The sun are sensationalising guns yet again!

[WhiteHawksan]

Always a very good point, plus you do end up with a state of 'do I dare try, for all I know that guy over there is Jim Zubiena in disguise and he is going to put three in me faster than I can blink'. You have to be a pretty far gone person to try such a thing when everyone else around you could be armed too. This though doesn't lead to giving a gun to every teacher mind you, but it does lead to finding ways to give that same deterence.

 

It is not the best system, making sure that everyone keeps everyone else under surveillance by being armed. But as it has been that way in the US since the early days of its founding it isn't going to change. We as a nation have not had the same way of life, guns have always been a tool or an item of war for us and thus they haven't got the same laws. The only issue is this means we don't have such a foolproof way to combat illegal firearms, but then arming all citizens would lead to other issues as we are not used to it.

 

Just my idea.

 

'FireKnife'

I might point out to you as everyone in England WAS armed, we didn't actually need a police force for many years. hold up a bank? Jolly good show lad but every chashier, patron and staff member has one too and is more than happy to drag you to the docks for your troubles.

 

It's this culture of blame we have nowadays, everything has to be someone, or something's fault and that it needs to be 'fixed'. Except people being people go for the easy targets. Young girls having sex, it's rap and TV, not bad parenting.. obviously, violent crime on the up, it's video games! Not unemployment and a failing education system (and bad parenting), Kids killed in school massacre, it's the guns fault! Nevermind the nutjob wielding them, ban the guns!

 

It's a reduction in the standard of people, I'd like to think that while certainly not perfect, my parents instilled the basic values of right and wrong upon me, I have never served jailtime, I have never stolen anything, I have never committed robbery, tax evasion car theft, rape or murder. Yet I've played violent video games almost my entire life, I've been offered drugs, guns and any number of entries to crime. I have the ability to say. No. No, I'd not like to try your heroin, no I'd not like to go and steal a car with you. Or buy that gun, or shoot anyone. It is the ability to make decisions based on morality that separates us from savages.

[FireKnife]

Of course it is deterioration in the quality of the average person, but at the end of the day our country would not really survive in our modern ways if guns started getting handed out etc in the same way as the US.

 

As for the 'we all used to be armed' that is like saying 'we all used to be able to go down the mines for a days work without a hi-vis on' it is just that is the culture we had and this is the one we got now. It isn't one that I could ever see being given access to guns and also one that shouldn't, for many people, be allowed to even go outside without a minder as people are too afraid now, making them blame everything but themselves for being part of the system that let the idiots with a knife or a gun rise above them.

 

We will never go back to the days of say the Krays, when if you stole from the old lady down the street you ended up being taken out in the next mornings trash as we have moved on from that in that we have both everyone cowering in their homes for fear of the undisciplined mobs that pre-cursors to the chavs of the 90s have brought about when crime is now handled by the small force we have to protect it. The only issue though is we will never find a true balance. Either we have one family on the street that takes protection for all the others or we have a service that we pay taxes into that comes round, half an hour after everyone is robbed or dead and does the same job but in a way that doesn't really deter anyone from doing it again.

 

Though this is just one of the many issues with this country as a whole, adding in guns to that isn't going to help but instead make it a whole lot worse, the afraid will shoot the one in the group that comes at them and the rest will drag them down and kill them, giving them another gun to add to the pile that they have already collected from well meaning citizens seeing an increase in illegal gun ownership. Sadly it is an issue with no real clear end in sight due to the way we have all made this country.

 

'FireKnife'

[my_plague_666]

In the uk legal guns are already heavily restricted . A licence application will involve a visit from your local firearms officers . a criminal record check / delve into your background and associates . A security check on your required gun safe and then and only then will your case come up for consideration to own any firearms .. Also required is a legitimate purpose to own any firearms .. Ie gun club membership , vermin control purpose , ie farm owner , employee ..

Our laws are already some of the strictest in the world for firearm ownership . This is not the major issue here ...

Illegal firearms are the main problem in the uk , not legaly held weopons . And that is where our slack laws and useless sentencing come into the equation , same for knife crime ,, rioters got issued with bigger sentences for pinching tins of beans and food stuff , and disorder , shame the sentences are not as severe for carrying a knife in this country .

Maybe if a few really harsh examples are made the message will get through to today's youth .

You carry a knife or gun and a mandatory 4 year sentence will be yours to enjoy . No buts or maybes ,,,,,if you commit a crime or harm someone with a knife it should be a minimum of 8 years with no parole ,early release or other lighter. Sentencing options , gun law sentencing should be the same with heavier sentences but the same no parole etc

 

i was actually talking about the USA's gun laws, not ours.

 

Over here, guns are sporting equipment. You shoot targets, or game. Speak to your FEO, saying "I want a gun to defend myself against bad guys", and it won't be taken very well...

 

 

i know. again, i'm talking about the states. what i'm trying to say is that i don't think home defense should be enough justification to own a gun. if you hunt or shoot targets then that's fine, as long as you store your guns securely and can prove that you're competent enough. but wanting to have a pistol on your bedside table 'just in case'? nah.

[my_plague_666]

And yet every single day, millions and millions of Yanks are proving they are capable of showing responsibility of firearm ownership by respecting that power and not misusing their firearms. If mere humans weren't capable of being so responsible with all that power like you seem to be suggesting, there would be a lot more dead people in the US. However, what are the figures? 60 million gun owners in the US? 99.9999% of gun owners there aren't committing crimes or massacring school children.

 

and yet some people clearly aren't capable of being responsible as well, seeing as shooting massacres and accidents due to negligence still happen. for the gun owners who have a legitimate reason to own a gun and are capable of acting responsibly with it there would be no problem. anyone who wants a gun just so that they can shoot someone if they 'need' too and plans on leaving it on the coffee table 24/7 shouldn't be allowed.

normally i'd steer clear of motoring comparisons, but you have to take lessons and take exams before you're allowed to drive, why not have something similar for firearms? that way anyone wanting to own a gun would be properly educated about them and have to demonstrate their competence.

[Azubi]

So basically you are against the ones who are going to massacre people from having guns. Funnily enough, so is everyone else!

 

Contrary to popular belief, quite a few states have quite stringent background checks on people buying firearms. Granted not all of them but then no one is arguing against background checks and evaluations for people buying guns to make sure they aren't nutters. You'll find many people endorse such an idea, really. However you keep saying people can't be trusted with guns because they don't 'need' them and because a very tiny minority do abuse firearms and go nuts, then people should be allowed them.

 

One thing I keep hearing from Brits is that only the police and the military should have firearms and none should be in the hands of civvies, not just in the US but also in the UK but then as has been proven, even these can go nuts. Just look at that guy in the Navy last year who shot his CO and a couple of others because he was denied shore leave and was on guard duty. Does that mean we should take the guns from the military because people go nuts and shoot people?

[TheFull9]

Never understood the attitude of 'change the law, that'll fix things'.  Murder has been illegal for quite some time now.

[Shardik]

Ban murder!

[Baddbaz]

Ban newspapers !

That way threads like this won't have to be made ...

[shmook]

i was actually talking about the USA's gun laws, not ours.

 

 

 

i know. again, i'm talking about the states. what i'm trying to say is that i don't think home defense should be enough justification to own a gun. if you hunt or shoot targets then that's fine, as long as you store your guns securely and can prove that you're competent enough. but wanting to have a pistol on your bedside table 'just in case'? nah.

This is where we differ. If someone is in my house, then they should lose all rights. They made a conscious decision to break in, and they should get whatever happens to them as punishment, being sat on until the police arrive, leathered up side the head with a length of 2x4, or a rake of number 7 shot at a rather high velocity.

 

The reasonable force renewal went some way to protect a homeowner, but what gives someone the right break into a house and rob/threaten a homeowner?

 

I know this may come across as Internet bravado, but its not. I will do anything to protect my family against an intruder(s), and a shotgun pointed in their direction will be a far better deterrent to make them *fruitcage* off sharpish, than a tirade of harsh language and a rolled up copy of the daily mail.

 

I fully agree that competence should be proven, and would gladly go throu more stringent checks, but as said before, more checks = more cost, which would price some people out of a hobby they enjoy

[my_plague_666]

One thing I keep hearing from Brits is that only the police and the military should have firearms and none should be in the hands of civvies, not just in the US but also in the UK but then as has been proven, even these can go nuts. Just look at that guy in the Navy last year who shot his CO and a couple of others because he was denied shore leave and was on guard duty. Does that mean we should take the guns from the military because people go nuts and shoot people?

of course not, they need firearms for their job. plus they've had a lot more discipline and training than the average civvie. and yes, anyone can potentially go postal which sort of makes my point. if only a small percentage of people own firearms there is a much smaller chance of someone losing the plot and having the tools for a boodbath to hand.

 

This is where we differ. If someone is in my house, then they should lose all rights. They made a conscious decision to break in, and they should get whatever happens to them as punishment, being sat on until the police arrive, leathered up side the head with a length of 2x4, or a rake of number 7 shot at a rather high velocity.

 

The reasonable force renewal went some way to protect a homeowner, but what gives someone the right break into a house and rob/threaten a homeowner?

 

I know this may come across as Internet bravado, but its not. I will do anything to protect my family against an intruder(s), and a shotgun pointed in their direction will be a far better deterrent to make them *fruitcage* off sharpish, than a tirade of harsh language and a rolled up copy of the daily mail.

 

I fully agree that competence should be proven, and would gladly go throu more stringent checks, but as said before, more checks = more cost, which would price some people out of a hobby they enjoy

 

oh i agree that you should be allowed to defend your property, i just don't think guns are needed for that. besides, i think it's a silly argument seeing as if you were easily able to legally buy a gun everyone else would be able to as well, leaving you with no advantage.

[HeadStAtE!]

 i think it's a silly argument seeing as if you were easily able to legally buy a gun everyone else would be able to as well, leaving you with no advantage.

 

That's a very good point.

[hitmanNo2]

If the laws were sensible, anyone with even a hint of a brain wouldn't commit a burglary with a firearm, legal or not.

[HeadStAtE!]

Hasn't the law changed or due to be changed in the UK to allow greater force for burglars in your own home?

[Danke]

Laws generally don't change.

 

The way the courts interpet and apply the law is what oscillates.

[shmook]

oh i agree that you should be allowed to defend your property, i just don't think guns are needed for that. besides, i think it's a silly argument seeing as if you were easily able to legally buy a gun everyone else would be able to as well, leaving you with no advantage.

Not so. Consider breaking into a house, where the homeowner may or may not have a table leg handy for bonking a ruffian on the head with. You can enter with a knife to maybe even up any ods you come across. You may get smacked, but you'll take those odds, as there is a good chance your average homeowner won't engage.

 

Now consider breaking into a house where the owner may or may not be armed with a firearm. You can also enter with a gun, but you don't know if the owner heard your entry/alarm was tripped, whatever. You could round any corner and find a barrel pointed at you, and there is a good chance you may not walk away from this one.

 

Your average crim will go for soft targets. You hear of pensioners getting mugged/robbed. You don't hear of the 6'4" MMA fighter getting the same too often.

 

They will gamble a scrape or a bruise or two, but loss of life for a handful of jewellery and a 40 inch tv?

 

Armed homeowners are a better deterrent.

[Baddbaz]

What I love about uk law is the fact that a burglar can enter your house trip over a badly secured floorboard or cut himself on an internal glass door that is not toughened or laminated glass and then sue the house owner for injurys ,,,,,, madness and also a very true fact

[HeadStAtE!]

Laws generally don't change.

 

The way the courts interpet and apply the law is what oscillates.

 

Not really, in the UK we're legislation happy and are forever amending laws, MP's love to do it to "look tough" though law changes seem to hit the law abiding and limit their freedoms whilst the criminals go about their business.