use a stick to beat the crap out of you , if you try to invade my house.You are a pussy if you need a firearm to defend yourself. And , by the way, the majority of robbers are waiting until your house is empty.Am I wrong or few days ago some maniac shooted 5 peoples on british streets?
cornel10 1 year ago
@cornel10 I wouldn't be in anyones home without obvious consent. stick aint gonna do anything against a gun you would have to be very close and very lucky.Yea I feel for the English they gave up their rights far to easily.
Xen5s 1 year ago
If any of you anti-gun persons read about the Cullen Enquiry after Dunblane& those who covered up for the killer,by granting him a firearms license renewal,you'd know who was to blame
MarineAqua45 1 year ago
Open carry is spreading. Gun 'rights' are increasing, not being reduced.
PacificCircle1 1 year ago
I live in N J and I can guarantee you government is your enemy , they basically want to enslave you keep you indentured in a polluted environment that is only getting worse and deny their role in the degradation of human rights and increasing pollution. The only ones with rights are the criminals, victims are blamed for being an attractive nuisance in other words crime against citizens is excusable because they have played by the rules and accumulated a minuscule amount of basic necessities.
jobedied 1 year ago
when people fear the government, that's tyranny.
when the government fear the people, that's liberty
knight7fox2 1 year ago
Yeah, in America we got the Patriot Act, enough Patriots didn't fight it, and the Tea Party types were sipping tea because their party pushed it through, so I don't want to hear any Big Government BS from American Tea Party hypocrites. And the Iraq War too, they cheered with the Bush league liars, pushing America into a never-ending expensive life-ending (choose life???) boondoggle.
Moderates and Liberals in America, get your guns!!!
MiKikaIwaShizaru 1 year ago
"unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." Notice in each case of gun control, or banning firearms, each sentence ended in this way. Someone suggested that rather than banning guns, we should ban murder. Sounds like a simple solution, except the criminals don't adhere to laws. If we ban everything that may be dangerous, I guess cars, knives, air travel, and most sports will be next. Its time to really punish crime, and let the citizens keep their firearms.
Downedworker 2 years ago
My condolences to my British brethren. This is madness. And now these ridiculous laws are spreading to the states...
What is this world coming to?
Ebsil0n 2 years ago
instead of banning guns we should ban murder...oh wait we did...wonder why it keeps happening?...yea go ahead ban guns...it won't matter I know lots of legal gun owners that admit that if the Gov comes for there guns there stashing them.
xxDogsoldierxx 2 years ago
wow what stupid propaganda. in canada here we arent allowed to own guns yet we're one of the safest countries in the world.
wtf is this shit in the description "exterminated" u do realise this isnt the early 1900s anymore?? there are no wars in north america! just cuz u dont own a gun doesnt mean ur gonna die! wtf.
HausGaGa 2 years ago
What part of canada do you live in?We can own guns it's just that curtosy of the liberal government we all need to be rectaly probed and penatrated before we can own one.
qwuad61 2 years ago
Canadians are allowed to own guns im a proud canadian gun owner and are gun laws need to be changed for the better.
huntinguy532 2 years ago
@HausGaGa
The only guns we are not allowed to own in Canada are fully automatic weapons like machine guns. Rifles, shotguns and OH NO handguns! are all legal in Canada. There are an estimated 7 to 20 million guns in Canada, depending on who you ask. DESPITE the number of guns Canadians own, Canada is one of the safest countries in the world.
Wow, what stupid propaganda indeed...
EruditeCanadian 2 years ago 2
I 'd say that Britain needs to start a citizens' revolution. If this happens to me here in New Jersey, then I will consider the government an enemy and a dangerous threat. They would be no better than the criminals.
opsmanprime 2 years ago 18
@opsmanprime Your goverment and mine no longer care for our great common heritage,past history ect.They hate whites,although we are the backbone.It is a one world adgenda that our idiot prezidunce approves of,as well as your leaders,My friends,the only way to end this is no longer thru preacful protest,but thru all out urban war.Arm up.It is the British and American way.In America,our founding fathers approve.
TheVengence1988 1 year ago
@opsmanprime
Not a single european country allows civilians to use firearms for self defense, except the Czech Republic (crime is VERY low in that country)
kontknager 1 year ago 2
@opsmanprime It did happen to you in NJ. NJ is as close to a police state as they come.
rb2112002 10 months ago
Fuck you liberals! Try and take it from a Texan!
DavyCrockett2 2 years ago 26
@DavyCrockett2 Well no one is trying to take guns from Texans. Even Obama has made it clear he sees gun control as a "State Issue" and has vowed to keep the fed out of it while he's in office.
timhenson08 1 year ago
@timhenson08
When did he say that?
