I'm not telling you anything. I was simply asking you a QUESTION about what YOU believed and what YOU supported. Show me where in my posts I told you how you should run your country. I could care less if you want to outlaw butter knives and have a "Criminal's Bill of Rights" in your country.....that's your business. I DO, however, wonder why you are on an AMERICAN message board relating to firearms and self defense and expect anything but outrage over laws and situations such as this. Care to explain that one to me? I did not seek you out to tell you how to run your country....you though have sought out this message board and post in every topic about England to say how great it is.
England really is a police state
- Thread starter atek3
- Start date
- Status
I'm not telling you anything. I was simply asking you a QUESTION about what YOU believed and what YOU supported. Show me where in my posts I told you how you should run your country. I could care less if you want to outlaw butter knives and have a "Criminal's Bill of Rights" in your country.....that's your business. I DO, however, wonder why you are on an AMERICAN message board relating to firearms and self defense and expect anything but outrage over laws and situations such as this. Care to explain that one to me? I did not seek you out to tell you how to run your country....you though have sought out this message board and post in every topic about England to say how great it is.
agricola
Member
no
[edit: to otherguy]
[edit: to otherguy]
agricola
Member
dbl0,
not you, AZRickD
I post here because noone (aside from ST Johns and a few others) challenge these stories about the UK, which are almost always wrong. You may have noticed I rarely post on any other topics that are not of some interest to me.
not you, AZRickD
I post here because noone (aside from ST Johns and a few others) challenge these stories about the UK, which are almost always wrong. You may have noticed I rarely post on any other topics that are not of some interest to me.
Wow......what a well thought out, reasoned, and logical response you have there. I guess I won't bother asking you anything anymore since you never answer anyone's questions and simply bring up other irrelevant topics to change the subject.
So basically you just came here looking for an arguement. We obviously have no power to do anything in your country and are simply talking amongst ourselves to show what we don't want to happen here.
You STILL have yet to answer me this question:
What would it mean?
agricola
Member
Dbl0kevin,
I have answered that question already at least twice, which is why you commented on my responses.
I have answered that question already at least twice, which is why you commented on my responses.
Ok let me see if I can piece this together. Are you saying that a UK CCW would be the "complete change of British society with little tangible benefits" and not the simple idea of people being able to use a firearm to defend themselves?
agricola
Member
dbl0kevin,
yes, as anyone who lives here would recognize.
yes, as anyone who lives here would recognize.
agricola
Member
also I would point out that CCW is about "carrying a firearm for self defence" and not "using a firearm to defend themselves", which of course British people can, and have been, doing.
Ok if that is your position could you kindly explain to me how allowing law abiding people to carry firearms for self defense would so drastically change British society and not give any tangible benefits? I'm honestly curious as to why you believe this.
How is this possible being that you cannot OWN a firearm other than a shotgun or black powder as far as I know. And that those who do own them must keep them locked up.
How is this possible being that you cannot OWN a firearm other than a shotgun or black powder as far as I know. And that those who do own them must keep them locked up.
agricola
Member
dbl0kevin,
As said below, British society has been for the past sixty years (and probably a lot longer) "unarmed" in the sense that there has been no public carriage of firearms on a regular basis. for a start, you have several generations of people who in the main are going to have no experience of firearms at all. this could of course be remedied by statutory courses, but these are not going to in any way equal being brought up around guns.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the Police and every security guard, doorman and nightwatchman do not carry firearms, which is something that would have to change overnight. That is not just a matter of training to use the firearm, but also retraining the whole system by which these groups (especially the Police) operate. It is an oft-stated fact of British political life that successive governments have repeatedly shied away from any further militarization of the Police (primarily because this is not something that the public want); this would inevitably lead to that.
That is even to assume that there is any public interest in such a system; as I said above we are a very long way from that.
As said below, British society has been for the past sixty years (and probably a lot longer) "unarmed" in the sense that there has been no public carriage of firearms on a regular basis. for a start, you have several generations of people who in the main are going to have no experience of firearms at all. this could of course be remedied by statutory courses, but these are not going to in any way equal being brought up around guns.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the Police and every security guard, doorman and nightwatchman do not carry firearms, which is something that would have to change overnight. That is not just a matter of training to use the firearm, but also retraining the whole system by which these groups (especially the Police) operate. It is an oft-stated fact of British political life that successive governments have repeatedly shied away from any further militarization of the Police (primarily because this is not something that the public want); this would inevitably lead to that.
