US Gun laws- Will they never learn

boropete said:
why would we want to go around shooting people for them when the crime doesnt warrant it? as i said believe all you want from a forum but i feel safe in my country with our laws.The only drawback is the pitiful sentences handed out
Click to expand...

Howie is absolutely right in what he says. The forum he's talking about (of which I am also a member) has many UK Police K9 officers on it. The word is from the horse's mouth. you cannot, by any criteria, say that people in the UK are protected by the police. Response times are atricious, attitudes often stink and the only people who get a timely response are the muslims when they cry racism (a whole other subject, considering Islam isn't a race but a religion). Not entirely the police's fault as they are pushed by government to mollycoddle the enemy and allow then reign free to detriment of the indiginous population. Eastern European criminals flock to the UK to abuse the welfare system while they carry out a crimewave.

People who say the courts don't do their job are correct. However, judges operate on sentencing guidlines produced by who? the Attorney General who works for and is instructed by who? the government. Successive governments have complained about the great unwashed but have done nothing. It is in the government's interests to keep the people stupid and dependent. This way they have control. Gun control is only one aspect of the farming of sheeple. The council estate idiots vote for the party that promises them more free shit than the other party. This is why it always appears in manifestos just before the elections.

I'm a Brit, I have worked on 4 continents. I feel safer in Kampala than I do in London. Why, because I can protect myself. The ONLY western country where you can protect yourself legally is the the United States.

Hold on Mr Bad Guy, don't hurt me or rape my wife because the police on their way. In 40 minutes time you are going to get an ass whoopin for killing me, you'll see.
 
Last edited:
Howardk said:
So Nobabma may have to do something about our rights huh? Listen to yourself. You are still in the European mindset and can't escape it. You think it's fine that someone does "something" (ie=reduces/takes away) our rights. Before long we'll be just like the rest of the EU begging for some sliver of our former rights. If I wanted to live in a place where I have to beg for freedoms then I'd certainly leave here!

Another thing that bothers me is your general comments as a British police officers about this.....Do you really so naiively believe that you can be everywhere at the snap of a finger to "do the shooting for them?" As a long time cop I would think that you have it figured out but I guess not. You must have been the best bobby in the world if you think you can protect every citizen in your country in their exact time of need. That's a pipe dream, not reality. Any citizen who believes that just crawled out from under a rock.

I'm on a UK based K9 training forum. All I ever hear about is the rediculously slow police response times and failure to prevent crimes, or the woefully inadequate investigative skills or arrests. I hear about the rampant burglaries and assaults and the fact that the people barely have the freedom to protect themselves because the police are supposed to do it. That's why protection dogs, private security and billions of dollars in CCTV (yea, that'll save your ass) are obtained cause the cops do such a great job. In a country so small with so many cops and security officers your place should be a crime free Bali Hai.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that doing "something" to your rights translates as "reduces/takes away", it depends on your out look, it might give some people the right to live without fear of being shot!

Selective reading there Howard, read again, I definitely said that I am 'not so naive as to believe that they can do it over night' and sadly I agree with you about slow response times and inadequacy in the UK Police, I have seen it go down hill over the years, ironically often under mined by people who support other peoples 'rights' (sound familiar), but we are generally fast at responding to firearms incidents, although there have been some horrible mistakes made there too.
Sadly they cannot appear at the snap of a finger, but I'd rather that than every idiot who wants one to be able to have a gun.

However, you are still overlooking the fundamental message, which is that quite simply to spare your children from death by shooting I believe you need to tighten up your firearms control and keep them out of the hands of idiots and psychopaths.
I think I accept that you'd rather give up your kidneys than your right to kill each other with guns. Fair enough, your choice.
As far as rights are concerned, do you have the right to drink and drive, smoke in a restaurant, drive your car without a seat belt, ride your motorbike without a crash helmet, drive at over 70 MPH on a public road?
I don't, but there are some rights that I am prepared to surrender to help keep people alive (especially me), that's also social responsibility.
By the way, I don't beg for anything.
I realise that we are never going to agree on this so I accept that and move on.
 