Right after he was elected he posted his gun control agenda right on the Whitehouse website,
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@DavyCrockett2 I just PMed you the text of the Chicago Tribune article "Obama anti-gun? No, anti-gun control" by gun enthusiast and journalist Steve Chapman. Obama's public stance and record in office is very anti-gun control. Anyone claiming he posted a gun control agenda on the white house web site is lying to you.
timhenson08 1 year ago
@DavyCrockett2 Funny, after two years and a lame duck congress that was willing to do anything he wanted he STILL hasn't even PROPOSED any gun control. You'd almost think he was telling the truth when he said he didn't think the Fed had any business in limiting gun ownership.
timhenson08 1 year ago
@timhenson08
Truth is, he doesn't want to cost himself re-election. He knows people are sick of the gun-control crap. Especially after the mid-terms I don't think he will try.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@DavyCrockett2 "He knows people are sick of the gun-control crap"
That's probably why he was very vocal in his opposition to federal gun control during his initial campaign.
Why in God's name do you think he would favor federal gun control when everything he has ever said and done points towards him seeing it as a state issue? Are you just assuming because he's a Democrat he must be a closet gun control fanatic?
timhenson08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timhenson08
AGAIN DUMB ASS:
When in the state senate, he never voted PRO-gun EVER. That tells you all you need to know. Do you honestly believe that those convictions just vanish now that he's at the federal level? The best judge of a persons future actions are their past actions. Get real.
I judge off prior ACTION not WORDS.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
@timhenson08
Read my previous comment again there Howdy Doody.
DavyCrockett2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavyCrockett2 "Read my previous comment again there Howdy Doody."
Why are you so determined to pretend he WANTS to pass gun control laws at the federal level even though everything he's said and done in his entire career makes it clear he thinks it's a state concern?
Is it REALLY that hard for you to comprehend a Democrat who things states should have the final say in gun control legislation?
timhenson08 1 year ago
@timhenson08 You do know Obama pushed to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban in his first six months don't you? He failed, but he did try and he did lie.
guamsst 1 year ago
@guamsst And people are lining up to give him a second term..
rb2112002 10 months ago
oh and if archery is a sport, so is shooting. i should know, i shoot competitively. and im not a nut. i think the most responsible people are law abiding gun owners and i would trust them with my life. Skater3shefik - u are very much right with the idea of respect. people are just afraid of what they dont know.
AlexandraT89 2 years ago 2
that poor bloke. What has society come to?? We are telling people that they can rob, rape and pillage, get a slap on the wrist, and then sue afterwards. The laws look after the crims better then they do the law abiding citizens.
Good on these people for finally standing up! :)
AlexandraT89 2 years ago
its almost time to turn all you people into slaves look up the gorgia guide stones people plz to get a full understanding on whats going on
primetimebeatz 2 years ago
In that protest i hear nothing of self-defence this just goes to show how far there liberties have gone, nothing but sheep.
MrHairyNutz 2 years ago
Also the bit about unarmed police is important to remember, in the USA all police have guns, but if 90% of our police force in this country is able to police the UK without firearms, it clearly shows citizens dont need to be mass armed.
If alot more citizens need to be given guns then the police must ALL be given guns, then you get into the situation where more criminals want guns! A criminal wouldnt rob a house here with a gun , that might change if everyone else has guns.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Here, criminals will always have guns. Point being that they will whether the US bans firearms or not. So with low percentages of crime being from legally owned weapons, a ban would do little good, violent crime coming from a suprisingly small percentage of people.
People don't kill each other only because they have a gun. They have reasons and that's what society should be concentrating on figuring out, because it is simply too easy to gain access to illegal firearms here.
copperhead46 2 years ago
Well here the overwhelming majority of criminals do not try to get hold of guns, let alone have them.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Homicides with firearms has decreased, but overall homicide rate has gone up per capita.
I would like your stats from where you're at. I'll send you the link I was looking at yesterday.
copperhead46 2 years ago
i dont know about britain but in australia the people had no say the government passed the law and told people to hand them over, simple as that.the government recieved around 60 percent of illegal weapons back and are aware that 40% are still out there in criminals posseion. so how does that make my country safer?
560287144602817 2 years ago
I have a new found respect for the British people after seeing this. But it's too late for them. They chosen foolishness over common sense and are paying for it.
This kind of thing will never happen in the United States. The weapons will will be taken by force taking both military, police and civilian life in a blood bath.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
I don't understnad. I dont know why people do this type of thing. THE ELITE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE CATTLE to thEM!
