Terror across the pond

[Geenie]

I'm not advocating a disarmed citizenry. I just think that the issue of violence is much more complex than "give them guns" or "take them away". I find this is sufficiently illustrated in the US.

To be clear, I think everyone should have the right to defend themselves. No one should be forced to become a victim by the state.

It is my understanding that the UK, despite its high violent crime rate, sees less people actually killed, and I don't doubt that that has something to do with the lack of easily available guns.

[Destrier]

Originally Posted by Geenie

I'm not advocating a disarmed citizenry. I just think that the issue of violence is much more complex than "give them guns" or "take them away". I find this is sufficiently illustrated in the US.

To be clear, I think everyone should have the right to defend themselves. No one should be forced to become a victim by the state.

It is my understanding that the UK, despite its high violent crime rate, sees less people actually killed, and I don't doubt that that has something to do with the lack of easily available guns.

Let me get this right, so your fine with 'criminals' committing more crime, as long as the murder rate is lower? You do not see the part of 'the State' UK by removing firearms has made more victims?

[glebo]

Originally Posted by Geenie

Bad guys can always get guns, I agree. However, on average, it's probably much more difficult to obtain an illegal gun in the UK (or Germany, for example) than it is in the US. Would you agree?

No...where there is a will...there is a way..

[glebo]

Originally Posted by Destrier

Let me get this right, so your fine with 'criminals' committing more crime, as long as the murder rate is lower? You do not see the part of 'the State' UK by removing firearms has made more victims?

/\ /\ /\ /\ what he said....

oddly, most of the violent crimes/shootings are committed from one "gang banger" to another....or some way drug/gang related.

Put'em in a pen and let them whack themselves out of existence is fine with me...

[tonyz]

Geenie, below are excerpts from a link to an article that has been posted in this forum previously - the link to the entire article is posted again below for your convenience.

The citizens of England are now sheep to the slaughter for these Muslim terrorists waiting for the authorities to arrive after the fact to "save" them.

<snip>

"The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nineteenth and early twentieth century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.17

Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.18

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.19 Today, English news media headline violence in terms redolent of the doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized American news reports.20"

"To gun control advocates, England, the cradle of our liberties, was a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns. The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.

The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22 Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations."

<snip>

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

[The Reaper]

A couple of drunken rednecks with fireworks = terrorists.

Military-aged Muslim males with guns, bombs, and/or knives actually carrying out acts of violence in the name of Allah (shouted out during the acts) and killing their victims = possible terrorism or "workplace violence".

No wonder we are losing this war.

TR

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Below is the rant by the London terrorist who appears on video - without the voice-over.

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.

This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today. In our land our women have to see the same.

You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street?

When we start bustin’ our guns do you think the politicians are going to die? No it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and and your children. So get rid of them.

Tell them to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace."

Since more muslims are killed by other muslims perhaps they should have started in the middle east on a different target set.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by glebo

No...where there is a will...there is a way..

I agree, in France, Germany and Belgium there are still weapons left over from WWII at least in the farming and rural areas. Overland from Turkey ,once you pass through customs and immigration one time what ever you had with you is in Europe. There is a lot of traffic into Italy and France from N. Africa all of which cannot be checked. Within the last 20 years I have seen a MP 40 in France someone kept in the barn.

[dollarbill]

Originally Posted by glebo

New flash...bad guys don't obey the law. Look at some of the major US cities that have gun restrictions...bad guys still have guns, and can get them....through other bad guys.

The law abiding citizen will comply...so you have...bad guys with guns....good guys without.

Laws won't curtail bad guys, only good guys who obey them..

As the signature of many goes: It's not the honest man with a gun that scares me, its the criminal with a gun that scares me, that's why I carry a gun.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Geenie

No, I'm saying if weapons are freely available to the citizenry, that means "bad guys" can just as well obtain one. To me, that is common sense, and nothing else.

With regard to the statistics, I am aware that they are a highly questionable means of addressing the question of gun control. I will be grateful for any credible sources you can provide that "prove" that Britain has been artificially keeping it's violent crime rate low. In any case, I cannot possibly imagine that, proportionally, the murder rate involving firearms is even remotely comparable to that of the US.

I am completely open to being shown otherwise.

The FBI keeps all kinds of stats and one that blows anti gun advocates out of the water is that 95.2% of all crimes in the last 10 years that had guns involved the guns were not legally obtained. That leaves 4.8% done with the legal owner.

Restricting the ownership process will not keep a crook from getting what he wants. In the last 3 years in my job we have not arrested a single person with a gun that had a license IAW state law. What does that tell you.

Yes the US is not GB but their stats are going up lately.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Geenie

I'm not advocating a disarmed citizenry. I just think that the issue of violence is much more complex than "give them guns" or "take them away". I find this is sufficiently illustrated in the US.

To be clear, I think everyone should have the right to defend themselves. No one should be forced to become a victim by the state.

It is my understanding that the UK, despite its high violent crime rate, sees less people actually killed, and I don't doubt that that has something to do with the lack of easily available guns.

Maybe if the German people had kept their gun rights, someone could have provided armed opposition to Hitler before he assumed total control.

