SCT
Security Directors
From the Wall Street Journal (Europe Edition) December 26, 2012
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-stricter-gun-control-laws-wont-work/A8734E66-BC08-4E45-9EF6-142E424C8862.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!A8734E66-BC08-4E45-9EF6-142E424C8862
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-why-stricter-gun-control-laws-wont-work/A8734E66-BC08-4E45-9EF6-142E424C8862.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!A8734E66-BC08-4E45-9EF6-142E424C8862
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 33
Guest
You can never read too much into it. The conclusion that this professor makes at the end is dubious.
It remains an impossibility to calculate whether or not Britain is safer after the gun laws. Logic dictates it is simply for the fact that there are much fewer weapons available. Affecting factors such as high rises of immigration over the last 15 years has also led to increases in violent crime due to the nature of those immigrants yet the professor fails to recognise this.
As I stated previously, a complete ban or any other act will not stop lunatism. It just reduces the opportunity and probability. If an act reduces such then is it not wise to proceed with it even if it saves just one life?
Guns laws/ control and everything else associated with it must be approached in a holistic way encompassing the full scope of consideration to reducing these shootings.
To not consider due to over-protectionism of 'my gun rights' is ignoring the issue completely and failing to recognise the seriousness of the situation.
Rich H
It remains an impossibility to calculate whether or not Britain is safer after the gun laws. Logic dictates it is simply for the fact that there are much fewer weapons available. Affecting factors such as high rises of immigration over the last 15 years has also led to increases in violent crime due to the nature of those immigrants yet the professor fails to recognise this.
As I stated previously, a complete ban or any other act will not stop lunatism. It just reduces the opportunity and probability. If an act reduces such then is it not wise to proceed with it even if it saves just one life?
Guns laws/ control and everything else associated with it must be approached in a holistic way encompassing the full scope of consideration to reducing these shootings.
To not consider due to over-protectionism of 'my gun rights' is ignoring the issue completely and failing to recognise the seriousness of the situation.
Rich H
Rich & Brengunner,
I can see the pros and cons on both sides as I am sure you two can as well. Banning all guns (God Forbid) could work and it would take some time and all US State & Government man power to support this. Meaning even the troops all coming home, it would be a serious national & international security risk leaving the nation vulnerable. But...... It could not just be done by the US alone, it would take full global support with all international vulnerabilities. Then after about ten years of the worse time in North American history aside from the initial invasion and slaughtering of native Americans, it "COULD" turn around and begin to get better. But it would not turn around peacefully and it would a force that no one would want to have on there door step. Many would die in the process.
However physical peace is not marketable and on a global scale that is just too unrealistic. The US would have to turn time back 200 years socially, this would never be allowed. The perception of physical security leading to peace under a democracy is very marketable. Shit I have sold it many of times and as long as it last through out the duration of my contract, then I am not worried about long term. I can just simply find a new country to live in if it gets that bad.
Then on the other hand, I love my weapons & accessories. I have four things that I really care about, my book collection, my fishing & tackle collection, my boat and my weapons. I would not want to give up anyone of those thing no matter the legalities involved, but if I could be convinced that it would get better by the next generation then I might just keep one or three.
Then we have arming many more people and this includes people that are not ready and may never be ready to take that step forward in using a weapon. This alone could cause a great deal of mental anguish, one does not need a physical presence of violence to develop something such as a PTSD. They only need a force stressor, the fall of the Ottoman Empire up to present day is a clear example of that.
So who would we arm, we all at least agree that it would not be TSA or those types. I mean we are talking about a major responsibility that will have some kind of affect on our future generations. I know Texas uses city police at public schools in the cities. Private institutions like the one I went to had private personnel but I am not sure if they where armed or not, bomb units came through the school daily as well. Then the first university I went to had flunky fat f*cking rejects that spent just as much time escalating situations as they did eating and these tards had guns.