ZombieX13 2 years ago
The Queen is not responsible for policy, she must remain neutral from such things and would only act with the will of the British people. She has too much to lose as any future monarch would if they tried for more power
Where as Obama as president, is able to implement policies that give more power to him, be it taking over more american companies or undermining state rights. Thats how someone takes power bit by bit taking more and more power
The Queen cant do that, it would be all or nothing
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
One other thing dont know if i mentioned it before in a conversation with you but i say it from time to time.
The USA locks up 2 million, we only lock up 100,000. So taking into account population differences far more of your population is in prison than ours and we know US hands out longer sentences. If we went around and locked up 100,000 people we know to be criminals then we could see a radical reduction in crime here.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
The US also labels EVERY killing as a "Homicide" from the time of it's discovery. But the UK doesn't officially label them until full discovery and sometimes not until conviction. This also skews the numbers. Source; A Constable I knew from Bristol.
MIT1369 2 years ago
The figures i look at from the UK are for both murder / manslaughter. Neither the UKs or the US figure includes suicide etc.
Even if we addressed certain differences in gathering the date, i doubt it would change the fact we are safer in the Uk to you being safer in the USA.. thats just too far a jump to make.
Ill take a look at the most recent figures i can find on these matters, the numbers i go by at the moment are from the last couple of years.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
government says guns are bad. aren't the military fighting for our freedom. what about gun freedom? The government is no longer a legit entity. Everything is obvious to the public who were taken for granted by the politicians and the wannabe social scientists that work for them.
liquastowilly 2 years ago
I read a story last month on the BBC's website about some chaps in Northern GB who hacked up their own family members with knives and a machete at a funeral too. It doesn't matter where you live,or what you have in your hands to harm others.If you are a sick bastard with no regard for the welfare of others no law can stop you from commiting crimes of mass bloodshed. I have a natural right to defend myself against all who try to harm me....and a conceal,and carry gun permit insures that right!
bluffdweller1 2 years ago
I can just about live with a limited few people being allowed firearms in their homes. lmao at letting millions of people carry guns around with them to work.. my god thats not going to happen here.
Its true you can kill someone with anything, but its alot easier to kill or hold agroup of people hostage with a firearm than it is a small knife with limited range.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Why didnt they counter attack when the government tried to disarm them?
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
Someone tries to take away your weapons you dont peacfull protest you attack and kill them and take their weapons.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
I dont know when the last time somebody in this country went into a church and shoot dead the priest, but it happened in America a few days ago. We would be mad in this country if we followed the advice or policies from the United States when it comes to guns. I understand ur gun rights, but pls tell me why is a handgun so important? Handguns are a more serious threat than a shotgun because its easier to hide when in public. So why not allow every home to have a rifles but ban hand guns
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
You miss the whole point of allowing an armed populous. A government has less to fear from an umaprmed public than an armed one. The politicians in the UK knew whatthey were doing. Teh gun ban was meant to disarm the law abiding citizens not the criminals since criminals don't buy their guns in a gunshop. they buy them on the street. No gun law will govern the blackmarket.
searcher619 2 years ago
Im sorry but a bunch of armed red necks can not take on the US marines so i really dont buy into this issue. Ofcourse in the past when democracy was unstable and America was at risk of being invaded being armed made sense. But today no country is going to try and "occupy" the USA and a shot .gun can not be any use against the US military.
the greatest threat to democracy is lack of free press. Im sorry but Americas media is more biased and corrupt than the UKs. Well keep our free media thanks
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
No the greatest threat to a democracy is an ignorant population. We are seeing that here in the US. Our voter turn out is embarassingly low. You never get the form of government you want but you ALWAYS get the one you deserve. When I talk to people on my way to and from work their ignroance of how the system works and who is in office is depressing. It's made more so due to the fact that the information is just a few key strokes away.
searcher619 2 years ago
I agree an ignorant population is a big threat to democracy, but that is influenced more by the media than if someone owns a gun or not.
The US media is corrupt, at the moment you have some clearly biased towards Obama and then theres fox which is anti democrat. Such bias media is dangerous, and i see it as a far bigger threat.
Having guns really doesnt make a huge difference to defendng democracy in the 21st century.. not in the western world anyway
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
"Im sorry but a bunch of armed red necks can not take on the US marines"
They said the same about a bunch of rag tag colonists taking on the British Army.
Plus you're thinking that the US Marines would take up arms against the Lawful population of the US. Sorry, but the USMC are not mindless lackies to blindly follow the unlawful orders of a tyrant.
Semper Fidelis!
