antis views from the UK feel my pain:(

[woodybrighton2]

discusion on another board about routine armed patrols around parts of london this is the response. won't name the board as board wars achive nothing and are far from high road. mentioning maybe allowing people to own weapons for self defence got this response

But not all robbers, still less all criminals, are 'hardened thugs,' and even in the case of those who are I'd rather be faced with them carrying a knife than a gun, which would be far more likely to be the case if guns were easier (and cheaper) to obtain. And even if I could and was prepared to (which I'm not) carry a gun in self-defence, I'd probably still come off worse because I'd be far less willing to pull it out and use it.
victim basically a sheep won't defend himself and belives nobody should try to fight bad guys as they'd get hurt

I don't believe that concealed-carry laws would achieve anything other than more fights escalating into shoot-outs, frankly. I'm well aware that there are societies with such laws, very high rates of gun ownership and very low crime rates, but the reasons for that are in large measure social, cultural and economic, as are the reasons for some societies with high gun ownership and the rest being very violent. You are quite right to suggest that it's silly to blame guns for the actions of the people who fire them, but the actions of those people are conditioned by the societies in which they live. My (rather pessimistic) assessment of British society is that mass carrying of firearms would lead to them being used far more than they are now, and would not effect a significant reduction in crime.

2nd bit more intelligent but British people if allowed to own guns would go berserk and shoot everyone
3rd person
is a total knobber. The idea that we'll all be safer from criminals if a wider selection of guns is widely available is patently crackers, especially given the experience of the USA. more guns = more criminals with guns and anyone who contemplates owning a weapon is a dangerous nutter and should be locked up.

So criminals can have guns cause they don't shoot many normal people. but law abiding people can't have guns cause we'd go mad and shoot everybody

 

[rainbowbob]

Could you go back and edit that post so we could at least get a clue what you're talking about?

Are you quoting somebody else?

Are these your opinions?

Are you a troll?

 

[outerlimit]

I assume the middle part is the quote of somebody else, so I'll answer accordingly. Crime rates in Britain have skyrocketed in recent years. In the past ten to fifteen years there have been draconian guns laws enacted along with a major influx of foreign born citizens.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out. Racial tension + disarming the law abiding = chaos.

 

[jeepmor]

I'm with Bob, put some context around that blather.

 

[azyogi]

People with guns, citizens. People without guns, subjects? I think that's how the translation would go. Given how news is reported there what else could he think.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

It's all a matter of freedoms. Britain has allowed their freedoms to be usurped by their government. You no longer have the "choice" to protect yourself....you MUST rely on the government to protect you, should a threat arise. For many, that response will not be fast or thorough enough. I guess for Brits, the sacifice of such people, as victims, is all in the good interest of having an unarmed, polite society. It the U.S., we have the OPTION, in most areas, to defend ourselves if we see fit. We call it an inalienable "right", and it is the price of freedom for all, to allow others the same freedom. I personally resent being forced to be at the hands of an armed criminal, one that the government cannot prevent from being so armed. I am a peaceable man, but have no tolerance for accomodating these ne'er-do-wells, and have a great surprise for them. It's called RESISTANCE. Imagine the reaction of a thug bent on scaring, harming, or killing a victim, and having that victim pull his own gun and reversing the tide. I will not be ashamed, or be traumatized with "post traumatic shock", etc. I might feel sorry for the poor fella after the fact, sad upbringing and all, but I will revel in my own life going on, as deserved.

 

[woodybrighton2]

hopefully that makes more sense

 

[Frank Ettin]

...hopefully that makes more sense ...

Hopefully what makes more sense? There's nothing there.

In any case, for an interesting view of the correlation between the erosion of gun rights and self defense rights and increasing violent crime, see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

 

[gunnutery]

SharpsDressedMan, you put that very well.

I feel for the people of England that wish to protect themselves. On the other hand I don't really feel all that bad for the people that don't wish to protect themselves and buy into all the crap about the government being able to protect them. With skyrocketing crime rates, you'd think more people would open their eyes.

I don't wish harm on anyone to have to come to the conclusion that the government isn't going to protect you the instant you're being robbed/raped/beaten/killed, but look what had to happen for the U.S. to join the allies in WW2, we got a really good beating before we opened up our eyes.

 

[junyo]

At the end on the day, you'll find that most anti's hold a set of shared assumptions:
a) Most people are unable to control their impulses.
b) Most people are unable to handle themselves under pressure.
c) That the US violent crime rate is higher than the UK's.

Put in that context, the responses are perfectly reasonable. Stupid, since those points are either pure worldview/conjecture or demonstrably false, but reasonable.

