England: "Ban" Air Guns

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Pro-gun people are practical realists.
Anti-gun people are pie-in-the-sky believers in fairy tales.

I like that.
"My personal opinion is the only one that could possibly be right - everyone else is talking complete madness "

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[vortexring 0]

John - nothing is impossible. Basics mate. Of course criminals will get weapons if they wish. Nothings impossible is it?
Perhaps a reduction in the actual weapon availability will help achieve a reduction in there availability,hence a reduction in innocent lives being destroyed.

You say pro gun people are practical realists, which to an extent, in this day and age, I agree. You also mention anti gun people as being idealist pie in the sky fairy tale believers....

I'd say your points speak of narrow mindedness themselves. Whilst I can recognise your pro gun points - sincerely - I feel you observe my points as being rather idealistic hogwash. Fine. In todays climate you are indeed correct. To a certain extent though.

My main point is that society is better off without firearms. This is not a topic for debate. It's a fact.
Being pro gun delays this.
Being blind to the bigger picture delays this.
Seeing this fact as fairy tales, again, delays this.
Society will always evolve. Generally, for the better.
Can't you see your delaying this?
Nothing is impossible.

Moral responsibility.
Like perhaps driving a 'greener' car. Putting the wine bottles in the bottle bank. Screwing the nut regarding the refuse Nazi's.

Know what I'm getting at?
Building a better future for our children?

If you think it's all idealistic fairy tales and one individuals efforts won't make a difference - not so fine. Then your in the wrong.

I don't call people narrow minded because I disagree with them. I'm open to the case they may well be far more open minded than myself on this issue. But I feel your being narrow minded to what is, essentially, a simple point; society benefits from stricter arms control.
We're no longer living in the dark ages, are we?

Let's move on.

Because we have to.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

JohnRich's quote:

"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the criminals."

Quote ends.


John, I'm looking at what you've said in regards to ensuring only law abiding citizens are armed. Should it be necessary to mention the words;

Idealism?

Fairy tales?

Pie in the sky?



Perhaps yes.
I won't even begin to insult anyones intelligence by explaining why.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[astleysean 0]

Quote
"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the criminals."

I'm a cop in the UK. I spent 10 years unarmed (as over 95% of police are) and never felt like I needed a firearm. I work in a very busy area too.

The thread started with a statement about England.
It is utterly ludicrous to consider arming the public to defend themselves from criminals here. I won't comment on the US.

I'm not anti-gun. I have my own guns. But I don't think anyone who believes that the UK public need arming for there own protection knows what they are talking about.

edited by request

[vortexring 0]

Perhaps the statement should be changed to:

"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the tactical firearms units."

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[bazelos 0]

Quote

I'm a cop in the UK. I spent 10 years unarmed (as over 95% of police are) and never felt like I needed a firearm. I work in a very busy area too.

I was really surprised to find this out when I first came to England. What if the two cops in Bradford where armed? Things could have been different and Beshenivsky could be alive now...I am not saying that weapons are needed in each and every situation but why not have them anyway?

He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The thread started with a statement about England.
It is utterly ludicrous to consider arming the public to defend themselves from criminals here. I won't comment on the US.

I'm not anti-gun. I have my own guns. But I don't think anyone who believes that the UK public need arming for there own protection knows what they are talking about.

I suppose it's always better to give the criminal what they want, hmm?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CornishChris 5]

Quote

I suppose it's always better to give the criminal what they want, hmm?

And that is relevant how?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[CornishChris 5]

I took it to be England banning air guns. Damn my private school education

Quote

So, do you agree with this proposal, or not?

I refer you to my original quoe where I said I thought it was pointless.

Maybe you should spen more time reading my posts and less time juming to criticise!!

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I suppose it's always better to give the criminal what they want, hmm?

And that is relevant how?

Looks like it didn't do any of those 5 young ladies any good, unfortunately...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

I used to play with air guns all the time. I think a more appropriate ruling would be 'not to be in a posession of an air weapon in a public place' (which we already have dependent on weapons power)

I think the real issue is not because of accidents but because many are used as imitation firearms in robberies etc.

I think itd be a silly idea personally.

John, as a heads up, do you know how hard it is to get yourself in prison in the UK? Its not like over your neck of the woods where if you fart out of line your looking at 5 years inside. Custodial sentances are very seldom issued and for a charge to be raised the CPS has to deem the prosecution to be in the public interest. I fail to see how prosecuting an otherwise decent person for having what is little more than a toy in their own property would be in the public interest.

Maximum sentance might be a custodial sentance but the likelyhood of that being given out when we have murderers and rapists kicked out onto the streets less than 5 years after being remanded suggest they probably wont do that.