I enjoy the scholarly atmosphere a great deal, for me that is better than sex but if I walked into a course for political science or history (for example) and I detected that my professor was packing some kind of hog. I would escort that person to the side and question there motives and agenda with having that weapon and as the customer I have the right to do that and if that person feels they have the right to teach under the gun then they should be obligated to explain them selves on the spot just as a security professional would have to for the police or average citizen. If his agenda included anything other than my knowledge gain then I would withdraw my enrolment and write a letter to the board of education.
I am a firm believer in an authoritative presence deterring criminal activity and yes I would want to fastest response time I can get but I think that level of policing should only come from police or former police that left the force on honourable conditions.
But arming just anyone with a few months of training at best would not work for me. They are not ready physically or mentally to have there weapon taken from them and turned on them any more than they are ready to write a report as to why there weapon was taken from them and used to victimize those whom that person should be protecting.
It is just a hard one when we all dance around our moral obligations. Can not take guns away but I bet if they implemented some form of licensing on ammo like Germany does and stipulate how much range time they have to have annually and then tax the hell out of ammo, this may have an affect. They could always load there own but that too could be regulated on the steep end. Soon enough the ammo in the wrong hands would run out.
Have open access crime mapping for all violent offenders naming them and where they live. Make it part of the perps conditional release that they need to inform there neighbours and public communities areas of there actions. Place a high tax on estate agents who rent or sell to perps whilst on parol. If they have a vehicle registered in there name they should have identifiable license plates like the Purple Heart Vets get. If any of it is violated they go straight back to jail on a parole violation.
I would not look at this as discrimination, more like reintegration back into society under there conditional release. If they do not feel up to task in earning there rights back then they should just unzip in front of there parole board, pull it out and shake at them so they can complete there sentence.
The only state or federal benefit they should have while out on release is a Suggestive Suicide Professional. You know someone they could confide in when feeling like nothing is going there way, a real pro who could walk them through all the proper methods of suicide. Kind of like a Professional Witness from the criminal justice department, so if they fail then they have just violated there parole in an attempted murder, premeditated at that.
I could come up with all kind of Ivan the Terrible ideas but in this day & age we pamper the criminals and restrict the police officers from doing there jobs. It really sucks but when the shit hits the fan they call the police.
We just need to do what is morally correct and should remain open minded from the international community and our own past actions foreign and domestic.
By the way I would like to make a profit from this some how and keep my guns if possible.
I can see the pros and cons on both sides as I am sure you two can as well. Banning all guns (God Forbid) could work and it would take some time and all US State & Government man power to support this. Meaning even the troops all coming home, it would be a serious national & international security risk leaving the nation vulnerable. But...... It could not just be done by the US alone, it would take full global support with all international vulnerabilities. Then after about ten years of the worse time in North American history aside from the initial invasion and slaughtering of native Americans, it "COULD" turn around and begin to get better. But it would not turn around peacefully and it would a force that no one would want to have on there door step. Many would die in the process.
However physical peace is not marketable and on a global scale that is just too unrealistic. The US would have to turn time back 200 years socially, this would never be allowed. The perception of physical security leading to peace under a democracy is very marketable. Shit I have sold it many of times and as long as it last through out the duration of my contract, then I am not worried about long term. I can just simply find a new country to live in if it gets that bad.
Then on the other hand, I love my weapons & accessories. I have four things that I really care about, my book collection, my fishing & tackle collection, my boat and my weapons. I would not want to give up anyone of those thing no matter the legalities involved, but if I could be convinced that it would get better by the next generation then I might just keep one or three.
Then we have arming many more people and this includes people that are not ready and may never be ready to take that step forward in using a weapon. This alone could cause a great deal of mental anguish, one does not need a physical presence of violence to develop something such as a PTSD. They only need a force stressor, the fall of the Ottoman Empire up to present day is a clear example of that.
