US Gun laws- Will they never learn

Ah, Tony Martin being dragged up again. He was a nutjob who couldn't get a firearms licence because he was known to be a nutjob. He tempted two scum into burgling his house by bragging about having money stashed in the pub, then lay in wait for them. He shot them with an illegal firearm, one was shot in the back from 30ft away.

Contrast this to the more recent case were a couple shot two burglars with a legally held weapon, whilst it didn't happen to kill them the burglars were seriously hurt. The couple were arrested and questioned but never charged. There have been several cases were lethal force has been used and people have not been prosecuted or convicted. I think we are allowed to use sufficient force and the law has recently been strengthened to make it clear that we're not expected to judge the amount of force to an exact nicety.
 
Guns don’t kill people. Crazy people kill people.

We should stem the tide of crazy people, not guns. This big social experiment to let crazy people live among us has failed. Crazy people are like a time bomb or a loaded gun, walking down the street; we never know when they are going to go off.

SUV’s don’t run over people in a crosswalk. The idiot driver behind the wheel is responsible. We are a society run by liberals who want everyone to live together, freely – except those of us who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The controlling laws are directed at us.
Gun control and anti-gun laws only serve to weaken citizens, while gangs and crazy people collect illegal arms. But a liberal, tyrannical government wants its citizenry to live in fear. What better way than preventing citizens from protecting themselves?

“The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,†Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote means more today than ever.

Criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police. Because criminals go after the lowest point of resistance, citizens bearing arms are unpredictable.
Data from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation show that America has been on a firearms buying spree since the end of 2005, PJ media reported. In 2009, the FBI released preliminary 2009 crime data indicating that violent crime has been dropping at an accelerating rate since the end of 2006.

In 1982, Ken nesaw , GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89 percent in Ken nesaw, compared to the modest 10.4 percent drop in Georgia as a whole. Ten years later, in 1991, it was reported that the residential burglary rate in Ken nesaw was still 72 percent lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

In Vermont , citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission, without paying a fee, and without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. For ten years in a row, Vermont remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union, and three times received the “Safest State Award,†which was ended in 2007.

Fifteen years following the passage of Florida ’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida , which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52 percent during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

The Center for Disease Control has admitted that there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The CDC has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.â€

Some other gun statistics:
* Guns are used 2.5 million times annually or 6,860 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives.
* Less than 8 percent of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
* 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse
* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year.
* Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
 
Guns don’t kill people. Crazy people kill people.

We should stem the tide of crazy people, not guns. This big social experiment to let crazy people live among us has failed. Crazy people are like a time bomb or a loaded gun, walking down the street; we never know when they are going to go off.

SUV’s don’t run over people in a crosswalk. The idiot driver behind the wheel is responsible. We are a society run by liberals who want everyone to live together, freely – except those of us who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The controlling laws are directed at us.
Gun control and anti-gun laws only serve to weaken citizens, while gangs and crazy people collect illegal arms. But a liberal, tyrannical government wants its citizenry to live in fear. What better way than preventing citizens from protecting themselves?

“The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote means more today than ever.

Criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police. Because criminals go after the lowest point of resistance, citizens bearing arms are unpredictable.
Data from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation show that America has been on a firearms buying spree since the end of 2005, PJ media reported. In 2009, the FBI released preliminary 2009 crime data indicating that violent crime has been dropping at an accelerating rate since the end of 2006.

In 1982, Ken nesaw , GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89 percent in Ken nesaw, compared to the modest 10.4 percent drop in Georgia as a whole. Ten years later, in 1991, it was reported that the residential burglary rate in Ken nesaw was still 72 percent lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

In Vermont , citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission, without paying a fee, and without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. For ten years in a row, Vermont remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union, and three times received the “Safest State Award,” which was ended in 2007.

Fifteen years following the passage of Florida ’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida , which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52 percent during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

The Center for Disease Control has admitted that there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The CDC has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.”

Some other gun statistics:
* Guns are used 2.5 million times annually or 6,860 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than they are to take lives.
* Less than 8 percent of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
* 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse
* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year.
* Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

Well said Sir,Facts i like that.
 
