Legal in the U.K.?
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Odd, I've seen him referred to as 'Sir' by other Brits.
Really? Seems I recall him retiring to private business. What was he discredited for Tez?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Yes I can see why but its the other people on this thread who are arguing about British law, not me.
That term refers to any group whose voice is louder than their proportional size.
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.
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.
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.
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 that was not my point either, my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Again, depends upon the situation.
Agreed. I was responding to the situation described, as I saw it in my head.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Purple Belt
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'
'This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye'
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.
Similar threads