That is even to assume that there is any public interest in such a system; as I said above we are a very long way from that.
agricola
Member
So are the Brits going to stop all newfangled technology arriving at their shore? After all, we know the only people who can cope with cell phones and computers are those who had them before they were out of their swaddling cloths.
That aside, perhaps you could outline the objections to police carry of sidearms as it relates to "further militarization". To most of us, sidearms are just personal defense weapons. The British police already seem plenty "militarized" -- as I understand it's not too uncommon to see patrols with full-auto longarms. Special situations, to be sure, but essentially unheard of in the US, except in recent years.
That aside, perhaps you could outline the objections to police carry of sidearms as it relates to "further militarization". To most of us, sidearms are just personal defense weapons. The British police already seem plenty "militarized" -- as I understand it's not too uncommon to see patrols with full-auto longarms. Special situations, to be sure, but essentially unheard of in the US, except in recent years.
Sam
Member
Miss Hydromeda,
I apoligize for assuming that you were male.
Mr. St Johns,
I will for the time being adopt Miss Hydromeda's judgement.
Do not for a moment believe that anything you might suggest would prevent me from posting here.
Agricola,
I find it more than slightly amusing that you highlight the governments reluctance to "further militarize the police". Your government certainly does not further militarize the police. They do however perform what we would consider a police function with the military.
Sam
I apoligize for assuming that you were male.
Mr. St Johns,
I will for the time being adopt Miss Hydromeda's judgement.
Do not for a moment believe that anything you might suggest would prevent me from posting here.
Agricola,
I find it more than slightly amusing that you highlight the governments reluctance to "further militarize the police". Your government certainly does not further militarize the police. They do however perform what we would consider a police function with the military.
Sam
Somehow that was avoided when Ohio adopted CCW. In the good ol' days, the police, yours included, were not armed and were expected to utilized the help of the armed and unarmed citizenry.
My how times change.
BTW, you mentioned 1953 as the turning point. This is the same year which Joyce Lee Malcolm cites as the year Brits lost perhaps their largest chunk of the right (what used to be the obligation) of self defense. Funny, that.
agricola
Member
(double post)
agricola
Member
AZRickD,
do you specialize in making stuff up? Please show me where I mentioned "1953 as the turning point". and while you are at it please do that search.
Dbl0Kevin,
What you would call semantics other people would call "the law", essentially your own definition is worthless because of this - there is a clear difference between a home invasion and burglaries where someone is at home as the various legal systems of the world recognize.
I also note that you continue to demand answers for that question you have had answers for, probably because you dont like the answers recieved. Its sad that you, like AZRickD, have to do this but I guess it says more about you than it does about me.
do you specialize in making stuff up? Please show me where I mentioned "1953 as the turning point". and while you are at it please do that search.
Dbl0Kevin,
What you would call semantics other people would call "the law", essentially your own definition is worthless because of this - there is a clear difference between a home invasion and burglaries where someone is at home as the various legal systems of the world recognize.
I also note that you continue to demand answers for that question you have had answers for, probably because you dont like the answers recieved. Its sad that you, like AZRickD, have to do this but I guess it says more about you than it does about me.
Hydromeda
Member
Sam,
No problems for the gender confusion, I only corrected you because you kept saying Mr Hydromeda, rather than Hydromeda. Not actually all that bothered.
I have also been doing research, and actually you're right, we do have a less free press over here than you guys do. This is because of certain privacy laws we have to protect people from media coverage, so you could say that we infringe one right to protect another. This doesn't cover things like military maneuvers though, or other governmental scandals and actions.
Finally, without wanting to be St John's knight in shining armour, i was surprised at what you directed at him so looked back through the forum and think you may have mistaken something he said. When he said you could "exempt yourself from being part of the noise on this forum", he meant that you were one of the people that were making sense, not just randomly mouthing off. I think it was supposed to be a compliment of sorts.
No problems for the gender confusion, I only corrected you because you kept saying Mr Hydromeda, rather than Hydromeda. Not actually all that bothered.
I have also been doing research, and actually you're right, we do have a less free press over here than you guys do. This is because of certain privacy laws we have to protect people from media coverage, so you could say that we infringe one right to protect another. This doesn't cover things like military maneuvers though, or other governmental scandals and actions.