Many interesting points have been raised in the two threads dealing with this issue but at the end of the day we must remember it is an American issue. Obvious, you say... not quite judging by some of the posts. It's curious to see citizens from other countries getting so hot about this topic, too often sounding as if they were just grasping the chance to throw mud over the US and polish their own country. Nothing wrong with feeling proud of your own country but it is not so commendable if such pride simply comes from diminishing others. It can be even funnier when you realize that some of those who now sing the virtues of good old Albion are the same ones who in other threads will declare unashamedly that they are fed up with the current state of their country and society and ready to emigrate to better lands. Anyway, I digress. What I meant to say is that although the debate is certainly interesting, it fails on its basic premise if it only focuses on the law side of matters using a jingoistic perspective.

You can't judge the US laws by comparison with your own laws because each legal system develops in a different society and therefore those laws aren't interchangeable. You can debate and compare how the US deals with the gun issue, how the UK does, how Spain does, how Norway does (even they had their Breivik) or how Switzerland does (lots of citizens with an army issued AR at home and till 2007 even with 50 rounds for it) but in the end it's fruitless because each society is different and in this particular matter it would be just impossible to enforce certain laws in some of those countries. You can't apply British laws on US soil and miraculously expect to get rid of those 300m guns and a certain anthropological attitude just the same as you can't arm all the British police without provoking some uproar, both measures would be as successful as the Russian ban on vodka. I still remember some of the reactions, for instance, when some non-British members proposed hard anti-riot measures as they are done in other European countries or in the States, in most of cases they were considered simply tyrannical and unfit for the UK. Different societies, different traditions, different mindsets, nothing to argue about, just try to understand and adapt.

Of course I'm in favour of a proper gun control, who can't be. Despite having used all kind of guns during years I'm not that crazy about them myself, I just see them as tools of the trade, to say so, and not as a thing to collect or to have fun with the mates but I respect those who do as long as they understand what it means and are properly proved fit for holding such a responsibility (something hard to really prove by the way). So, strict gun control yes but if you want to legislate and enforce new laws on that issue in the States do consider their peculiarities first, don't pretend to simply copy paste British or even European inspired laws because it won't work.

What we all do have in common however is the culture of violence and misunderstood free will which is developing instead of a proper education, a right set of morals and values and a true understanding of what citizenship means. In the US, they say, those prone to violence can use guns to impose their wishes or simply follow their sick whims; their bad. In other places maybe they can get hold of a gun too but if not they still can just randomly run after a defenceless girl and hit her on the head to leave her badly injured in the middle of the sidewalk for a CCTV to see, or try to stab you during a night out because they didn't like your looks, or some kids decide to murder a worker waiting for the bus early in the morning because they are playing some role game, or some school age girls murder their classmate in the way of movie psychos, or teens go on playing Need for Speed for real, or some people turn a social protest or a simple sports celebration into a free ride for rioting and looting... examples are plenty in all Western World and without the need of guns.
 
Last edited:
Well said Sir,Facts i like that.

This is the thing. It is a very emotive issue, but at the end of the day it is ONLY the facts that count. The gun control liberal lobby in the United States never quote the facts because the facts do not back up their position.
 
Many interesting points have been raised in the two threads dealing with this issue but at the end of the day we must remember it is an American issue. Obvious, you say... not quite judging by some of the posts. It's curious to see citizens from other countries getting so hot about this topic, too often sounding as if they were just grasping the chance to throw mud over the US and polish their own country. Nothing wrong with feeling proud of your own country but it is not so commendable if such pride simply comes from diminishing others. It can be even funnier when you realize that some of those who now sing the virtues of good old Albion are the same ones who in other threads will declare unashamedly that they are fed up with the current state of their country and society and ready to emigrate to better lands. Anyway, I digress. What I meant to say is that although the debate is certainly interesting, it fails on its basic premise if it only focuses on the law side of matters using a jingoistic perspective.

You can't judge the US laws by comparison with your own laws because each legal system develops in a different society and therefore those laws aren't interchangeable. You can debate and compare how the US deals with the gun issue, how the UK does, how Spain does, how Norway does (even they had their Breivik) or how Switzerland does (lots of citizens with an army issued AR at home and till 2007 even with 50 rounds for it) but in the end it's fruitless because each society is different and in this particular matter it would be just impossible to enforce certain laws in some of those countries. You can't apply British laws on US soil and miraculously expect to get rid of those 300m guns and a certain anthropological attitude just the same as you can't arm all the British police without provoking some uproar, both measures would be as successful as the Russian ban on vodka. I still remember some of the reactions, for instance, when some non-British members proposed hard anti-riot measures as they are done in other European countries or in the States, in most of cases they were considered simply tyrannical and unfit for the UK. Different societies, different traditions, different mindsets, nothing to argue about, just try to understand and adapt.

