England really is a police state

[Dbl0Kevin]

Ok I'm gonna jump in here for a sec.....

Agricola,

I think the problem that some of us have here is your constant defense of the UK when laws or and incident such as this is debated. When there is a law along those lines here in the US such as the AWB, the MG ban of 86 etc. you will hear each and every one of us condemning the law and the legislators that passed it. In addition thanks to the AWB we not only condemned it but voted a great majority of the legislators who supported it out of office and made sure that it sunsetted. No one is saying that you can't be proud of your country, but when there is a disgustingly anti-freedom law and you go out of your way to defend it against people who are upset by it then I would take that to mean you support the law. That I believe is why some people are making such claims, and in my opinion I can understand why they would believe such. I have never seen you say that a law or situation was wrong that has been brought up on here. You have always defended the government and your country and said it has been misunderstood and it's really not as bad as people make it out to be.

That's my .02 cents anyway.

 

[Hydromeda]

Sam

I await with patience and baited breath the outcome of your research, and rejoice in the fact that i will from now on have an expert on english law to call on on the forum if needed.

re: your comments to St Johns, i think you may have taken him a little personally. Am fairly sure he was not directing any of his rant at you, as you have acted in a completely rational and appropriate manner. Specifically as relates to what he said about the spreading of misinformation, i believe that was directed at Boats, rather than anyone else.

And by the way, it's Miss Hydromeda.

 

[Art Eatman]

Ag, Dbl0Kevin has some good points.

Something I've noticed in past threads on this general tired ol' subject is that you appear to defend your government's definitions regarding violent crimes.

We've had semantic go-rounds before on this, and obviously the difference in the way we define violent crimes and the way you folks do creates a bunch of confusion. The backing-and-forthing creates frustration and hostility.

Enuf fer now...

Art

 

[Hydromeda]

on a side note...

I thought you guys might be interested in reading this article relating to relative government pressure on the british and american press.

http://www.sundayherald.com/43388

 

[AZRickD]

Simply not good enough, A-C.

The gun rights debate does not center, nor is it restricted to CCW. There is open carry. There is the 1934 NFA. There is registration. There is Vermont Carry. There is "Gun Safety" as proposed by the anti-gunners. And there is all that silliness in your country. All of which you refuse to clarify in this thread.

The server is still slow and the Search function is inop.

It would be much quicker if you would just state your views and address arguments of the other posters as you and your buddy, Hydro, have refused to do over the span of a few dozen posts. I realize it takes some measure of courage from you, but after all, you're not French, are you? While you're at it, since you don't have time to rebutt "all" Brit policies (as St. Johns warns me), can you make a dent and deal with a few of them? So far you've defended just about all of them.

Rick

PS, just to clarify, by omission (your third) you are conceding that the British press often bad-mouths American gun laws (and in an attempt to affect laws here,) right?

Yet that is the extent of my opinions on the US, as the search would have showed you, because (as I said) it is a matter for those who live in that country.

You said:

Quote:
The difference is that AngriCola and his friends at BBC and the Sunday Times think that what America needs is more laws just like they have and they insinuate that we are Neanderthals when we don't buy their line.


Please evidence your statement, or withdraw it and apologise.

 

[P95Carry]

This sort of thread goes predictably in circles - well, usually does. It also gets tiresome due to the theme following the same course most times.

My own position is I think pretty clear - I am an ex pat' and have little but dismay for the way things have gone in UK. I get plenty of feedback from folks there I am in touch with and there are few who laud the trends.... they also concede that their supposedly ''useful'' votes are all but useless in slowing or halting of said trends.

I'll just refer back to my post#58 - and the question I asked then. It would be most illuminating to get answers...............

 

[agricola]

AZRickD,

One paper (the Guardian) tried to influence the election, rather more of the media have pointed to the US situation as something we in the UK dont want to have (there is a difference) and a great deal of the media paint the US as being filled with bumbling idiots; there is a difference between each of the perspectives. You however said that I had said and done these things, which of course I have not. When the search function manages to come back, please do that search and retract or apologise for that statement.

The minutiae of the legal situation in the US is something for you lot, it is your country, but as I recall the only statement I have made is that given the level of armed criminality in the US CCW is a common sense measure.

That is as far as it goes, I really do not have an opinion on the US, at the end of the day if you all want to drive around in SUV's shooting whatever you can buy, then good luck to you, its your business and none of mine.

Art / Dbl0kevin,

The problem is that, when I post here it is because invariably someone has either written or quoted something that is incorrect - my first post on this thread highlighted the errors I found in the article - about my country.

Secondly you are approaching this from a standpoint of "its anti-freedom", while you forget that not every country is going to share your views, because of their differing history and experiences. Of the two pieces of legislation in this article, one (the Prevention of Crime Act) has been in place since 1953, and the other was brought in replacing legislation that has been on the statute books since the late 1970s, and exists because we have been suffering terrorist attacks regularly for the past forty years (the current level remains lower than at the worst of the PIRA campaign when these stops and searches were common).

Personally, I agree with both of these pieces of legislation, as for that matter did the author of this article - he appears to be saying the laws are alright as long as they dont apply to him.

People over here do not necessarily have the same conceptions of freedom as you do, though there are similarities (which is why the ID card scheme will be a massive failure), which is something to bear in mind.

 

[agricola]

p95,

sorry I missed your question but hope it is answered by the above.

 

[Hydromeda]

Azrickd,

I have replied to every question asked me, whether directly or indirectly. And as i have been discussing the notion of free press in britain, rather than the control of guns in the US, i haven't commented on it. This is not a refusal to answer, merely an effort to only have one discussion at once, and to keep it relevant.