So who would we arm, we all at least agree that it would not be TSA or those types. I mean we are talking about a major responsibility that will have some kind of affect on our future generations. I know Texas uses city police at public schools in the cities. Private institutions like the one I went to had private personnel but I am not sure if they where armed or not, bomb units came through the school daily as well. Then the first university I went to had flunky fat f*cking rejects that spent just as much time escalating situations as they did eating and these tards had guns.
I enjoy the scholarly atmosphere a great deal, for me that is better than sex but if I walked into a course for political science or history (for example) and I detected that my professor was packing some kind of hog. I would escort that person to the side and question there motives and agenda with having that weapon and as the customer I have the right to do that and if that person feels they have the right to teach under the gun then they should be obligated to explain them selves on the spot just as a security professional would have to for the police or average citizen. If his agenda included anything other than my knowledge gain then I would withdraw my enrolment and write a letter to the board of education.
I am a firm believer in an authoritative presence deterring criminal activity and yes I would want to fastest response time I can get but I think that level of policing should only come from police or former police that left the force on honourable conditions.
But arming just anyone with a few months of training at best would not work for me. They are not ready physically or mentally to have there weapon taken from them and turned on them any more than they are ready to write a report as to why there weapon was taken from them and used to victimize those whom that person should be protecting.
It is just a hard one when we all dance around our moral obligations. Can not take guns away but I bet if they implemented some form of licensing on ammo like Germany does and stipulate how much range time they have to have annually and then tax the hell out of ammo, this may have an affect. They could always load there own but that too could be regulated on the steep end. Soon enough the ammo in the wrong hands would run out.
Have open access crime mapping for all violent offenders naming them and where they live. Make it part of the perps conditional release that they need to inform there neighbours and public communities areas of there actions. Place a high tax on estate agents who rent or sell to perps whilst on parol. If they have a vehicle registered in there name they should have identifiable license plates like the Purple Heart Vets get. If any of it is violated they go straight back to jail on a parole violation.
I would not look at this as discrimination, more like reintegration back into society under there conditional release. If they do not feel up to task in earning there rights back then they should just unzip in front of there parole board, pull it out and shake at them so they can complete there sentence.
The only state or federal benefit they should have while out on release is a Suggestive Suicide Professional. You know someone they could confide in when feeling like nothing is going there way, a real pro who could walk them through all the proper methods of suicide. Kind of like a Professional Witness from the criminal justice department, so if they fail then they have just violated there parole in an attempted murder, premeditated at that.
I could come up with all kind of Ivan the Terrible ideas but in this day & age we pamper the criminals and restrict the police officers from doing there jobs. It really sucks but when the shit hits the fan they call the police.
We just need to do what is morally correct and should remain open minded from the international community and our own past actions foreign and domestic.
By the way I would like to make a profit from this some how and keep my guns if possible.
I watched the documentary style videos and once again can only wonder at the breathtaking inaccuracies of popular TV reporting.
According to the SO19 cop, 1 firearm was seized every 15 minutes in London (based on 4,000 per month). What a load of tosh.
I wonder what planet I was on for my 32 years as a cop. I have never encountered that amount of weapons seizures in my entire career, and I worked in Moss Side, Manchester for 12 years, allegedly 'Gun Capitol' of the UK!
I would say that the weapons being shown to the reporters were probably the guns handed in prior to the ban on handguns. I wouldn't mind betting that the Met cops involved in that piece were taking the p**s. Why not, I would, if that's what they wanted to hear?
And in answer to all the comments we keep hearing about how, "Things are much worse since the handguns were banned", imagine how bad things might have got if we hadn't banned them??
More importantly for me though is that, unless you think I am hiding something or am ignorant of what goes on in my own country, I have been involved in Police use of firearms in the UK for over 20 years, and as a National Firearms Tactics Adviser, it was necessary as part of my job to be 'in touch' with what was going on with criminal use of firearms and trends in the whole of the UK and Northern Ireland, and although no country is completely safe while there are idiots with guns running around, legal or otherwise, the fact remains that the shooting of innocent people in the UK, deliberately or accidentally, is mercifully rare. Unlike some people who have commented on this thread, I am professionally qualified to comment on that, and I don't just get my information from the Media.