Of course I'm in favour of a proper gun control, who can't be. Despite having used all kind of guns during years I'm not that crazy about them myself, I just see them as tools of the trade, to say so, and not as a thing to collect or to have fun with the mates but I respect those who do as long as they understand what it means and are properly proved fit for holding such a responsibility (something hard to really prove by the way). So, strict gun control yes but if you want to legislate and enforce new laws on that issue in the States do consider their peculiarities first, don't pretend to simply copy paste British or even European inspired laws because it won't work.

What we all do have in common however is the culture of violence and misunderstood free will which is developing instead of a proper education, a right set of morals and values and a true understanding of what citizenship means. In the US, they say, those prone to violence can use guns to impose their wishes or simply follow their sick whims; their bad. In other places maybe they can get hold of a gun too but if not they still can just randomly run after a defenceless girl and hit her on the head to leave her badly injured in the middle of the sidewalk for a CCTV to see, or try to stab you during a night out because they didn't like your looks, or some kids decide to murder a worker waiting for the bus early in the morning because they are playing some role game, or some school age girls murder their classmate in the way of movie psychos, or teens go on playing Need for Speed for real, or some people turn a social protest or a simple sports celebration into a free ride for rioting and looting... examples are plenty in all Western World and without the need of guns.

Excellent, well balanced, factual post with no emotional drivers. Something that has been lacking recently.

Being a Brit and co-owning a firearms training company in Florida with a serving Police Officer, I see the whole picture. Maybe it's a personal preference, I don't know, but I know which set of rules I would rather live under. The last thing I want to do is shoot some little scumbag unless I really have to. OK, if it is justified, there are no legal repercussions. However, the hood rats see being shot as an opportunity to get free money by suing the shooter. At worst, you pay the scumbag's family money so they can go get more drugs and more illegalk guns. At best, it costs you a lot money in legal fees you cannot recover, even if you have insurance. There is an impression in the rest of the world that Americans run around pulling guns on people for the slightest reason. This is simply not true. You pull a gun without proper justification, you go to jail and can't have another gun.
 
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 ?

James,
Just spoke to my brother, he would love to know where you get your information, he is with the West Midlands Police Firearms Dept. and, as I suspected, apparently someone doesn't get shot everyday. Must have been a bad week when you checked your sources. And please don't go down the 'Public don't get told about it' conspiracy theory route, because we don't have secret police hospitals yet and if you get shot you generally need treatment = Hospitals=Nurses=press, but even when we do get our own 'secret police hospitals', West Midlands Police Firearms Department will probably get to hear about the shootings.

As for your South African mate, when did he become the expert on who should have a gun? Last time I looked there were plenty of the 'wrong people' running around in SA with guns.

I hope you aren't CP mate because based on your threat assessment you'll need a heavily armed team for Birmingham and Soweto will be a walk in the woods.
 
True,if you pull a gun on anyone for no reason you go to jail and will never legally own a gun again.Here in Kentucky you can open carry without a Lic. but need one for concealed,You hardly ever see anyone open carry.
 
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.

He didn't steal the guns, they were his mother's guns, she left them insecure!
She was clearly an identifiable idiot and certifiable lunatic who was preparing for Armageddon, and her son was identified as a potential Nut case.

This has been my point all along, you aren't listening!!!
I am not advocating abolition of firearms for the USA, or anywhere else, just take away the right to have guns from idiots and nut cases.

I know it's not an exact science and some will slip through, but if nobody could see that this woman wasn't fit to have automatic weapons at home and fore see that her demented son might get his hands on them then there is a problem.
 
He didn't steal the guns, they were his mother's guns, she left them insecure!
She was clearly an identifiable idiot and certifiable lunatic who was preparing for Armageddon, and her son was identified as a potential Nut case.

