2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
Powerful, wealthy criminals can get anything they want from Eastern Europe or Ulster (obviously the paramilitary organisations still have significant arsenals despite 'decommissioning') but it costs a great deal.
The fact that we see stories like this in the papers shows there is a demand but for many people getting hold of genuine firearms is pretty difficult.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/firearms-dealer-linked-to-130-crimes-1075264.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/09/ukcrime.ukguns
I'm sure most petty criminal / thugs would love to get their hands on guns but have to make do with knives.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
Which further illustrates how different the situations are. Even if all guns were outlawed here in the US there would be so many illegal weapons going around that I doubt it would have any substantial impact on the gun homicide rate. I personally know several places I could go and buy authentic uzi's if I wanted to.
You need to differentiate between immediate and short term effects. One would presumably implement a series of legal measures which, over the medium to long term, would result in an incremental reduction in the total number of legal and illegal firearms.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
The post I was responding to didn't appear, to me, to be dealing with a small percentage of "nutcases", but to be a view of gun-owners in general. If that is not what you meant, then I suggest that perhaps you were unclear.
Regardless, "huge assault rifles" are used in very few homicides, and, although I haven't checked in a while, I think you'll find that they're not a big contributor to accidental deaths, either. Assault rifles are a red herring.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Yes, yes. We know. The UK is a magical utopia and everyone else should form our societies based around your model.
I'll bet you have a lot fewer swimming pool deaths, as well.
I think you will find that the folk from the UK in this thread have not been arguing that at all.
Wow! Where did you get that from? I hope you feel better for getting it out.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
That is the impression I'm getting from the exchanges with Rolfe and Architect. I can't point out a factual error or misconception, without getting something like this in response:
Someone: "In the USA people have this macho attitude and they all run out and buy howitzers and kill people"
Me: "Um, that's not really typical. Besides only 2 people have ever been killed by howitzers in the US."
Someone else, probably from Scotland: "Oh, yeah? Well in the UK we've never had anyone killed with a howitzer!"
Isn't it more that the thread was started on the premise that the US is the magical utopia and that the UK should follow suit wrt gun laws; and the UKers in the main are saying that we are quite happy with our status quo?
Apologies if it comes over that way, but I think you're misinterpreting our comments.
In Western Europe, the concept of "guns for guns sake" is completely alien. Sport shooting in the UK, for example, is limited to clays (shotguns) or hunting (rifles and shotguns). There is no place in either sport for automatic weapons, and hence no pressure for their legalisation.
The response from many US pro-gun posters seems to take the tact that (say) assault weapons aren't really all that dangerous, because they represent a comparatively low proportion of gun deaths. At this point we tend to fall into the "why the hell do you need any of the damn things?" and it all gets a bit tense.
Travis made the point about the nutter who drew a gun on his dad (?) over a minor offence and predicatably ended up doing an impression of a collander. This doesn't happen here because we just don't allow handguns any more, nor are the police armed. The most you're likely to read about is a big chance across 3 counties before a stinger takes the nutter out and he's charged with assault or drink driving or something. A taser or a baton are about the worst he'll face.
The other thing that I think I can safely say completely puzzles us is the argument (not yours, IIRC) that more guns actually serve to reduce crime rates. Frankly, it's just bizarre.
On a final note, I am willing to wager a bottle of finest malt whisky that the murder rates for howitzers in the UK and the US are broadly similar.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Right at the moment there are quite a lot of policemen armed to the teeth running around north-east England closing in on an armed murderer. Everybody else has been told to stay indoors and keep out of it. Personally, I think that's the best way to minimise the death rate. The idea of armed have-a-go idiots trying to get in on the act gives me the screaming ab-dabs to be honest.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Yes. I've stated (more than once, I believe) that the OP was ridiculous. I just don't think that turning that same silly attitude around the other way is any less ridiculous.
I'm not participating in this thread to change anyone's mind on gun control. People in the UK seem happy with their gun laws, and those laws seem to be working for them. But, I have seen some misconceptions and factual errors presented that I thought needed to be pointed out.
I hope so. I would be happier to be wrong than right in this instance.
Yes. I understand and respect that.
There may be some confusion here. The vast majority of "assault rifles" in the US are not automatic weapons. I think that, technically, that makes them not actually assault rifles, per se, but what is colloquially referred to by that name are semiautomatic weapons, and are less powerful than, say, most hunting rifles.
I'm not taking a position regarding whether we "need" to own assault rifles, but outlawing them wouldn't have much effect. They aren't owned by that many people, and are involved in crimes and accidental deaths at miniscule rates compared to handguns. They are not the common weapon people turn to for home defense, as was implied in Safe-Keeper's post. If he had railed against handguns instead of "huge assault rifles", I wouldn't have even responded.
It doesn't seem completely crazy to me that, in a country where gun ownership is already established, knowing that potential victims are more likely to be armed might provide a strong disincentive to some would-be attackers. On the other hand, perhaps it would serve as an incentive for other criminals to arm themselves. The question would be, where would the balance lie? Unfortunately, the data I've seen, so far, has been inconclusive. Some places have seen reductions in violent crime rates when passing, say, concealed carry laws, but it's very difficult sorting out correlation vs causation.
Either way, I don't think it would have a net positive effect in a country that currently has very few guns.
I didn't know you had such issues with howitzer crimes.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Why do you need a semi-auto though?
I mean, why not just get a bolt or lever action hunting rifle?
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
In Norway, we use Leopard 2 tanks for home defense. Can't give them armed burglars a sporting chance.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Haven't you heard? Americans are lazy. We don't want to have to have to cock the gun after every shot. That's too much work.
In Norway, we use Leopard 2 tanks for home defense. Can't give them armed burglars a sporting chance.
Now we're talkin'!
In Norway, we use Leopard 2 tanks for home defense. Can't give them armed burglars a sporting chance.
Thanks to our strict laws in Europe, however, less murders are committed with tanks on the street