Also its a Scottish member of Parliament. Scotland have their own laws and are seperate to England & Wales

[Scoop 0]

Quote

What if the two cops in Bradford where armed? Things could have been different and Beshenivsky could be alive now...I am not saying that weapons are needed in each and every situation but why not have them anyway?

I think the general thought is that if we, who have lived as an unarmed (and still remarkably polite) society routinely armed all police officers then the lower level criminal would arm themselves too where they otherwise wouldnt have. Of course, noone can say for sure if that would be the case.

As Sean says, the neccesity for firearms is so slight that it isn't entertained when it comes to Health & Safety of police officers.

I've done 3 years now as a hobby bobby and although not putting in same duty time as the likes of regular colleagues as Sean, I've never felt that I would have found a gun neccesary in any situation I've been in. I've only used my CS spray once, never used my PAVA (pepper sray which is now used in place of CS) and drawn my baton once at a medium sized public order incident but never used it. This includes dealing with people with knives (Car door came in very handy there whilst travelling at speed ) and improvised weapons.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote
"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the criminals."

I'm a cop in the UK. I spent 10 years unarmed (as over 95% of police are) and never felt like I needed a firearm. I work in a very busy area too.

For the last four years I've been on a tactical firearms unit dealing with armed criminals every day. It's a small specialist area. Gun crime, whilst on the increase, is still very rare.

The thread started with a statement about England.
It is utterly ludicrous to consider arming the public to defend themselves from criminals here. I won't comment on the US.

I'm not anti-gun. I have my own guns. But I don't think anyone who believes that the UK public need arming for there own protection knows what they are talking about.

*On a side note the next time you show up at a persons house and he has detained some perps, and is holding a rifle on them, try not to ask who he is or works for while in the presence of others

This is not aimed at you personally, but a friend of mine is still pissed as having to sell his home and move away after all the work he put into it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Perhaps a reduction in the actual weapon availability will help achieve a reduction in there availability, hence a reduction in innocent lives being destroyed.

Your use of the word "perhaps" is an example of that pie-in-the-sky fairy tale that I was talking about. There is no place in the world that has banned guns which has achieved the goal that you desire. It doesn't happen. So, stick with practical reality - the good guys need to be armed to protect themselves from the bad guys. If you want to take away my right to self defense, you need a better argument than "perhaps".

Quote

My main point is that society is better off without firearms. This is not a topic for debate. It's a fact.

Only in fairy tale pie-in-the-sky world where you can wave a magic wand and make all the guns vaporize instantaneously. But that's not reality, thus, your "fact" is false in the real world.

Quote

Know what I'm getting at? Building a better future for our children?

Having families defenseless against criminals is not a better future. That's worse. We came out of our ancient caves with spears to protect ourselves against predators, and make ourselves free and prosperous. And now you would take those "spears" away from us, and have us go back to huddling in fear in caves once again, subject to annihilation by the new predators.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

JohnRich's quote:
"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the criminals." Quote ends.

John, I'm looking at what you've said in regards to ensuring only law abiding citizens are armed. Should it be necessary to mention the words;

Idealism? Fairy tales? Pie in the sky? Perhaps yes.
I won't even begin to insult anyones intelligence by explaining why.

You're wrong. I have never said that only the law-abiding will be armed. I have specifically recognized that the bad guys will always get guns, no matter what. Therefore, the only correct course of action is to allow the law-abiding to have them for self-defense. I don't know how you could have missed that from my messages, unless you just weren't paying attention.

It would also be pie-in-the-sky to wish that no one would drive drunk. But I'm not going to give up my self-defense car air-bag just because of a fairy tale wish. Disarming victims is a solution for nothing, and a recipe for disaster.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Regardless of whether or not this or that person believes that the USA should repeal the right to bear arms, here's the reality:

It won't happen. Americans will not give up their guns, and if the government repeals that right, Americans will disobey the law. Then you'd have the American government passing a law which would be deliberately violated by millions of previously-law abiding citizens. And that is not a smart position for a government to be in. A government should not pass laws that simply won't work.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then you'd have the American government passing a law which would be deliberately violated by millions of previously-law abiding citizens. And that is not a smart position for a government to be in. A government should not pass laws that simply won't work.

I think this applies to more than just guns. It has happened already.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[bazelos 0]

Quote

I think the general thought is that if we, who have lived as an unarmed (and still remarkably polite) society routinely armed all police officers then the lower level criminal would arm themselves too where they otherwise wouldnt have. Of course, noone can say for sure if that would be the case.

A way to see if not arming officers works is to see the number of gun related crime pre 96 and now, that should give some information. But usualy there's more of a thuggish attitude, as far as I'v noticed, to controll here, stuff like drunk people starting fights, anti-social behaviour, dui's, etc. The thing with shooting is that I lived very close to the incident, I used to go by the travel agents a few times a day to get some food, when it happened I couldn't go home for two days! Obviously if it happens to your neighberhood it does get to you so I started thinking, if they had shot the robberers she would be alive.