Oasis said:
As far as rights are concerned, do you have the right to drink and drive, smoke in a restaurant, drive your car without a seat belt, ride your motorbike without a crash helmet, drive at over 70 MPH on a public road?
I don't, but there are some rights that I am prepared to surrender to help keep people alive (especially me), that's also social responsibility.
By the way, I don't beg for anything.
I realise that we are never going to agree on this so I accept that and move on.
Click to expand...


Fundamentally, the principle here.

Common sense is a strange dog. Hardly common at all.



Rich H
 
Oasis said:
I'm not sure that doing "something" to your rights translates as "reduces/takes away", it depends on your out look, it might give some people the right to live without fear of being shot!
Click to expand...

If you understood the history in the US of what you propose then you would know that I am 100% right. Just look at your own history. They took your gun rights, and right to defend yourself from you an inch at a time.


Sadly they cannot appear at the snap of a finger, but I'd rather that than every idiot who wants one to be able to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Ask the victim about to be maimed or murdered if he's good with what you'd rather have. I doubt they'd agree with you.

However, you are still overlooking the fundamental message, which is that quite simply to spare your children from death by shooting I believe you need to tighten up your firearms control and keep them out of the hands of idiots and psychopaths.
Click to expand...

There are laws against killing period. Why is killing children with a gun worse than a knife, or car, or poisoning, or scalding etc??? I agree it's very sad and I wish I could prevent every death in this country, but I can't

I think I accept that you'd rather give up your kidneys than your right to kill each other with guns. Fair enough, your choice.
As far as rights are concerned, do you have the right to drink and drive, smoke in a restaurant, drive your car without a seat belt, ride your motorbike without a crash helmet, drive at over 70 MPH on a public road?
Click to expand...

Not the best analogy but we do have the right to do 70 on a motorcycle with no helmet. H&S doesn't rule our life here. Not yet, until Nobama has his way anyway.


By the way, I don't beg for anything.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. LOL :0

I realise that we are never going to agree on this so I accept that and move on.
Click to expand...

I agree. :)
 
Space Coast said:
I am a Brit, I am 56 years old and England used to be a nice place.
Click to expand...

Now I Know you are bullshitting. England has always been a shithole.

But at least its a shithole without too many idiots walking round thinking they are John Wayne or Arnold Schartznigger or sylvester stalone on one of their movie sets.

Lets just agree that the US will never larn and that in the comming 12 months we will no doubt see numerous other lives lost as a result of your liberal gun laws that allow for easy access to weapons by criminals and the undesirable.
 
Phecta said:
Now I Know you are bullshitting. England has always been a shithole.

But at least its a shithole without too many idiots walking round thinking they are John Wayne or Arnold Schartznigger or sylvester stalone on one of their movie sets.

Lets just agree that the US will never larn and that in the comming 12 months we will no doubt see numerous other lives lost as a result of your liberal gun laws that allow for easy access to weapons by criminals and the undesirable.
Click to expand...

AU contraire mon frere, I don't think that US needs to learn. There is too much "yank bashing" going on in general. If not for "the yanks". We would be speaking German.
 
I love it. A felon giving advice on how to regulate and license firearms. At least he was truthful. If that doesn't open some eyes then there are none so blind than those that will not see.
 
Howardk
"There are laws against killing period. Why is killing children with a gun worse than a knife, or car, or poisoning, or scalding etc???"

Even in this Chaotic country where citizens apparently have no rights, there are laws against killing people. The difference is, as I said a long time back, any coward can be a tough guy with a gun, and surely you of all people must accept that you can kill people much more effectively and quickly with a gun than a knife, and without having to get up close and personal.
Having guns makes the pathetic creatures like Lanza feel tough, and brave enough to take on even the most heroic school teacher. That would seem to be the main appeal. And how can having a gun prevent somebody from being scalded to death? I've never yet heard of 'mass stabbings' let alone 'mass scaldings'. Ridiculous!

"They took your gun rights and your right to defend yourself from you an inch at a time"

We do have the right to defend ourselves, now you are talking nonsense. We're just prevented from gunning down 'trick or treaters' on our doorstep. Plenty of people in this country have used violence to defend themselves, and have killed in the process, and the law protects them. A person can use as much force as is reasonable to defend themselves or another, or their property. Its in our Common Law. The key is reasonable.