MIT1369 2 years ago
Lol the British Army didnt have air power and heavily armed tanks / body armour. But if the US marines and other American armed forces didnt take up arms against the people who exactly do you need to keep ur guns to defend you from?
The tax man??
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
The British Army had major assets and vast experiance in warfare. Supplies in abundance, Naval support, etc. The Colonists didn't have air, tanks and body armor either. Though the British cavalry did still use curaiss' I do believe.
As to who would we need weapons to defend against. Do a google for "obamas civilian security force". There will always be "useful idiots" who will throw in with a tyrant in exchange for money, power, percieved importance ie. Brown Shirts, Hitler Youth, etc
MIT1369 2 years ago
Whilst the British Army was clearly the well trained force which should of been able to take out the rebels it is slightly different to having the huge air assets available today to every military allowing complete control of an environment. And its not like the colonials had no help, backed up by French naval; forces which prevented British reinforcments.
As for Obamas youth lol ive seen a couple of those videos but if the US army is going to be on ur side, why do u need guns?
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
As i said before the greatest threat to democracy is corrupt media. Your guns have not stopped Americas media becoming totally corrupt and biased which really is dangerous.
What use is having a gun in your home if your media brainwashes people to think there isnt a problem.
The argument of defending yourself from the government in the 21st century just doesnt make sense, in the past ofcourse but not today.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
I'll pray for you. If the majority of people in the UK have decided that defending their individual freedom against tyranny "just doesnt make sense" due to the passage of time,then I have little faith in your continued freedom. Good luck with dealing with a nation under sharia law.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Umm MIT, defending individual freedom against tyranny is important but we dont need to all have guns to do that. As i said the most important thing is fair and balanced media, The BBC which is paid for by the British people is constitutionally bound to be fair and balanced when it comes to politics. This prevents one party buying media power and corruption.. its happening in the USA. Most media was inbed with Obama.
As for Sharia law, you talk nonsense. Muslims will never form a majority here
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago 2
And ofcourse we have a monarchy here with the ability to remove the prime minister from power and suspend parliament if needed. In the USA you put all power in one man, the president.
Our armed forces serve the monarch not a politician.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
"In the USA you put all power in one man, the president."
That may be how THIS administration thinks it is but the way it's supposed to work is that the 3 branches of our Govt are supposed to be equal. Congress can impeach the president if needed but theyrewed it up the last time they tried it and let slick willy slither on through.
MIT1369 2 years ago
I know its not how the system was meant to be but its how it works in reality at many points in recent american history
The president has too much power, and all he needs is a democratic congress to rubber stamp everything he wants
The trouble is Obama is ur commander in chief, incharge of all of Americas military he doesnt really need consent to order them to do things
Bill O Reilly for example is clearly republican yet he thinks people should have respect for the office of the presidency
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Theres no real respect here for the office of the Prime Minister, he simply leads Her Majestys government. But in the US nobody is higher than the president, power can corrupt.
If the Prime minister went nuts, he can be removed from power without the need for the Parliament (where the PM holds a majority) voting him out. The Queen can dissolve parliament if needed and the British Armed Forces are loyal to her not the Prime Minister.
Anyway media / political power is more important than guns.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
"Bill O Reilly for example is clearly republican yet he thinks people should have respect for the office of the presidency" Talk show pundits aside, there are few actually who have no respect for the OFFICE of the President. It's the same as when I would salute an Officer I had no respect for while in the Marines. I was rendering respect to the uniforn and the rank. Not the person.
What if HRM went bonkers? Looks to me like you have the same situation only titles are different.
MIT1369 2 years ago
But thats the point most americans have respect for the office, even if they hate the guy. That kind of respect breeds loyalty, and having such loyalty to an elected official is dangerous
How can you feel a need to be loyal to someone whos responsible for policy, it creates a conflict of interest?
Her Majesty go bonkers? :O never lol. We put our faith and trust in our monarch, id trust her more than someone who seeks political power. The Queen cant secretly take more power, unlike a President
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
I have posted on a few videos like this one for over a year now. They are about the United Kingdom or ENglands gun bans, but the vast majority of people i always find debating this matter with are Americans not British people.
we have a very different culture when it come to guns. You may be prepared to see school shootings every year or 10,000 murders with firearms, well we are not. As far as im aware the last major School shooting in this country was the dunblane massacre 13 years ago
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
16 people murdered today by a gunman in Germany and reports say he got the guns from his parents who were legal gun owners.
16 people in one day... thats about 30% of Englands death toll from firearm murders in an ENTIRE year.
Or how about the incident in Alabama USA.. man went on a rampage and killed 10 . Thats 20% of Englands annual firearm murders in a single incident.