Finally, without wanting to be St John's knight in shining armour, i was surprised at what you directed at him so looked back through the forum and think you may have mistaken something he said. When he said you could "exempt yourself from being part of the noise on this forum", he meant that you were one of the people that were making sense, not just randomly mouthing off. I think it was supposed to be a compliment of sorts.
longrifleman
Member
How can you use a firearm to defend yourself if it has been confiscated and destroyed?
How can you use a firearm for self-defense that is locked up separately from it's ammunition?
Denying people the ABILITY to defend themselves is to effectively deny the right itself.
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
It's even worse.
For rifles and shotguns you need the permission of your local police dept. for ownership. That entails showing a good reason for ownership such as varmiting, membership in a shooting club, etc., and the application requires two signed references from ones such as a Minister, employer, local police officer, etc.
Grant of this permission is most definately not automatic and self-defense is not generally a "good reason" for permission absent a very specific, verifiable threat such as a botched IRA hit.
These administrative obstacles undoubtedly prevent many who would like to keep a shotgun for home defense from doing so. A few very fortunate individuals have managed to qualify or ownership and then avoid prosecution for using their guns for home defense. However, you'd expect that most people would be deterred from ownership in the first place.
The British people are admirably law abiding and deserve better than this.
As a start, self and home defense should be explicitly written into the administrative regulations as a "good reason" for ownership of a shotgun.
Page 4 of this thread.
Sounds like a turning point to me. If it's not, then your post there kind of loses its meaning. You'll argue that you didn't say those exact words, as if we should really care about your semantics. I thought is was an interesting coincidence that both you and your enemy, anglo-historian Joyce Lee Malcolm focus on the same year when Brits were neutered.
No AngriCola, I'd rather you state your positions here. Best evidence, and you could have given your answer to all of us days ago. Going through Search would require me to wade through hours of reading your fluff. I'm sure that most here would not want me to suffer that fate.
For some reason you keep avoiding answering our questions. I'm not the only one here to come to that conclusion (in this thread alone). If you don't have the cajones to speak your mind, that's telling enough for many of us. No need for me to waste my time when you don't think highly enough of us to fully answer a few simple questions on your opinions in this matter.
What is also telling is that you are so ego-centric that you want us to focus on what you said and not about the words of your friends in the Brit press which has readership in the millions -- attempting to influence and increase restrictions on the American RKBA as we gunnies are belittled in the process -- You're kind of odd that way.
agricola
Member
AZRickD,
You made an allegation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand (about England being a police state) here:
I have called you on it and answered that point, please evidence it, or withdraw it and apologise. I will not hold my breath however, because you - despite demanding answers to points that have nothing to do with this thread - have failed to do so.
One wonders what your level of education is if you genuinely believe that - I notice that you cut away the rest of the piece, which in no way suggested that 1953 was a turning point, as anyone who wasnt as dishonest as yourself would realise. The fact that even your altered section doesnt suggest it either is probably lost on you, but relevant to the rest of us.
You know, someone coming across this thread from outside might note which person has been performing all the ad-hominems, all the avoidance and all the fraudulent behaviour and come to the conclusion that that person's opinion wasnt worth much, and they would be right.
Last I checked I have no friends in the Brit press, much less those who have done what you describe. Would you like to prove me wrong?
You made an allegation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand (about England being a police state) here:
I have called you on it and answered that point, please evidence it, or withdraw it and apologise. I will not hold my breath however, because you - despite demanding answers to points that have nothing to do with this thread - have failed to do so.
One wonders what your level of education is if you genuinely believe that - I notice that you cut away the rest of the piece, which in no way suggested that 1953 was a turning point, as anyone who wasnt as dishonest as yourself would realise. The fact that even your altered section doesnt suggest it either is probably lost on you, but relevant to the rest of us.
You know, someone coming across this thread from outside might note which person has been performing all the ad-hominems, all the avoidance and all the fraudulent behaviour and come to the conclusion that that person's opinion wasnt worth much, and they would be right.
Last I checked I have no friends in the Brit press, much less those who have done what you describe. Would you like to prove me wrong?
Agricola:
Just curious, but do you work in law enforcement?
Never wondered about your employment before this thread, but if you do then that might explain a lot...
Just curious, but do you work in law enforcement?
Never wondered about your employment before this thread, but if you do then that might explain a lot...
- Status