England Gun Ban Update

  • Thread starter Deleted member 66305
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HO88

America has more freedom then any other "civilized' country, funny the country that held off the Nazi's is now afraid of guns and pointy objects :|

How do you equate having guns to having more freedom than other "civilized" countries (as if we, the western world, are civilised in any manner)?

For example, i have seen many abuses by the police in the USA. The treatment of prisoners in the US is scary. The fact that the US is willing to get rid of its problems by using violence and death, such as the American Indian Movement which has been destroyed by the US. I don't think native americans would agree with your view on freedom considering the way they have been, and are still treated in the US.
Nor would i suggest that a lot of other minorities would feel that the US is the land of the free. I have met many people who suffer racial discrimination still, and this is 50 odd years after the supposed end to discrimination.

Yes, the US is in a much better situation than it used to be, but the next few months with Obama as the new candidate will show you just how racist many americans are. And this racism leads to discrimiantion.

My country has decided to take one path, we have up to 800 murders a year which would equate to 1/4 the rate in the US, which will no doubt rise due to the poor economic policies of the incumbant president.
 
Tommygunn

A tad "below the belt."
All criminals in the U.S. maintain their right to legal representation.
I know this is really "off topic," but I forever wonder why people anywhere insist that those caught by our servicemen on a battlefield overseas be given "trials." What American laws did they violate???? How do we "get off" "trying" people for violating a "law" in some forsaken desert on the other side of the planet??????
They're P.O.W.s

I'm not going to argue too much about the facts. But imagine this was another country that was doing the same things, this would be evidence this country was not as free as the US.
It does seem, i'm not trying to criticise, that you are trying to justify something that is not justifiable.

The problem is, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN POWs, but weren't. Why? If they were POWs they would have been subject to the geneva convention, this suggests something is not right. Then we could talk about Abu Graib, the secret prisons in other countries, poland if my memory serves me.

This is all from a country you claim to be the most free. I'm not suggesting the UK is any better, i'm suggesting the US is not as free as you are suggesting.
One thing is looking at the press that manages to get itself to the american press, another is looking at your own press which has a tendancy to ignore much of what goes on.
 
The problem is, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN POWs, but weren't. Why? If they were POWs they would have been subject to the geneva convention, this suggests something is not right. Then we could talk about Abu Graib, the secret prisons in other countries, poland if my memory serves me.

While I won't defend the actions, I find it hard to correlate what happens to a country's enemies to how free or not free its citizens are.
 
Luis Leon

The Brits never give their per capital crimes rates... our country is much, much bigger than theirs, so they distort the figures. Every so often, I thank the confluence of events that allowed me to be born in America. America rocks and Britain, oh well... they use to rule the world, once... arrogant bastards had their Empire so reduced that to quote another poster...

Looking at the crime rates is not that difficult.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107chap2.xls

This is for England and Wales, there are about 50 million people, adding on legal and illegal immigrants and then comparing it to the US you need to times by 5 the rates and you get the right figure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

This site does per capita.

The problem though is not the per capita, it is about the way stats are collected. Both in the UK and the US there have been reports that figures have been made up to make it look like a drop in crime when it may not be so and the way in which stats are taken anyway, like i have said about burglary.

As for America rocking, i would suggest that a person born in america feels as much at home in america as a person from Germany feels in germany. It is the way it goes. Yes you are lucky to be born in a free and prosperous country, but that does not mean it is better than other countries.
 
The problem is, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN POWs, but weren't. Why? If they were POWs they would have been subject to the geneva convention, this suggests something is not right. Then we could talk about Abu Graib, the secret prisons in other countries, poland if my memory serves me.

we arent at "war", last time i looked Al Qadia was not at the geneva convention, and they gave up there rights when they start suicide bombing stuff.
 
don't wish to flame you. (If you are just a troll I take that back)

I am not a troll, i am a person with an opinion. I don't take offence, i have had much worse. I come from a different country and look at things that often rock the very foundations of your country.
I am from a country that had a "great" empire, people still say "put the great back in Britain" but i do not see how we were great, just because we were able to take advantage of, kill, abuse, enslave other people does not make us great. In fact we are more great because we managed to give all of that up, allow other countries to gain their freedom.