I get into debates on guns quite a bit but i think thats the most shocking stats ive posted. 20%/30% in a single day
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
And that is where parenting should be enforced. His parent should be haeld responsible for his actions, for he obviously wasn't raised right. My children are tought about guns, and are allowed to shoot them when they ask. therefore, it is no "seductive but resricted unknown" so if they see a gun, they are aware of it, and prefer to let me know, they wont touch one with out asking me, and then its only on a range. I've tesed them here and there on it, leave my pistol on counter, see what they do.
DeepFryinDon 3 years ago
If you'ved trained them well, they should stop and say, "Let's tell dad his gun is out." then they go get you. Mine do. They are 3 and 5. They've never failed a est and picked up the gun. Ever. It's called training, and its a parents job.
DeepFryinDon 3 years ago
Training is an important matter. Now i can understand a country which has conscription where all the men do military service and have to learn about using the gun and responsibility, that seems far more sensible than just letting any fool purchase one but i would not want that here.
You let ur 3 and 5 year old children be around guns like that? I can maybe understand a father with his teenage gun, but 3?? Im sorry but that is just dangerous.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
what makes a gun dangerous sir? just that it's a gun? or is it the ammunition that is dangerous ? when i test my children, it is not at all dangerous, there is no ammunition, nor a box magazine in or near the firearm, and I am always only a few feet away pretending not to watch.Training is THE issue. see, the reason humanity is the world top of the food chain, are tools. Guns are a tool. nothing more. If guns didn't exist, Ninjas would kill as many people with swords! lol.
DeepFryinDon 3 years ago
Well im glad u keep the guns unloaded. I agree with u that training is important, however even with training we do not need guns here.
See its ashame about this slaughter in Germany. 15 dead because the nutter was able to go home and pick up his parents legally owned gun. We shouldnt take such risks. sorry.
Id rather someone come at me with a sword than a firearm. I doubt that kid could of killed 15 people in a school if all he had was a sword.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
You should research the killings in Japan within the last few years. People armed only with knives, running through the unarmed populous. Many killed.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Im sure the numbers killed in such attacks are not the same as the numbers killed in major US school shootings.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
So you looked them up or are you just believeing that an attacker with a knife cannot possibly do as much harm.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Oh my god you're an idiot. School shootings are rare. Last I checked Crim in the UK has risen while crime her ein the US has been on a fairly steady decline. Over all the US is a much safer place then the UK is.
searcher619 2 years ago
Lmao im sorry but that is simply not the case. Certain crimes have risen, yes that includes violent crime but that isnt with firearms.
In England (population 50 million) there are 60 firearm homocides a year. In the USA (300 million) there are over 10,000 firearm homocides.
You are 30 times MORE likely to be shot dead in the USA, you are 3 times more likely to be murdered (anyway). We are safer here than in the USA. The figures overwhelmingly prove this to be the case.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
"We are safer here than in the USA"
Only so long as you and your family bend over for the nice criminal who happens to pick you for their next target. I sure hope they don't behave with the increasing level of violence that has been climbing ever since the gun ban. Sorry, we learned a long time ago that; "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
MIT1369 2 years ago
The rise in violence crime is not linked to the gun bans. There has been a trend in serious crime for decades, it didnt suddenly happen a decade ago when we imposed some very strict gun laws (although the laws before were tough anyway).
The fact is guns are still very rare in this country and criminals with them are treated very seriously. Im sure its a very small number of home robberies with firearms, far more happen in the USA.
The fact remains we are far safer in the UK than in the USA.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
"The fact remains we are far safer in the UK than in the USA"
Violent Crime, source "Nationmaster" all per capita.
Assault; UK 7.45 US 7.56
Robbery; UK 1.57 US 1.38
Rape; UK 0.14 US 0.30
Murder; UK 0.01 US 0.04
I wouldn't call that "FAR"
MIT1369 2 years ago
Well all those with the exception of robbery show Britain is a safer and better place to live.
30 times more likely to be shot dead, 3 times more likely to be murdered.. im sorry but these are correct figures and clearly show its far safer here.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Yes but in the US if you remove the number of gang and drug related killings. Killings that would take place with or without a gun! Then remove the number of lawful shootings by Police and Law abiding citizens in self defense, then our numbers are lower than most European countries. It's a pitiful case of coddleing criminals throughout the judicial system. Here is against the law to deny convicts access to cable TV.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Who the victim is shouldnt matter, much of our gun crime is linked to organized crime or gang culture. It is still deaths which are unacceptable, There are alot of lawful shootings by US police, its very rare someone is killed here. As for lawful killings by citizens, thats a joke. Some guy from texas was found innocent even though he shot two criminals running away. That is NOT self defense.