This has been my point all along, you aren't listening!!!
I am not advocating abolition of firearms for the USA, or anywhere else, just take away the right to have guns from idiots and nut cases.

I know it's not an exact science and some will slip through, but if nobody could see that this woman wasn't fit to have automatic weapons at home and fore see that her demented son might get his hands on them then there is a problem.

Woah, hold your horses. There are just as many reports that the guns were secured as there are that they were not secured. My guess is that they were, but until the police have finished the investigation no-one knows for sure. She DID NOT have any automatic weapons. You can steal from your mother, just like you can steal from anyone else

As for her being a lunatic, there is no evidence for this. There are many people with more guns than she had, including myself and Howie, that are not lunatics. I don't see the correlation between the number of guns owned and someone's sanity. Is the guy who owns one car any more sane than the guy who owns three cars?

A lot of people have made statements AFTER the fact about the boy and his mother. Yet there were no concerns BEFORE the fact. Hindsight is a wonderful thing
 
Last edited:
We need to clarify something here. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi automatic rifle that LOOKS like an M16 assault weapon.
 
I must of missed the medical report that had her as a CERTIFIABLE lunatic,just because someone buys guns because they believe some disaster is going to happen makes them a lunatic?
 
Huh yeah he killed her and took them.What you think she gave them to him.

No possibly just a loan...................d'uh!

Of course not, although she sounded stupid enough, but she should have had them under lock and key, that's the whole point of my argument, where have you been?
Take the time to go back through the thread, then perhaps you will make 'informed' comments.
Do you have kids? When you and your wife are not out and about with your guns, do you lock them away or do you keep them where the kids can find and play with them?
Please disregard that question if,
a. You don't have kids
b. Your kids are old enough to have their own guns, or
c. You trust your kids not to have an accident with them or go on a shooting spree
 
I have an 11 yr old daughter at home who is WELL TRAINED on firearms.
SO you mean she loaned them to him?
That is why he killed her for them.
yeah i leave my guns lying around my house so everyone can play with them.
you dont live here this isnt the wild west where there are duels everyday
and i should read the forms so i should take advise from people in the UK and europe where you cant own a fire arm but you can get one anywhere??I guess there isnt any gun crime there
 
And my daughter loves to go to the range,and she is getting a bow and arrow set for christmas,We are just abunch of blood thristy killers here
 
Of course not, although she sounded stupid enough,

How could you possibly know that?

but she should have had them under lock and key,

How do you know she didn't?


Take the time to go back through the thread, then perhaps you will make 'informed' comments.
Do you have kids? When you and your wife are not out and about with your guns, do you lock them away or do you keep them where the kids can find and play with them?
Please disregard that question if,
a. You don't have kids
b. Your kids are old enough to have their own guns, or
c. You trust your kids not to have an accident with them or go on a shooting spree

He wasn't a child and was old enough to buy a gun. In fact he tried to buy a rifle from Dicks, but due to Conneticut's three day waiting period, he stole his mothers guns instead.

As a former police officer, you should understand the rules of evidence and dangers of hearsay.

The gun control lobby in the United States is nowhere near as big as you (and they) think.
 
Last edited:
Basically, regardless of what point of view you have (and what obsession you have) the answer to the question the thread poses will undoubtedly be a resounding NO!

Thank you ladies and gentlemen :)




Rich H
 
to end my bit,im glad of the uks laws and really wouldnt want the us laws over here.will their be another school shooting in the us in the future,more than likely.will their be one one in the uk,not very likely.if you feel the need to carry a firearm around on the uk's streets,i would seriously question your mental state.
 
Last edited:
to end my bit,im glad of the uks laws and really wouldnt want the us laws over here.will their be another school shooting in the us in the future,more than likely.will their be one one in the uk,not very likely.if you feel the need the need to carry a firearm around on the uk's streets,i would seriously question your mental state.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that the UK should change the law, unlike the Brits on here calling for law change in the US.

You are probably right about there not being a school shooting in the UK, as I don't expect to see dozens of long time US celebrities being arrested as pedophiles. Maybe there should be some kind of ban to stop pedophilia happening again

Every society has it's faults, it's crazies and whack jobs. Banning things won't change that. Laws do not get rid of criminals. Criminals break laws, so legislating a criminal activity away.... hows that going to work?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top