Do you trust Wikipedia?
Wikipedia:
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher)
Brits have a notorious reputation for violence throughout Europe, so why do you suppose that is?
BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE READY ACCESS TO FIREARMS.
And as for 'gun laws being stupid, fun destroying and oppressive', perhaps Gunny Hartman would like the job of going around to a family home to tell some parents that their child has been shot dead? See how much fun that is.
If they are so desperate to 'have fun with guns' why don't they all sign up for a tour in Afghanistan, they may find they have a lot more in common with the Taliban than they think.
Oasis I like factual statistics my self when they come directly from the source but in these times you have to see that when they are publicised in such a manner it is only for political gain, personal agenda's or profit. Flat out truth in the countries I have had dealings with. Never had dealings with the UK so I can not speak there.
Think of the money the NRA is racking in right now. The could even triple that on a sympathy note if they would have a staged martyr from one of there moderate supporters/leaders.
Think of the money the NRA is racking in right now. The could even triple that on a sympathy note if they would have a staged martyr from one of there moderate supporters/leaders.
Brengunner
Longterm Registered User
What i find hughly annoying when the media reports on UK gun crime and especially reporting on what type of weapons were used, its always reported hand gun this or hand gun that, no details other than that.
I hope the next point i make is just another example of how things could be worse if we didnt have our gun controls?
Most of the time when media report on the use of hand guns being used, you will actually find a very high percentage of those weapons are conversions of what were once blank firing revolvers or what was used alot also was a ball bearing gun which happened to be imported from out side the UK from the same factory which made the macroft (not sure of the spelling soz) the russian side arm, it was modelled on the macroft and had the same gun metel which the real pistol had only a smaller barrel to fire 5mm ball bearings a good armoura would convert these quite easily once on the crocks payrole.
Anyhow these previously toy guns were converted to fire a small calibre round which were more for status than anything else, but did sometimes get used and more often wound than kill, but never the less got recorded as gun crime.
Now im not arguing that this example isnt gun crime, it is......but with our gun laws in place and the ever growing problems around the world regarding our children, drugs and gangs and the UK being no different our chilren have found it much harder to find weapons to KILL so they try and get hold of old blank firers and convert them, thats alot better in my book than them readily being able to get hold of the real thing.
It became so bad the conversion of these blank firing revolvers that particular model got banned and your in as much trouble if found with one of them than you are any other banned weapon.
Yes there are more stories of mac-10s now being more obtainable and the sort after item and not knowing first hand but im sure there is some truth in this, but as stated by others, i wouldnt like to imagin what things would be like if we had our gun laws any other way.
Im just defending some of the poor facts which some believe are true, its really not the way you paint it, but saying that i dont see you being able to follow our model even if you wanted to, were an island and a smaller population with alot less land mass i really dont think you could follow our model but you should try and do something.
Cheers, Bren
I hope the next point i make is just another example of how things could be worse if we didnt have our gun controls?
Most of the time when media report on the use of hand guns being used, you will actually find a very high percentage of those weapons are conversions of what were once blank firing revolvers or what was used alot also was a ball bearing gun which happened to be imported from out side the UK from the same factory which made the macroft (not sure of the spelling soz) the russian side arm, it was modelled on the macroft and had the same gun metel which the real pistol had only a smaller barrel to fire 5mm ball bearings a good armoura would convert these quite easily once on the crocks payrole.
Anyhow these previously toy guns were converted to fire a small calibre round which were more for status than anything else, but did sometimes get used and more often wound than kill, but never the less got recorded as gun crime.
Now im not arguing that this example isnt gun crime, it is......but with our gun laws in place and the ever growing problems around the world regarding our children, drugs and gangs and the UK being no different our chilren have found it much harder to find weapons to KILL so they try and get hold of old blank firers and convert them, thats alot better in my book than them readily being able to get hold of the real thing.