I really am interested in how you can believe that the freedoms of the people of England are not being taken away.

Because the reality is we were never 100% free. That would, in my opinion, be anarchy. In order to have order, you need to lose a certain amount of freedom. The govt is attempting to do certain things, but in the end, they are either not dangerous or will be taken down. You may not believe it, but we do change governments, we do change laws, we do prevent things we do not like from happening.
I can point to many things, we had the 90 day detention which has been reduced to 42 days and may not get in. How is this possible in a country that is losing its freedoms?

In the U.S. its not that just owning a gun suddenly equals freedom. That’s not what Americans believe.

Its the whole idea about WHY we have the right to own guns and thus what guns represent to us. Guns have become an icon of freedom in the US as is gun ownership. It speaks to the idea that as Americans we have the RIGHT to personally defend our lives thus we don't have to depend on some one else to do so.

I can understand that, on the other hand there is the feeling that this symbol will save us, we don't need to do anything else which in the UK we do not have. If we want to keep our freedom we have to fight for it.
The Iraq war is the perfect example of what i am talking about. Most americans supported this war, because it had a feel good factor, you are the best and proving by winning. Yet nobody said, hang on a minute, this isn't what our constitution stands for, this isn't what WE should be standing for. The things that your govt does abroad can happen at home as well, and americans seem to be taking this complete disregard for other people without even questioning it.
As i have said in a previous post, the way the US govt has dealt with the native americans is scary, what is more scary is the fact that all the other americans accept it, dismiss the bad things and get on with their life.


When you are dependant on some one else to provide something as fundamental as self preservation then YOU ARE LACKING BASIC FREEDOM in your life. And this is BASIC freedom, the bottom of the barrel so to speak.

You are always dependent upon someone else. Many people suffer in the US, because they cannot go through life without being dependent on others. Back to native americas, who have been dependent upon the american govt for more than a century, they get a raw deal out of it, hardly anyone is fighting for them. And this is happening in the country that you consider the most free in the world.

Independence to make your own choices, not only about self defense but in all areas of life IS FREEDOM.

Which i can and do do every day. What can i not do? I can get a gun if i really wanted one, i just don't.
Now, from the other point of view we can see that a person who can easily get a gun in the US has a 4 times higher chance of being killed than in a place where it is hard to get a gun. Perhaps many people don't CHOOSE to get a gun, they feel it is necessary whereas in the UK we really can choose.
Look at rape rates in the US, states which are known as being gun states like Texas, have higgher rape levels than those of other states with less guns or more restrictive gun laws.

In England it seems the government has decided that the people no longer have the right to carry items, any item, that you could use to defend yourself OR use arms at home if attacked, so now you (the British people) are less free then you once were. You are TOTALLY dependant on the police to protect you.

But as i have said, a person in america is not that free to choose. Though i know many people who do choose not to have guns, in what position does that put them?

It doesn't stop there, what about the cameras that are every where just watching for some one to do some thing wrong? Or that story above about the woman who is forbidden to put a wading pool in her yard because some committee decided THAT was too dangerous? No drinking on the tube now also?? The list goes on and on. INSANITY!!

There are two types of cameras, speed cameras which are very effective. Our death rate on the roads is a quarter of yours.
The other cameras in cities are not that technologically advanced, they are generally used to combat criminals in city centres. But then just as in the US you are free to own a gun or not, or free to choose to go somewhere where there are no guns, the same in the UK, you know where the cameras are, just don't go there. There are no reports of people having their freedom taken away from them by the cameras. Besides, being watched while in a city centre, there are thousands of people around, all who can watch you, what is the difference? You could have a policeman on the streets, or a camera, both watch. If you are doing nothing wrong you do not fear the police man, so why fear the camera?

Why is there SO MUCH fear?

Fear is something right wing govts in the US live off of. Why go to war in Iraq? A common enemy to unite the people under fear?

Sorry friend, but from an American point of view, where we still have at least some of our basic freedoms (the right to decide for ourselves) intact, you have been fooled into thinking that the taking away of freedoms has made you safer.

What do i not have the choice to decide, that you do? I have the choice to leave my country, i have done and i am doing again, i have a job in Austria coming up. That is my decision, my choice.


In reality, as I see it, it only has make you dependant AND under the thumb of your government.