 

[agricola]

hydromeda,

you are wasting your breath IMHO

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Secondly you are approaching this from a standpoint of "its anti-freedom", while you forget that not every country is going to share your views, because of their differing history and experiences. Of the two pieces of legislation in this article, one (the Prevention of Crime Act) has been in place since 1953, and the other was brought in replacing legislation that has been on the statute books since the late 1970s, and exists because we have been suffering terrorist attacks regularly for the past forty years (the current level remains lower than at the worst of the PIRA campaign when these stops and searches were common).

This is what I just can't understand. Maybe it's my ignorance of Europe, but even still I don't understand how man does not yearn to be free and not controlled by some outside force such as a government. Just how much freedom do you believe it is acceptable to give up for a bit of security? I'm sure if you put a government agent on every block and he searched everyone that came by you would stop a lot of the terrorists......is that acceptable? How about if you couldn't buy any items that could be used as an "offensive weapon" locking pen knife, baton, pepper spray, taser etc. without prior government approval and registering said item? What about all chemical products that could possibly used to make an explosive, fertilizer, ammonia etc. not to be sold to the public unless you submit yourself for a search and a complete background check?

I'm sure these measures would help curb terrorism.....but what is the point if you can't live your lives?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Oh and one more thing. You have stated:

I have made is that given the level of armed criminality in the US CCW is a common sense measure.

Last I checked muggings at knifepoint in London were darn high as well as home invasions. Do you support law abiding citizens in UK being able to defend themselves with a firearm as well?

 

[agricola]

dbl0kevin,

But what is in the Terrorism Act is not "a Government agent on every corner"; its the combined experience of the past forty years of fighting against the most murderously efficient terror group in the world.

I would be willing to bet money that if al-Qaeda went on a similar campaign against the US your legal system would be changed as well.

As for:

Last I checked muggings at knifepoint in London were darn high as well as home invasions. Do you support law abiding citizens in UK being able to defend themselves with a firearm as well?

Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

 

[agricola]

Oh, and I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean, and no I do not believe we are anywhere near that stage.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Oh, and I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean, and no I do not believe we are anywhere near that stage

I'm having a hard time following your logic here. Are you trying to say that you don't believe citizens of the UK are responsible enough to be trusted with concealed weapons?

 

[agricola]

dbl0kevin,

no, I am saying that if that is what the UK people want, then they should change the law so thats what they can have. they do not appear to want this.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I would be willing to bet money that if al-Qaeda went on a similar campaign against the US your legal system would be changed as well.

al-Qaeda has already started an attack against us, though not with car bombings and suicide bombings such as the IRA. I'm sure there would be a certain group of people who would want our legal system changed as there are a number of them now. I would hope that saner minds would prevail because if we were to let them dictate how we run our country then they would win.

Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

No matter what your definition of prevalent is they still occur. One time is too many. You may go your whole life without needing a gun, but the one time you need it you REALLY need it. I would have to say that a "burlary when someone is inside" would be a home invasion. What else would you call it? If I'm in my home and someone enters without permission they are certainly invading my house. I am not going to ask if he would like some tea and crumpets! I'm going to reach for my firearm and if he makes any threatening move ask if he'll like some lead and copper.

I guess you're right there definately is a different definition of "freedom" that is followed across the Atlantic. I'm sad to see that.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

no, I am saying that if that is what the UK people want, then they should change the law so thats what they can have. they do not appear to want this.

That much I understand, but what I still don't get is this:

I would support anyone defending themselves with anything; but that is not what a UK CCW would mean

What would it mean?

 

[agricola]

dbl0kevin,

thats funny because a quick google search says that "home invasion" and a burglary where someone is inside are not the same thing:

http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0928.html
http://www.crimedoctor.com/homeinvasion.htm

 

[agricola]

dbl0kevin,

er... the complete change of British society for very little tangible benefit?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

thats funny because a quick google search says that "home invasion" and a burglary where someone is inside are not the same thing:

I don't care what the legal definition is. If someone enters my home uninvited when I am inside than they are invading my home....plain and simple. You're ducking my questions now with silly semantics.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

er... the complete change of British society for very little tangible benefit?

Please explain this further. I can only assume that you mean a complete change of British society would be the ability for citizens to use deadly force to defend their lives. How would you call that very litle tangible benefit? I think to the person who's life would saved it would be a HUGE tangible benefit.

 

[agricola]

dbl0kevin,

i) british people can already use deadly force in order to protect their lives;

ii) british society has for the past sixty years been "unarmed"

iii) there is no demand for it amongst the population

What was that about "how dare the brits tell us how to live"?

 

[Cosmoline]

In all fairness to Agricola and the UK, it does appear that the fool writing the article CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH. Watch any episode of "Cops" and you'll see fools stateside making the same mistake. Never, ever, ever, ever consent to any search by any law enforcement officer. If you do, you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

Also, I've seen plenty of "Cops" episodes filmed back east where cops slam folks down on the ground and arrest them for having firearms in their cars. You don't have to go to the UK to find tyranny--it's right here at home laughing at us.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

crime statistics

Agricola said:

Knifepoint muggings are not as prevalent as certain commentators have tried to allege (between 10% and 33% in London) neither are home invasions - certain commentators have taken a statistic (that of burglaries when someone is inside) and equated it falsely with "home invasions", which are different kettles of fish (a better comparison would be to domestic robberies or aggravated burglaries).

Now I recall reading somewhere that crimes in Great Britain are not counted into statistics until they are solved?

Is that true?