It became so bad the conversion of these blank firing revolvers that particular model got banned and your in as much trouble if found with one of them than you are any other banned weapon.
Yes there are more stories of mac-10s now being more obtainable and the sort after item and not knowing first hand but im sure there is some truth in this, but as stated by others, i wouldnt like to imagin what things would be like if we had our gun laws any other way.
Im just defending some of the poor facts which some believe are true, its really not the way you paint it, but saying that i dont see you being able to follow our model even if you wanted to, were an island and a smaller population with alot less land mass i really dont think you could follow our model but you should try and do something.
Cheers, Bren
I think that what is really sad is that the gun and gang culture that we now see in our inner cities is a pathetic and very misguided attempt to copy the US gangs and gun culture glorified by Hollywood.
It doesn't help that there is no longer any definable line between 'goodies' and 'baddies', except that when baddies loose off several magazines at 'our hero' as he cowers behind a sofa or under a wooden table, he doesn't get hurt, then our hero shoots 5 or 6 shots from his handgun, at targets 100 metres away and kills 5 or 6 baddies. You know and I know it's only a film but you wouldn't believe what some of these idiots believe!
Fortunately most of them end up shooting each other.
And of course there are people for whom the words, "This is a 44 magnum and could take your head clean off your shoulders" actually causes a bit of 'trouser movement'.
Not me I hasten to add. Any takers?
I'd rather have this than any firearm;
It doesn't help that there is no longer any definable line between 'goodies' and 'baddies', except that when baddies loose off several magazines at 'our hero' as he cowers behind a sofa or under a wooden table, he doesn't get hurt, then our hero shoots 5 or 6 shots from his handgun, at targets 100 metres away and kills 5 or 6 baddies. You know and I know it's only a film but you wouldn't believe what some of these idiots believe!
Fortunately most of them end up shooting each other.
And of course there are people for whom the words, "This is a 44 magnum and could take your head clean off your shoulders" actually causes a bit of 'trouser movement'.
Not me I hasten to add. Any takers?
I'd rather have this than any firearm;
Certainly not. If I may quote myself, "Hollywood stars are no more than armchair politicians, when not plain players into the game of whoring for politics." All those celebrities (pro, anti, it doesn't matter) use their stardom, their particular status to jump in front of a camera and say anything because they know it's going to be published or broadcasted nationwide, correction, worldwide. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that their words are worthier than other people opinions (let's leave lobbying aside, that's another matter), in fact how can they be if, for example, they have the cynicism to use the gun culture for profit and then criticize it. I think it's quite simple, if they want to earn money that way, so be it but then they should have the decency to stay away from the soap box. To say nothing of their short memory and how easily they can change their opinions (thus the use of the term 'whoring'). That's why I said we can't take their opinions seriously or give them more credit than say your neighbour's. And again, that goes for people like the anti gun Jamie Foxx campaigning against guns after he does something like Django Unchained or Clint Eastwood saying he is in favour of gun control, meaning with that if there is a gun around he has to be in control of it.
SCT
Security Directors
There seems to be a little misconceiving going on. This is not, nor has it ever been, about being "pro gun". It is about a government that is taking away rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. This isn't about a bunch of inbred rednecks wanting to keep their guns at all costs.
In case anyone is in any doubt, here's a little something. Law enforcement does not support what the POTUS is trying to do. This is a letter issued by the Florida Sheriffs Association after unanimous agreement at a meeting on January 29, 2012. Our local Sheriff, Wayne Ivey commented on this and I reproduce the letter below the one from FSA.
View attachment 5537
Sheriff Wayne Ivey, BCSO said:
"This past week I attended the Florida Sheriff’s Association conference where your Florida Sheriff’s voted unanimously to oppose any illegal and unconstitutional attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. I could not be more proud to be a member of an organization that is deeply committed to not only protecting our citizens but also stands united in the protection of our citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution”
"Please see the attached Proclamation that was released by the Florida Sheriff’s Association relating to the Florida’s Sheriffs commitment to protect the 2nd Amendment."