TR

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Maybe if the German people had kept their gun rights, someone could have provided armed opposition to Hitler before he assumed total control.

TR

Precisely; which he did easily by using registration mechanisms already put in place by a previous regime, and complied with by a willing populace. "The government knows best, ja?"

[Geenie]

TonyZ, thank you for the link. That was an interesting read. It occurs to me that the argument was not that gun control was responsible for the increase in violent crime. Cited instead are socio-cultural and economic factors. I personally would also draw attention to GBs rapid population growth and subsequent increase in population density.

SF_BHT, that is a compelling argument indeed. Unfortunately I was unable to find the statistic you reference. Do you happen to have a link on hand?

TR, I do not wish to speculate on that. It is clear to me though that, unlike large parts of the population, many of you here feel that state tyranny of the sort requiring armed resistance is a very real possibility in the United States.

I understand that criminals steal guns or buy them illegally. It just seems to me that doing so is much easier in the States than elsewhere. I do believe that a truly committed individual will get his hands on a gun if that's what he really wants. I would venture to say that doing so does, however, require a significant amount of criminal energy and determination. Gang members in the US can easily buy an illegal weapon off the street. Gangs exist in Europe as well, of course, though the average 16-25 year old delinquent will have a much harder time obtaining an illegal weapon. They may opt for knives or baseball bats instead. These can also be lethal, but kill less efficiently than firearms.

To be sure, we agree that the root cause of violence is not the existence of guns (and I would like to argue that it isn't gun control, either). I also agree that gun control should not be imposed as a result of the type of mass shootings we have seen recently. Those are carried out by exactly the type of determined individual that will get his hands on a weapon no matter what the regulations are.

In any case, the bottom line is that the geenie was let out of the bottle decades ago in the US. You cannot possibly reel in all the guns in circulation, even if you wanted to. Might it be that this is a fairly dichotomous model in that the extremes of the spectrum produce a more stable state than the middle? That is to say, a society is either saturated with guns, or there is a relative absence of them? It occurs to me that things have the greatest chance of "working out" when everyone is on a level playing field.

Most of you here have more life experience than I. And many have more direct experience in dealing with criminals and violence than I. I therefore appreciate the opportunity to exchange thoughts with and learn from everyone here.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Geenie

TonyZ, thank you for the link. That was an interesting read. It occurs to me that the argument was not that gun control was responsible for the increase in violent crime. Cited instead are socio-cultural and economic factors. I personally would also draw attention to GBs rapid population growth and subsequent increase in population density.

SF_BHT, that is a compelling argument indeed. Unfortunately I was unable to find the statistic you reference. Do you happen to have a link on hand?

TR, I do not wish to speculate on that. It is clear to me though that, unlike large parts of the population, many of you here feel that state tyranny of the sort requiring armed resistance is a very real possibility in the United States.

I understand that criminals steal guns or buy them illegally. It just seems to me that doing so is much easier in the States than elsewhere. I do believe that a truly committed individual will get his hands on a gun if that's what he really wants. I would venture to say that doing so does, however, require a significant amount of criminal energy and determination. Gang members in the US can easily buy an illegal weapon off the street. Gangs exist in Europe as well, of course, though the average 16-25 year old delinquent will have a much harder time obtaining an illegal weapon. They may opt for knives or baseball bats instead. These can also be lethal, but kill less efficiently than firearms.

To be sure, we agree that the root cause of violence is not the existence of guns (and I would like to argue that it isn't gun control, either). I also agree that gun control should not be imposed as a result of the type of mass shootings we have seen recently. Those are carried out by exactly the type of determined individual that will get his hands on a weapon no matter what the regulations are.

In any case, the bottom line is that the geenie was let out of the bottle decades ago in the US. You cannot possibly reel in all the guns in circulation, even if you wanted to. Might it be that this is a fairly dichotomous model in that the extremes of the spectrum produce a more stable state than the middle? That is to say, a society is either saturated with guns, or there is a relative absence of them? It occurs to me that things have the greatest chance of "working out" when everyone is on a level playing field.

Most of you here have more life experience than I. And many have more direct experience in dealing with criminals and violence than I. I therefore appreciate the opportunity to exchange thoughts with and learn from everyone here.

I pulled them from our office data base links. I am sure they are out there in some published public report. Tha FBI publishes yearly stats. Sorry can not link to the office system.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Geenie

TonyZ, thank you for the link. That was an interesting read. It occurs to me that the argument was not that gun control was responsible for the increase in violent crime. Cited instead are socio-cultural and economic factors.

Geenie, perhaps it is also reasonable to suggest that the article supports the notion that gun control does not reduce violence - and in many instances gun control does not reduce gun violence.

Moreover, experience has shown that gun control can provide an unfair advantage to criminals and politicians alike - my apologies for the redundancy. Gun control also provides an undeniable advantage to terrorists.

Yes, America has a gun culture...and the terrorists know this and will proceed at their own peril.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Mexico, Chicago, London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc., etc., etc., all with very strict gun control...and quite a bit of violence...including gun play.

Best of luck with your studies.