And i could say the same about you. I mean, you are the melting pot, you are a country that has to be patriotic from school age, knowing each state and its capital, the founding fathers, all the good history is promoted, the bad history hidden under a blanket, so that on the 4th July people stand up and shoud U-S-A U-S-A, have a flag flying and all of that. How free are you?
 
Roscoe

Don't forget no right to free speech, no restriction of search and siezure, no exclusionary rule, no right to self-defense. These are sometimes expressed by statute, but because there is no constitutional restriction on laws, whatever the majority wants, it gets.

I challenge you to find what i am NOT allowed to say in the UK.

Self defence is an easy one.

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to:

defend himself from attack
prevent an attack on another person
defend his property
In addition to the common law defence, section 3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (the statutory defence) provides that:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Search and Seizure

http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/PACE-Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure.htm

As far as i am aware, search without a warrant is only in cases of terrorism.

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-10.htm

I am not exactly sure on how the exclusionary rule works in the UK, but generally it exists. Evidence has to be collected properly.

But generally this points to the view that in america this and that leads to freedom and everyone else should do it, even if it does not cause a problem for people's freedoms. ALso it points to false evidence or a misunderstanding of british law by americans.
 
M1911

Sure. Why don't you pop down to your local gun store, pick up a nice concealed carry handgun, then stop over to your local police station and pick up a concealed carry license. Then tell us just how easy it was.

And a dutch person would say why don't you walk down to the local coffee shop and pick up some dope.
Just because you can have a gun, does not mean you are more free than i am. I could get a gun. I believe many places have a system in place which means you have to wait a few days.
All of this is relevant. The US govt does not let you do all that you would like to. Drugs, poligamy and many other things that are against the law, like walking across the road in the wrong place, hahah, imagine needing a govt to tell you where you can cross the road.

Carry and conceal is not protected. It cannot be, because otherwise you could not have licenses for it.
 
Fletcher

While I won't defend the actions, I find it hard to correlate what happens to a country's enemies to how free or not free its citizens are.

Maybe not. But i would look at the way a government treats people as how they treat their own people. Because you can bet if they see people as worthy ofbeing treated like dirt, then they won't have a problem treating their own people like that.
 
Hmm. I'm one of those people who would like to put the "Great" back into Britain.

I also notice OMDP that before this thread you've not posted anything before on this forum. I'm bowing out of this thread.
 
xd45gaper

we arent at "war", last time i looked Al Qadia was not at the geneva convention, and they gave up there rights when they start suicide bombing stuff.

So it is acceptable that your govt picks people up somewhere in the world, kidnapps them and holds them captive for years on end is it? Maybe the govt should do that to americans as well. Wait, it did. Just go to france, take an american, and lock him up, not a POW, not a prisoner, just illegal kidnapping.

Hell, why not do it in the US as well? I mean, the US constitution is about how the US govt functions. It got away with it once, twice, three times, why not again?
Does that not scare you?
 
OMDP, give it up...

If England is such a bastion of freedom, then how do you explain the fact that England invented Concentration Camps?

Ever heard of the South African Boer Wars?
 
I challenge you to find what i am NOT allowed to say in the UK.

Put your money where your mouth is:

Make public statements the holocaust did not happen.
Better yet, demand that all mosques in london be razed to stop crazy mullahs.
Declare that all the blacks in Brixton be shipped back to africa because they're running the drug trade.

See how far you get.

-T
 
OMDP, care to enlighten us on your presence on this forum ? To me, it seems a bit inappropriate for a first-time poster to get into such a furious debate over what's essentially a cultural difference.
Meanwhile, I'm not getting into the debate whether "freedom" can be measured in how many guns/dope/women you can have under your respective laws - however, I do want to stress that in my opinion, the "right to self defense" as described nowadays in various European countries (including mine) more or less boils down to "the right to be a victim, unless you're willing to go through lawsuit hell and risk ending up behind bars yourself". Easy to allow "self-defence" when the tools are no longer legally available for the law-abiding citizen.
 
Tyris

Put your money where your mouth is:

Make public statements the holocaust did not happen.
Better yet, demand that all mosques in london be razed to stop crazy mullahs.
Declare that all the blacks in Brixton be shipped back to africa because they're running the drug trade.