---Sheriff Wayne Ivey
In case anyone is in any doubt, here's a little something. Law enforcement does not support what the POTUS is trying to do. This is a letter issued by the Florida Sheriffs Association after unanimous agreement at a meeting on January 29, 2012. Our local Sheriff, Wayne Ivey commented on this and I reproduce the letter below the one from FSA.
View attachment 5537
Sheriff Wayne Ivey, BCSO said:
"This past week I attended the Florida Sheriff’s Association conference where your Florida Sheriff’s voted unanimously to oppose any illegal and unconstitutional attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. I could not be more proud to be a member of an organization that is deeply committed to not only protecting our citizens but also stands united in the protection of our citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution”
"Please see the attached Proclamation that was released by the Florida Sheriff’s Association relating to the Florida’s Sheriffs commitment to protect the 2nd Amendment."
---Sheriff Wayne Ivey
Posted by STC
Sheriff Wayne Ivey, BCSO said:
"This past week I attended the Florida Sheriff’s Association conference where your Florida Sheriff’s voted unanimously to oppose any illegal and unconstitutional attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. I could not be more proud to be a member of an organization that is deeply committed to not only protecting our citizens but also stands united in the protection of our citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution”
"Please see the attached Proclamation that was released by the Florida Sheriff’s Association relating to the Florida’s Sheriffs commitment to protect the 2nd Amendment."
*************************************************************************************
Professionally I find that very sad. Firstly because he is probably sucking up to all his mates down at the gun club, of which he and his deputies are no doubt life long members. Its easier to 'go with' a popular cause, it takes guts to stand up against it.
It seems to me that standing up and saying "I don't like guns" is as good as an admission to being gay, except of course that being gay is more acceptable these days (almost compulsory in some countries).
Secondly because it is as good as an admission that they (the police) are not capable of protecting their own citizens.
Perhaps they should be lobbying their President to put more money, manpower and support behind the police so they can do their job without the assistance of 'armed citizens'.
I can't think of anything worse, as an armed police officer, than turning up at a report of a shooting or a robbery, to see several people shooting at each other or even just standing with guns in their hands! Unless of course the goodies and baddies are still appropriately dressed in their respective black and white Stetsons (maybe in Texas).
The tactics involving UK Police 'Plain clothes' firearms operations involve a lot of safe guards to avoid 'Blue on Blue' because of the confusion and chaos that usually follows a shooting. If and when the uniform guys turn up they need to identify their Armed colleagues immediately, before they needlessly start to 'challenge' them or get distracted away from the real danger posed by armed criminals.
The last thing you need at the scene is a load of well intentioned civilians running around with guns in their hands determined to slot, terminate or drop a baddy.
Sheriff Wayne Ivey, BCSO said:
"This past week I attended the Florida Sheriff’s Association conference where your Florida Sheriff’s voted unanimously to oppose any illegal and unconstitutional attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. I could not be more proud to be a member of an organization that is deeply committed to not only protecting our citizens but also stands united in the protection of our citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution”
"Please see the attached Proclamation that was released by the Florida Sheriff’s Association relating to the Florida’s Sheriffs commitment to protect the 2nd Amendment."
*************************************************************************************
Professionally I find that very sad. Firstly because he is probably sucking up to all his mates down at the gun club, of which he and his deputies are no doubt life long members. Its easier to 'go with' a popular cause, it takes guts to stand up against it.
It seems to me that standing up and saying "I don't like guns" is as good as an admission to being gay, except of course that being gay is more acceptable these days (almost compulsory in some countries).
Secondly because it is as good as an admission that they (the police) are not capable of protecting their own citizens.
Perhaps they should be lobbying their President to put more money, manpower and support behind the police so they can do their job without the assistance of 'armed citizens'.