Its americas fault they have allowed the gang culture to get as out of hand as it is today.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
if he wouldnt have had a gun or anything the criminals wouldnt have tried to run and probably would have attked the man
skater3shefik 2 years ago
they were not approaching his house, they were running away from the scene. This idea you can shoot and kill people in self defense in such circumstances is a bloody joke
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
well you got to teach them a lesson so they wont do it again!
or theyll jsut keep doing and doing and doing the same thing over
skater3shefik 2 years ago
"well you got to teach them a lesson so they wont do it again!"
Exactly!!!!! thats punishment, not self defense. Punishment is for the courts not for individuals to dish out on their own, especially to murder someone.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
TheBrit-
If you please, I can send you a link of gun defense stories you'll never hear about on that island of yours. They're all true, they even come with the links to the news story they were taken from.
That might change your perspective on how many people use their legal firearms to defend themselves.
copperhead46 2 years ago
I dont deny guns have saved some lives, but how many have been lost because guns are so freely available there?
A very simple question..
There were just 38 firearm homocides in England last year, 38 for a population of 50 million is good. If we give a million more guns out would that 38 go up or down? it would certainly go up, so why should we do it?
Also 90% of our police dont even need guns, i fail to see why citizens need them
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Well I'm afraid it isn't really that simple, unfortunately....there aren't really stats showing how many people have been saved by guns who DIDN'T use them...and they are ILLEGALLY easily able to access but buying them legally can be quite difficult (depending on the state you're in).
I'd rather compare your firearm homicide rate in england compared to when guns WERE legal first.....was it ever very bad there? Was there very much lawlessness? I don't know, but you might..,.
copperhead46 2 years ago
not sure what firearm homocides were a decade ago. The murder rate is at a 20 year low. there have been several clamp downs on guns, weve not had the mass ownership like there in the US. There were 52 firearm murders a year or two ago, so it can come down but i honestly dont know how many there were in 1998
All i know is following the deadliest school shooting in British history that left 16 children and 1 adult dead in 1996 by a legal handgun owner.. weve had no deadly school shooting since
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
actualy UK crime is up since the ban.....
yes gun violence may have gone down a little...... but jsut a little, and knife crime has gone way up, and so has the homicide...... criminal are happy that their was a ban over their..... no gun for them means, easier to get away with crime...
skater3shefik 2 years ago
The people are happy that there is a ban over here, we demanded it following a deadly school shooting which left 15 kids dead because of a legal gun owner.
The homocide rate is at its lowest for 20 years.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Firearms are completely illegal in Germany too, but they seem to have mass shootings just as the US does.
Just your island of UK banned them doesn't mean someone can't get them if they really want.
Sure the US could ban firearms and save a few lives....but then again we could ban car and save thousands of lives. See where that thinking goes? It's tragic that people do things like shoot up schools, but by making firearms illegal to eveyone is going to do more harm than good.
copperhead46 2 years ago
um firearms are not completly illegal in Germany although they do have some tough restrictions. The kid who shot dead 15 people in march of this year in germany got the guns from his home, His dad was a LEGAL gun owner
Ofcourse some will always get guns, but the majority dont need them. If loads of police have guns and loads of home owners have guns, criminals are more likely to want guns. At the moment very few criminals see the need to get hold of them.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
The weapon that was used (pistol) was not locked up and secure, as the 14 other firearms that his father owned were.
What works in Britain doesn't work as well in the US. I say this because of course if seizing all guns were possible here, our government would have already done it. But it is impossible to track and seize all firearms here. It is an unrealistic solution to a problem that it deeply rooted to society (poverty, education, etc).
copperhead46 2 years ago
The fact remains the gun was legally owned by his father, so clearly not all firearms are illegal in Germany.
I do not advocate gun bans in the USA, for a start you have a constitutional right to firearms so that makes huge legal problems, u have a huge open border with mexico,(unlike britain which is a small island) and ofcourse so many have guns there it would be impossible to get most handed in
What the US does is up to them, but most people who respond on this video are Americans not Brits
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Copperhead, i do not advocate gun bans in the USA. All i want is the UK to have very tough gun laws and border controls to prevent the mass arming of the population be they civilians or criminals.
Cars have a useful purpose. With the exception of hunting and shooting as a hobby (both of which i have problems with unless heavily regulated) then i dont see why guns are needed? someone in the inner city here does not need a gun.
Anyway the British people like gunbans. We have a good record on it
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
I've talked to quite a few Brits who were bitter about the gun ban.....I would be too. But I'm not trying to tell you how to run things there in the UK either, if it works for you guys, thats fine.