See how far you get.

Okay, there are things i cannot say, this is logical within a democracy Libel laws and things like that appear. Now lets compare with the USA.

I believe though that making public statements that the holocaust did not happen won't get you in that much trouble. The fact that some guy published a book, i believe in the UK and managed to get himself locke dup in Austria shows that.
Demanding all mosques in london get burned down is inciting racial hatred and goes along the lines of shouting fire in a crowded theatre which is also considered banned in the USA.
The same with black people.
The thing is here, is that i can say what i like within reason in the UK and the USA. There is little if no difference between what a person can say in these two countries. How does that make the US more free?
 
Berrieberrie

OMDP, care to enlighten us on your presence on this forum ? To me, it seems a bit inappropriate for a first-time poster to get into such a furious debate over what's essentially a cultural difference.

The furious debate is obviously there because people disagree with me. Now you may think i am wrong, fine, but i will say why i believe i am right.

The debate seems quite simple. Americans seem to see themselves as the most free people in the world. I disagree and i wrote a post to say so. I am attempting to reply to just about all opinions that are here.


Meanwhile, I'm not getting into the debate whether "freedom" can be measured in how many guns/dope/women you can have under your respective laws - however, I do want to stress that in my opinion, the "right to self defense" as described nowadays in various European countries (including mine) more or less boils down to "the right to be a victim, unless you're willing to go through lawsuit hell and risk ending up behind bars yourself". Easy to allow "self-defence" when the tools are no longer legally available for the law-abiding citizen.

My position is this. In america currently i see too many people who regard their security as given. From the top down. There was a survey carried out near an army base in north carolina a few years back and they asked what would happen if the russians fired missles at the US, the majority said that the US missile defence system would shoot it down.
If a lot of people are asked about their rights, they have a vague idea of what they have protected but unless they are whipped up by an interest group nothing will ever happen. But then even interest groups are using false rights.
You have the second amendment and the Heller case. I consider both sides to be wrong. Shelly parker/heller are trying to claim that the right to bear arms protects an individual to keep arms. Hmm, go figure. DC are simply trying to negate the second amendment. Both come from different sides of the equation, both i believe are wrong.

I DO believe that guns in the US are helpful in detering bad government. However i also feel that people rely too much on the guns argument and do not look at all the other areas, weakening the freedom that exist in america.

As for having the tools available for self defence. It all boils down to a game of god. In the UK we have much lower murder rates, lower rape rates, lower residential burglary rates etc etc, yet in the US, you have more but can have guns. This means those who do not wish to have guns are at a disadvantage, in the UK everyone is subject to the same.
Which is better? You might say one, i might say the other, but at the end of the day we both have problems. One is not more free than the other in terms of self defence.
 
OMDP,

Can you name a single municipality in England that has passed castle doctrine protections for homeowners?

Last time I checked, It's illegal to even threaten a burglar in England. I recall a news article I read about a gentleman that was arrested for detaining a burglar with an imaginary gun until the police arrived.
 
Demanding all mosques in london get burned down is inciting racial hatred and goes along the lines of shouting fire in a crowded theatre which is also considered banned in the USA.
The same with black people.
The thing is here, is that i can say what i like within reason in the UK and the USA. There is little if no difference between what a person can say in these two countries. How does that make the US more free?

Wrong. We have no such laws.

As an example, there are plenty of white supremacist and neo-nazi groups in the US, their speech is protected by law.

Your claim that there is little difference between the UK and US speech laws is full of crap.

US > UK. No freedom in the UK. Go be a good little sheep.

-T
 
One is not more free than the other in terms of self defence.

Hmm. I can shoot/stab a street mugger in self defense here and not sweat it.
In the UK, I'd have to flee the scene to avoid imprisonment.

How exactly is that equal in your twisted little world?

-T
 
Tyris, I think he was mistakenly thinking about laws pertaining to "Inciting Riot," as theres no such thing as a law against "Inciting Racial Hatred."

Of course, such laws pertaining to inciting riot are rarely enforced in the US. Thus Spike Lee can call for Charlton Heston to be shot, Rev. Michael Pfleger can call for the "snuffing" of pro-gun legislators, and Pat Robertson can advocate "taking out" Hugo Chavez.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top