I can't think of anything worse, as an armed police officer, than turning up at a report of a shooting or a robbery, to see several people shooting at each other or even just standing with guns in their hands! Unless of course the goodies and baddies are still appropriately dressed in their respective black and white Stetsons (maybe in Texas).
The tactics involving UK Police 'Plain clothes' firearms operations involve a lot of safe guards to avoid 'Blue on Blue' because of the confusion and chaos that usually follows a shooting. If and when the uniform guys turn up they need to identify their Armed colleagues immediately, before they needlessly start to 'challenge' them or get distracted away from the real danger posed by armed criminals.
The last thing you need at the scene is a load of well intentioned civilians running around with guns in their hands determined to slot, terminate or drop a baddy.
I believe Colorado issued something to this affect a couple weeks ago.
Just a thought here, say push comes to shove and The US President issues Executive Order 11490 or 13603 (section 103 (c)) declaring martial law with the assistance of the military.
How would that come in to play? Other than it would be a complete asinine move.
SCT
Security Directors
You really do not understand the dynamic
SCT
Security Directors
At the moment it is more than 23 state Sheriff's Associations that have responded unanimously in the same way.
If anyone is going to do it, it will be Obummer. However, can you really see LEO's and the Military taking armed action against the population? If that mindest were prevalent, then we wouldn't be having a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, it would already be gone.
You where a soldier just as I was mate and you know troops follow orders. It would be hard to imagine but an executive order does have the highest level of authority.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think it is the National Guard who takes on that task mainly. So if they decided that they had a choice in following the executive order would that not mean they have just become the militia for the State.
Only asking.
SCT
Security Directors
IMO the National Guard would obey the State legislatures over the feds
I've got almost 25 years in law enforcement in the US. It's obvious that your experience in law enforcement was entirely different than mine. Your response belies your commitment to toting the line regarding the government intrusion that your people have accepted. No problem. I get it. As a cop here I'm not afraid of dealing with people that may be armed. I assume everyone is armed and I conduct business in that manner. No big deal. The Sheriffs are doing what they swore to do, uphold our constitution. They got balls and that's who we want in law enforcement here. You judge them negatively for doing the moral, legal and sworn commitment to the job.
Your analogy of the armed robbery with everyone holding guns is just proof that you know nothing about what happens over here. 99% of gun fights last less than10 seconds. Unless we have a star trek transporter we VERY RARELY show up when the crime is in progress regarding shootings unless it's a standoff (which as a rule never includes innocent people against baddies). These things just do not happen.
I've never fired one shot from my .45 at a criminal since being a cop. I've screwed it in their face many times but never burned any powder. In my 22 years with my current agency we've only had 6 or 7 officer involved shootings. Had a few dog killings though
My agency is approx. 175 officers. If things were so bad as the non US citizens think then one would summize that we have tons of shootings. Just not the case. Hate to dissapoint. Hundreds of Millions of guns every day in the US do nothing but collect dust and protect their owners. They don't jump up off of tables and go on rampages. I'm not afraid of guns. Not really afraid of bad guys with guns except for the ambush factor where I have NO chance to fight back. I'm more afraid of some moron pulling in front of my patrol car while I run code to hot calls.
People who hate guns and are afraid of them always use the chicken little response. "Blood will run in the streets". "It'll be the wild west all over again". It's all bulls**t. Every state that passed concealed carry laws have dramatic decreases in violent crime. Explain that? It's simple logic isn't it? But not to the people who are afraid of guns. They react on their fears. They won't admit publicly that guns stop crime.
I love my guns. Have since my dad took me shooting with a .22 as a kid. I've converted many a fraidy cat that didn't like/understand guns to a person that respects them, and likes to shoot.
Last edited:
As they should, it is the only natural action.
Still in speculation here....
Since the US will still be in a State of National Emergency until November 14, 2013 this would allow the federal governments use of the National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51 Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20.