 

[rmodel65]

a link to the thread would be more appropriate

 

[Shadow 7D]

Got into a talk with a classmate at school (college) he brought up a truly amazing statistic, gun related deaths are down. He had to argue that lacking the ability to defend ones self and the increase in crime was worth it. I got him to agree that banning knives was the best next step, seemed a little off when I took his, we were having lunch, and most knife crime seems to be committed with kitchen cutlery, not those 'evil black' knives.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

At the end on the day, you'll find that most anti's hold a set of shared assumptions:
a) Most people are unable to control their impulses.
b) Most people are unable to handle themselves under pressure.

Sorta makes sense that these countries never want to send troops anywhere, don't it?

 

[danbrew]

Pretty Stupid, if you ask me. The UK is not the US and nothing about the 2nd that we think normal will resonate with any "Subject of the Crown". Really. Armed patrols in London? Please. Bunch of ****en' wankers that don't quite get it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Franklin noted that people get the type of government they deserve. Your board proves the theory nicely.

Please remember that England is leery of citizen militias and the idea of the lower class with access to any kind of autonomy is repugnant. 1776 may have been the beginning for the United States but was a lesson to Great Britain.

 

[MD_Willington]

Rainbowbob

He's not a troll...

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Seems like there's an anti-troll posse forming on THR lately.

Any thread that isn't in MMA format with proper citations gets a bunch of Mcarthyism heaped on top of it before the thread ever gets a chance to take off.




I feel for the OP, and I think a great idea would be for pro RKBA English people to get together somehow.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think a great idea would be for pro RKBA English people to get together somehow.

I do too. I just wish I could follow what the OP is talking about. I really don't understand his post, and I don't want to try and guess at his meaning.

 

[rainbowbob]

He's not a troll...

I got that after he graciously edited his post.

 

[9mm+]

Seems like there's an anti-troll posse forming on THR lately.

Any thread that isn't in MMA format with proper citations gets a bunch of Mcarthyism heaped on top of it before the thread ever gets a chance to take off.




I feel for the OP, and I think a great idea would be for pro RKBA English people to get together somehow.

I agree in full. This poor guy got trounced from the beginning. It seems that there are a lot of very sensitive souls on THR lately, all of which makes this forum less interesting to visit...

 

[TEDDY]

???????????????

england had an active shooting program until after WW2.pistol carrying was common with no permits.and crime was low.maybe the best people got killed in WW1 and WW2,leaving the dregs.as Britian sure has gone down.also the breakup of the colonies,left a lot of their people to emigrate to england as they were citizens.and england has a huge muslum population.an much is violent.
Have you seen what Australia is telling the muslums. "shape up or ship out".

 

[chris in va]

It's my opinion that firearms aren't the 'perfect' tool for defensive purposes. There's an awful lot of liability involved if things go wrong. I firmly believe everyone should have the means to defend themselves with every tool available, but I suspect the social climate in England is completely different than the US (haven't been there, so only going on what I've read). Perhaps they need something different.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

As an NRA pistol instructor I occassionally get English students, well some preferred to be called Welsh, but I'm admittedly clueless on that whole front. From what i've seen and been told by these folks: unless you are ubber wealthy or well positioned in the professional field such as doctor or barister(think english attorney) you face having to live near or amongst the lower dregs of society in the cities. The more rural areas are safe and well but the cities are a totally different story. My students are generally immigrants who've gotten their green cards and move back and forth between their English home and American home because of business. They on occassion bring visiting friends and family to shoot at one of the classes(they undergo the three hour lecture and half hour minimum discussion I reguire before we shoot) and the folks will ask unusual questions.

My favorite yet was "so how many people have you had to kill." Granted this is just my personal experience and I show off my knife scars(hey four on one your going to get cut unless you are Bruce Lee) amongst other ones and I tend to smile when I see the dread on their faces as they see my scars and I explain the events behind them, and that I've never shot anyone. The english culture is not the American culture and we should be sensitive to that.

Oh if you caught Lock'n'load with when rifles were covered there was an english shooting enthusiast who had lived in the United States for thirty years, I wonder why. He made handling that Einfeld look easy.

Maybe some folks are only fit to be subjects and some are only fit to be free citizens. That's the beautiful thing about immigration, you can go where you belong, we'll take the english folks who are productive and want to be free, now if we could only send them the lazy who want to be put in virtual chains to the dole and wills of the gun carrying criminals in our society.

 

[Dambugg]

Great point magnumdweeb. Bring us your cold, huddled, masses and we'll teach them how to shoot.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the social climate in England is completely different than the US...

It sure seems to be now. But one reason that Joyce Lee Malcolm's book (Guns and Violence, the English Experience, Harvard University Press, 2002) is so interesting, is that she shows that it wasn't always thus.

Our law of self defense as its foundation in the Common Law of England, going back some 500 years. Up until the early years of the 20th Century, it was not uncommon for honest folks in England to go about armed, and private citizens played an active role in maintain the public peace. Things seem to have changed there in the last 100 years. Why? How?