In my opinion though, people living in most inner cities here would have the BEST reason to be armed, for the sole reason of self defense.
Shooting guns here is a hobby, just as archery is. I agree there should be laws regulating who has access to firearms, but we like the freedom to have them
copperhead46 2 years ago
I dont believe the self defense figures. They say every year 100,000s of people defend themselves with firearms in the USA. If thats the case, why are there not 100,000s of arrests of those people that were putting the gun owner at risk. Be it for break ins or attempted murder or some form of violence against the legal gun owner who had to "defend himself"?
Also ofcourse theres examples of people getting off with murder there with self defence. Like a texan who shot two criminals in the back
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
oh and most likely the guys who defended themselfs killed the guy..... hell if someone was trying to kill me and expecialy my family i would try to stop him too..... and if the sight of me with a gun dosent do the job then no choice but to shoot...
and you say their is no need for a gun, well when you have a passion for them, like any other sport. not having them, kills you inside
and what if a country invades you? how would you defend your self? do you really trust the gov. with you life?
skater3shefik 2 years ago
Lmao, if 100,000s in america must defend themselves each year with a gun, u are seriously suggesting they would kill them in most cases? if thats true then its even worse than i thought.
The country invasion thing is nonsense in todays world although i accept it was justified in the past. No country today is going to invade and occupy the USA, what would be the point? An invasion of the USA our western europe would be the start of World War 3, which would be fought with nuclear weapons.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
The majority of people who rightfully defend themselves end up not shooting the criminal, and the criminal usually happens to get away. Unfortunately, the saying is true: "they only catch the dumb ones."
I guess there is a difference of morals as well. I personally don't feel sorry for criminals.
copperhead46 2 years ago
I do not feel sorry for criminals either, however i want rule of law and a criminal justice system to punish the criminals, not every man for himself shooting people.
Well its ashame that 100,000s of serious criminals are gettin away every year there then, but im sure police records would put this 100,000s defend themselves every year figure into question .
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Well, that heads our governement into separete problem: statistics. They won't always tell you whats going on. In fact, they'll probably only tell you a fraction of the story.
The ratio of firearms used in defense to illegal firearms used in crime is heavy for crime. So why bother making laws that will prevent people from using them in self defense?
You haven't looked at the figures of firearms usage in self defense I sent you I'm guessing...
copperhead46 2 years ago
I don't want every man for himself shooting people either. But there is a clear problem when our justice system is not preventing or catching crime. What would you do if your police were completely incompentent? Would you hope they would save you? Or would you take precautions to defend yourself and your family?
Police average getting to your home in about 20 min, (depending on your homes area). In that time, a lot can happen before they arrive.
copperhead46 2 years ago
i believe that if somone whats a gun they have a right to have it.... and they have a right to defend themselfs from a tyrantical goverment and from criminals...
yes gun control might have worked in UK, but it dirent go so well in Australia..... and it most likely wouldnt work in US either......
by banning guns you are getting rid of freedom, a right... how would you like it if someone took away all your favorite sports equipment so you couldnt do it anymore? or your whole collection?
skater3shefik 2 years ago
Skater, a free media is something far more important for maintaining freedom than people having guns, If the US government chose to use its police and armed forces against the people, people with light firearms cant stand up to US military power.
Guns are dangerous, they shouldnt be used for sports anyway. If its a hobby then go to a sporting range where the gun can be secured at all times. You dont need a gun at home for that. A collection belongs in a museum.
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
what do you mean they shouldnt be used in sports??? its fun...
and im guessing you would rather the army take over without a fight huh?well i rather have a chance.....
and guns are only dangerous if you make them that way......
im glad you dont have firearms.. i can already tell you would be irresponsible and end up shooting someone or your foot...
if you repsect then they wont be dangerous.....
you are scared of something so you feel you have to get rid of it...
skater3shefik 2 years ago
"Guns are dangerous".... is the funniest thing i have ever heard now that i think about it..... stupid people with guns are dangerous..... its funny how you fear a lifeless object..... a gun cant load itsself and shoot people because if thats what they do then mine is messed up.
and what about people who collect stamps??? they keep them at home,, so why cant i keep my collection at home??
im not going to try with you anymore... clearly you a retarded, and fear a lifeless object hahah!!!!!
skater3shefik 2 years ago
the point is, yes stupid people with guns are dangerous. and look at n. america. half the people are dumb especially with guns.
i wouldnt fucking want someone on the subway sitting beside with a GUN. are u kidding me?? or if someoen gets drunk and decides to start shooting???