By the way cops in England are way too polite, I don't know how you manage keeping cool with some of the idiots you deal with, props for that.

He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.

[vortexring 0]

John; the word 'perhaps' was used in a suggestive context. The good guys may need to be armed to protect themselves from the bad guys in the Wild Wild West but 'unfortunately' that was around 100+ years ago. Evolution. Get with the program - your being left behind.

Your mention of pie in the sky vapourisers and magic wands seem quite an effective way to make me look niave, and rather silly; but unfortunately for you John, you've missed my point completely. Whether deliberatly on not, it does make you come across rather rude and impertinant.
So why not go have another read.

Your neanderthal anology is out of context. Where did I mention citizens being incapable of self defence - with criminals armed, as a norm?

Please, I expected better replies from yourself. Your not only sounding like a stuck record, but sounding rather rude, refusing to acknowledge points of view properly, whilst being literally blinkered to your own point of view, incapable of any objectivity.

Sometimes it's healthy to think outside the boxes in which we place ourselves.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[astleysean 0]

"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the tactical firearms units."

Ah, I knew I shoudn't have stuck my head over the parapet... (note to self, don't post at 5am..)


"By the way cops in England are way too polite, I don't know how you manage keeping cool with some of the idiots you deal with, props for that."

Thank you
(not too sure what "props" are but it sounds positive!)

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

JohnRich's quote:
"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the criminals." Quote ends.

John, I'm looking at what you've said in regards to ensuring only law abiding citizens are armed. Should it be necessary to mention the words;

Idealism? Fairy tales? Pie in the sky? Perhaps yes.
I won't even begin to insult anyones intelligence by explaining why.

You're wrong. I have never said that only the law-abiding will be armed. I have specifically recognized that the bad guys will always get guns, no matter what. Therefore, the only correct course of action is to allow the law-abiding to have them for self-defense. I don't know how you could have missed that from my messages, unless you just weren't paying attention.

It would also be pie-in-the-sky to wish that no one would drive drunk. But I'm not going to give up my self-defense car air-bag just because of a fairy tale wish. Disarming victims is a solution for nothing, and a recipe for disaster.

It seems then John, you see it necessary for everyone to be armed then. Of course, preferably not the criminals, but thats never going to happen is it? Unarmed criminals?
Fine, every healthy, sane, law abiding citizen carries a gun.

This will achieve more harm than good. Think of the simplicity for criminals to arm themselves. They'd all be armed now.
Gun crime would go through the roof.

All in the name of self defence?

Efforts, genuine effective methods of disarming the criminals need to be made.

There's plenty of crime where I live, indeed, there's a murderer cutting about strangling prostitutes. Many people fear he may well move onto women who are not prostitutes, as has happened in similiar situations in the past.
It would never enter my head that my wife should be armed with a pistol as a means of strangulation prevention.
Because there are other methods.
Guns are not the be all and end all of self defence.
Evolve!
Edit: Look at Diana's anti-landmine campaign. The mines still exist. I know people missing limbs from them. But she made a difference. How much, I'm not exactly sure - but what's important was the effort made.
And that's my point.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

"Thus, the only proper course of action is to ensure that the law-abiding have guns, in order to defend themselves from the tactical firearms units."

Ah, I knew I shoudn't have stuck my head over the parapet... (note to self, don't post at 5am..)


Was only kidding!

Besides, speaking of parapets, I'm doing a runner. Debating with John's like trying to convince my old man he's drunk as he's peering at me through an empty whisky bottle!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

• Quote

[astleysean 0]

I know, made me smile.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This will achieve more harm than good. Think of the simplicity for criminals to arm themselves. They'd all be armed now.
Gun crime would go through the roof.

Google Kennesaw, Georgia... and see what their gun crime rate is.

Quote

It would never enter my head that my wife should be armed with a pistol as a means of strangulation prevention.
Because there are other methods.
Guns are not the be all and end all of self defence.
Evolve!

Please tell me what this magic method is, that makes a 110 lb woman the equivalent of a 180 lb man in a fistfight.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

John takes ALOT of flak for his gun posts but I'm glad he posted this one... On a further note, John and I have disagreed on a regular basis about many things but it would be nice if people read the post and judged it on its merits or otherwise rather than just seeing who posted it and writing it off straight away.

Wow, thank you. For that, I'm going to give you a pass the next time I'm thinking of jumping on you for something. Sort of like a Monopoly game "Get out of jail free" card.

- John

Cheers, I'll be sure to use it wisely

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca