Legal in the U.K.?

[Kong Soo Do]

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

Chad Perrin: SOB » Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime

 

[Tez3]

PhotonGuy, do you see now why I asked?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Peter Boatman (he was not knighted by the way)

Odd, I've seen him referred to as 'Sir' by other Brits.

is a discredited former police officer with the Northamptonshire police

Really? Seems I recall him retiring to private business. What was he discredited for Tez?

who committed suicide

Yep. So? Had nothing to do with his time as a Chief Inspector. And it also does not invalidate the police security footage of all of the knife attacks.

That you were at Mildenhall is of no account, it's an outpost of the USA and not the UK

Umm, it's still in the U.K. right? Which means I've lived there (we were allowed off base and could read local papers and watch U.K. T.V. and talk to people and everything.

Oh and yes I am kept very well informed of your postings when they concern things about the UK.

Sure you are.

I see you didn't mention anything about all those sources that say violence is up in G.B...(I have more if you need them).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling

 

[Kong Soo Do]

By the way Tez, I have nothing against you personally. I really don't. But you come off with some 'stuff' sometimes that frankly needs to be corrected with facts. And that really seems to set you off. I can't help your negative reactions or remarks. And I'll stand by my posts. The facts are that violent crime in G.B. has increased rather dramatically and that includes both knife and gun violence. Fact, citizens in G.B. are not allowed some tools to protect themselves. That isn't us vs. them, that's just stating the facts as they exist. Ignoring them doesn't make them cease to exist.

 

[PhotonGuy]

PhotonGuy, do you see now why I asked?

Yes I can see why but its the other people on this thread who are arguing about British law, not me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Could you define 'vocal fringe'?

That term refers to any group whose voice is louder than their proportional size.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not at all, you could substitute the word 'now' for 'once' as in 'once they've become a victim'. I trained with Peter Boatman back circa 2000 give or take. At the time he was the Chief Inspector of the North Hamptonshire P.D.. He was showing the level of edged weapon violence in G.B. with footage of people in the larger cities standing at bus stops and people for no reason running up and stabbing/slashing them. These folks weren't allowed many tools of a defensive nature to stop the threat before or as it happened.

It is unlikely any of them could have deployed a weapon in any useful manner under such circumstances, unless they were both trained and highly aware of their surroundings. My .40 cal. Glock is useless if I don't know what's coming or can't use it effectively under stress.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

That term refers to any group whose voice is louder than their proportional size.

Okay. You're reference from that post I quoted was in regards to those that held to second amendment beliefs. In this regard I would say vocal is correct, but not fringe. Of the 330 (approx.) million Americans there are (approx.) 74 million under the age of 18. This leaves (approx.) 256 million adults of which over 80 million are gun owners. That isn't a fringe. As an example, the FBI stats are out for the month of April in which 2 million background checks were run for firearm purchases. That is up 600,000 from the April of the previous year. I support vocal and that generates discussion in which facts can be presented and myths dispelled. For my part, I'm vocal about all of our Constitution and my profession concerns supporting Constitutional rights be it the 2nd, 1st, 14th etc.

It is unlikely any of them could have deployed a weapon in any useful manner under such circumstances, unless they were both trained and highly aware of their surroundings

This is a case-by-case basis and quite situational. If someone attacks a bus stop full of people that are unarmed the result is injured victims unless they can use an improvised weapon. On the other hand, someone attacks a bus stop where some or all of the people are armed the threat could be stopped. I've posted about this in another thread i.e. private citizens use their weapons to lawfully defend themselves (or others) tens of thousands of times a year (and one study suggests over a million times a year). And of course being situationally aware is a prerequisite. Government statistics suggest that quite a staggering number of people can and do have enough situational awareness to stop threats when confronted. The major point is that you need to have a means of self protection available.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. You're reference from that post I quoted was in regards to those that held to second amendment beliefs. In this regard I would say vocal is correct, but not fringe. Of the 330 (approx.) million Americans there are (approx.) 74 million under the age of 18. This leaves (approx.) 256 million adults of which over 80 million are gun owners. That isn't a fringe. As an example, the FBI stats are out for the month of April in which 2 million background checks were run for firearm purchases. That is up 600,000 from the April of the previous year. I support vocal and that generates discussion in which facts can be presented and myths dispelled. For my part, I'm vocal about all of our Constitution and my profession concerns supporting Constitutional rights be it the 2nd, 1st, 14th etc.

You're simply citing the number of gun owners. Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws. That would be a smaller proportion than the entirety of gun owners. I am one of those who owns guns, but doesn't have any issue with those countries that have other laws. Frankly, there's not a lot of evidence that either heavy gun control or open gun access is a good fit for everyone.

This is a case-by-case basis and quite situational. If someone attacks a bus stop full of people that are unarmed the result is injured victims unless they can use an improvised weapon. On the other hand, someone attacks a bus stop where some or all of the people are armed the threat could be stopped. I've posted about this in another thread i.e. private citizens use their weapons to lawfully defend themselves (or others) tens of thousands of times a year (and one study suggests over a million times a year). And of course being situationally aware is a prerequisite. Government statistics suggest that quite a staggering number of people can and do have enough situational awareness to stop threats when confronted. The major point is that you need to have a means of self protection available.

I'm not saying weapons are useless (remember, I own guns, too). My point was - and remains - that someone just having a gun or other weapon is very little help. They must be capable of using it properly under stress (and many of the gun owners I know in the US aren't all that good with them when NOT under stress), and they must have the awareness/time to deploy the weapon. In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way. Those who train to use them, prepare their minds for the situations and stress, and have the awareness would be capable of deploying them in some of those situations, but others would never clear the holster.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws.

And that was not my point either, my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying.

In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way.

Again, depends upon the situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again, depends upon the situation.

Agreed. I was responding to the situation described, as I saw it in my head.

 

[Steve]

I'm with tez3. These threads never go well, and were a large part of the vitriol from the old study.

 

[drop bear]

What are you even talking about? Do you actually read posts before you quote them? Seriously.

Sorry. I will simplify the concept.

If you have violent crime. Then people are not able to defend themselves from it. The more violent crime you have the less people are able to defend themselves.

The best defence?

Move somewhere where there is less violence. And mabye more girls in bikinis.

 

[Tez3]

Yes I can see why but its the other people on this thread who are arguing about British law, not me.

I know it wasn't you but you can at least see why I was asking why you were posting. It's just a pity your post answering wasn't heeded.
Now I'm done on this thread.

 

[drop bear]

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling

So I went and had a look at the crime survey for England and Wales that is mentioned in the article.

That is the violent crime rates.

Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

 

[drop bear]

You're simply citing the number of gun owners. Not all gun owners believe every other country is wrong if they don't have our laws. That would be a smaller proportion than the entirety of gun owners. I am one of those who owns guns, but doesn't have any issue with those countries that have other laws. Frankly, there's not a lot of evidence that either heavy gun control or open gun access is a good fit for everyone.


I'm not saying weapons are useless (remember, I own guns, too). My point was - and remains - that someone just having a gun or other weapon is very little help. They must be capable of using it properly under stress (and many of the gun owners I know in the US aren't all that good with them when NOT under stress), and they must have the awareness/time to deploy the weapon. In a rush-up attack at a bus stop, there's little evidence that most gun owners (even if you just narrow it to CCW holders) would be able to use their guns in any helpful way. Those who train to use them, prepare their minds for the situations and stress, and have the awareness would be capable of deploying them in some of those situations, but others would never clear the holster.

And you will even find gun owners in countries without gun rights. Don't want gun rights. And prefer a controlled gun ownership system.

 

[Dinkydoo]

We don't need firearms for protection. Scotland, the land of where being a terrorist means the general public are going to get "set in right aboot ye" if you give us a chance

'This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye'

 

[Dinkydoo]

And when talking statistics on gun control I always go back to a little piece by Bill Hicks - because I enjoy humour with my politics

This is also worth a watch, very funny...if nothing else

(Strong language - he is Australian - but not in bad taste)

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Now I'm done on this thread.

So let's see; you make some absurd statements and when challenged on them you play the victim. When called out you get pissy and when you're statements are shown to be incorrect you leave without addressing the situation. Well, at least you're consistent.

Bye.