HausGaGa 2 years ago
its illegal to carry drunk here in US, and why are you stereotyping americans?? im not american, but i find you british people to be really dumb..... dosent feel so good huh?
id be fine with a good citizen with a conceald gun right besides me, id actualy feel safe..
skater3shefik 2 years ago
Yes, because in your little world, responsible people automatically turn into vicious murderers. So I guess someone with pepper spray, baton, kubotan or krav maga skills is no different, even though they are prepared for a dangerous situation.
I guess the Lady Gaga crap has gotten to your head and has lowered your IQ (Not that it wasn't low enough to begin with).
pwnage666 2 years ago
@TheBritishWatcher Oddly enough, here in Australia firearms owners are some of the safest people in the country. The police make sure they are fit & proper, do background checks, inspect their house to see if their guns are stored properly. Its very rare for a gun owner to commit a crime here in Australia. Likewise with New Zealand, where you can get yourself a machine gun, rocket launcher, etc. if you a dedicated collector.
pwnage666 2 years ago
I really do not give a damn what happens in Australia, NZ or the USA when it comes to firearms. Those countries have their own systems and we have ours. The British people do not want the mass arming of the civilian population.
Over 90% of the police are unarmed in this country, if they do not need guns then there is no justification at all for civilians to have em
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Comment removed
wlwak 2 years ago
@TheBritishWatcher
Don't worry. Now you won't have any arming of civil people but gradually you WILL have mass arming of criminal people.
Bboop4444plus 2 years ago
I would rather put up with the small number of firearm offences each year than the mass arming of the population which will simply mean there are 1000s of times more guns, which means more accidents and more crimes because of them
There were less than 15,000 firearm offences in England in 2008, of those only 2500 resulted in any form of injury. Only 39 resulted in deaths, the lowest in 20 years
These figures are tiny, if we allow millions of people to own guns those figures will radically rise
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
remember you said that when someone points a .45 at your face. hopefully they have good aim.
adudeuknow 2 years ago
How charming. ofcourse the chances of someone pointing a gun at you in the states are far higher than in this country
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
true, but some how i imagine our reactions would be the same...possibly a little pissed? scared for you? lol
adudeuknow 2 years ago
If someone pointed a gun at you i imagine ud be pretty scared too, even if u had ur own gun in the house or even in ur hand at the time.
The point is we have 3 choices as a nation. We either increase the number of people who own guns, which means there will be more guns in this country and more criminals using them.
We keep the status quo.
Or we continue to be tough on gun ownership and restrict it further. As some murders are still by legal gun owners.. thats what we must do :)
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago
Yeah, because criminals just handed in their guns when the firearms ban was institute, right? Gun bans don't take firearms out of the hands of criminals, legalizing them will not give criminals an avenue for gun acquirement, they already have that avenue through the black market, regardless of legislation.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
However the odds off getting your intestines cut out of your abdomen by a knife, are radically higher in the UK. Who cares what device is used to commit the crime, if the crime rate is not reduced.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
Then have fun with the rising knife crime, everybody shanking each other is just what you get. Violent crime has risen since the '97 gun ban; obviously the law enforcement system is not working.
RebelWrestler45 1 year ago
@TheBritishWatcher In Northern Ireland,they don't have as restrictive gun laws as the mainland&their country was and is more unstable than the UK mainland.They've had no nutters like Micheal Ryan running amock,because the Loyalists& the IRA,would deal with them.If anyplace should have our bans,in theory it should be Northern Ireland,but in an seemingly unstable country like that,legal guncrime is low.Their gun laws were like ours 23 years ago.
MarineAqua45 1 year ago
@copperhead46 No Germany permits its citizens the right to own private arms,but on the UK mainland,we have had semi-automatic centrefire rifles&cartridge handguns banned from civillian use.
MarineAqua45 1 year ago
I also must say that the vast majority of guns used in crime in the US are illegal and/or unregistered....meaning that the government has zero control over them. Law abiding citizens are only law abiding because they don't have illegal firearms. What does that tell you? A ban wouldn't work, because the gov't can't take away a gun they have no idea about....thus rendering it an unrealistic solution.
If there were no guns, there probably would be less violence. But that's not how it is...
copperhead46 2 years ago
I understand there because of the huge border with mexcio its easy for guns to be smuggled in and as ur states have different rules, local gun bans dont work for obvious reasons. But Britain is an island, our government is able to secure the flow alot easier than in the case of the USA
The point about legal gun owners is, plenty of people start out innocent before turning to crime, id rather they not have a gun at hand when that happens. Whilst its only a small %, its still unacceptable deaths
TheBritishWatcher 2 years ago