The point about not being able to do certain things is that you already have restrictions on your 'rights' that even you must agree make sense. So if we are prepared to give up some of our 'rights' in the interests of personal safety why is the right to bear arms so sacrosanct? You literally do not have to die in a ditch over it.

I have already said, several times, I don't advocate for the abolition of a citizens right to own firearms (only because it is an impossible dream) I merely suggested better 'GUN CONTROL', and look at the stream of invective that has provoked!

You all have guns now but you still have a hideously high murder rate. Disproportionately high compared to ours, so no wonder you have this paranoia about being 'maimed or murdered'. I would apply for a gun permit if I lived there!
The question is, are guns the problem or the cure? (I have a feeling I already got your reply to that)

Once more for luck;
I am only suggesting tighter controls to keep guns away from 'nutters', psycopaths, idiots, people who cannot be trusted to lock them away safely when not in use, not your in alienable right to protect yourself and your family with a gun.
As a police officer I find it alarming that you don't agree with that. Surely it would make your job easier?
 
Oasis said:
"They took your gun rights and your right to defend yourself from you an inch at a time"

We do have the right to defend ourselves, now you are talking nonsense. We're just prevented from gunning down 'trick or treaters' on our doorstep. Plenty of people in this country have used violence to defend themselves, and have killed in the process, and the law protects them. A person can use as much force as is reasonable to defend themselves or another, or their property. Its in our Common Law. The key is reasonable.
Click to expand...

The law did not protect Tony Martin and numerous others

Oasis said:
You all have guns now but you still have a hideously high murder rate. Disproportionately high compared to ours, so no wonder you have this paranoia about being 'maimed or murdered'. I would apply for a gun permit if I lived there!
The question is, are guns the problem or the cure? (I have a feeling I already got your reply to that)
Click to expand...
Not everyone in the United States is armed. If you look at the statistics of only those who are armed you will find a very different picture. A very small percentage of the "hideously high murder rate" were unarmed law abiding citizens. Most of those killings were scumbags killing scumbags.

Oasis said:
Once more for luck;
I am only suggesting tighter controls to keep guns away from 'nutters', psycopaths, idiots, people who cannot be trusted to lock them away safely when not in use, not your in alienable right to protect yourself and your family with a gun.
As a police officer I find it alarming that you don't agree with that. Surely it would make your job easier?
Click to expand...

Howie can answer this from a police officer's point of view.

My take on that is this; How do you police it? Almost without exception, the whack jobs perpetrating these mass murders have no previous history of mental health issues. How do you define an idiot when it comes to firearms? How can you know who is locking things away unless you have a police officer sitting in someone's house 24/7. You cannot protect people against themselves.
 
Rich H said:
What I've been saying all along...


The gun control that works: no guns by SRMTi - SRMTi




Rich H
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. The ONLY thing that would have stopped those kids being murdered would be absolutely no access to firearms for anyone.

Two problems with it.

1. The whack jobs who commit these crimes don't do it because of guns, they do it because they are whack jobs and, without access to guns, would have used something else.

2. The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed. The gun control measure proposed by politicians will not achieve anything and will not stop it happening again. It is a political exercise.
 
Last edited:
1. Maybe but the result would be far less with a higher probability of prevention/ reduction

2. Most likely correct as well.

3. Ho Hum...?



Rich H
 
Here in the West Midlands in the UK someone gets shot every day but the public don't get told about it because they wouldn't leave the house they couldn't cope with it. About 10 years ago I had a South African come up to me and say " why in your country does everyone have a gun that shouldn't have a gun and everyone that hasn't got a gun should have a gun. I had never thought abut this until he had brought the subject up but it's true.

As for the US I think they should be able to keep there hand guns hunting rifles but do they really need assault rifles ?
 
In the state this happened in has the 4th strictest gun laws in the country,plus he tried 2 times to buy a rifle and was denied,so the gun laws there worked,but he still GOT HIS HANDS ON THEM,Stoled them,so more gun laws will do nothing.
And yes all these shootings happen in GUN FREE ZONES,where they know that no one will be there to stop them.What we need in this country is more security in these places,sorry kids but that is the world we live in.
My wife and i carry everywhere we go,and i live in a small town,but we will not be victms of some nut bag.
 
Back
Top