But..... Both State and Federal would could fall back on the Insurrection Act of 1807 through its amendment for the Defense Authorization Bill but the Federal government would also have the Posse Comitatus Act.
I am sure there are many more Bills & Acts that would come into play but the simplistic version is that Both Sides are legally justified in there actions and could invade one another legally.
Well I know there are a ton of states that could just careless about being part of the US starting with Texas. So from any stand point no matter how this is approached the federal government just needs to put there strong arm away and come up with a viable moral solution.
It would be an interesting one to say the least.
I've got almost 25 years in law enforcement in the US. It's obvious that your experience in law enforcement was entirely different than mine. Your response belies your commitment to toting the line regarding the government intrusion that your people have accepted. No problem. I get it. As a cop here I'm not afraid of dealing with people that may be armed. I assume everyone is armed and I conduct business in that manner. No big deal. The Sheriffs are doing what they swore to do, uphold our constitution. They got balls and that's who we want in law enforcement here. You judge them negatively for doing the moral, legal and sworn commitment to the job.
Your analogy of the armed robbery with everyone holding guns is just proof that you know nothing about what happens over here. 99% of gun fights last less than10 seconds. Unless we have a star trek transporter we VERY RARELY show up when the crime is in progress regarding shootings unless it's a standoff (which as a rule never includes innocent people against baddies). These things just do not happen.
I've never fired one shot from my .45 at a criminal since being a cop. I've screwed it in their face many times but never burned any powder. In my 22 years with my current agency we've only had 6 or 7 officer involved shootings. Had a few dog killings though
Hundreds of Millions of guns every day in the US do nothing but collect dust and protect their owners. They don't jump up off of tables and go on rampages. I'm not afraid of guns. Not really afraid of bad guys with guns except for the ambush factor where I have NO chance to fight back. I'm more afraid of some moron pulling in front of my patrol car while I run code to hot calls.
People who hate guns and are afraid of them always use the chicken little response. "Blood will run in the streets". "It'll be the wild west all over again". It's all bulls**t. Every state that passed concealed carry laws have dramatic decreases in violent crime. Explain that? It's simple logic isn't it? But not to the people who are afraid of guns. They react on their fears. They won't admit publicly that guns stop crime.
I love my guns. Have since my dad took me shooting with a .22 as a kid. I've converted many a fraidy cat that didn't like/understand guns to a person that respects them, and likes to shoot.
It was in 86 or 87 that Florida passed the concealed carry I think, Think it was Florida, but they had an average of a drop of 37% all around in violent crimes and a 72% drop in sexual assault (I think it was sexual assault).
I am pretty sure it was Florida, if not it was a southern State around that time frame. I read some archives on this last stuff about a year ago from the National Intelligence University. I will go back and find the pdf links, it was really some fascinating stuff to see such percentages based on nothing more than psychological operations.
You are correct in the time line. I'm proud to say that Florida is the model in which all other states base their CCW laws. Thank you very much.
And yes, the crime rate plummeted. Holy crap! How could that be? You mean blood DIDN'T run in the streets and we weren't converted back to the OK corral? Yea, the liberal gun grabbers weren't too happy about all the crime dropping. I really believe they feed on people's misery. If they were successful in getting rid of every gun in the USA they would change thier focus on other inanimate objects say, like pointy kitchen knives, baseball bats, BB guns and glass mugs in a pub etc etc. Sound familiar?
After banning and/or restricting all those evil items did it drop crime in the UK? Nope. Instead you have CCTV looking into your bedroom (I know, I'm just being facetious) and unarmed security with their hands tied behind their backs. Smacks of Paul Blart, Mall Cop. At least with all that CCTV you can watch the crime occur. You do solve crimes with it I admit. It doesn't stop crime and it sure as hell doesn't protect your citizens when a thug is holding them up with a banned pointy kitchen knife. CCTV is just as useful as a paper restraining order. Doesn't do much to stop a knife, bullet or an ass kicking.
Last edited: