# Guns,guns, and more Guns



## TRITON (12 Apr 2021)

Crocodile Dundee analogy  
That's not controversial thread subject matter...THIS IS...

And I'll wager you all thought this was going to be about,nail,staple and veneer pinners.  

In light of previous trials,and other numerous similar to identical cases, and while we in the UK(See above Forum banner) might feel it's none of our bally business, we do have one at least member who is, so I direct this question there, and of course everyone else can join in with their own 'advice in such matters' or thoughts on the subject.

In the case of policemen, and women(Let's not be sexist too though did you see what I did  ) people are shot in the USA,by police. The point here is people shot while trying to what we in Britain, playfully call "Showing a clean pair of heels" while trying to escape or run off while in the process of being arrested.
Now I understand some might be reaching for a weapon, or is such a danger to the public, in such cases of terrorism for example, that firing and incapacitating or killing the suspect is warranted, or would later in all honesty to be ratified by those we place to ratify such things, but there is an obvious tendency for the police to shoot people _just_ because they are trying to get away.
It is the act that someone trying to get back into their car, or are leaving the scene rapidly, where the law hasn't managed to search that possible suspect, who may have a concealed weapon , which would automatically have the officer fearing for his life or that of the public that lends this tendency to fire first, ask questions later and tantamount to a rapid trial, judge and jury, followed by guilty verdict and execution sentence carried out forthwith follows by one individual,or more also acting as individuals is due to the number of lethal easily concealed firearms available to the general public, which clearly then states in no uncertain terms that the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States is utterly utterly wrong, and should be abolished and all personal guns should be turned over to the authorities immediately. Hunting rifles should be stored in police stations when not in use and not kept at home.

One enquirers humbly your reasoning on this subject.

runs for cover.


----------



## Lazurus (12 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Hunting rifles should be stored in police stations when not in use and not kept at home.




Would you apply this to the UK to? Not very practical as they would have people wanting access to their guns day and night due to the nature of hunting, and many stations are not staffed now. I think the right to bare arms or arm bears or what ever it is, is way to generic which in turn requires law enforcement officers to be armed and the results of this are ever present. Here in the UK we have a reasonable balance and thank fully apart from RAPT and specialist officers the UK at best has a Taser, PARVA spray, and a baton, and best of all a voice. Long may this remain.


----------



## Cabinetman (12 Apr 2021)

Well your aim is laudable, population of the US about 328 million, number of guns in the US 390 million according to a search I just did. A very hard-core minority would not want to give up their guns and it would be ok Corral time all over the states to try and take them off them. I’m afraid the bird has flown on this one. I may be moving to live in the states this year and I feel it would be appropriate to have a gun in the house- for self defence as all the lowlife nutjobs have guns. Ian


----------



## Noel (12 Apr 2021)

Lazurus said:


> Would you apply this to the UK to? Not very practical as they would have people wanting access to their guns day and night due to the nature of hunting, and many stations are not staffed now. I think the right to bare arms or arm bears or what ever it is, is way to generic which in turn requires law enforcement officers to be armed and the results of this are ever present. *Here in the UK we have a reasonable balance and thank fully apart from RAPT and specialist officers the UK at best has a Taser, PARVA spray, and a baton, and best of all a voice. Long may this remain*.



There is a UK police force fully armed 24/7. Not hard to guess where.....
Even when constable Joe or Jane come to your house talking about neighbourhood watch etc. Wish they weren't armed but.....


----------



## TRITON (12 Apr 2021)

Lazurus said:


> Would you apply this to the UK to? Not very practical as they would have people wanting access to their guns day and night due to the nature of hunting, and many stations are not staffed now. I think the right to bare arms or arm bears or what ever it is, is way to generic which in turn requires law enforcement officers to be armed and the results of this are ever present. Here in the UK we have a reasonable balance and thank fully apart from RAPT and specialist officers the UK at best has a Taser, PARVA spray, and a baton, and best of all a voice. Long may this remain.


Its not about me old chap. my humble opinion is only my humble opinion
Just a question of logic, ethics type of thing.


----------



## DBT85 (12 Apr 2021)

Just stop letting police officers get away with shooting people for no good reason. 

Also maybe teach them which one is the flippin taser if the latest one is anything to go by.

You'll never take their guns. But sensible steps should be taken.


----------



## TRITON (12 Apr 2021)

Police service personal are human beings too and have spoken about regrets and heartache from the act. They shouldn't need to be put into that position. Or is the care less about the individual human ?


----------



## artie (12 Apr 2021)

While the PSNI are armed at all times on duty, and at their own discretion off duty. 

It is a bit of a stretch to say the GB police are unarmed, While community beat officers don't display firearms some are in fact carrying concealed in certain circumstances. And even where beat officers are unarmed a vehicle carrying firearms much more powerful than those available to US beat cops is a radio call away.

Don't ask me to prove it, I can't. It's just what I've picked up in conversations with people who claim to know.

A lot of peeps get Heated up about guns. But Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Statistically the US states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest gun crime.


----------



## TRITON (12 Apr 2021)

> It is a bit of a stretch to say the GB police are unarmed,



Nobody is, everyone in the UK knows the UK police have an armed division.


----------



## D_W (12 Apr 2021)

First, no thanks on the whole confiscation thing, and second, I'm not aware of many cases where shooting a fleeing suspect is justified. 

I'd imagine there's 10k who run and aren't shot for every one shot. I doubt there are many legitimate fears of a concealed gun, but I'd imagine concealed knives are a common fear of police, and we see the officers who get carried away.


----------



## John Brown (12 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> While the PSNI are armed at all times on duty, and at their own discretion off duty.
> 
> It is a bit of a stretch to say the GB police are unarmed, While community beat officers don't display firearms some are in fact carrying concealed in certain circumstances. And even where beat officers are unarmed a vehicle carrying firearms much more powerful than those available to US beat cops is a radio call away.
> 
> ...


No. People with guns kill people. It's very rare for a gun to kill anyone without another person being involved. Australia did the experiment for you. I'm sick of people trotting out trite phrases like "guns don't kill people". Total bo11ocks.


----------



## John Brown (12 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> No. People with guns kill people. It's very rare for a gun to kill anyone without another person being involved. Australia did the experiment for you. I'm sick of people trotting out trite phrases like "guns don't kill people". Total bo11ocks.


And can we see those statistics you speak of? Were they compiled by the NRA?
I'm slightly sceptical.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

I see the officer said he/she thought they were going for their taser. It's easy to be skeptical, and I haven't watched a video, but I wouldn't want to have both available in a panic.


----------



## sometimewoodworker (13 Apr 2021)

DBT85 said:


> Just stop letting police officers get away with shooting people for no good reason.
> 
> Also maybe teach them which one is the flippin taser if the latest one is anything to go by.
> 
> You'll never take their guns. But sensible steps should be taken.


Education should be the first, then immediate suspension from armed duty, so clerical only, for a minimum time for anyone who discharges their weapon or is with another officer who does, going up on a sliding scale depending on the injuries (if any) to anyone in the vicinity of the shooting, with automatic expulsion from all police forces if there is a death unless a full judicial trial decides that the shooting was the only possible answer.

It is perfectly possible to have a country with armed police who almost never use their guns both with an armed population (Canada as many or more guns per head than USA) and without (Japan) to give a couple of examples


----------



## Jacob (13 Apr 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> Well your aim is laudable, population of the US about 328 million, number of guns in the US 390 million according to a search I just did. A very hard-core minority would not want to give up their guns and it would be ok Corral time all over the states to try and take them off them. I’m afraid the bird has flown on this one. I may be moving to live in the states this year and I feel it would be appropriate to have a gun in the house- for self defence as all the lowlife nutjobs have guns. Ian


Stats about gun ownership in USA say that owning a gun increases your chance of you and/or your family getting shot. Most likely by accident but nevertheless a risk.
Shooting oneself in the groin or buttocks seems common. There have been cases of people being shot by their own babies, having found a gun tucked away in a pram etc! Shouldn't laugh of course. 
As far as we know incidents of people defending themselves successfully with guns against armed low life nut jobs, is vanishingly small. It's a childish fantasy born of cowboy and gangster movies. - all that 'saved by being quick on the draw' nonsense


----------



## Jacob (13 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> And can we see those statistics you speak of? Were they compiled by the NRA?
> I'm slightly sceptical.


Sceptical too, but perhaps where gun crime is lowest so is gun control, as it is less necessary. Cause and effect. It doesn't follow that relaxing gun control where guns are a problem would make them less of a problem.


----------



## artie (13 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> I'm sick of people trotting out trite phrases like "guns don't kill people". Total bo11ocks.



You may be sick, but it doesn't change anything. I know people who have owned guns most of their lives and killed no one.

Around 10,000 people outside police and military are licenced to go armed in this jurisdiction. As far as I know none have been used except in self defence, or unfortunately suicide. 

GB has a pistol ban and very tight regs for owning a rifle. but people still get killed.

I don't believe for a minute that some one gets access to a gun and immediately thinks O goody I must go kill someone.

BTW you edited my words when you quoted to give a different meaning.


----------



## DBT85 (13 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> . I know people who have owned guns most of their lives and killed no one.


I know people that have driven well drunk and not killed anyone. Doesn't mean it should be the status quo.


----------



## Jacob (13 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> ......
> GB has a pistol ban and very tight regs for owning a rifle. but people still get killed.


But fewer than in many less regulated places


> I don't believe for a minute that some one gets access to a gun and immediately thinks O goody I must go kill someone.
> 
> ...


Nobody else thinks or says that either.


----------



## John Brown (13 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> You may be sick, but it doesn't change anything. I know people who have owned guns most of their lives and killed no one.
> 
> Around 10,000 people outside police and military are licenced to go armed in this jurisdiction. As far as I know none have been used except in self defence, or unfortunately suicide.
> 
> ...


I didn't edit anything. I just hit the reply button.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

DBT85 said:


> I know people that have driven well drunk and not killed anyone. Doesn't mean it should be the status quo.



Alcohol kills more than gun homicides each year in the US by far, but it's not guaranteed in the constitution. So, why should it be legal? because you like it more?

I am not a gun owner, by the way.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Stats about gun ownership in USA say that owning a gun increases your chance of you and/or your family getting shot. Most likely by accident but nevertheless a risk.
> Shooting oneself in the groin or buttocks seems common. There have been cases of people being shot by their own babies, having found a gun tucked away in a pram etc! Shouldn't laugh of course.
> As far as we know incidents of people defending themselves successfully with guns against armed low life nut jobs, is vanishingly small. It's a childish fantasy born of cowboy and gangster movies. - all that 'saved by being quick on the draw' nonsense



Most likely by suicide as far as gun deaths go. No clue how many of those deaths wouldn't occur without guns.


----------



## jcassidy (13 Apr 2021)

My dad was a sergeant in the MP throughout the 80s, had to give regular arms training to Gardaí (Irish police). 

Says the only safe place around a copper with a gun is about 3 miles away behind a stone wall. 

Recently here in Dublin a young man with mental issues was shot dead outside his house. Local Guards were called after he slashed a local shop manager with a knife. Armed Guards were called due to knife. Armed Guards duly shoot young man dead. Everyone is shocked and dismayed. My opinion is, the point of armed police is to shoot people. Not to resolve situations peacefully. Thats what negotiators are for. Don't call armed police if you don't actually want them to shoot someone.
Just my €0.02


----------



## Cabinetman (13 Apr 2021)

All I can say is I’m glad you’re not an armed policeman.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

sometimewoodworker said:


> Education should be the first, then immediate suspension from armed duty, so clerical only, for a minimum time for anyone who discharges their weapon or is with another officer who does, going up on a sliding scale depending on the injuries (if any) to anyone in the vicinity of the shooting, with automatic expulsion from all police forces if there is a death unless a full judicial trial decides that the shooting was the only possible answer.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to have a country with armed police who almost never use their guns both with an armed population (Canada as many or more guns per head than USA) and without (Japan) to give a couple of examples



Canada has something like .35 guns per person. The US has 1.2. The vast majority of shootings in the United States are drug related homicides are suicides. We tracked this down in a prior thread. I believe about 1/7th or so of gun deaths are not related to suicide or drug crime, meaning that unless you want to play unusual numbers games, getting shot here is generally avoidable if you stay away from the drug business and keep guns out of your own hands.

If I recall, the figure was around 6k deaths per year not related to suicide or drug trafficking or some other similar felonious activity.


----------



## artie (13 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> I didn't edit anything. I just hit the reply button.


my mistake.


----------



## Jacob (13 Apr 2021)

jcassidy said:


> My dad was a sergeant in the MP throughout the 80s, had to give regular arms training to Gardaí (Irish police).
> 
> Says the only safe place around a copper with a gun is about 3 miles away behind a stone wall.
> 
> ...


And once they start waving guns about it's difficult to back off and wind down. Even worse if they mistake the gun in their hand for the Taser or pepper spray! 
Some of the USA police action vids are appalling.


----------



## John Brown (13 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Alcohol kills more than gun homicides each year in the US by far, but it's not guaranteed in the constitution. So, why should it be legal? because you like it more?
> 
> I am not a gun owner, by the way.


In that case, why don't you all just keep a bottle of vodka under the bed, to defend your family against armed intruders?


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

You may have missed the fact that I'm unarmed and not particularly worried about intruders. If I were to act intelligently about things that would more likely cause death, I think I'd work top down from the cdc list. I think before I turned into a nanny about rights, I'd try to solve the suicide issue.

It's pure fantasy that people only want to solve things that they consider to be scary on the news. 

"Oh well" to the rest of them, huh?


----------



## danst96 (13 Apr 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> Well your aim is laudable, population of the US about 328 million, number of guns in the US 390 million according to a search I just did. A very hard-core minority would not want to give up their guns and it would be ok Corral time all over the states to try and take them off them. I’m afraid the bird has flown on this one. I may be moving to live in the states this year and I feel it would be appropriate to have a gun in the house- for self defence as all the lowlife nutjobs have guns. Ian


Removing guns from the US isnt an option and never will be unfortunately due to the massive complications of such a large country which has borders touching other countries. If the right to bear arms in the US is removed, the situation will deepen and worsen in the way that the guns in the country will be unregulated and only be in the hands of those seeking to do evil. People point to Australia as an example where the removal of guns was successful however the two situations cannot be compared. The access to guns would not end with the remove of guns from the country in America. Where do you think the majority of the narcotics in USA come from? They mostly originate outside of USA. The guns would follow the same routes and there would be a greater issue on hand.

As for the matter of shooting someone while they are running away, its a tricky subject. I always try to put myself in the shoes of both parties. In the role of the perpetrator, you would maybe think its clear by now, dont run away from the police, you will lose every time. And in the feet of the policeman, they have intel we dont, I dont know about this particular case but they may have had intel that the perpetrator is armed and dangerous or known to carry a weapon. I know if I was a policeman, I would not be pussyfooting around and taking a chance. If I was concerned by an individuals behavior in pursuing him to the point that my life is in danger, you have to protect yourself. I am not a USA hard-right kind of person but I do agree with some of the narrative that says the deaths and injuries of police officers over there gets conveniently ignored by certain parties.


----------



## DBT85 (13 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Alcohol kills more than gun homicides each year in the US by far, but it's not guaranteed in the constitution. So, why should it be legal? because you like it more?
> 
> I am not a gun owner, by the way.


Owning a bottle of vodka doesn't give me an opportunity to shoot up a school.

Sure, alcohol does kill more people, like cigarettes kill more people. I'd not really be all that bothered if both were outright banned but the reality is we know prohibition doesn't work on boose and fags.

Making it hard or impossible for someone to have a military grade assault rifle at home should not be a contentious issue when the 2nd ammendment was written at a time where the most advanced gun was a single shot rifle.


----------



## artie (13 Apr 2021)

DBT85 said:


> I know people that have driven well drunk and not killed anyone. Doesn't mean it should be the status quo.


But if it saved your life. ??


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> I may be moving to live in the states this year and I feel it would be appropriate to have a gun in the house- for self defence as all the lowlife nutjobs have guns. Ian



I used to own guns and was a hunter. At one point, I also had four pistols for leisure shooting at the local state range. It was a fun challenge to try to get dots together closer, but I just don't have the time and converted them to tool money.

If you move here, just look at local crime rates and don't move to an area that is inundated with under 25 male crime, and you'll never even need to consider it. I didn't even keep a single long gun though I may inherit some long guns in the future, and will have to figure that out at that point. I have kids and it's easier to not have any around at this point, too.

Point being, I've never felt unsafe not having a gun and do miss punching holes in paper here and there, but man can have only so many hobbies and actually participate in them. If you live in an area in the US where you feel having a gun increases your chance of survival, that's choice number one to avoid.

Transferring all of my stuff legally wasn't an issue...I just went to a retired state policeman who has a dealer license and sells online.

On the ground here in almost all places, it really isn't like the tiny slice of news stories.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

DBT85 said:


> Owning a bottle of vodka doesn't give me an opportunity to shoot up a school.
> 
> Sure, alcohol does kill more people, like cigarettes kill more people. I'd not really be all that bothered if both were outright banned but the reality is we know prohibition doesn't work on boose and fags.
> 
> Making it hard or impossible for someone to have a military grade assault rifle at home should not be a contentious issue when the 2nd amendment was written at a time where the most advanced gun was a single shot rifle.



To have anything auto firing here, you have to have a class 3 license. There was a short loophole with the bump stock, where the atf lost their mind in calling it something other than auto because the stock functions the trigger rather than the sear, but interestingly enough, Trump threw a fit and had it moved to class 3. Class 3 is a dealer license and if you get it as an individual, you have to set your residence up securely like a gun shop and subject yourself to possible random atf inspections 24-7. Nobody I know has one other than dealers.

Again, the fascination with small number events drives an emotional response but a cause of 95k deaths per year here is blown off as water under the bridge. You just have to admit at some point that you just want someone to promise not to scare you with any events that you find scary.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

DBT85 said:


> Owning a bottle of vodka doesn't give me an opportunity to shoot up a school.
> 
> Sure, alcohol does kill more people, like cigarettes kill more people. I'd not really be all that bothered if both were outright banned but the reality is we know prohibition doesn't work on boose and fags.
> 
> Making it hard or impossible for someone to have a military grade assault rifle at home should not be a contentious issue when the 2nd ammendment was written at a time where the most advanced gun was a single shot rifle.



Let's exclude cigarettes because they rarely result in the deaths of other people.


----------



## Cabinetman (13 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I used to own guns and was a hunter. At one point, I also had four pistols for leisure shooting at the local state range. It was a fun challenge to try to get dots together closer, but I just don't have the time and converted them to tool money.
> 
> If you move here, just look at local crime rates and don't move to an area that is inundated with under 25 male crime, and you'll never even need to consider it. I didn't even keep a single long gun though I may inherit some long guns in the future, and will have to figure that out at that point. I have kids and it's easier to not have any around at this point, too.
> 
> ...


Thanks Doug, all sensible points. Ian


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

Cabinetman said:


> Thanks Doug, all sensible points. Ian



Not saying you can't live in a bad area - you could if you decide not to look around where you're going to live, but it's more likely that if you follow a job to the states and it's in a rural area or smaller town, you'll just find things to be boring.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Apr 2021)

Guns are not like alcohol, tobacco, obesity etc. Other than suicide and the occassional accident, guns mainly kill other other people. 

The other causes of death are largely self inflicted - a matter of personal choice and/or a lack of will power. 

As a taser weighs much the same as a banana, and a 9mm gun is closer in weight to a brick the argument that the police officer was confused is fatuous - unless they are truly incompetent or stupid.

The only argument for a police officer to draw a gun is to either use it immediately, or because they believe they may need to react quickly to a threat. As guns are so widespread, any threat may involve firearms. 

Why they bother to issue tasers is therefore incomprehensible to me - unless working on the basis that more weaponry must be better than less.


----------



## danst96 (13 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Guns are not like alcohol, tobacco, obesity etc. Other than suicide and the occassional accident, guns mainly kill other other people.
> 
> The other causes of death are largely self inflicted - a matter of personal choice and/or a lack of will power.
> 
> ...


Tasers are used on suspects that may already be in custody or someone who is unarmed but is resisting arrest, the same way they are often used here in the UK.


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Alcohol kills more than gun homicides each year in the US by far


That is whataboutery though.

Guns
Alcohol

2 subjects 2 debates


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> That is whataboutery though.
> 
> Guns
> Alcohol
> ...



That's correct, but ultmately when people get fascinated with something (we've parsed the underlying real rates that don't involve suicide or homicide by males 17-26 (half of the non-suicide homicides - as in, gang violence - without even sorting out other avoidable homicides - that leaves you with what you can't control - it's a tiny fraction, but *all* of those make the news. They are perhaps a tenth to a 20th of alcohol related deaths).

If deaths are the issue, then why is it that only scary deaths that don't have fun attached in some other way counted?

Gun homicide rates (per 100k) are about half the rate that they were here, maybe slightly higher, but *way* down in the 1970s-1990s, but you'd never know it, because we get to hear about each scariest one 400 times.

Fortunately, drunk driving deaths are down a similar amount, but "permissible" use (of alcohol) deaths and suicides are up. Somehow, we're focused on what's going down and not what's going up.

Why does it matter? Presumably, parents are afraid of kids getting hurt when the school shooting topic comes up. 

Ever ask parents if they're worried about their kids being an overdose victim? Pediatric overdoses (from accidental or intentional ingestion of opioids, etc, 20 times more likely over the last 20 years). 20 times. I think it's an important question - are you scared of the result or are you scared of the method. If you're scared of the method more than the result, is that really rational? I don't think it is. 

I think none of the reasons are OK. Brushing one under the rug as OK because it's not scary because "it won't happen to you" is just as not OK.


----------



## planesleuth (13 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Guns are not like alcohol, tobacco, obesity etc. Other than suicide and the occassional accident, guns mainly kill other other people.
> 
> The other causes of death are largely self inflicted - a matter of personal choice and/or a lack of will power.
> 
> ...



Guns=tool. Chisel= tool.....Don't be silly, guns don't kill people. People kill people.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Guns are not like alcohol, tobacco, obesity etc. Other than suicide and the occassional accident, guns mainly kill other other people.
> 
> Why they bother to issue tasers is therefore incomprehensible to me - unless working on the basis that more weaponry must be better than less.



You can tase someone running away from you. You can generally not shoot someone running away from you if they aren't a deadly threat. I'd imagine that the presence of tasers probably reduces deaths and injuries by a very large amount. 

As far as alcohol being incomparable to guns because it affects the user and not others, I'd make the following two points:
* guns are probably used for hunting in the US about 100 million times a year (handgun hunting is legal in some places, including my state) and is practiced, as is archery. Why bother? If you use other means, sometimes you get extended or other seasons
* 200 kids under 14 per year are killed by drunk drivers. That's fewer than I expected. Far more than school shootings. Both are bad - beyond bad. 

I'd guess the reason for the alcohol traffic death statistics being truncated at 14 is that somewhere around there, the child and the drunk driver start to become the same person (legal driving age here is 16, i don't know that it's less than that anywhere else, but whereas it used to be 16 period, it's now restricted for a couple of years. It was when I was a kid, too - you could be 16 and drive, but not after 11pm unless there was an adult in the car). 

While I've never worried about being shot, drunk driving used to be far more prevalent and in rural areas, we were often told not to go on the road for no reason on friday and saturday nights. I was about to say I don't know of anyone killed by a drunk driver, but just recalled that a relative's best friend was erased from history at age 16 by a drunk driver - she wasn't drinking, nor was anyone in her car. 

I know of plenty of people (not hundreds, but more than I can count on one hand) who committed suicide - including a relative who was a heavy alcoholic and had to quit because he got to the point that even if he hadn't drank since the prior evening, he still smelled of alcohol mid day the next day. His workplace more or less said "quit entirely or you're fired". It's not possible to know which caused which (mental issues causing alcoholism or alcoholism causing mental issues). He learned to drink heavily in the navy, but that was probably the majority of folks when he was in in the 1960s. 

For some reason (maybe no good one), I feel safer driving friday or saturday night in the suburbs. I have no basis for that.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Apr 2021)

I blame the Chinese. If they hadn't invented gunpowder, none of this would have happened.

Mind you, the handcrossbow and the machine longbow might have, instead.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

I hope my comments above aren't seen as any justification of anything - I don't like the shooting deaths, I don't like the suicides and I don't like the kids killed by drunk drivers. 

You have to consider when you're talking to someone in the US, though, that things are resident here that you're viewing as how they'd be a shock if they suddenly appeared. There's a cognitive gap. Guns have been here as long as I can remember. As a kid, I lived on a 5 acre patch with 20 acres of hill behind me. If you wanted to shoot a gun, you'd walk out the back door and just make sure that whatever you're shooting, it's into the hill (this isn't a small hill i'm talking about, rather 200 feet of elevation - an ideal backstop). 

Because guns were around, we were taught general safety things and certainly not allowed to use them without supervision or sign off (for example, somewhere around age 15, I was allowed to take the .22 back to the hill and shoot cans. Never anything else. Before that, I had a pellet gun - again, cans). 

When I was target shooting, I grew to have extreme discomfort around people who were going to a range for the first time as they're excited and they just don't have good sense of rule 1 - gun is treated as though it's always loaded, which means that it's pointed downrange and no matter what, rule 1 isn't broken. I'm not afraid of someone breaking into my house or shooting anything, whatever, but because I've actually seen that in person - people turning to talk about their bullseye and turning the gun halfway around with them and then getting offended when you overreact. The culture is changing here and the number of households with firearms is down to somewhere around 1/3rd, vs. over 1/2 in the 80s or 90s. 

It's here - it's not a news story to me, but rather my actual experience, so it doesn't have the same feeling it will to you of "what if it just showed up here" - whether you think you're looking at it that way or not, you are. 

I went to look up the total crime rate in london vs. my county. Interestingly, the total crime rate is identical. Obviously, the murder rate is higher here, because....well, it's the united states. The london data speaks heavily about "sharp object" crimes. These are low, i'd imagine, compared to our gang/youth related homicide rates, but even thinking about that is odd to me - because it's either not common here or doesn't have much press. 

(strangely enough, a crazy guy stabbed a woman he didn't know at a bus stop here last year, but nobody paid much mind to it after being initially horrified, because people here haven't been afraid of knives since the whole 1970s and 1980s vigilante movie thing stopped - e.g., butterfly knives, switchblades).


----------



## Sideways (13 Apr 2021)

A Frenchman in Paris explained the difference between "agent" and "gendarme" to me as :
The former can only shoot you in the front in self defence.
The latter can also shoot you in the back while running away if you don't stop when he tells you to.


----------



## Stan (13 Apr 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Why they bother to issue tasers is therefore incomprehensible to me - unless working on the basis that more weaponry must be better than less.



If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem gets treated as if it is a nail.

Officers in a confrontational situation can be presented with anything on a continuum that ranges from harsh language at one extreme, to lethal force at the other. Officers in the UK are required to react proportionately to the perceived threat. 

A gun is designed solely to kill or injure. Which of these results is achieved is often beyond the control of the shooter. Anyone with firearms training will know that just shooting somebody in a limb, causing a repairable injury but stopping them from committing their impending violence, is just Hollywood fantasy. There are many factors which can/will affect the result no matter what the intention was.

The purpose of taser is to provide a ( normally ) non-lethal ranged option for the officer, so they can choose the level of force to match a situation. Pepper/CS spray is very short range, where the person posing a threat can be well inside your reactionary gap.

So for example, if an officer equipped with only a gun and baton is faced with a knifeman their only practical option is to open fire. If that knifeman is a 14-yr old, they can kill you just as dead as a 24 year old, so again the officer may well have to fire. But some people won't understand or accept why the officer shot and killed "just a kid". Taser provides an option much less likely to kill.

Sadly, the days of Dixon of Dock Green, where all the officer needed was a smart tunic with shiny buttons and an imposing presence, are no longer with us ( if they ever were ). The silly wooden truncheon only ever did one of two things:

1. it slipped down the truncheon pocket locking the knee joint, making it easier for matey boy to get away,
or
2. it occupied one hand in a struggle which would have been more usefully employed doing something else, making it easier for matey boy to give the officer a kicking.

And as for that stupid truncheon thing they issued to female officers, all that did was provoke laughter and ribald suggestions.


----------



## Spectric (13 Apr 2021)

I don't think we are in a position to judge on the use of guns used by American police or anyone else out there because we do not live in that type of society and it is really different to ours and very hard to comprehend. It gave me a strange feeling when I was out there, guns and more guns but no one bats an eye lid as it is just daily life for them. We may collect stamps but they actually collect weapons and with ease, you go into a shop and it is like a sweet counter for adults and people are handling guns just like we would try on a pair of trousers, can be very unerving and it puts people on guard.



TRITON said:


> but there is an obvious tendency for the police to shoot people _just_ because they are trying to get away.



With so many carrying guns no one is taking a chance, I got pulled for speeding out there and the policeman had his hand on his gun as he approached and wanted my hands in view! so if some one runs what is to stop them turning round for a shot? so if in doubt shoot first but not sure why not just a leg shot.


----------



## skeetstar (13 Apr 2021)

Noel said:


> There is a UK police force fully armed 24/7. Not hard to guess where.....
> Even when constable Joe or Jane come to your house talking about neighbourhood watch etc. Wish they weren't armed but.....


The RUC, sorry, PSNI?
There is also the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.. the police force based at nuclear generation sites. Fully tooled up with automatic weapons.


----------



## ovenpaa (13 Apr 2021)

Hmm... I have guns, lots of them in fact and I live in the UK. I own some personally and I usually have several dozen customer rifles and shotguns in for work as that is what I do for a living, I mend modify and make guns. I am also very lucky in that I live and work in a sleepy Lincolnshire Wolds village in an area where firearms are a way of life for game and pest control as well as for target shooting. 

For the record, there are many types of handgun/pistol that can be lawfully owned here in England, the laws are slightly different for Northern Ireland. Self loading centre hand guns can be held on a Section 5 Certificate or a Section 7-3. Rimfire long barrelled pistols including self loading can be held on a normal firearms certificate and centrefire long barrelled revolvers are in the same class as well, as are muzzle loading pistols which can also be held on the Section1 certificate. Ah, then there are the 2 shot handguns which are usually held on S5 but can be held on S1 under an S4 exemption for the use of humane despatch.

Gun crime in mine and other areas is incredibly low and the crimes that do take place are invariably with unlawfully held firearms which would not be legal in this country anyway. Would banning guns in the UK reduce gun crime/murder whatever? I doubt it very much.

Finally, also for the record, I am not a huge fan of handguns.


----------



## TRITON (13 Apr 2021)

Spectric said:


> I don't think we are in a position to judge on the use of guns used by American police or anyone else out there because we do not live in that type of society and it is really different to ours and very hard to comprehend. It gave me a strange feeling when I was out there, guns and more guns but no one bats an eye lid as it is just daily life for them. We may collect stamps but they actually collect weapons and with ease, you go into a shop and it is like a sweet counter for adults and people are handling guns just like we would try on a pair of trousers, can be very unerving and it puts people on guard.
> 
> 
> 
> With so many carrying guns no one is taking a chance, I got pulled for speeding out there and the policeman had his hand on his gun as he approached and wanted my hands in view! so if some one runs what is to stop them turning round for a shot? so if in doubt shoot first but not sure why not just a leg shot.


Unfortunately that is my entire point, the fear they're going to get shot, completely understandable. And the cop stopped you might have been in or witnessed such events for him not to be ready, no matter what it says in the training manual,which is also understandable.
But it is only because there are some many guns in circulation that an individual might well possess one, legal , illegal or perhaps even for the same reasons that cop had when he put his hand on his gun. 
We can't say that any individual in that situation, who may even have a gun, is going to use it immediately in the attempt to resist being taken into custody, which also means placed in handcuffs even if only briefly at that local, but the tendency is thats the plan of action, which is to shoot first and ask questions second.
The only way to get out of this vicious circle is to break one of the points, If they remove guns from the population, and are stringent about it, then theres a good change everything should improve for everyone and we're not going down the road of a dystopian fascist system of government.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

in this case, the woman says "taser, taser, taser", shoots the guy with a pistol instead and then immediately reacts "oh my god, i shot him". 

I haven't seen the video, just read something like that. I'm guessing that most police in the world now have a sidearm and a taser. When you pick the wrong one, it's not because you're afraid of lots of guns - that causes you to pull the gun on purpose and then claim you were going to shoot the taser. 

But it's certainly true that some cops here are afraid of guns, and many are not and some who aren't have been shot because they walked up to a window of a fleeing felon with the "happy go lucky officer here, just want to have a talk about your driving". 

The one thing that stands out to me living here is that often, the officers who ultimately do something really bad have a history or regard from others as being a little off on the wrong side of things. I don't have a great answer. My advice to everyone is don't talk to police if you don't need to. Most will be great - all of my interactions save one have been great. But they're doing a job, you don't know what their day, week or year has been like - just stay away. 

I can tell you when they encounter drunk folks at the bus route ends downtown, and those folks are passed out, the police and the medics move them around like you would a heavy log (rough). But I'm also not about to walk up to them and say "you shouldn't do that. it's not kind". I'm guessing they already know the people they're throwing around.


----------



## John Brown (13 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I hope my comments above aren't seen as any justification of anything - I don't like the shooting deaths, I don't like the suicides and I don't like the kids killed by drunk drivers.
> 
> You have to consider when you're talking to someone in the US, though, that things are resident here that you're viewing as how they'd be a shock if they suddenly appeared. There's a cognitive gap. Guns have been here as long as I can remember. As a kid, I lived on a 5 acre patch with 20 acres of hill behind me. If you wanted to shoot a gun, you'd walk out the back door and just make sure that whatever you're shooting, it's into the hill (this isn't a small hill i'm talking about, rather 200 feet of elevation - an ideal backstop).
> 
> ...


Where is your county? I think you're in WA, but that's not a county. London probably has one of the highest crime rates in the UK, so I doubt that any county in WA, which is a fairly liberal and blue state, is a fair comparison to London. Although, to be honest, I really only know Seattle and Spokane.


----------



## Spectric (13 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> The only way to get out of this vicious circle is to break one of the points, If they remove guns from the population, and are stringent about it, then theres a good change everything should improve for everyone and we're not going down the road of a dystopian fascist system of government.


 They will never take an Americans right to posses firearms away because the national rifle association is probably more influencial than the whitehouse and it would need a big change to ammendment 2. I think America was created by the gun and now they have to live with it, just an awful lot of them.

It gets stranger when you look at the details or need, you can buy a Tac 50 riffle in the states, this 50 cal weapon in the right hands can kill at over two miles, and holds the record for the longest military sniper kill at 3,800 yards so who in the public domain really needs this firepower or is long range hunting now a sport!

If you have never visited the states then do so, it is an eye opener and they love the british even though they think we all live in London and they will proudly show you there arsenal. No one would ever invade America because the people alone have sufficient firepower without the military but they have to live with that culture and unfortunately the person who takes no chances and shoots first will survive.


----------



## Spectric (13 Apr 2021)

Yes the days of Dixon of dock green are long gone.


----------



## TRITON (13 Apr 2021)

I've thought about a replacement. Jim Jefferies gave a good suggestion that they could be replaced by muskets. (Near end of part 2)


Pt2


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> Where is your county? I think you're in WA, but that's not a county. London probably has one of the highest crime rates in the UK, so I doubt that any county in WA, which is a fairly liberal and blue state, is a fair comparison to London. Although, to be honest, I really only know Seattle and Spokane.



Pittsburgh, USA. I'd make a joke about it being a sister city to sheffield, but I think it may actually be that officially.


----------



## D_W (13 Apr 2021)

Pittsburgh is a moderate crime city, so for the county itself to be even with london, that's what I was guessing, that london was quite high crime. BUT, what I saw of violent crimes (not knowing much about England), the north east of England has a higher violent crime rate than london. 

reading of the acid attacks just shows how different styles happen in different places - you don't hear of something like that here (but at the same time, it is absolutely fair to say that criminals who want to act with a heavy hand only need to find a cheap pistol).


----------



## Freddyjersey2016 (13 Apr 2021)

Worth noting another difference between the US & UK - UK has 48 Police forces; and the US has about 18,000 - the officer in the latest shooting was a member of a force with only 37 officers. Universities, Airports have their own forces - there appears to be no national training standards , so it is not surprising that mistakes like this happen


----------



## John Brown (14 Apr 2021)

Îv


D_W said:


> Pittsburgh, USA. I'd make a joke about it being a sister city to sheffield, but I think it may actually be that officially.


Well a quick Google gives a murder rate of 18 per 100,000 for Pittsburgh, compared with 1.2 for London. 
As I say, a quick Google. I could be wildly out.


----------



## D_W (14 Apr 2021)

Yes, murder rate much higher here, though the statistic is a little strange for pittsburgh. The city of pittsburgh is only about 1/3rd to 1/4th of the county. Most of the murders are in the city, so the county rate....I'll fetch it (it's the assaults, and such that bring london in line with total crime - the US murder rate is not going to be equaled anywhere in England, though, even if the other violent crimes make the overall rate similar). 

I guess you could say "well, if you don't mind getting shot, it's otherwise not much less safe here than many other cities!!" The pick pocketing and other petty crimes that occur in some places, especially tourist destinations, don't really happen here. I have no idea why not.


----------



## D_W (14 Apr 2021)

(I guess there's a chance that you could get shot pick pocketing someone with a concealed license).


----------



## sometimewoodworker (14 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Canada has something like .35 guns per person. The US has 1.2. The vast majority of shootings in the United States are drug related homicides are suicides. We tracked this down in a prior thread. I believe about 1/7th or so of gun deaths are not related to suicide or drug crime, meaning that unless you want to play unusual numbers games, getting shot here is generally avoidable if you stay away from the drug business and keep guns out of your own hands.
> 
> If I recall, the figure was around 6k deaths per year not related to suicide or drug trafficking or some other similar felonious activity.


The USA has double the rate of gun death compared to the number of guns than the Canadians, and a “*getting shot here is generally avoidable” *risk doesn’t inspire confidence compared to many countries “*getting shot here is extraordinarily unlikely*”


----------



## D_W (14 Apr 2021)

2 chances in 100,000 in a given year or a little less if you're not offing yourself or in a gang. I tend to focus on the other 99,998. You can lack confidence at those odds because you watch too much tv, but I wouldn't ride in a car if those odds scare you.


----------



## D_W (14 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> Îv
> 
> Well a quick Google gives a murder rate of 18 per 100,000 for Pittsburgh, compared with 1.2 for London.
> As I say, a quick Google. I could be wildly out.



9 for the county here since I said I'd look it up. Most young Male and most late at night, but a few unusual ones (brother and brother's girlfriend type thing).


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Apr 2021)

The OP is about violence conducted by the state, rather than by the general public. The state in all countries claims a monopoly on violence - they have the _right_ to commit acts of violence, up to and including murder, but you don't. We, the sheep, have allowed this and agree to it, apparently. Should the state _ever_ have the right to commit murder? There are a handful of cases in the UK where the police actively set out to commit murder rather than attempt an arrest - Steven Waldorph was the first that I remember, but I am sure there have been others before that, and a few afterwards. Luckily, being "shot whilst trying to escape" is not too common in most parts of the world.









Here's when British police are legally allowed to shoot under a new policy on lethal force


Ask when, not if, police in the UK ‘shoot to kill’ under revised policy.




theconversation.com





Every country gets its own conversation about the right of the state to commit violence, but with the endless War on Terror most police forces have become more militarised, and less accountable.

This is actually a good time to have this conversation, as NATO tries every trick in the book to get a war going in the Ukraine - again, state sanctioned violence - should we agree to it? How do we stop it?
[Edited for bizarre autocorrect errors]


----------



## TRITON (14 Apr 2021)

> Canada has something like .35 guns per person. The US has 1.2.


The US tops the list. 120 guns per 100 Americans, and 34.7 guns per 100 Canadians.

I think the difference with the Canadians, it's always cold and they have to take a glove off to shoot.


----------



## Stevekane (14 Apr 2021)

Spectric said:


> Yes the days of Dixon of dock green are long gone.


The policeman gets shot and killed in the film the “Blue Lamp” which then lead onto the Dixon of Dock Green series,,,I think a lot of guns around after the war,,,


----------



## MARK.B. (14 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> (I guess there's a chance that you could get shot pick pocketing someone with a concealed license).


Anybody that picks pockets deserves to get shot and not with a taser


----------



## Titan_uk (14 Apr 2021)

John Brown said:


> Îv
> 
> Well a quick Google gives a murder rate of 18 per 100,000 for Pittsburgh, compared with 1.2 for London.
> As I say, a quick Google. I could be wildly out.




Hmm sounds quite a bit out just for London. It seems it's 11 per mil or 1.1 per 100k for England and Wales.

Office National Statistics: 

'.. To put the raw numbers in context, incidence rates show the volume of offences as a proportion of the resident population. The incidence rate for homicide remains very low, with 11.7 (or 11.0 excluding the Essex lorry deaths) homicides recorded per million population during the year ending March 2020, a similar rate to the previous three years. ..'

and also makes a great cautionary point, which I'm sure applies to America also:

'.. Compared with other offences, homicides are relatively low-volume, and year-on-year variations need to be interpreted with some caution. This is partly because trends can be affected by single incidents involving multiple victims (such as the Grays lorry incident in 2019 and the Manchester Arena incident in 2017). ..'


----------



## D_W (14 Apr 2021)

Sad to say that while we do have some variation, I think the volume here makes the levels less affected by single events. 

Couldn't say what causes the other crime levels to rise and fall (other violent crimes don't get that much press here - or really any, unless there's something unusual about them).


----------



## Lons (19 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Pittsburgh is a moderate crime city, so for the county itself to be even with london, that's what I was guessing, that london was quite high crime. BUT, what I saw of violent crimes (not knowing much about England), the north east of England has a higher violent crime rate than london.



You have said several times that you don't know much about England yet regularly post statements you've found on google as if they were facts. Unfortunately unless you do a very full search you're misunderstanding.
I live in Northumberland, North of Newcastle so in the area you incorrectly state has a higher violent crime rate than London, I also have a friend who's been a serving armed policeman for 20 years and another now retired who was a senior training officer for Northumbria armed division so I hear first hand what they face on a day to day basis.

The year up to March 2019 saw a 4% increase in gun crime in the UK but that total was still less than 10,000 in a population of 60 million.

I suggest you look at the gov stats and other sources if you want the real picture as many other sources you will find combine overall crime which includes all the relatively minor stuff like pickpockets, shed break ins car thefts etc rather than serious violent crime and in the latter case you are far more likely to be stabbed with a kitchen knife than be threatened by a gun in the UK.

Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

other snippets.

_Gun crime remains rare in Britain.

In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were *31 fatal shootings* - *or one for every 1.9 million people*. And there were 9,578 weapons offences that resulted in injury.
*In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.*
There are particular hotspots in the police force areas that cover large urban centres.
*London had the most firearms offences per head of population, followed by the West Midlands force area, covering Birmingham, West Yorkshire, covering Leeds, and South Yorkshire, serving Sheffield.*
Last year: just over half of all firearms offences involved a gun actually being fired, in just under half of cases, a gun was used as a threat, in a small minority of cases, a gun was used as a blunt instrument_
................................................................................................................
_Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that 9,787 crimes were committed with firearms in the year leading to March of 2019. The number of offences has risen by four per cent over the previous year and twenty-seven per cent in five years, the latest statistics available show.

Y*oung people represented the majority of the victims, with 56 per cent aged between 15 and 34 years old. Most offences were committed in densely populated urban areas, with just five city police force areas representing 58 per cent of all recorded instances; the Metropolitan Police, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

Thirty-three people were killed in firearm-related instances, three more than the year before, according to the ONS.*

Gun seizures have dramatically risen in the UK, with The National Crime Agency (NCA) reporting that in the past ten months alone 425 guns have been confiscated, compared to 104 guns in 2017/18, per Sky News. The fourfold increase is attributed to smugglers from Europe bringing the weapons to the UK._


----------



## Peterm1000 (19 Apr 2021)

There have been 34 mass shootings in the US in April so far (defined as more than 4 people injured in one event involving guns). The in the UK there have been 3 in the last 25 years. I think it's fair to say that gun crime is more common in the US than it is in UK.


----------



## D_W (19 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> You have said several times that you don't know much about England yet regularly post statements you've found on google as if they were facts. Unfortunately unless you do a very full search you're misunderstanding.
> I live in Northumberland, North of Newcastle so in the area you incorrectly state has a higher violent crime rate than London, I also have a friend who's been a serving armed policeman for 20 years and another now retired who was a senior training officer for Northumbria armed division so I hear first hand what they face on a day to day basis.
> 
> The year up to March 2019 saw a 4% increase in gun crime in the UK but that total was still less than 10,000 in a population of 60 million.
> ...



Total violent crime is what I stated, not gun crime. I don't know why that's so hard to follow.


----------



## D_W (19 Apr 2021)

Peterm1000 said:


> There have been 34 mass shootings in the US in April so far (defined as more than 4 people injured in one event involving guns). The in the UK there have been 3 in the last 25 years. I think it's fair to say that gun crime is more common in the US than it is in UK.



That's correct. I have no idea why my comment about total violent crime rate keeps being turned into a comment about gun crime only.


----------



## Peterm1000 (19 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> That's correct. I have no idea why my comment about total violent crime rate keeps being turned into a comment about gun crime only.



I believe you have to be careful comparing violent crime statistics because the UK uses a much broader definition of violent crime than the US. You can compare when you get to things with a defined outcome (like death) but things like assault that result in injury have a much broader definition. This is why you will find it so hard to find official or academic comparisons and why comparisons keep coming back to things that are measurable - like deaths from guns.


----------



## D_W (19 Apr 2021)

I think unless you're in a violent area where crimes aren't reported, assaults and such things are reported the same here as there. This county's rates are divided between grievous things and non-grievous (the latter being assault that's not determined to be aggravated assault - the latter being in the first class more or less including stabbings, beating with intent to kill or permanently injured, etc). 

The total tier 1 crime rate (Which includes personal robbery) is about 4.7 per thousand. Adding the non-aggravated assaults is another 7.5 per thousand. 

I see that the assault with injury rate in England by itself is about 9.5 per thousand. Somewhere in the 4.7 + 7.5 above would be a group comparable to that 9.5. 

I don't know, just looking at it, the overall violent crime rate looks similar. What's absolutely not is the murder rate. There are certain things that we don't have here (what's moped crime? purse snatching?...and the acid attacks). Every geography has their specialty, I guess. 

My point above still stands - if you're afraid of gun crime, it's statistically not that difficult to avoid in the US. It's certainly, in my opinion, not a reasonable fear to have if you're in a geographical area where it's prevalent (it's hard to land in those places, stake your tent and be surprised suddenly) - certainly, i think having a gun in the house is more dangerous than the folks outside of the house having a gun. If someone comes in, rather than standing your ground, I'd leave - you like the stuff in my house that much? You can have it, I'll wait outside.


----------



## Lons (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Total violent crime is what I stated, not gun crime. I don't know why that's so hard to follow.


*Dead easy to follow - you're wrong!*

You said "_what I saw of violent crimes (not knowing much about England), the north east of England has a higher violent crime rate than london" _The North East of England ( I suggest you look up where that is and exactly which counties it includes). It does not have a higher rate of VIOLENT CRIMES than London or in fact some other areas. Get your facts right instead of firing off unsubstantiated cr*p. 
The North East like the rest of the UK and many other countries certainly does have a high rate of total crime but the vast majority of that includes everything from anti social behaviour, drunkenness to burglary and that's what I said, violent crime is a small percentage of those figures.

I know nothing about the USA apart from what I saw when visiting so wouldn't dream of contradicting your comments about your country because I've read some misleading stuff on the internet it doesn't seem to bother you the other way around though.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

The most dangerous places to live in England and Wales revealed as crimes including robbery and sex offences ranked


THE most dangerous places to live in the UK where residents are most at risk of theft, sex crimes and violent attacks can be revealed today. Sun Online analysis of the the latest government figures…




www.thesun.co.uk





And from statista....


With a *rate* of 93.6 *crimes* per 1,000 people, *London's crime rate* was actually lower than in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire in 2017/18. Once it is put in perspective, it is clear that *London's* recent surge in violent *crime has* not occurred in isolation from the rest of England.Jul 10, 2020


----------



## nickds1 (20 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> Nobody is, everyone in the UK knows the UK police have an armed division.


There is a permanently armed branch of the UK mainland police - the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

Whilst there are a decent number of licensed FAC holders in the UK, the process of acquiring a licence or getting a renewal (every 5 years) is onerous (amongst the most stringent in the world) and requires quite serious vetting, including a doctor's certificate - if you're an FAC holder, that's on your medical record and doctors are required to notify the police of changes in mental health etc. FAC licencing in the UK

The UK FAC also specifies the number and types of weapons and the calibres and quantity of ammunition you are allowed to hold at any time. Serial numbers of all guns and (where available) moderators (see below) are recorded. Also, how and where the guns and ammunition are stored is inspected and required to be a certain standard of security. It's a serious criminal offence to breach any regulations around an FAC. Moderators (silencers in the USA) are also regulated and licensed and individually mentioned on your FAC - you have to separately justify the need for a moderator.

As far as I'm aware, the last time a civilian FAC holder committed a crime involving a firearm in the UK was over 10 years ago (June 2010, Cumbria). The problem, if there is one here, is not with licensed firearms, but with illegally held and fake-but-authentic-looking weapons.


----------



## Vann (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> ...I have no idea why my comment about total violent crime rate keeps being turned into a comment about gun crime only.


Possibly because this thread is titled "Guns, guns and more guns" - so if you're talking about crime that doesn't include guns, then you're off topic .

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Lons (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> The most dangerous places to live in England and Wales revealed as crimes including robbery and sex offences ranked
> 
> 
> THE most dangerous places to live in the UK where residents are most at risk of theft, sex crimes and violent attacks can be revealed today. Sun Online analysis of the the latest government figures…
> ...


I'm not going to get into further argument apart from saying read my posts again and read that article you've just posted properly.

I repeat, you stated *violent crime *I responded to that, correctly! The stats you've just posted relate to overall crime and I've said it several times already, that included all crime from anti social behaviour upwards.

*In your own words. " I don't know why that's so hard to follow" *I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're American. 

EDIT: Just realised you've been reading THE SUN newspaper, good luck with that. 
And to get back on to the original subject which was gun crime. this is from official stats not the sensationalist press. Do you need me to point out where the North East is? I'll narrow it down for you, the stats are 6 - 9 per 100,000 pop


----------



## nickds1 (20 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...Thereare a handful of cases in the UK where the police actively set out to commit murder rather than attempt an arrest - Steven Waldorph was the first that I remember, but I am sure there have been others ...


Small points: it's Stephen Waldorf and the officers involved were found not guilty at trial, admittedly by jury direction from the judge.

Shameful episode though...


----------



## AlanY (20 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...Should the state _ever_ have the right to commit murder? ...
> 
> ...This is actually a good time to have this conversation, as NATO tries every trick in the book to get a war going in the Ukraine - again, state sanctioned violence - should we agree to it? How do we stop it?...



Should the State have the right to commit murder? No. But the police force should (and does) have the right to mitigate the risk of an officer getting hurt or killed in the line of duty. So, with a known violent offender it seems reasonable to me that the police act with considerable force to apprehend that person. Taser seems a good start. With a suspect known to carry illegal firearms with intent to use them, it seems reasonable that the police shoot that person at any sign of a weapon being drawn. All firearms use by the police is strictly reviewed (albeit by themselves. Oh, and the MSM, nowadays) and, where the (thankfully rare) tragic mistakes are made (as in the Stephen Waldorf case) the matter can end up with the police officers suspended and being tried in court. 

Personally, I feel that the death of anyone willing to source and use illegal firearms is no loss to society. "You live by the sword, you die by the sword' is an appropriate old saying. 

As for NATO trying to start a war in Ukraine... what nonsense. Nobody wants a war that does not involve oil or other significant natural resources. Neither of which Ukraine has an abundance of (they are apparently the worlds largest producer of sunflowers, though). But what Ukraine does have is an aggressive neighbour who has already annexed a large part of Ukraine. That annexation has gone largely ignored by the West (presumably because the aggressor, Russia, supplies a large part of the natural gas needs of countries like Germany, but I am guessing it is also because those European countries would be absolutely no match for the Russian military and have a high dependency on the USA for military support). But Russia is apparently getting ready for another assault on Ukraine with a massive militarisation of the Ukraine eastern border with Russia. Only Putin could provide a reason for this behaviour but, if you want to de-escalate the tensions in Ukraine, the best way would be to suggest that Putin scale back his military presence on that border. He will, of course, ignore you.

Just my tuppence worth.

What an interesting thread!


----------



## Lons (20 Apr 2021)

nickds1 said:


> Small points: it's Stephen Waldorf and the officers involved were found not guilty at trial, admittedly by jury direction from the judge.
> 
> Shameful episode though...


That was shameful.
There are many example in the UK however where armed police stand off for hours, sometimes days rather than go in gung ho to kill the villain. We are fairly close to where the Roul Moat drama ended and the police laid for hours guns with trained on him while he lay in the open with a gun to his own head until he eventually killed himself. In some other countries he would have been shot on sight especially as just days before he'd shot a policeman in the face.


----------



## Peterm1000 (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I think unless you're in a violent area where crimes aren't reported, assaults and such things are reported the same here as there. This county's rates are divided between grievous things and non-grievous (the latter being assault that's not determined to be aggravated assault - the latter being in the first class more or less including stabbings, beating with intent to kill or permanently injured, etc).
> 
> The total tier 1 crime rate (Which includes personal robbery) is about 4.7 per thousand. Adding the non-aggravated assaults is another 7.5 per thousand.
> 
> ...



DW - academics have a hard time comparing crime rates across the world unless they end in a defined result that is the same for everyone (i.e. you are either dead or you aren't). This is because some things are crimes in one country, but not in another. A couple of examples - jaywalking will get you fined in the US, but is legal in the UK. Some kinds of speech are considered 1st amendment rights in the US, but criminal in the UK. Assault requires a physical injury in the US, but in the UK it is just causing someone to fear that they are about to be attacked (so crazily you can assault someone without actually touching them in the UK). In the US some states consider assault a misdemeanour and do not include it in statistics. Some types of crime are peculiar to a particular country (the UK has the dubious honour of having the most acid attacks). If academics find this difficult, I am not sure why you would feel you can just google a few facts.

Here's a couple of academic articles that may interest you - I suspect both will be open to interpretation. However, as you alluded to, I think the majority of people in the US and the UK live in relatively crime free areas and where there is crime it tends not to cause them physical threat.









Comparing Serious Violent Crime in the United States and England and Wales


This chapter shows how reasonably valid comparative data for violent crime in the United States and England and Wales can be derived. Comparative analysis of violent crime is hampered by a lack of reliable statistics, even between relatively similar countries, with doubts about existing studies...




oxford.universitypressscholarship.com







https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf


----------



## selectortone (20 Apr 2021)

AlanY said:


> As for NATO trying to start a war in Ukraine... what nonsense. Nobody wants a war that does not involve oil or other significant natural resources. Neither of which Ukraine has an abundance of (they are apparently the worlds largest producer of sunflowers, though).



It's always about oil, or in this case natural gas. Russia's biggest export is natural gas and the main pipeline to their biggest customers in Europe passes through Ukraine. Without gas exports Russia would be properly screwed. Putin will never sleep well in his bed while he thinks that pipeline is insecure.

It's the same reason Russia are in Syria. A pipeline from the Qatar gas fields in the Middle East to Southern Europe has been mooted for many years which would be a direct threat to Russia's monopoly. It would pass through Syria. Old laughing boy in the Kremlin can't have that.

It's always all about oil and gas.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> I'm not going to get into further argument apart from saying read my posts again and read that article you've just posted properly.
> 
> I repeat, you stated *violent crime *I responded to that, correctly! The stats you've just posted relate to overall crime and I've said it several times already, that included all crime from anti social behaviour upwards.
> 
> ...


You're posting results that include weapons according to those chart titles. I'm including all violent crime, which includes aggravated assault and robbery and rape regardless of weapons. The sun and statistas London rates match, 9.5 or so per thousand. I have no clue why you keep posting firearm and weapons only charts for total violent crime. How are you not following this? You're totally fascinated with substituting firearms charts and information for all violent crime. You really need to get a clue about it.


----------



## Stan (20 Apr 2021)

All this talk and occasional criticism of police use of force is interesting. It might be enlightening to put yourself in the position of an officer and consider what you would do.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Stan said:


> All this talk and occasional criticism of police use of force is interesting. It might be enlightening to put yourself in the position of an officer and consider what you would do.



That's the nature of armchair expert-ing, right? It's easy to criticize, but awfully difficult to come up with a solution that's better in practice. This is the bernie sanders type principle- ignore reality, criticize, and at all costs, don't actually do anything because that would blow up the illusion.


----------



## Peterm1000 (20 Apr 2021)

Stan said:


> All this talk and occasional criticism of police use of force is interesting. It might be enlightening to put yourself in the position of an officer and consider what you would do.



Exactly - it's almost impossible know. However, you have to hope that people armed with guns to control the populace are given enough training that they respond in an appropriate way.


----------



## Stan (20 Apr 2021)

Training in UK police has come a long way since the 1980's.

But the crux of the matter remains the same. You, as a firearms officer, have to make a judgement call of huge importance, weighing up many factors, and you probably will have just a second or two to do it. Add to that an element of fear. Fear that if you get it wrong then you or a colleague won't be going home in one piece at the end of the shift. Or fear that somebody else will get hurt and bloodsucking lawyers will try to shove you through the mangle ( US = wringer ) for years to come, with all the stress that entails. Or fear that you might harm an innocent person by an honest mistake, which could be somebody else's mistake not yours.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Vann said:


> Possibly because this thread is titled "Guns, guns and more guns" - so if you're talking about crime that doesn't include guns, then you're off topic .
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



I get that part, but if I post "violent crime rate", the first response is "US crimes don't count violent crimes the same way". I dig up local data here, point toward the rate provided for London for "violent crime" (the categories are more or less the same, except assault without injury is included in our total rates). 

This kind of proves my point that overall violent crime rates are about the same, which is the statement that seems to have set Lons off. That London and Pittsburgh have similar overall violent crime rates. It's hard to tell because our aggravated assault status here involves more than just punching someone, and violent crime that doesn't result in injury makes up almost 2/3rds of the total violent crime (so our "really violent" crime makes up about half of the london crime rate). 

And the response to that is only guns. It may be the case that violent crime is higher in general in N.E. England, but firearms related crime is lower on average there. 

Not sure why these things are so hard to follow. 

The murder rate in my county is about 6 times as high as london. That's not unexpected, but I don't know the nature of such a thing there. Here, a large portion of the "murdering" is avoidable, probably 2/3rds to 3/4ths, but maybe it is in london, too. That is, it's tied to young males doing illegal things in geographic hot spots (those would be places to avoid living, which isn't difficult here because the cost of living and housing isn't that high in the safer areas). Most of it appears to occur at night, too. That was my point. 

I don't know the nature of the other violent crimes as I've not been involved in them and literally haven't ever seen them - I'd guess their rates are also higher, and mix late night and alcohol and arguments over girls or illicit business and they probably go up. Overall violent crime appears to be lower in my county than some areas of NE England even though firearms related crime is many times higher. 

This should not be a surprise and perhaps is a cognitive surprise for some - that murders will be high but the general overall crime rate including all violent crimes (which are pretty much any assault or personal - non-property - robbery, and on up) aren't any higher here. Maybe the strangeness to someone from England is that we're used to the murder news, but robbery or assaults, etc, being on the uptick would be noticed because they're far more common than murders. There's also a double standard -if the violent crimes are in a bad area, nobody seems to notice too much outside of those geographies. If there is any significant violent crime in "safe" areas (affluent city areas or suburban areas), the reaction from residents is swift. Property crimes in safe areas aren't tolerated here, either. In 15 years, there have been two burglaries in a 400 house neighborhood (both when no residents were home, and one clearly from someone who understood what was where in a house - the other wasn't as clear). Most of the residents here think that's completely intolerable. Coming from a rural area (where robbery is common - it's easier to get away with it when a house is remote - I kind of think that's a pretty good statistic. 

If there was ever a fight in the street here, there would be 30 calls to the police at once. 

I have no solution to the murders given the number of guns already here, and given what the motivation is behind most of them (males under 30 and usually at night). I do think it's a shame that the bulk of the murders are those and nobody seems to care, but the sensational type (job site, etc), are used as scare stories for folks because then they suddenly think "oh, that could be me". 

What's brought up in the news? probably something that makes up about 1/20th of the actual shooting deaths. The rest? Nobody seems to notice. I don't think that's OK, but I don't have a good answer because they tend to occur in areas where people won't talk to police. And that (refusing to talk to police, even when you've seen something, maybe a uniquely american thing).


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Another illustration here - as it seems to offended folks that I said "it's pretty easy to avoid". 

Look at this interactive map. I know you don't know anything about pittsburgh aside from steel. 








Interactive homicide map, Allegheny County, Pa.


Learn about each homicide victim in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County.



newsinteractive.post-gazette.com





In the city (mostly inside the rivers), the affluent neighborhoods are squirrel hill, shadyside, and the north part of greenfield and most of bloomfield (these are not all affluent). Notice the number of murders. There are several hundred thousand people living in these areas. 

Now, look outside of the rivers, north and south. I live north of the city in the glenshaw/Ross/Mcandless type area. this area probably has a population of another 350K people. Notice the number of murders (zero). To the south - mt lebanon, dormont (dormont is not affluent by any means, but neither is millvale or etna - the latter are the opposite - they're old industrial neighborhoods, but they are wonderfully safe even if they're not attractive). Zero. 

Not just zero in some of them, but zero so far in total in all of them. 

There will be a murder here or there in these neighborhoods - when there is one, it's a huge story. Probably just like it would be in london, and it involves someone going bonkers (mental illness, etc, whatever else, or the horrid shooting of the synagogue in pittsburgh several years ago. Those things will never be forgotten. It's just not expected, and it's not expected because it's not common. The gun violence in the chosen areas that I"m bringing up is lower than the whole of england on average. 

And I'm sure that you can tell me that you can do this same exercise in england - it requires knowing where there is some safety, and then if you're not of means, you can filter down by price until you can find tolerable cost areas that are still safe. 

in all of the areas dotted by cursors, you would never walk around day or night and feel safe - people here don't, either. This dynamic probably has a whole lot to do why people in other countries get all fired up about news stories, but those of us here don't have as much of a reaction other than single instance horror. It's not relatable. 

What do we have in the suburbs? houses, shopping and deer. If you want to see deer, we have a big problem with those. Otherwise, people are way too nosey here for you to set yourself up some kind of little criminal outpost and not get ratted out.


----------



## Peterm1000 (20 Apr 2021)

DW...

I agree with some of what you are saying, but other things are just misguided.

Number 1 - Pittsburgh - home of the Steelers and isn't it where the Deer Hunter is set? I'm afraid that's the limit of my knowledge.
Number 2 - I am sure crime is very regionalised in the US and the UK. For certain demographics, it just doesn't exist. For others, it is part of daily life.
Number 3 - Academics who have spent years and years studying crime statistics avoid comparing violent crime between countries. That does not seem to have stopped you.
Number 4 - The UK police tend not to shoot as many people "by accident". That's no doubt because most of them don't carry guns. Those that do carry guns have an enormous amount of training (as explained in one of the posts above).
Number 5 - The thread is called "guns, guns, guns" on a forum mostly frequented by people from the UK and outside the US, there is a much more prevalent feeling that only those who have been properly trained and vetted should be allowed to own firearms. You are unlikely to get much support for guns here...


----------



## Trainee neophyte (20 Apr 2021)

AlanY said:


> But Russia is apparently getting ready for another assault on Ukraine with a massive militarisation of the Ukraine eastern border with Russia. Only Putin could provide a reason for this behaviour but, if you want to de-escalate the tensions in Ukraine, the best way would be to suggest that Putin scale back his military presence on that border. He will, of course, ignore you.


I _think_ that reality is 180°to your succinct summation of western propaganda talking points. It's hard to be sure, but it looks like a NATO (for want of a better label) inspired push to force Russia to respond militarily. Lots of moving parts, and lots of accidentally forgetting to report things by western media.

Ukraine declares war on russia: Ukraine declared war on Russia. – Investment Watch
Report Ukrainian heavy weapons as Russian - who can tell the difference, anyway? MoA - CNN - Ukrainian Trains With Heavy Weapons Going East Are 'Russian Aggression'








Western Media Eager to See Ukraine Use US-Supplied Weapons Against Russia - News From Antiwar.com


Politico asked if Ukraine should deploy US-provided Javelin missiles




news.antiwar.com




Other weird happenings: Operation Silence: Belarus coup plotters caught in the act
And the whole point of all this is stopping Nordstream 2, because it allows Germany freedom from USA: US warns Nord Stream pipeline is 'Russian geopolitical project'

The ground will be dry enough for tanks after Easter (May 2nd), so look for either an evil Russian invasion, or a Ukrainian attempt to make Russia attack, but sold as Russian aggression, or something else altogether. The Russians have a habit of coming up with a third, unexpected option when forced into a corner with binary choices.

Now, back to being rude about gun statistics.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

I don't disagree with what you said for the most part, except that the violent crime definitions in pittsburgh and london are pretty much the same. If there are academic cases where you can't do a global survey because there are incongruities, that's different. It looks like the murder rate in my county is about 6 times london. The rate for all of the other violent crimes is about the same. 

As far as the daily part of life thing - few can make the argument in this region that they can't avoid violent crime unless they insist they won't move. Many of the safe areas are former industry or tool and die and they don't look great, and perhaps the restaurants are fast food instead of sit down, and the stores are small discount minimum selection and you have to drive 10 minutes to better, but they are safe, inexpensive and for the entire 21 years I've been here, the towns have been the same. What you can't do is move to one of those areas and have bad behavior - you can't stand in the street and make noise at night or mill around on corners at 1 am. The residents and police won't tolerate it, even though the area is low income. 

But it's not relevant to anyone who is thinking they can't move to the US or take a job in the US because it's too dangerous. 

Recall earlier on I mentioned that it's fairly easy (at least statistically) to avoid getting shot. That was met with disagreement, which to anyone with experience here, is kind of dumb. You can believe what you want. if it can't be absorbed from the chart that I showed, that you can stay out of areas where people shoot other people, then it can't really be shown any better. Any possible place that someone would work here will not be anywhere in the donut where there are shootings, and if there are minor exceptions (a few old steel mills), you will be on the premises of a giant operation for work and not out and about in the town at night. 

The unfortunate reality in bad areas is that if you get stopped by the police, you had better cooperate. The instances where someone cooperates and things go drastically wrong, I'm sure they exist, but they are extremely rare. If you have a warrant for your arrest and a prior record, don't walk away, even if it's just to not get tased. Who would want that in the first place? You can be mad, but showing how mad you are to the police to show them you're right ....not a great place to do it. It's like trying to win an argument with a driver over pedestrian rights while you're walking. You might be dead right about the rules. 

My other point was simple - please don't come to the US feeling like you'll need a gun for protection. The odds are against you if you think that's a good solution. Use a map like the one I showed, pick where to live and if you want to have a gun for target shooting, by all means. In my opinion, outside of that, keep it locked up in a safe. When I was still hunting, if someone had robbed my house (which is unlikely enough to not worry about it), I guess I would've thought "well, gosh - it's hard to get the guns out now in time....but do I really want to escalate anything to that level rather than going out the window. No".


----------



## Lons (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> You're posting results that include weapons according to those chart titles. I'm including all violent crime, which includes aggravated assault and robbery and rape regardless of weapons. The sun and statistas London rates match, 9.5 or so per thousand. I have no clue why you keep posting firearm and weapons only charts for total violent crime. How are you not following this? You're totally fascinated with substituting firearms charts and information for all violent crime. You really need to get a clue about it.


I give up
I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt because you're American. The continuous flood of long essays says rather a lot about you unfortunately. Anyway you have the stage to yourself sir, it appears that you rather enjoy centre stage reading your own cr*p. Have you ever thought of a career as a politician.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> I give up
> I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt because you're American. The continuous flood of long essays says rather a lot about you unfortunately. Anyway you have the stage to yourself sir, it appears that you rather enjoy centre stage reading your own cr*p. Have you ever thought of a career as a politician.



Aren't you the guy who supposed something above about having no friends?


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Spectric said:


> It gets stranger when you look at the details or need, you can buy a Tac 50 riffle in the states, this 50 cal weapon in the right hands can kill at over two miles, and holds the record for the longest military sniper kill at 3,800 yards so who in the public domain really needs this firepower or is long range hunting now a sport!



I remember when 50 caliber rifles became available and kind of stylish. I'm not sure that one has ever been used in a crime, but it makes for good fantasy news stories. I would have to guess that most of the guns used in murders are junk cheap stuff. You won't hear someone mention jennings or makarov or some such thing on the news because it doesn't get the same fear as "assault rifle!!!!" or other scary terms. It looks like about 89% of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.


----------



## Lons (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Aren't you the guy who supposed something above about having no friends?


Yeah it's for telling the truth, read my other post again.


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Apr 2021)

Interesting data on US gun crime here:

This lists the last 72 hours



https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours



So far this year:


https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/



To take data on children Jan 1 to 20 April 2021
94 children 11 and under killed
333 children 11-17 killed
It may be simplistic but if America had no guns, there would be over 400 less children dead this year. 

I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than this: 
_if America had tough gun controls, there would be less people dying and getting injured_.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I remember when 50 caliber rifles became available and kind of stylish. I'm not sure that one has ever been used in a crime, but it makes for good fantasy news stories. I would have to guess that most of the guns used in murders are junk cheap stuff. You won't hear someone mention jennings or makarov or some such thing on the news because it doesn't get the same fear as "assault rifle!!!!" or other scary terms. It looks like about 89% of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.



Figured I'd look this up - there actually have been a few used in crimes here. There's a page dedicated to trying to get them banned, but their criminal use tends to be mostly having them when making a threat (that is, in the US, if you make a threat at someone in anger or out of nuttiness, it's a crime and people will come take your stuff away - when someone makes a threat and they have five guns and one is a 50, then its "police removed 5 firearms from mr. miller's property, including an armalite 50 caliber rifle". There were a few actual shootings (5?), but some looked more like an intent to dazzle (as in, so and so shot at various people but no one was injured). 

As a former gun owner, I wonder when the news talks of the ability to hit someone over a mile away with the expectation that people think they could actually do it. I suspect the sniper records with any rifle over about 1500 yards are educated luck shots and there's one for every several hundred misses. From my days target shooting, over a couple of hundred yards (assuming you could even make a shot in perfect conditions), bullets move left or right with the wind like a wiffle ball.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than this:
> _if America had tough gun controls, there would be less people dying and getting injured_.



that's certainly true, or at least it seems to me that it would be. but you need to substitute "if there was a confiscation, there would be fewer". 

Not sure controls would have a very significant effect at this point.


----------



## D_W (20 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> Yeah it's for telling the truth, read my other post again.



There's an onion story in here somewhere. 

"man who lost all of his friends for telling facts surprised to learn that his former friends were tired of his opinions and fake laugh after telling them what's up".


----------



## Trainee neophyte (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> It may be simplistic but if America had no guns, there would be over 400 less children dead this year.


Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general? 

(In defence of outlawing guns, the childhood rate of death from gunshot is many times higher in the USA than any other country (except Lithuania?!)


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> that's certainly true, or at least it seems to me that it would be. but you need to substitute "if there was a confiscation, there would be fewer".
> 
> Not sure controls would have a very significant effect at this point.



The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership. 
If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.


There are 2 simple facts:

1. No civilian needs to own or use a gun.
2. If America had no guns, there wouldn't be many thousands of gun deaths every year.

It really is that simple, America has a major problem with guns. 
Remove the guns you don't have the problem.


Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general



Outlawing guns is not detriment to society.
Guns are unnecessary.

There are no honest arguments that can claim otherwise.


----------



## John Brown (21 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Oddly, the numbers for accidental drownings of children in USA each year are similar to gunshot deaths. Obviously to conflate the two would breach about 6 of Robin's logical fallacy rules, but if we are in the business of saving children, surely they should outlaw swimming pools, and swimming in general?
> 
> (In defence of outlawing guns, the childhood rate of death from gunshot is many times higher in the USA than any other country (except Lithuania?!)


If you outlawed swimming, I'd wager that drownings would increase.
But there is some benefit to be had from swimming pools.


----------



## Spectric (21 Apr 2021)

If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot?

What are the repercussions going to be from that police officer being found guilty of murder and not manslaughter, if someone shows the slightest signs of resisting arrest you are just going to shoot them rather than risk injuring or killing them during the arrest and then facing trial yourself.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2021)

Spectric said:


> If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot?


That's the theory. It doesn't work. 
They haven't yet worked out why not. They probably never will, bearing in mind it's already 220 years since the 2nd amendment
Being quicker on the draw isn't quite what it's cracked up to be in cowboy films.


----------



## Peterm1000 (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership.
> If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.
> 
> 
> ...



I am pretty vehemently opposed to uncontrolled gun ownership, but there are situations where in the US I think you would say that gun ownership was necessary that do not apply in the UK. The US is much wilder than the UK and there are animals out there that can do you serious harm and you can be hours and hours away from help. In those circumstances, I think you would want a gun.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2021)

Peterm1000 said:


> I am pretty vehemently opposed to uncontrolled gun ownership, but there are situations where in the US I think you would say that gun ownership was necessary that do not apply in the UK. The US is much wilder than the UK and there are animals out there that can do you serious harm and you can be hours and hours away from help. In those circumstances, I think you would want a gun.


Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk. 
Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> The term "gun controls" includes strict rules on ownership.
> If a new gun law said: "no civilian can own a gun" then America wouldn't have a gun problem.
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh, you live in a country without bears. Nobody needs a car here, either, and certainly nobody needs to fly for vacation (I'm told these two things are ruining the planet and threatening our extinction).


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk.
> Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter



That's a very liberal idealistic answer, Jacob. Bear repellents work sometimes. A large bore pistol or rifle is always carried by guides where there are bears.

We have a serious deer population problem. In my township, no hunting is allowed, so the township has hired professional hunters. They can't remotely keep up. The cell phone generation is losing interest in hunting and while we see bears only occasionally in Pittsburgh, the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.


----------



## Stan (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.



I wonder if the deer think their state has a serious human problem?

In reality, I see your point. Here in the UK farmers, gamekeepers and similar people have good reasons to have a gun. I cannot see that any other civilian does.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> That's a very liberal idealistic answer, Jacob. Bear repellents work sometimes. A large bore pistol or rifle is always carried by guides where there are bears.
> 
> We have a serious deer population problem. In my township, no hunting is allowed, so the township has hired professional hunters. They can't remotely keep up. The cell phone generation is losing interest in hunting and while we see bears only occasionally in Pittsburgh, the entire state will have a serious deer problem if hunting continues to decline.


Release a few wolves?
Could "bear repellent" include guns which just produce a very loud bang?
Just wondering.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Ahh, you live in a country without bears. Nobody needs a car here, either, and certainly nobody needs to fly for vacation (I'm told these two things are ruining the planet and threatening our extinction).



Yes I realise there are instances where guns do act as protection.

However, how many people lives do guns save each year by preventing deaths by bears?
For context, there were 15,000 deaths in 2019 from guns. (Not including suicides).

Or to put it another way, if there no guns at all, would the number of deaths from wild animals be greater than deaths from people shooting each other.


I fully accept America has a culture which includes guns. I don't know if it stems from the Wild West frontiers or what but it is a fact; guns are part and parcel of America. Guns are a huge sport / hobby in America.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

Spectric said:


> If there are so many law abiding people with guns in America then how do so many nutters get away with mass shootings because surely someone would or should shoot them first or soon after the first shot



That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

Stan said:


> I wonder if the deer think their state has a serious human problem?
> 
> In reality, I see your point. Here in the UK farmers, gamekeepers and similar people have good reasons to have a gun. I cannot see that any other civilian does.



"I was just walking home from browsing expensive ornamental and here this human kid with a really stupid haircut comes blasting around the corner and just nails me, now I'm walking around on three legs lucky to be alive"

Farmers in some areas, maybe most areas, need a gun for livestock and property protection ( groundhogs problems here equal cows with broken legs, and coyote will take calves or sheep). There were probably wolves here at one time, but aren't now.

Past control for deer would've been coyote hunting fawns, and same with bears and cougar, plus Indians. Remove the predators and the deer increase in number fast. They're naturally inclined to have surplus fawns to counter predation, but we've removed part of the equation. 

They're good lean red meat, too. It's kind of a waste to not manage them. As farms have gotten bigger with less manpower, folks with damage tags (tags from the state to the to shot deer out of season to identify that they were taken legally) can't keep up. Suburban produce farms have taken to fencing huge areas with high tension stainless , which is only feasible if you have affluent customers. The csa that we used fenced 255 acres, but wouldn't say what it cost. The fence they used is held in basically by telephone poles and 12 feet high. They were letting anyone they could find fill damage tags and getting 40 a year and making no progress. What we've found here is that deer don't occupy wild areas if there are populated areas or farms. Even yard ornamentals are a apparently far superior in taste to what's in the forest. When we hike, there are no deer in the woods where they'd be if there weren't people.

All of my yard plants are thin until you get above head height for deer. I don't mean browsed, but rather they're eaten to the stem with a poof on top. Boxwood and marigolds and barberry are the only things I have that they don't eat.


----------



## selectortone (21 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk.
> Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter


I'm no gun fan but I absolutely see the point of a gun in that scenario. There was a story only last week of a guy who was killed by a grizzly bear which was subsequently shot when it attacked a group searching for him. Both the bear and the dead man had traces of bear repellent spray on their bodies. Obviously didn't work.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Yes I realise there are instances where guns do act as protection.
> 
> However, how many people lives do guns save each year by preventing deaths by bears?
> For context, there were 15,000 deaths in 2019 from guns. (Not including suicides).
> ...


"There were 46 bear attacks in North America between 2000-2017. Sadly, these 46 attacks resulted in 48 deaths. Data reveals that 19 of the incidents happened in Canada."
How many threatened bear attacks were averted by guns? More than or fewer than 15000?


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue.



I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

Jacob said:


> Release a few wolves?
> Could "bear repellent" include guns which just produce a very loud bang?
> Just wondering.



Standard procedure here is to fire warning shots and shoot bears only if they don't leave. If they are stalking or protecting cubs, sometimes they're really aggressive, and some, like black bears are dangerously curious and don't do the whole play dead routine.

It's not legal to shoot them just because they're on your property, so wardens or police will shoot them here on the odd occasion they wander through and get arrogant. I think what draws them here is the abundance of fawns, which are like little burgers for them. Out west, other than garbage dumps, not sure. Stalking videos on YouTube are interesting when people are being followed, but actual injuries on this side of the country are rare.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

Bear attacks, drags woman more than 80 yards outside home


The woman was outside with her dog when the bear attacked, the Pennsylvania Game Commission said. She is reportedly in critical condition.




www.pennlive.com













Bear mauls woman camper at Hickory Run State Park







www.mcall.com






I think the only deaths here have been pets. The second one makes for an interesting story because the bear was saving the lady for later and tried to cover her with sticks and leaves. She employed the play dead thing which is advised for grizzled. Black bears prefer it rather than people giving up when all else falls, and the game commission here advises screaming, waving your arms and throwing things.

Only death I can find in this state is a lady who kept a bear as a pet. This seems like a stupid idea to me.



(giggle...not police encounter results in a shooting.)

i case anyone is wondering whether or not you can hunt and eat bear in general - you can here. I have a relative who hunts bear every year and when he gets one, he butchers it and eats it. But there is a limited bear season, and it's probably limited geographically depending on what the game commission is doing to manage the population. If you shoot one, you're legally required to take it to a game station (like a police station for hunting related issues only) with a tag on it and confirm that you took it legally (and the game commission likes to weigh and collect data on what's been shot).


----------



## Louie10 (21 Apr 2021)

nickds1 said:


> There is a permanently armed branch of the UK mainland police - the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.
> 
> Whilst there are a decent number of licensed FAC holders in the UK, the process of acquiring a licence or getting a renewal (every 5 years) is onerous (amongst the most stringent in the world) and requires quite serious vetting, including a doctor's certificate - if you're an FAC holder, that's on your medical record and doctors are required to notify the police of changes in mental health etc. FAC licencing in the UK
> 
> ...


Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!


----------



## TRITON (21 Apr 2021)

Louie10 said:


> Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!


I think you'll find police in the UK, especially London have been armed since the invention of the gun. And as to routinly, this appears to only be when the Royalty or members of government are about, as threats come from those who are sometimes on the suffering end of British foreign policy.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.



I am sorry I should have been clearer, this point I made: "That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue" was in context of the claim guns are a protection against mass shootings, criminals etc.

but in the context of animals, it is clear that very few people are killed per year from bear attacks.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

Louie10 said:


> Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!



Interestingly enough, in the old days here, the county sheriff and others would carry a 38, but most never had to use one. A 38 at standard pressure isn't that effective, but they weren't really that concerned as the sidearms were more decorative and they felt going to something more threatening looking would interfere with day to day relations with the community. Times have changed, but strangely, that mentality was in place at a time where the murder rate and gun violence rate in the US was actually much higher per capita (and even nominally) than it is now. 

Most of the local departments have been tooled up with retired military material now, but I think that's more of a "you can have it and it won't cost us to dispose of it or store it" as we only see such equipment when they have a "come meet the police day" type thing. 

Maybe I'm off, but showing your desert storm retired armored vehicles now painted black is sending an odd message. They train in them - and I could only guess that they have the stuff in case they'd be called in to assist in a worse area or some kind of riot.


----------



## Spectric (21 Apr 2021)

I must say that we may have the wrong impression of a bear, when out in Jackson I was shown a Grizzly fur and the feet were huge, with massive claws and when alive can run so not the best thing to bump into. All right for carnivores as they also sold black bear sausage.



https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/536d357ee4b0b850609e0eb2/1515402352331-FXVCCDVSFWAN26EGUJFP/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kK60W-ob1oA2Fm-j4E_9NQB7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z4YTzHvnKhyp6Da-NYroOW3ZGjoBKy3azqku80C789l0kD6Ec8Uq9YczfrzwR7e2Mh5VMMOxnTbph8FXiclivDQnof69TlCeE0rAhj6HUpXkw/IMG_0306.jpg


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.


Yes I realise there are instances where guns are beneficial

the point I am trying to get to on guns is this:
if we remove all the peripheral arguments, it can be simplified down to:


1. there are thousands of people killed every year in America because of guns
2. if civilians were not allowed to have guns, or the controls were very very strict, those deaths would reduce to almost zero



if we look at the deaths from guns, they are peoples children, people parents, wives, husbands -there are thousands of people in America suffering huge grief every year because of gun deaths and life changing injuries......and there is only one way to stop it, only one way.

Or are the benefits of guns so great that the killing must continue?


----------



## AJB Temple (21 Apr 2021)

People who deliberately kill using guns are not worried about breaking the law. 
There are millions of guns in circulation. 
They are very easy to hide and conceal. 
Only law abiding citizens who don't believe they have a right to arms will willingly relinquish guns. 
Criminals will not. 
Gun collectors will simply take their collections out of sight. 
This horse bolted long ago. 

It is not at all obvious what the solution is.


----------



## TRITON (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> are the benefits of guns so great that the killing must continue?


They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them and are more than willing to overlook cases of entire families being wiped out for just that fact.

Of course should the US government ever go fascist your average wouldnt stand a snowdrops chance in hell, with tanks, drones,hellfire missiles and millions of 50 cal rounds against what are effectively the equivalent of pop guns, ie small caliber handguns or hunting rifles.
But they seems to ignore that little point and think in such an event they could stand up and take the country back. In truth they'd all be wiped out.
They think they can hold up in an apartment, firing out the windows, but in reality a tank takes out the entire building.

So they'll fight to keep this useless guns and allow any number to die, no matter their age. Some nut could go and wipe out a kindergarten school of 500 4yr olds and the Americans wouldn't bat an eye really. They would be happy about it rather than allow the government to ban firearms.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2021)

AJB Temple said:


> ...
> 
> It is not at all obvious what the solution is.


I'm sure they could wind them in slowly, with a well argued campaign of persuasion followed by incremental increases in taxation, control/regulation and penalty. 
Taking them out of legal circulation and distribution also hits the illegal side in that they become less available. Increase in penalties would be a disincentive too.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry I should have been clearer, this point I made: "That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue" was in context of the claim guns are a protection against mass shootings, criminals etc.
> 
> but in the context of animals, it is clear that very few people are killed per year from bear attacks.



They are protection against criminals. In mass shootings, running away seems to be more effective - just guessing. (i looked it up - only 10 have been stopped by individuals shooting a mass shooter - out of 316. 50 total have been stopped by bystanders, with the other 40 being stopped by who knows what....). 

For someone living in a rural area, I'm sure guns are used defensively (across the entire population, not per individual) on a fairly regular basis. Tony atlas tells an interesting story about his mother getting gifted or loaned a .38 by his *father's* coworkers after they found out that his father beat his mother on a regular basis. She "pulled the rod" the last time he made such an attempt and he left and never crossed the doorstep again. 

Personally, I don't figure they have a part in my life. I'm not that interested in demanding in the US that they are taken from everyone else, no matter how much of a fascination people in other countries have.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them and are more than willing to overlook cases of entire families being wiped out for just that fact.



I think that while that's given on paper or sensationalized, the greatest % of people feel like they'd just be rolled if the government so chooses (which nobody really expects in the first place), and the average person has the right to have and use firearms recreationally, and that's really why they want to continue the right.


----------



## Spectric (21 Apr 2021)

Ok so Mr Biden decides to scrap the 2nd ammendment and restrict guns in the public domain to just hunting riffles and politely request everyone hands in all other weapons, what happens next?

I think that if I lived in the states I would want a couple of handguns just to feel safe in my house, I don't think they will ever solve the issue and it would make me a nervous wreck, but they teach children how to use a gun so perhaps growing up with guns makes you feel safer.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

this last part was covered already, so I'm guessing that you're offering it in jest. Choose your neighborhood well and you don't need to have handguns (which is a pretty significant responsibility) and you won't have a need to use them in the first place. 

Gun and hunter safety is something here, though, but it's not mandatory for anyone who isn't hunting also. That is, I had to go through a hunter's safety course to get my first hunting license, and it involved several days' worth of instructions, and constant "every gun is loaded whether it is or isn't. Get that into your head as a constant thought. It's loaded. Check to make sure it's not, and then treat it as it is after the fact, anyway". 

The other constant with hunting was "identify your target positively and then determine the ending point for your shot and thirdly, that you have a shot that will ensure a humane dispatch. If you're missing any of those three, pass on the shot". 

Interestingly, folks here may be surprised to find that it's legal to shoot over a road, or at least was then. The three rules above apply - if you're way up in a tree in a stand and a road is between you and your quarry, then as long as rules 1-3 above are satisfied, no problem.


----------



## D_W (21 Apr 2021)

oh yeah, and in my state - "get a concealed carry permit unless you have a great reason not to. If gives you far more leeway in going to and from hunts, and if you never carry concealed, but you violate a transport law that isn't violated if you have a concealed permit, it'll be worth it".


----------



## gregmcateer (22 Apr 2021)

TRITON said:


> They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them.....



And the irony is, the gun loons stormed, (or in their apologists view 'walked quietly and peacefully to'), the seat of government the moment the government actually upheld democracy


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> And the irony is, the gun loons stormed, (or in their apologists view 'walked quietly and peacefully to'), the seat of government the moment the government actually upheld democracy


Except none used guns and now the supposed death of a capitol officer has been quietly changed to natural causes as officer sicknick had either a stroke or blood clots.

So, all of the non natural cause deaths have been protesters, including an unarmed woman who was shot for no reason.

It's interesting how as time has gone on, all of the news stories about the "riot" have matched what the only person who was there said on an internet forum the next day. I recall hearing the officer sicknicks parents said something like him having health problems and not jumping to the conclusion that he was killed by a fight and then details got really fuzzy.

The whole occupation idea was stupid, but the false reporting about what actually went on and what the intent of the occupiers was was doubly stupid and could be gotten more people killed with follow-up violence, and the whole officer sicknick thing was a lie.

Just like the initial stories were about the woman who was shot for no reason, claiming that she was armed, etc.









Brian Sicknick: US Capitol riot policeman 'died of natural causes'


Officials say Brian Sicknick died after suffering two strokes, a day after being confronted by rioters.



www.bbc.com


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

I've had it out with the election theft people, by the way, too. You can't complain about an election being stolen from you if you actually lost, and you can't claim it was stolen if you can't actually prove it in court. But the intentions of the group matched the first hand account from the person I know to be an honest person, and the nonsense that followed about violent armed protests around the country predictably never amounted to anything, and never was going to in the first place. The truth is too boring for people sometimes, but stirring the pot can cause people to get killed later due to misguided anger or fear. The assertions of a government about to be taken over on this board were pure fantasy, and everyone who could gain here from that fantasy went into "never let a crisis go to waste".


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm not that interested in demanding in the US that they are taken from everyone else, no matter how much of a fascination people in other countries have.


Nobody is demanding anything.

I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths

So you are either content thousands of people are killed by guns every year and you want the status quo to continue.
Or you would like the killing to stop and accept the only way is stopping gun ownership.


I personally think it's sad that every year thousands of Americans die unnecessarily from guns.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> They are protection against criminals


Guns are not protection against criminals.


----------



## Amateur (22 Apr 2021)

I once had an intruder in my home.
She got in bed with me and never left.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Nobody is demanding anything.
> 
> I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
> If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths
> ...



I think it's sad that they die unnecessarily from alcohol consumption, too. We've been down this road. I appreciate the rights we have here, even though I'm not making use of all of them. 





__





5 The Use of Firearms to Defend Against Criminals | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press


Read chapter 5 The Use of Firearms to Defend Against Criminals: For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most...



www.nap.edu





I looked a little bit to see what the counts are of defensive (as in defense against crimes). Depending on how you count defensive use (determining whether the gun is the definitive stopper of the crime, or it's just present), it appears that the estimates vary widely between 100k per year in the US and 2.5MM. 

It's a false dilemma to say "you lose X lives to prevent X crimes" because the person using a gun defensively is unlikely to be a murderer. 

If you, as an individual, want to talk about avoiding gun crime in the US, we've been down that road - if you want to really do it, it's not hard. Avoiding an area that has any guns at all, that'll be a lot tougher. I would have to guess that in the 800k or so of populated areas in my county with zero murders this year, there are probably at least 1 million guns. 

If you were actually going to do something in the US to reduce gun crime, you'd have to start where it's concentrated. Guess where people aren't very receptive to police. 

If you're angling toward getting an agreement that this is a single issue type thing and I'll eventually see something that you think you do and I don't? Not happening. I had but one complaint - that the bump stock wasn't considered class III (an automatic weapon), but Trump threw a fit about it to the ATF and they moved it. I have no idea why Obama wasn't able to make a dent in that. I don't even think the bump stock should be illegal, but I think people who want one ought to be class III holders. Why? Because class III holders are under regular audit and a lot of personal scrutiny (that is the license that allows you to be a gun dealer, ship pistols by mail or receive guns by mail).


----------



## Amateur (22 Apr 2021)

We aren't gunless in the UK by any means.
Although I don't own a shotgun I can understand people taking to clay pigeon shooting after an introductory session down at Bisley.
Wild foul shooting was a big thing in my area back in the 50s, with people turning up at our local butchers home with a variety of birds requiring plucking and dressing....but back then that's what fed the family.
After a quick internet search it's showing more than a million shotgun owners in the Uk....but equally hand guns must be out there owned by people who go to gun clubs, drug dealers etc
Maybe some one can put a number to these owners.
The problem we face is that the more guns are used in crime, the more acceptable to the young they become.
Knife crime and stabbings in the UK seems to be widely common. Given time it will become the norm if to some groups it isn't already.
But then the way society is going in the UK cities, hand gun crime could become as bad as the US.
Maybe the adage that the UK follows what happens in the US is true? Let's just hope it's not.


----------



## Amateur (22 Apr 2021)

It's also an impossible task to do away with guns in the US.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Guns are simply an unnecessary object in a society, people do not need a gun and there are no arguments that can justify otherwise.


The constitution specifically notes that, eventually, every government ceases to act on behalf of its population, and needs to be taken in hand. This is the sole reason for having an armed population. A logical idea at the time - a revolutionary government that feared becoming what it had just fought to free itself from. If you could guarantee that no government will ever become tyrannical ever again, I could agree with your suggestion that guns are simply unnecessary. 



RobinBHM said:


> 1. there are thousands of people killed every year in America because of guns
> 2. if civilians were not allowed to have guns, or the controls were very very strict, those deaths would reduce to almost zero


May I suggest that thousands are killed _by _guns, but not _because of_ guns. The reasons for the thousands of murders are mostly because of drugs, and the prohibition which is failing so spectacularly.

To my mind, the guns are a sympom, and their removal not the solution. The solution is to find ways to stop the inner city drug gang culture and urban deprivation derived lawlessness. The enormous disparity between poor and everyone else, and the lack of ways out of poverty, means that the most viable way for the average "young urban male" to get ahead is guns and drugs. The UK has the same urban deprivation, and the same problem with gang killings (not on the same colossal scale admitedly), but guns are hard to come by, so they use knives instead. Dead is dead - which tool used to get there is less important.



Percentage Of Gang Related Homicides In The United States? | Extrano's Alley




> For various reasons the total number of gang related homicides appears to be about 11,500; while the total for the rest of us is about 3,000. Essentially, then; the percentage of gang related homicides in the United States is about 74 percent – and rising as the number of murders among the general population declines.
> 
> For those of an analytical turn of mind, that means the homicide rate among law abiding Americans is about 1.0 to 1.1 per 100,000 population.


----------



## Lons (22 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> so they use knives instead. Dead is dead - which tool used to get there is less important.



Agreed TN but there is a slight difference, with a gun you can kill from distance and multiple times, with a knife you have to get up close and personal and are far less likely to kill in numbers.. A person can run away from a knife and probably dodge it even if thrown, run from a gunman and it's more than likely you'll get shot in the back


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> If you're angling toward getting an agreement that this is a single issue type thing and I'll eventually see something that you think you do and I don't? Not happening. I had but one complaint


I am not suggesting deaths from gun violence is a simple issue.

What I am saying is there is a simple relationship between lax gun ownership and the number of deaths due to gun violence.

“When researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the U.S. is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers."




Do you agree that Americas high levels of gun ownership is a direct cause of Americas high level of gun violence?


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> We've been down this road. I appreciate the rights we have here


I guess it is reasonable to say you believe the right to bear arms is worth more than 15,000 deaths a year due to gun violence.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I guess it is reasonable to say you believe the right to bear arms is worth more than 15,000 deaths a year due to gun violence.



I believe that if it's a priority to reduce those deaths, you can do so without eliminating the right to bear arms. Cooperating with law enforcement as a community in bad areas would be a giant first step. 

I also believe that you tend to see things black or white, and that's it. Like your statement that guns are never used as a crime deterrent. It's disprovable. I think you have difficulty instead making the statement that "they are used as a criminal deterrent, but I don't think it outweighs the overall cost to society". That would be a far more reasonable statement. To even come up with the idea that some natural law prevents a hundred million owners from ever using one in defense is very odd. Or even using thousands of them. It's sort of like the statement that they're not used to stop a mass shooting. There are ten documented instances where they are. I think that's not many out of a little over 300, but "not" and "rarely" are vastly different. If you're interested in accuracy, which is generally tied to truth, it's important to be as precise as you can be, or people will see you not as "the guy who has information that we may find interesting or illuminating" and more as "the guy who has a conclusion and exaggerates and won't stop until everyone tells him they agree with him". People who nod or weakly say they agree with you just to get you to stop usually don't actually agree with you. They just value you finding a different rail spur to ride down. 

I do. If you don't like my conclusion, that's OK. This isn't a clique.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I am not suggesting deaths from gun violence is a simple issue.
> 
> What I am saying is there is a simple relationship between lax gun ownership and the number of deaths due to gun violence.
> 
> ...



See my map again about crime. I believe in areas where people like to solve things by shooting each other, levels of gun ownership contribute. I also believe they have little or no effect in other areas. Where they don't, I'm uninterested in "solving a problem" by addressing something that's not the problem itself. 

Do you think many of the guns used in the donut around Pittsburgh ever originated as stolen guns from people outside the donut? I doubt it. Do you think there's a problem with straw purchasers in the donut, or guns stolen from other donut residents - I think so. What do you need to do to address it? You either need to remove guns from the donut (which would be hard to do given that folks in the donut tend to not trust law enforcement, at least not the ones most likely to be nearby when crimes occur), or you need to get people in the donut to value lack of gun violence more than they do avoiding reporting things to police.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Like your statement that guns are never used as a crime deterrent. It's disprovable


I am not sure I have ever said that.

I did say that guns ownership is no protection against mass shootings

And I refuted your claim that guns are a protection against criminals.

and it is easy to prove: America has far more guns and not lower crime.

After gun laws were tightened in UK after Dunblane or after Port Arthur in Australia gun deaths went down and crime did not go up.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> Or even using thousands of them. It's sort of like the statement that they're not used to stop a mass shooting. There are ten documented instances where they are. I think that's not many out of a little over 300, but "not" and "rarely" are vastly different



So you are effectively agreeing with me: guns are no protection against mass shootings.

Using semantics because I should have said added the statement "in rare instances", isnt a strong counter argument.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Guns are not protection against criminals.



this statement isn't proved by saying that america has more guns and not lower crime. That's a different statement than a flat statement that guns aren't protection against criminals, which would be perceived as "if you have a gun, you won't use it to protect yourself against crime". 

The latter is wrong, even if it's more likely that you'll find your own end with it than end things for someone else. The false part about your extrapolation of the statement is that implied is the idea that you can just paint a new picture where nobody has guns. You can't paint that picture. My comment is more realistic - move to a place where gun crime isn't a problem. It doesn't tend to migrate very quickly here, so you're unlikely to have to move again, but if you do once in your lifetime and don't consider that reasonable, I don't know what to do for you. DUI was a bigger problem when I was a kid. We stayed off of the roads on friday and saturday nights in rural areas if possible because it wasn't so much that death rates were that high, but rather that it was very common for people to drive drunk and get home and not cause any issues. It was better to stay out of their way. A cousin's best friend wasn't as lucky - she got killed. When? late friday night. 

Own your statements or be more precise about them. It seems intentional. I will own mine - there would be a long lag before there would be a reduction in gun crime if you seized all legal guns. If you want to address crime, the first thing you would need to do in the US is get people in the communities where it's rampant to help in addressing it rather than viewing it as unsolvable in combination with the police being a threat. 

Last year, suicides were about 10 times as high as non-criminal shooting. that seems more imminent to me because it seems to be more preventable, but other than some increased awareness lately, it doesn't seem to be that big of a priority. If it could be figured out, I'd have one more relative, and his two sons would still have a father. They are permanently affected as both were college material and rapidly went to amounting to nothing (I hate to say that about them, but the event ruined them permanently and in their mid 40s, they still live with their mother and struggle to hold a job).


----------



## clogs (22 Apr 2021)

as for the UK n guns etc.....
those individuals that make the headlines are usually not working other than selling drugs and other low life JOB oppertunities.......
anyone carrying a knife or gun should automaticaly get membership of the armed forces......
10 years for a knife and double for a gun......no options.....
plus the bonus of being first in line when Putins mob appear over the cliffs of Dover or wherever.....
then they can show us how brave they really are......
all that is needed is vid / photo graphic evidence of carrying...no court time is needed....
all property owned by said individuals should be confiscated and sold......give it to the NHS etc....

Personally I think that anyone inside my house univited and trying to rob me....I should have the right to shoot /stab or otherwise maim....
these people will only learn to stay on the right side of the law with a heavy deterrant....
those that don't learn will gradually disapear anyway thru drug misuse or turf wars etc.....
we have to stop pussy cat footing around in catering for their human rights.....
carry weapons means u loose that right.....u become cannon fodder.....
Further
I am from lowley educated but honest family......getting an education and making a carreer was not easy but doable.....
You can't get everything given to u just because ur from a broken home....
It should be if you dont work you dont eat..........thats how I was brought up.....
nuff said......hahaha.....


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I also believe that you tend to see things black or white, and that's it.


No that is untrue.

what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:

If America had no guns, there wouldn't be 15,000 gun deaths a year

Unless that fact can be accepted as the starting position, there can be no honest debate.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> So you are effectively agreeing with me: guns are no protection against mass shootings.
> 
> Using semantics because I should have said added the statement "in rare instances", isnt a strong counter argument.



Something like 90 mass shootings have been halted by guns (most by police, ten by bystanders). Not sure how many of the 310 ended because the perp was done. The accurate statement would be "if guns weren't accessible, there would be fewer mass shootings and that would likely result in a bigger death reduction than those saved by the 10 bystanders shooting a mass shooter". 

That's reality. Your conclusion is "then we should eliminate them all right now". That's not my conclusion, but if a legal process was undertaken in the US where the constitutional right was overturned, then I'd be fine with it. We're a society, we have laws. I don't cater to people who think their wants are more important than the overall will of society. 

This is sort of like the election theft folks or the now popular group of opposing folks who think a Trump Army is going to rise up and take over the government and that they're just in the planning phase. We make changes here via legislation - follow the procedures and exclude me from constant desire to make change outside of the legal means already available. Not interested. 

(I had to flee a Trump Army theorist at Easter several times, and there's a person in my neighborhood who I have to avoid also because they have an unreasonable fear that they'll be shot and they constantly badger people about how it should be more important to anyone. You saw the same map that I posted - there is no reasonable fear that anyone in the neighborhood will be shot, but it doesn't stop people. I encouraged them to start a legal process and please leave me out of it because it's divisive).


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> No that is untrue.
> 
> what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:
> 
> ...



What would there be - 3000?

Game control would then occur by what means? Wasting diseases for wildlife? 

There would be about 40-60k fewer deaths a year if alcohol were illegal. I'm still waiting for proof that alcohol is needed rather than preferred to be available. 

I don't agree with the fascination that one unintended death is more important than another unintended death across the board. It's fanatical and stupid.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> No that is untrue.
> 
> what I am saying is there is a black and white starting point to the gun debate:
> 
> ...



I have a question for you - I don't think you're interested in honest debate. I think you're more interested in persuasive speech to try to get parity of opinion. I'm not really big on that, not because I don't think parity of opinion is OK (it's perfectly fine when it actually occurs). I think badgering someone to get them to have the same opinion as you do even when the facts are known is kind of obnoxious. 

I don't really know why you have such a big fascination about something that occurs less near you than it does literally less than 10 miles from me. But you're welcome to your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to your opinion about what the US should do. You're not welcome to dictate what my opinion or choice is, nor will I receive it particularly warmly if your real aim is to paint anyone who doesn't slide to your opinion as a "bad person", but you can even do that - you can assert it in all capital letters if you'd like. It doesn't change what is. I'm far more interested in people being honest and following legal process, and those who don't like the result of legal process following legal process after that. 

The hyper cynicism about single issues or decrying that the rules of legal process are unfair and aren't working - solve it with a legal process. Really. I don't have to come to this forum to get this kind of stuff (by that, I mean if I really wanted someone who spends all of their time lobbying other people to get them to change opinions, I can find it in my own neighborhood. I can even find people who won't talk to you if you don't share their opinion. I'm not interested in it, most people aren't, but they're too polite to tell you that they'd prefer you find another fascination. I'd prefer ...well, I don't even care if you find another one. I'd prefer being less subjected to it, though. I'd much rather talk about steel, tools, things that improve the quality of life for the bulk of the population (like productive efficiency, or an initiative for everyone to checklist one positive thing they've done for someone every day without obligation. If you really think you want to make a positive difference, go do something about it - don't lobby the people who aren't interested in being lobbied (and who have no real authority) after they let you know they've had enough of it.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum. I am, after all, a fence sitter - not much interested in pushing people one way or another, but just seeing what is from the middle. Fence sitters don't seem to please many people with proposals that aren't face or heel (in wrestling terms). 

I guess if that were popular, we'd have had wishy washy professional wrestling characters or "I'm not really sure, but here's what we know so far" news services.


----------



## MikeK (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum. I am, after all, a fence sitter - not much interested in pushing people one way or another, but just seeing what is from the middle. Fence sitters don't seem to please many people with proposals that aren't face or heel (in wrestling terms).
> 
> I guess if that were popular, we'd have had wishy washy professional wrestling characters or "I'm not really sure, but here's what we know so far" news services.



There's no need to close this thread, and moving it would not be fair to those who participated and don't have or want access to the new location.

Please feel free to start another thread behind the curtain.


----------



## TRITON (22 Apr 2021)

Lons said:


> Agreed TN but there is a slight difference, with a gun you can kill from distance and multiple times, with a knife you have to get up close and personal and are far less likely to kill in numbers.. A person can run away from a knife and probably dodge it even if thrown, run from a gunman and it's more than likely you'll get shot in the back


Look at the las vegas massacre. One man, legally held guns(ok he might have had one or two illegal but that doesnt change the overall effect) and a bump stock. I wonder if the makers of said bump stock are happy their product worked exactly as they designed it to work. Said item has no place in hunting, its sole purpose is to turn a semi automatic into a fully automatic or such akin.
Why. What is the end goal of such an item ?. Far as i can see it is facilitate mass shooting of people.
Why would such a thing needed to be invented ? Far as i can see to allow people access to illegal firearms, ie machine guns.
What drives people to want such an item ? Not for sport shooting, not for hunting and not for target shooting where practice and skill are required to hit a distant target such as a bullseye. That little bit of kit was designed to kill people and people alone.

Yeah the whole bump stock thing is the real truth teller about why people want guns, in order to make themselves feel powerful and able to kill as many people as they like, should they want to.




> In my opinion, I would be well open to the moderators closing this thread here and putting it in the political forum.


Sweep it under the carpet ? 
Sorry I directed this at yourself. The intention was to get an Americans view of it, and not to demonize an individual. You dont make the laws.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

MikeK said:


> There's no need to close this thread, and moving it would not be fair to those who participated and don't have or want access to the new location.
> 
> Please feel free to start another thread behind the curtain.



That's a great idea - I'll do that - what I don't want to see is the thread getting locked without an alternative, but I guess I didn't think that the alternative is definitely there in the other forum no matter what.

Triton - no sweeping anything under the rug. The data here in the states and the news is plain to see. It's sensationalized to the point that most here would probably misrank gun homicides if you asked them to list causes of death. My opinion is in the middle, I guess. I don't see a problem with background checks for all, red flag laws or more robust reporting and restriction of people who are threats. Such people often leave a data trail. I guess the majority doesn't agree here. There are folks who want nothing short of full confiscation here, and those who claim that we shouldn't have *any* restrictions at all, not even on artillery. The latter is absolutely bonkers.

The former is a little bonkers to me given our constitutional rights, but if such things occurred legally, I wouldn't really have a problem with it (as in, if you amend the amendment and then do it by legal process, by all means - that's how society works. If the legal processes break down, then nothing good usually results collectively).


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

i re-read the hunting law - it's actually legal of the occupant of the structure says you're OK to be within 150 yards. Well, I went a decade hunting without knowing that, but on land we owned at the time, there wasn't anything close! That's an antiquated rule, but it doesn't seem to have been much of a problem here. Never listened for shots here in the suburbs, but the acceptable distance for archery is much less (50?), and there's no woods in my back yard, but some friends allow archers in theirs in a really densely populated area otherwise. I wish there were more archers here as the deer population is starting to look mangy - if we don't depopulate them, nature will with viruses, though.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 Apr 2021)

As someone who doesn't really care - I don't live in the USA, and all my neighbours seem to manage to not shoot each other despite being armed to the teeth - I still find this discussion interesting. Apparently 75% of gun deaths interesting the USA are suicides. Would not having access to a gun guarantee that none of these suicides would ever happen? I'm not convinced. Perhaps a addressing such a high suicide rate may have more effect than wholesale removal of guns?

Then we have the stats I posted earlier which suggest that other than gang / drugs killings, the USA has comparable murder rates to other first world countries . If you took away the guns, would you take away the drugs and gangs? Probably not.

Finally, if you managed, somehow, to disarm the American public without causing a civil war, all you would have done was disarm the law - abiding portion of the population, again leaving gangs with guns.

I think a more believable way of reducing deaths would be for all citizens to wear a straightjacket from the age of 5. Problem solved, and no nasty government enforcing over-reaching draconian gun laws.

@TRITON re the Las Vegas shooting - there was a lot of very weird stuff going on that _may_ mean the "official" story is a complete fabrication. Not my thing, but quite a lot of oddities involving Saudi Crown Princes, helicopters, private security details etc.


----------



## artie (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I've simply pointed out that lots of people are killed every year in America because of guns.
> If the guns weren't available, there wouldn't be lots of deaths


But you must see that is not true.

People are not killed because of guns. 

If there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths

But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.


----------



## TRITON (22 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> But there would still be plenty of deaths. If someone wants to kill someone else there are many ways.


No denying that, but I fear your logic is a bit messed up.
The nutter in Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured 867, 411 were from gunfire. How else could an individual nutjob obtain such a high kill and injure rate ?
With a knife ?, obviously not
With a car ? Obviously not
With a bomb ?. Possibly, but then again it would have to be a very big bomb and without the ease of getting explosives, which are restricted he would probably be uncovered before getting it built. Obviously we cant say that for sure, but the options would be limited.
Anything else ?.
No, the easiest way to kill a great number of people is with a gun designed to fire multiple rounds as a rapid fire. The semi auto with this bump stock idea enabled this action.



> re the Las Vegas shooting - there was a lot of very weird stuff going on that _may_ mean the "official" story is a complete fabrication. Not my thing, but quite a lot of oddities involving Saudi Crown Princes, helicopters, private security details etc.


I think you should stop using social media or following sites that talk utter nonsense. Saudi princes, helicopters and private security ?. What a load of dung.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> But you must see that is not true.
> 
> People are not killed because of guns.
> 
> ...



He did say gun deaths earlier. He's inconsistent, which drives me bonkers. Let's say non-suicide gun deaths are 15k a year. when i looked earlier today, 1k are police shooting perps across the US (often in domestic violence situations where people are fired up - and pointing a gun at officers, or traffic situations where a fleeing felon is fleeing or shooting but brandishing a gun). With no guns, would those be less? I think so. How much less, who knows.

I'm going to guess that suicides would be lower, too - it would be harder (but while there are 46k suicides in 2019 CDC's report, probably 25k of those are by gun.

That brings us back to the 15k, and ignore police. What's a predictable murder rate? I don't know. Is it a 6th, a 4th? What of that 15k are non-criminal people other wise ("crimes of passion" and bystanders). I couldn't quickly find the data, but am guessing half (it's probably fewer than half, as half of the gun deaths are attributable to males mid teens to mid 20s - translation, gun or drug or other criminal activity - maybe even just pride defense). So, could we cut the 15k to 3500? maybe.

What's the lead time before the guns are out of the places where they're used illegally. I don't know. From a practical standpoint, I don't think it works as well unless the goal is a quarter century from now or something. I think community outreach and other such things have more initial benefit, but using the term and actually doing it and changing culture are drastically different things. Why do people who are having turf wars in the donut here settling disputes that way, and if they are, why is it mostly people in their mid to late 20s and younger. Are there no older people in the business of this stuff or are they less impulsive?

you read a story like this








6 wounded in shooting at child’s birthday party in Louisiana


A mass shooting at a child’s birthday party in Louisiana left six people wounded — including a 12-year-old, authorities said. The gunfire that broke out at the bash late Saturday in LaPlace was spa…




nypost.com





and "nobody saw anything". Kids, so you can't even know any details about who did this.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

one last thing:








Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware


National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences...




www.pewresearch.org





what's not said here is that the rate is higher in 1993 than in prior years by a lot, but it's still lower now than it was in the 70s for all age groups except males 18-24 (those rates have remained unchanged).

I have no clue what caused the spike in the 1990s, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> But you must see that is not true.
> 
> People are not killed because of guns.
> 
> ...


But it is true

America has about the highest guns/ capita in the world.
America has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

UK and Australia have amongst the toughest gun control laws in the world and pretty low murder rates.

There is a clear causation between guns and murder rates.


I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion guns don't kill people....the figures speak for themselves.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

I think he's having fun with you part of the way. 

Gun ownership up now vs. 1993, murder rate way down. 

I'm having fun there, too. There's obviously some kind of link, but it's not always formulaic and proportional. We have a cultural crisis with young men, but what is it and how do we solve it? Given that it's been going on for at least 30 years, I'm sure much is written on it, but what, I don't know, because before this discussion, I'd not looked at the parsing of who was actually doing the shooting.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Apparently 75% of gun deaths interesting the USA are suicides


Not really

2018
Wilful, malicious, accidental 14,800
Suicide 24,400


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> I have a question for you - I don't think you're interested in honest debate


With the greatest respect, I am not the one engaging in whataboutery, by bringing in alcohol and other issues.

All I am saying is America has a gun violence crisis, by pretty much any comparison with any other country it has a serious problem.

But you don't seem to want to accept that as a fact.


I understand that there are hundreds of millions of guns in America and guns are deeply embedded as part of the culture, so yes solutions are very very hard.

I appreciate the point you make that tackling the crisis is best done by starting in the districts where the highest level of gun use occurs.

But trying to argue that guns are necessary for bears or for defence or for protection is simply repeating the NRA arguments.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

you could end up with that conclusion if you thought all suicides (44k) were gun deaths. It looks like just over half are.


----------



## artie (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> America has about the highest guns/ capita in the world.
> America has one of the highest murder rates in the world.


Both your statements are , I believe true. It doesn't mean they are related in any way.

How do you account for the fact that the states with least gun control also have the lowest gun crime?

You could say 

America has more cars per capita than any other country.

and

The rate of adult obesity in America is higher tan any other country.

Both, I believe true, but can you say one causes the other.?


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> With the greatest respect, I am not the one engaging in whataboutery, by bringing in alcohol and other issues.
> 
> All I am saying is America has a gun violence crisis, by pretty much any comparison with any other country it has a serious problem.
> 
> ...



you're labeling things. It's a crisis to you because you're absolutely obsessed with relatives. You've stooped to labeling my comments as NRA arguments - absurd. 

I made the point about alcohol because you can't make any rational argument that it's needed in society, the unintended deaths are higher, but you don't count it as a crisis because it doesn't feed your irrational reactions. You're on your own from here on out. The facts are plain - the only real nonsense that I wanted to shut down was the notion that nowhere in the US was safe from being shot at. It's stupidity and you're bathing yourself in it at will.


----------



## Spectric (22 Apr 2021)

How big a part do drugs play in all of this? Over hear drugs are a real problem and responsible for a lot of crime so they can pay for them, thank god they cannot at that level easily access guns otherwise who knows what a drug fueled junkie would do to get money for drugs. I believe they play a larger part in the supply chain and gangs along with knifes but they don't seem to directly impact the general public, more to each other. So if guns were more freely available then is the drug aspect just another area of gun crime.


----------



## D_W (22 Apr 2021)

gangs and drug stuff are a problem. How much? I don't know. I think the 80s and 90s thing to scare people was the idea that crazed drug zombies would be running around with guns, but the reality is that the shooters are turf guarders (distribution level above users). 

The gang culture is rampant in prison (some originates in prison, but a lot of it is aggregation of gangs in prison so that members know if they get locked up, they'll still be with the gang when they're in prison and be protected). 

The decline in crime that occurred in the 90s to a decade later was tied mostly to increased arrests. In the areas where the crime is a problem, it doesn't appear to be that easy to make arrests (nobody knows anything for various reasons - none of them because they don't actually know anything, but perhaps because they wouldn't dare testify, and in other cases, they're not going to help the police even if they got shot). I have no clue how you make a dent in that. 10 miles from here is a completely different culture - 10 miles from there and it's again like here. How does that happen? When did people give up on it?









Crime in the United States - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Maybe overall, we haven't. If there isn't an economic reason behind at least half of the shootings (like protecting drug territory), I'd be surprised. That chart seems to suggest that a big reason for the decline is incarceration, but having almost a percent of the population in prison or jail is boggling.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Not really
> 
> 2018
> Wilful, malicious, accidental 14,800
> Suicide 24,400



Yes. Really.

Of your 14,800, three quarters are gang/drug related, as per the article I linked. 

Show me half of all suicides will magically be prevented just because the gun has been removed and I will be delighted to accept your point. Until then, I will assume that anyone sufficiently motivated to kill themselves with a gun will be motivated to find more creative methods. It's not as if the USA doesn't have more prescription antidepressant drugs prescribed than any other nation. Oooh - is that another correlation?

Correlation is not causation, as I am sure you know.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Yes. Really.
> 
> Of your 14,800, three quarters are gang/drug related, as per the article I linked.
> 
> ...


No

You said 75% of gun deaths are suicide.

That is untrue, the figures state that.

In any case, in all my discussions I have ignored the suicides and only talk about the 15,000 homicides


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Of your 14,800, three quarters are gang/drug related, as per the article I linked


Incorrect

"The National Gang Center estimated that from 2007 through 2012, 13% of U.S. homicides were gang-related"








PolitiFact - Are most murders 'gangbangers killing gangbangers,' as Van Cleave says?


A leading gun rights activist says Democratic lawmakers are trying to penalize law-abiding firearm owners for violence c




www.politifact.com


----------



## Reginald (23 Apr 2021)

sometimewoodworker said:


> Education should be the first, then immediate suspension from armed duty, so clerical only, for a minimum time for anyone who discharges their weapon or is with another officer who does, going up on a sliding scale depending on the injuries (if any) to anyone in the vicinity of the shooting, with automatic expulsion from all police forces if there is a death unless a full judicial trial decides that the shooting was the only possible answer.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to have a country with armed police who almost never use their guns both with an armed population (Canada as many or more guns per head than USA) and without (Japan) to give a couple of examples


It's interesting that Canada with a lot of guns have far less killings per head than the USA and the most heavily armed country in the world has almost zero is i


DBT85 said:


> Owning a bottle of vodka doesn't give me an opportunity to shoot up a school.
> 
> Sure, alcohol does kill more people, like cigarettes kill more people. I'd not really be all that bothered if both were outright banned but the reality is we know prohibition doesn't work on boose and fags.
> 
> Making it hard or impossible for someone to have a military grade assault rifle at home should not be a contentious issue when the 2nd ammendment was written at a time where the most advanced gun was a single shot rifle.


the term military grade assault rifle is always trotted out AR does not mean assault rifle it means armourlite rifle.
people with a predispossition to violence are more likely to do so with vodka.
interesting that the european country with the most guns (switzerland) has no gun related problems.
its easy to legislate against law abiding people who by nature obey the law (of the land an decency) but you can't legislate and expect nutters and criminals to give a hoot.
there is no easy answer to these questions but what is for shure is that governments generally only ever remove rights not give them so the constant erosion of long held things are a worry.
like i said looneys and criminals dont care so we need to find a way to deal with that.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

Reginald said:


> It's interesting that Canada with a lot of guns have far less killings per head than the USA


Canada does have far stricter gun control laws.



Reginald said:


> european country with the most guns (switzerland) has no gun related problems


Switzerland has strict gun control laws.

It would be interesting to look at the details of what gun control measures these 2 countries have, because as you say, they both have fairly high gun ownership.

We know America has lax gun control measures, it has a powerful gun lobby that influences government.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> gangs and drug stuff are a problem. How much? I don't know


A major problem in terms of crime, but not that high on gun homicides as far as I can tell


The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually. 
Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> Both, I believe true, but can you say one causes the other


Well yes, I can.

73% of all homicides are because of guns in USA.

USA has far higher gun ownership thannpretty much any other country.

If you compare gun controls in countries with fairly high gun ownership to America, you will find those countries have strict gun controls, butvAmerica does not.

I agree gun ownership alone is not the causation of gun deaths, but combine it with Americas lax gun control and a powerful lobby stopping change....there's your problem.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> You've stooped to labeling my comments as NRA arguments - absurd


They bear similarities, do you disagree?


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

D_W said:


> It's a crisis to you because you're absolutely obsessed with relatives



It is a crisis.

Do you not think 15000 deaths a year from guns is a crisis.


----------



## Reginald (23 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Canada does have far stricter gun control laws.
> 
> 
> Switzerland has strict gun control laws.
> ...


Switzerland has a full on millitary grade assault rifle in almost every building it is a truth that all swiss do military time and all keep their guns at home the government want it that way and supply all the ammo as well.
If some silly person ran amok in switzerland I think they would be stopped pretty quickly.
as for canada they have a different cultural outlook to america if you look at border towns the crime levels in the us side are a lot higher than the canadian side the big difference between canada and the usa is handguns.


----------



## artie (23 Apr 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Well yes, I can.
> 
> 73% of all homicides are because of guns in USA.
> 
> ...


Well yes you can say it, but it's not true and because you persist with this lie it makes further discussion with you pointless.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Apr 2021)

artie said:


> Well yes you can say it, but it's not true and because you persist with this lie it makes further discussion with you pointless.



America has very high levels of gun ownership and very lax gun controls.
That is the reason for high levels of gun violence in America.

The reason we know this is because of data from many other countries.

the real reason you don't want to continue the discussion is because you have no counter argument.


----------



## Louie10 (27 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> I think you'll find police in the UK, especially London have been armed since the invention of the gun. And as to routinly, this appears to only be when the Royalty or members of government are about, as threats come from those who are sometimes on the suffering end of British foreign policy.


The threat is unfortunately now against the ordinary people we have sadly watched ordinary people caught up in shootings and attacks so it's good policing to have the Police carry weapons to protect unarmed citizens. I understand the left hate such an idea but responsible people have placed into the hands of the Police and others the powers to both protect our society against the evils of terrorism.


----------



## Jacob (27 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> The threat is unfortunately now against the ordinary people we have sadly watched ordinary people caught up in shootings and attacks so it's good policing to have the Police carry weapons to protect unarmed citizens. I understand the left hate such an idea but responsible people have placed into the hands of the Police and others the powers to both protect our society against the evils of terrorism.


Gun crime is very low in UK Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales - House of Commons Library and there is no case for having the police more armed. It's not a left wing issue at all, that's a really stupid idea
_The most recent data suggests that there were 30 homicides committed by shooting in the year ending 31 March 2020 – 4% of all homicides. Of these 30 victims, 20% were female and 80% were male._


----------



## artie (27 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> responsible people have placed into the hands of the Police and others the powers to both protect our society


Only problem being, when someone points a gun at you, it's a trifle late to dial 999.


----------



## D_W (27 Dec 2021)

Jacob said:


> Gun crime is very low in UK Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales - House of Commons Library and there is no case for having the police more armed. It's not a left wing issue at all, that's a really stupid idea
> _The most recent data suggests that there were 30 homicides committed by shooting in the year ending 31 March 2020 – 4% of all homicides. Of these 30 victims, 20% were female and 80% were male._



How many of those 30 homicides were police shooting someone? What's the evidence for not having the police armed?



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/817742/hosb1119-assaults.pdf



10,400 assaults on police resulting in injury. Yeah, ghee, no reason for them to be able to protect themselves.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Only problem being, when someone points a gun at you, it's a trifle late to dial 999.


Which is why we have tough gun laws…..minimising chance of that happening.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of those 30 homicides were police shooting someone? What's the evidence for not having the police armed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that’s not an argument for arming police with guns


----------



## Spectric (27 Dec 2021)

The days of Dixon of dock green are long gone, the days when you had more bobbies on the beat than sitting in a car or behind a desk and they were the front line. They knew their beat and the people, they would be in a position to curb criminal activity before it got big time. Now they are distant from the community, weighed down by bureaucracy and paperwork whilst facing an onslaught from the drug gangs who almost rule the streets. Now add to this the politicaly correct brigade and wokyism and they are setup to fail, whatever they do or say will be wrong in someones view yet people complain they are not making our streets safe. Then to add insult to injury you have our system of locking them up in Butlins camps where they can get further education and when released are even more hardened to a life of crime. If you are faced by someone with a gun, a trucheon is as good as a feather duster, they should just be allowed to take them out, this addresses the issue of re-offending and ongoing expense to the tax payer as well as setting an example to others who may be thinking of carrying a weapon. As for drugs, why not get the users to solve the issue for you, instead of just seizing drugs from ports and raids poison it and put it back into the system, now when a user shows signs of this poisoning they need to handover a dealer in exchange for medical help.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (27 Dec 2021)

Reginald said:


> it is a truth that all swiss do military time



No it isn't.


----------



## Cabinetman (27 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> The days of Dixon of dock green are long gone, the days when you had more bobbies on the beat than sitting in a car or behind a desk and they were the front line. They knew their beat and the people, they would be in a position to curb criminal activity before it got big time. Now they are distant from the community, weighed down by bureaucracy and paperwork whilst facing an onslaught from the drug gangs who almost rule the streets. Now add to this the politicaly correct brigade and wokyism and they are setup to fail, whatever they do or say will be wrong in someones view yet people complain they are not making our streets safe. Then to add insult to injury you have our system of locking them up in Butlins camps where they can get further education and when released are even more hardened to a life of crime. If you are faced by someone with a gun, a trucheon is as good as a feather duster, they should just be allowed to take them out, this addresses the issue of re-offending and ongoing expense to the tax payer as well as setting an example to others who may be thinking of carrying a weapon. As for drugs, why not get the users to solve the issue for you, instead of just seizing drugs from ports and raids poison it and put it back into the system, now when a user shows signs of this poisoning they need to handover a dealer in exchange for medical help.


 That’s an interesting idea, and one I hadn’t heard before, I just can’t see it ever happening.


----------



## doctor Bob (27 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> As for drugs, why not get the users to solve the issue for you, instead of just seizing drugs from ports and raids poison it and put it back into the system, now when a user shows signs of this poisoning they need to handover a dealer in exchange for medical help.



I'd be dead, yet have lived a very decent life for the past 23 years and even prior to that was pretty harmless except to myself. I have seen hundreds of addicts change their spots, leading very productive lives giving back far more than they ever took.
It would be a sad world if people didn't get a second chance.
I congratulate you on never breaking the law.


----------



## artie (27 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> 10,400 assaults on police resulting in injury. Yeah, ghee, no reason for them to be able to protect themselves.


Talking about the UK.

How many police have died at the hands of "the public" and how many people have died while in police custody?


----------



## Jacob (27 Dec 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> I'd be dead, yet have lived a very decent life for the past 23 years and even prior to that was pretty harmless except to myself. I have seen hundreds of addicts change their spots, leading very productive lives giving back far more than they ever took.
> It would be a sad world if people didn't get a second chance.
> I congratulate you on never breaking the law.


Best thing for the drug prob could be to legalise it, regulate for safety and quality, tax like tobacco and alcohol, then to treat addiction and side effects just like any other disease. Take out the criminality and the very high social cost - it'd pay for itself.


----------



## doctor Bob (27 Dec 2021)

Jacob said:


> Best thing for the drug prob could be to legalise it, regulate for safety and quality, tax like tobacco and alcohol, then to treat addiction and side effects just like any other disease. Take the criminality out of it.


Maybe, but by no means a solution, alcohol is a far bigger issue than "drugs". People only recover if they are willing, the majority are not willing, my particular "habit" recovery rate is about 3% long term.
My real bugbear is that it is not right that young kids can buy 3litres of white lightning for a fiver.
I'm not a preacher of temperance, people have choice.


----------



## TRITON (27 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of those 30 homicides were police shooting someone? What's the evidence for not having the police armed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They asked for taser, which would be used only in the most dire of circumstances, and we allowed them to have it.
Taser use has been steadily growing, from 2000 in England and Wales in 2018/19, to 2700 in 2019/20, and as of 2021 the figure stands at 3300.
3300  "In Dire Circumstances".
Faux pah tasings. A blind man, who's stick they mistook for a gun, a pregnant woman, and other severely disabled people. There is currently an investigation of police use of the taser against ethnic minorities seemingly as a form of entertainment.

If all the UK police had guns, the death toll would be high. First priority for uk police is to go for the stick rather than the carrot.


----------



## Jacob (27 Dec 2021)

american families holding guns - Google Search


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> The days of Dixon of dock green are long gone, the days when you had more bobbies on the beat than sitting in a car or behind a desk and they were the front line. They knew their beat and the people, they would be in a position to curb criminal activity before it got big time. Now they are distant from the community, weighed down by bureaucracy and paperwork whilst facing an onslaught from the drug gangs who almost rule the streets. Now add to this the politicaly correct brigade and wokyism and they are setup to fail, whatever they do or say will be wrong in someones view yet people complain they are not making our streets safe. Then to add insult to injury you have our system of locking them up in Butlins camps where they can get further education and when released are even more hardened to a life of crime. If you are faced by someone with a gun, a trucheon is as good as a feather duster, they should just be allowed to take them out, this addresses the issue of re-offending and ongoing expense to the tax paAs for drugs, why not get the users to solve the issue for you, instead of just seizing drugs from ports and raids poison it and put it back into t



I’d love for us to reintroduce the Police practices of the sixties and seventies. All that fitting up, bribery, misogyny and racism is just what we need to sort the drug problem. Shoot to kill - the icing on the cake and poisoning vulnerable people to try and get them to grass … the real foundations of a civilised society


----------



## Sideways (27 Dec 2021)

As a one time sports shooter, I've loaded and fired many thousands of rounds. Far more I'm sure than even a lot of armed police. Despite all this practice, all the priority placed on safety and under no more stress than simple competition, I know it's possible to make a safety mistake and instantly be stopped by the range officer on the course. The adrenaline hit when you get pulled up like that was like a slap in the face ! Not something you ever want to repeat.

The more guns in the hands of serving police officers - most I suspect who would rather not be carrying them and would not be practicing hundreds of rounds a week - the more mistakes are guaranteed to happen. And they don't have someone standing at their shoulder to pull them up.

More tablesaws would probably lead to more severed fingers.
More guns (in anyone's hands) would likewise lead to more shootings.


----------



## artie (27 Dec 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> is just what we need to sort the drug problem


I can see no solution to "the drug problem" until, either, people decide not to buy drugs or drugs are decriminalised so that people can't make an obscene profit from them.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

Jacob said:


> Best thing for the drug prob could be to legalise it, regulate for safety and quality, tax like tobacco and alcohol, then to treat addiction and side effects just like any other disease. Take out the criminality and the very high social cost - it'd pay for itself.



Like heroin? Wow. Totally naive.


----------



## TRITON (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> Like heroin? Wow. Totally naive.


With no demonizing of heroin, and clean product available, people wanting to stop if they feel its out of hand would have more places to convalesce.


----------



## danst96 (28 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> With no demonizing of heroin, and clean product available, people wanting to stop if they feel its out of hand would have more places to convalesce.


That's never going happen or work. It's not comparable to tobacco, alcohol or marijuana in it's effects and damage to humans or it's addictiveness. Not only that but by dedemonizing it as you suggest would likely open it to more users which only goes one way in terms of the impact on general society, down down down. Extremely naive observation.

I've not read the entire thread so may be missing some points but while your original post has some sense in it, it is a typical opinion of those who don't truly understand the issues facing police in the US and it's typical of those who rely solely on UK mainstream media for their information as to the US.


----------



## John Brown (28 Dec 2021)

I was reading that Portugal decriminalised all drugs a while back, so there should be some hard data available. I think one has to distinguish between legalising, and decriminalising usage. 
Meanwhile in the UK, the government were talking about harsher penalties for cocaine users, at the same time as it was revealed that traces of cocaine were found in 11 out of 12 (don't quote me - I may have misremembered the exact figure)of the toilets in the house of commons!


----------



## Adam W. (28 Dec 2021)

Ladies and gentlemen may I present Michael Gove and the score.


----------



## Cabinetman (28 Dec 2021)

danst96 said:


> it is a typical opinion of those who don't truly understand the issues facing police in the US and it's typical of those who rely solely on UK mainstream media for their information as to the US.


Absolutely agree, I spend a lot of time in the States, certainly wouldn’t want a Policeman’s risks on a daily basis.
When I read the biased slant our wonderful uk media put on things American sometimes, I really do wonder what their agenda is.


----------



## jonn (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> gangs and drug stuff are a problem. How much? I don't know. I think the 80s and 90s thing to scare people was the idea that crazed drug zombies would be running around with guns, but the reality is that the shooters are turf guarders (distribution level above users).


USA is a society built on crime, genocide, murder, and violence, so the problems they have are neither new nor easily solved. Like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they had the ill fortune of getting the nastiest of the nasty as settlers, the British! All you ordinary Poms are fine, but it is high time you rid yourselves with all the parasites, - the royals, the aristocracy, and the greedy financiers! And let Julian Assange go free, but lock up Tony Blair instead. And I am not too pleased with Norway's new Quisling, Stoltenberg, either!
Howar Zinn's _A People's History of the United States_ should be the history book for US children, and also for all the US vassal states.


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

Jacob said:


> Gun crime is very low in UK Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales - House of Commons Library and there is no case for having the police more armed. It's not a left wing issue at all, that's a really stupid idea
> _The most recent data suggests that there were 30 homicides committed by shooting in the year ending 31 March 2020 – 4% of all homicides. Of these 30 victims, 20% were female and 80% were male._


Brother relax it's only one day after boxing day and I am of on holidays and enjoying family time so this is very heavy energy buddy so I will wish you well brother. Be cool.


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of those 30 homicides were police shooting someone? What's the evidence for not having the police armed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An excellent reply pal, I think some people just can't see reality. Be safe buddy.


----------



## Stevekane (28 Dec 2021)

It seems that drugs are readily available, even within prisons and I think the govt have stopped using the term “war on drugs” perhaps because its a battle we've lost? It seems to me without any real knowledge of these things that drugs of all sorts could be legalised and distributed at cost through chemists to anyone that wanted them. I know it sounds crazy but balance it against this, 
Anyone that wants drugs can get them now, the quality is often suspect and I think this is one reason many users end up in hospital? The money from illigal drug sales funds other crime, the drug dealer has no qualms about involveing young and vulnerable children who will also be given drugs, much of the street violence is its said drug related and blights communities, we often pay for these drugs through theft, and our police spend a lot of their time trying to get on top of it. The govt did a few years ago employ a drugs expert to advise them, Prof Nutt if my memory serves me right, and he was sacked for publicly making these views known. 
Steve.


----------



## Spectric (28 Dec 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> and poisoning vulnerable people


No I said junkies but in a polite way, the sort who would beat up an old granny just to get some cash for their next dose and really they are already administering a poison so it would just really be an additive.


----------



## Spectric (28 Dec 2021)

Legislation would be a great solution but now we are so PC and drowning in wokies it is never going to happen, it would be like making all sweet shops free to children, imagine the initial impact on the NHS and from our perspective there would be a huge demand for cheap MDF boxes so get those tracksaws out.


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Which is why we have tough gun laws…..minimising chance of that happening.


Bad guy don't usually value tough gun laws!


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of those 30 homicides were police shooting someone? What's the evidence for not having the police armed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if Police will be armed in machine guns that figure alone would yield min of 10400 gun related deaths….


----------



## selectortone (28 Dec 2021)

I love it when Americans lecture us on guns.

We have managed to keep the genie in the bottle over here pretty much, and the vast majority of us support legislation that keeps it in the bottle.

I have been to the USA several times and I have some good friends over there. It is entirely different there, and I understand the need for a handgun in the nightstand. I hope it's never necessary here.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Only problem being, when someone points a gun at you, it's a trifle late to dial 999.



Netherlands have few gun police in uniforms,
while all armed police is in plane clothes.

Uniform police have extensive psychiatric education, and hand to hand combat training.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> I love it when Americans lecture us on guns.
> 
> We have managed to keep the genie in the bottle over here pretty much, and the vast majority of us support legislation that keeps it in the bottle.
> 
> I have been to the USA several times and I have some good friends over there. I understand the need for a handgun in the nightstand. I hope it's never necessary here.



HOW LONG AGO the UK had desperate people killing others because being deadly desperate? 12th century? 16th century?

USA is created 3 life times ago, and 2 life times ago relieved slaves from captivity, and one life time ago start care for common opportunities of opportunity, and today left care more about statistical correctness rather about individuals with traumas.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> I love it when Americans lecture us on guns.
> 
> We have managed to keep the genie in the bottle over here pretty much, and the vast majority of us support legislation that keeps it in the bottle.
> 
> I have been to the USA several times and I have some good friends over there. It is entirely different there, and I understand the need for a handgun in the nightstand. I hope it's never necessary here.



I don't know who is lecturing you on guns, and I don't have any handgun in the nightstand, nor any guns at all and neither do most people in my neighborhood.


----------



## selectortone (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I don't know who is lecturing you on guns, and I don't have any handgun in the nightstand, nor any guns at all and neither do most people in my neighborhood.


Good for you. I must have imagined it then.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> With no demonizing of heroin, and clean product available, people wanting to stop if they feel its out of hand would have more places to convalesce.



I have no personal knowledge of heroin, but I've met a few people who do. They seem to wish they'd never known of it. I think if it was out in the open, they'd just do more. I don't gather that it's similar to weed, etc. They way they talk of it, it's a permanent change once exposed to it and the idea that the strong urge to get some won't be present forever isn't realistic.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> Like heroin? Wow. Totally naive.



Portugal sorted that Probkem within 5 years. It’s not about heroine, but education of dopamine regulation and self control.
ALL crave for dopamine, and easiest way is to take a drug - alcohol, nicotine, opioids, scunk cannabis, amphetamine, or do anything spiking dopamine - SOCIAL MEDIA, TV, SUGAR ABUSE, or any other thing you can use as abuse of neurological system in the brain….

ALL CAN BE USED TO MANIPULATE IF YOU OUT OF KNOWLEDGE


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> I love it when Americans lecture us on guns.
> 
> We have managed to keep the genie in the bottle over here pretty much, and the vast majority of us support legislation that keeps it in the bottle.
> 
> I have been to the USA several times and I have some good friends over there. It is entirely different there, and I understand the need for a handgun in the nightstand. I hope it's never necessary here.


*Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal*
*Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 in 2019. Sadly this is year on year higher so the genie has left the bottle! It not something normal people rejoice in these dreadful figures but it's best facing reality and thankfully brighter minds have armed our police thus police can defend themselves and the citizens they protect! *


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Desperate people use desperate means in desperate situations, as they don’t know anything else to do.



Louie10 said:


> *Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal*
> *Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 in 2019. Sadly this is year on year higher so the genie has left the bottle! It not something normal people rejoice in these dreadful figures but it's best facing reality and thankfully brighter minds have armed our police thus police can defend themselves and the citizens they protect! *


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> Good for you. I must have imagined it then.



So, they're either 0 percent or 100 percent? It's not like they don't exist, but the number in a nightstand is a small minority and the vast majority of us without them feel no need. You can live in a terrible neighborhood here, but a safe one is usually only minutes away and a reasonable cost to live in.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> Portugal sorted that Probkem within 5 years. It’s not about heroine, but education of dopamine regulation and self control.
> ALL crave for dopamine, and easiest way is to take a drug - alcohol, nicotine, opioids, scunk cannabis, amphetamine, or do anything spiking dopamine - SOCIAL MEDIA, TV, SUGAR ABUSE, or any other thing you can use as abuse of neurological system in the brain….
> 
> ALL CAN BE USED TO MANIPULATE IF YOU OUT OF KNOWLEDGE



I'd be curious to hear if anyone on here has had a serious heroin addiction and just gotten off of it.


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> Bad guy don't usually value tough gun laws!



if guns aren’t readily available, bad guys don’t have them.

you can’t buy them on gumtree you know


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I'd be curious to hear if anyone on here has had a serious heroin addiction and just gotten off of it.



you might be surprised…


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> So, they're either 0 percent or 100 percent? It's not like they don't exist, but the number in a nightstand is a small minority and the vast majority of us without them feel no need. You can live in a terrible neighborhood here, but a safe one is usually only minutes away and a reasonable cost to live in.



I'm after guns for highly screened, responsible adults. That is very difficult to find in todays society.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> you might be surprised…



I suppose it's not something people will say in public. I know a person who got started on Vicodin through dental surgery and became an addict and went to heroin. He said he still thinks about heroin all the time even though he hasn't done it for years and he takes some kind of expensive blocking drug that he's not sure he could survive without.


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> *Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal*
> *Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 in 2019. Sadly this is year on year higher so the genie has left the bottle! It not something normal people rejoice in these dreadful figures but it's best facing reality and thankfully brighter minds have armed our police thus police can defend themselves and the citizens they protect! *



an increase of 22 incidents is not “the genie leaving the bottle”


of Those 288 firearm incidents, how many happened where a policeman was attending the scene at the time?

If they were incidents involving the public only then having every police officer armed would’ve made zero difference.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> Good for you. I must have imagined it then.



This is a long thread, btw, I don't remember the early parts if that's what you're referring to.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> an increase of 22 incidents is not “the genie leaving the bottle”
> 
> 
> of Those 288 firearm incidents, how many happened where a policeman was attending the scene at the time?
> ...



How many of the 10400 assaults resulting in police injury wouldn't have occurred?


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I suppose it's not something people will say in public. I know a person who got started on Vicodin through dental surgery and became an addict and went to heroin. He said he still thinks about heroin all the time even though he hasn't done it for years and he takes some kind of expensive blocking drug that he's not sure he could survive without.



to understand how drugs work, and why addiction, everyone have to have basic understanding how it is even possible


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

Sideways said:


> The more guns in the hands of serving police officers - most I suspect who would rather not be carrying them and would not be practicing hundreds of rounds a week - the more mistakes are guaranteed to happen. And they don't have someone standing at their shoulder to pull them up



I believe police officers aren’t that keen to join the firearm squad.

if an officer fires a live round in an incident my understanding is an investigation has to be done. If there is an injury I think the officer gets suspended.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

I have a form of low dopamine, and unfortunately know what it's like to have a brain screaming for it. Though it's more true that I chase unhealthy food and lots of coffee, and I guess wasting time on the internet....and will never take an opioid after meeting people who were professionals and who went from prescription to addiction.


----------



## selectortone (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> *Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal*
> *Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 in 2019. Sadly this is year on year higher so the genie has left the bottle! It not something normal people rejoice in these dreadful figures but it's best facing reality and thankfully brighter minds have armed our police thus police can defend themselves and the citizens they protect! *


I love it when Americans come back with shouty bold text.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of the 10400 assaults resulting in police injury wouldn't have occurred?



if Police is underfunded, undertrained, without correct amount of Police acting on demand,

how many guns will be taken from dead Police? That would not be injured Police, it would be killed Police who are not trained to act, and start shooting everything due lack of training??


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> if guns aren’t readily available, bad guys don’t have them.
> 
> you can’t buy them on gumtree you know


Illegal firearms, the clue is in there! Illegal, these guns won't be found on gumtree but according to Police statistics they are very real. They cause the death of many innocent people caught up in shootings. Thankfully brighter minds have armed the Police to protect us.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I have a form of low dopamine, and unfortunately know what it's like to have a brain screaming for it. Though it's more true that I chase unhealthy food and lots of coffee, and I guess wasting time on the internet....and will never take an opioid after meeting people who were professionals and who went from prescription to addiction.


Blessed those who understand they conquer own craving, suppressing it with their own will power, which would kill most of other people.

with great power comes great responsibility


----------



## Droogs (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> if guns aren’t readily available, bad guys don’t have them.
> 
> you can’t buy them on gumtree you know



No you can't but there are many other avenues where you can get a Czech CZ75 for £200 or a battered but working Chinese or Czech AK copy for under £500, routes that are not affected in any way as to operability or availablity by weak or strong gun laws.


----------



## selectortone (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> *...so the genie has left the bottle! *


No it hasn't.

When the entire population is armed and ready to start blazing away at each other at every opportunity is when the genie has left the bottle.


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> an increase of 22 incidents is not “the genie leaving the bottle”
> 
> 
> of Those 288 firearm incidents, how many happened where a policeman was attending the scene at the time?
> ...


I don't believe most of us wish to have every officer armed! Stay on point my friend, but many of us value our Police and the very dangerous job they do each day and as gun crime in increasing its a necessary step for our officers to protect and be protected.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> Illegal firearms, the clue is in there! Illegal, these guns won't be found on gumtree but according to Police statistics they are very real. They cause the death of many innocent people caught up in shootings. Thankfully brighter minds have armed the Police to protect us.



I’m gladly give all Police guns, ONLY if they are trained so I can’t disarm everyone of them, after several years of KravMaga, Kilah, Haganah….. etc.

Untrained Police will not have advantage with guns, they will have death sentence hanging over them when have deadly power with them.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> I don't believe most of us wish to have every officer armed! Stay on point my friend, but many of us value our Police and the very dangerous job they do each day and as gun crime in increasing its a necessary step for our officers to protect and be protected.



bringing level of threat to deadly from police will not help them, when they can’t disarm teen with a screwdriver…..


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> bringing level of threat to deadly from police will not help them, when they can’t disarm teen with a screwdriver…..


Officers that carry firearms are highly trained and if a teenager has a screwdriver then a police officer can easily use his taser! Non deadly force is available also. But when an officer comes under fire then a highly trained officer has the protection of defending himself and others with his firearm. I am for the defence of Police officers and defending them.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> Officers that carry firearms are highly trained and if a teenager has a screwdriver then a police officer can easily use his taser! Non deadly force is available also. But when an officer comes under fire then a highly trained officer has the protection of defending himself and others with his firearm. I am for the defence of Police officers and defending them.


This is not working, as most UK criminals work with UK police, or getting shot by highly trained Police with big guns.


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> When the entire population is armed and ready to start blazing away at each other at every opportunity is when the genie has left the bottle.


Would you be so kind as to give us an example of such a place?


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> This is not working, as most UK criminals work with UK police, or getting shot by highly trained Police with big guns.


I think this is the most incredible and shocking response I have ever seen I think I will wish you well pal. Be safe.


----------



## shed9 (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I believe police officers aren’t that keen to join the firearm squad.
> 
> if an officer fires a live round in an incident my understanding is an investigation has to be done. If there is an injury I think the officer gets suspended.


They often resign in signifiant numbers from fire arm / SO duty when investigations are under way and especially when charges are brought against another officer. Can't say I blame them, a lot of responsibility is placed in these officers in those situations.


----------



## Spectric (28 Dec 2021)

Until the punishment outweighs the gains then there will be gangs and criminals, they will use force to protect their criminal assets and innocent people will get caught up in the war. Everyone involved in this conflict probably started at the same point, some just could not cope with life and turned to drugs as a get out, others saw no future and became suppliers to earn easy cash whilst some kept right out of the way and run things from a far and have become mega rich. It is a problem that could be solved much easier than global warming but whatever method is used will not be popular by all. Will arming all police solve anything, not really because all you need is heavily armed hit squads that target these criminals when the need arises and not for general policing.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> I think this is the most incredible and shocking response I have ever seen I think I will wish you well pal. Be safe.



Prove me wrong 

1. All small dealers have to cooperate with police, or there are targeted by police, so they have no “customers”.
2. All big drug traffickers work for MI offices, as from 90’, because “better criminal with us, than new criminal agains us”. Plus, drugs are less deadly, and when supplied by shadow gov org actually cuts profits of organised crime.
3. guns are not a problem, AMMO IS A PROBLEM, and that market is 100% strictly controlled by gov…


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> Until the punishment outweighs the gains then there will be gangs and criminals, they will use force to protect their criminal assets and innocent people will get caught up in the war. Everyone involved in this conflict probably started at the same point, some just could not cope with life and turned to drugs as a get out, others saw no future and became suppliers to earn easy cash whilst some kept right out of the way and run things from a far and have become mega rich. It is a problem that could be solved much easier than global warming but whatever method is used will not be popular by all. Will arming all police solve anything, not really because all you need is heavily armed hit squads that target these criminals when the need arises and not for general policing.



solution to all, is a education, empathy, self discipline, opportunities greater than criminal root.

Why criminals become criminals? Is starts from early years education. Instead boring calculus they fighting with weight of life. Do you think a pro-thief getting 15k for 1 month of alcohol and electronics thieving will got work for minimum wage…? And I Ben if he will be forced to SETTLE DOWN, how he replace dopamine drive from adrenaline??


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> No I said junkies but in a polite way, the sort who would beat up an old granny just to get some cash for their next dose and really they are already administering a poison so it would just really be an additive.



Ah yes. That makes perfect sense now. Presumably we’d label it so vulnerable addicts don’t mistakenly take it …


----------



## shed9 (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> *Shootings in London on the rise despite lockdown, police reveal*
> *Scotland Yard figures reveal 288 incidents in 2020 where a lethal firearm was discharged, compared with 266 in 2019. Sadly this is year on year higher so the genie has left the bottle! It not something normal people rejoice in these dreadful figures but it's best facing reality and thankfully brighter minds have armed our police thus police can defend themselves and the citizens they protect! *


That's a headline from Sky from over 11 months ago of which you conveniently ignore the entire context of homicides dropping by 16% and violent crime by 26% within that same period. I also find it strange that the Met doesn't distinguish between air-powered firearms and the traditional definition of firearm, at least not in their published stats like the ONS. On average it's a 50/50 split on firearms being actually fired or simply used as a threat. It is also important to understand that a gun discharge is a subset of gun crime in which the discharge is merely the crime in itself and doesn't necessarily involve threat, just stupidity.

In reality there is far greater threat from sharp instruments and objects than firearms from a crime statistic point of view, should we be arming police with Kitchen Devils instead?


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

100% 



shed9 said:


> That's a headline from Sky from over 11 months ago of which you conveniently ignore the entire context of homicides dropping by 16% and violent crime by 26% within that same period. I also find it strange that the Met doesn't distinguish between air-powered firearms and the traditional definition of firearm, at least not in their published stats like the ONS. On average it's a 50/50 split on firearms being actually fired or simply used as a threat. It is also important to understand that a gun discharge is a subset of gun crime.
> 
> In reality there is far greater threat from sharp instruments and objects than firearms from a crime statistic point of view, should we be arming police with Kitchen Devils instead?


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

Louie10 said:


> I don't believe most of us wish to have every officer armed! Stay on point my friend, but many of us value our Police and the very dangerous job they do each day and as gun crime in increasing its a necessary step for our officers to protect and be protected.


I am on point

The increase has been 22 incidents in a year - which is bigger all.

So if you think officers should be protected, I presume that means all officers should carry guns, is that not what you mean?


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

Droogs said:


> No you can't but there are many other avenues where you can get a Czech CZ75 for £200 or a battered but working Chinese or Czech AK copy for under £500, routes that are not affected in any way as to operability or availablity by weak or strong gun laws.



and the ammunition?

given the incredibly low level of gun violence I find it hard to see criminals are getting hold of guns


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Would you be so kind as to give us an example of such a place?


America


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> How many of the 10400 assaults resulting in police injury wouldn't have occurred?


most assaults are drunk youths in city centres.
domestics
etc

I don’t see armed police being awfully helpful in a pub fight.


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> most assaults are drunk youths in city centres.
> domestics
> etc
> 
> I don’t see armed police being awfully helpful in a pub fight.



it is certainly the case of me being in the states, too - I don't know what goes on in England, so if I'm thinking about police in inner cities here, or near border areas where they're literally being shot at by cartels, it's just a totally different context.

In my suburb, the police carry guns - they do everywhere. There has actually been one police shooting here in the 16 years I've lived here - but it was a state drug agent chasing a large illegal drug distributor into a retail parking lot and getting into a shootout. The reaction wasn't "good job" (the DEA agent won the shootout, the dealer who started it assumed ambient temperature), the reaction was outrage that the officer put others at risk.

Aggressive police behavior isn't tolerated here, but when I travel out of my own area, I'm wary enough to know that it's generally better to avoid the police unless you have a need for them at the time. I expect (in the united states), most of them to be armed to protect themselves. Not in wild west style shootouts, but against people who are high or something and trying to stab them or run over them.


----------



## Louie10 (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> Prove me wrong
> 
> 1. All small dealers have to cooperate with police, or there are targeted by police, so they have no “customers”.
> 2. All big drug traffickers work for MI offices, as from 90’, because “better criminal with us, than new criminal agains us”. Plus, drugs are less deadly, and when supplied by shadow gov org actually cuts profits of organised crime.
> 3. guns are not a problem, AMMO IS A PROBLEM, and that market is 100% strictly controlled by gov…


To smear the Police in this fashion is a fowl and disrespectful horrible thing to say, I did feel uncomfortable talking with you and this is as clear an indication to bring this to an end, show respect to our force and honor yourself by doing so, I wish you well.


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> Prove me wrong


This is a complex subject and I usually get in trouble for my views but I would like to politely point out that generally the burden of proof falls on the claimant.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> it is certainly the case of me being in the states, too - I don't know what goes on in England, so if I'm thinking about police in inner cities here, or near border areas where they're literally being shot at by cartels, it's just a totally different context.
> 
> In my suburb, the police carry guns - they do everywhere. There has actually been one police shooting here in the 16 years I've lived here - but it was a state drug agent chasing a large illegal drug distributor into a retail parking lot and getting into a shootout. The reaction wasn't "good job" (the DEA agent won the shootout, the dealer who started it assumed ambient temperature), the reaction was outrage that the officer put others at risk.
> 
> Aggressive police behavior isn't tolerated here, but when I travel out of my own area, I'm wary enough to know that it's generally better to avoid the police unless you have a need for them at the time. I expect (in the united states), most of them to be armed to protect themselves. Not in wild west style shootouts, but against people who are high or something and trying to stab them or run over them.



stop CIA selling ammo all over the place.
Do you know what would make guns saver?
User id on a trigger


----------



## D_W (28 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> stop CIA selling ammo all over the place.
> Do you know what would make guns saver?
> User id on a trigger



We have a constitutional issue with brash changes on firearms in the US - they have to go through the courts. 

But the issue is above my pay grade. I used to be an avid hunter and target shooter, but living in the burbs, the opportunity is nil without spending a lot of money and I also have small kids, so I sold all of my "hardware" a while ago. I don't have any real hard thoughts on all of it - like I said, in a longer context, I can see the value of firearms in limiting government encroachment from a period of centuries or more where people were subjects, but going forwards, it's too complex of a discussion for me to do anything other than stay out of. 

I live in the supposed wild west US, but did not feel safer with guns in the house than I do now without. Before covid, I would walk freely in the city and catch the bus across from a seedy stop and still the idea that I wasn't safe never crossed my mind, so I vaguely recall the discussion here earlier on about how hard it was to be safe in the US. It just doesn't match reality for _most_ people.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> We have a constitutional issue with brash changes on firearms in the US - they have to go through the courts.
> 
> But the issue is above my pay grade. I used to be an avid hunter and target shooter, but living in the burbs, the opportunity is nil without spending a lot of money and I also have small kids, so I sold all of my "hardware" a while ago. I don't have any real hard thoughts on all of it - like I said, in a longer context, I can see the value of firearms in limiting government encroachment from a period of centuries or more where people were subjects, but going forwards, it's too complex of a discussion for me to do anything other than stay out of.
> 
> I live in the supposed wild west US, but did not feel safer with guns in the house than I do now without. Before covid, I would walk freely in the city and catch the bus across from a seedy stop and still the idea that I wasn't safe never crossed my mind, so I vaguely recall the discussion here earlier on about how hard it was to be safe in the US. It just doesn't match reality for _most_ people.


Just imagine a place that, when you fall below there is plenty of help, instead take drastic measures not to die.

PS. Cartels are easy to kill off, but it is nore profitable to keep them shooting bullets without training all over, and not knowing how to care for a firearm sell them a new soon. Sound like good business.


----------



## bansobaby (28 Dec 2021)

I would like to introduce the statistics from a country yet to be mentioned (as far as I am aware).
It has only *one *official firearms dealership…..(the US has 67,000)……
The rules for citizens to legally hold a firearm are arguably as tough or tougher than the UK…..
Murder by firearm accounts for over half of all murders, up from around a quarter 25 years ago…..
I am currently in said country and even though I shoot fairly regularly in the UK I have seen more guns here in the last few weeks than I would see in a year in the UK……all carried by the police or military.
The country is Mexico and has well over 35,000 murders a year…
Official figures suggest that around 70% of guns seized by Mexican law enforcement originated in one of those 67,000 gun shops in the US…….
I know this goes far beyond gun control and is very much tied to drugs but it seems to me that the US is almost allowing the export of its guns in the same way as the cartels are exporting their products back into the US.
How much of this is accepted or possibly even condoned????


----------



## Sideways (28 Dec 2021)

Several years ago, I recall reading what I believe to be credible figures that said following the UK ban on handgun ownership and confiscation of all such registered sporting arms, the number of guns in (predominantly) illegal owner ship was now three times greater than before the registered guns were removed.
Gun control in the UK has a history of politicians acting so that they can be seen to be doing something. It doesn't solve anything. It's purely gesture politics.


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

In this small jurisdiction there were until recently approaching 10,000 licenced Taxis.
In order for a car to be licenced as a Taxi, it must be fitted with a fire extinguisher of a certain specification.

I cannot remember a Taxi fire but I can recall a number of drivers being shot dead, stabbed or beaten badly.

Perhaps some kind of defence mechanism should be added to licencing requirements.


----------



## bansobaby (28 Dec 2021)

Sideways said:


> Several years ago, I recall reading what I believe to be credible figures that said following the UK ban on handgun ownership and confiscation of all such registered sporting arms, the number of guns in (predominantly) illegal owner ship was now three times greater than before the registered guns were removed.
> Gun control in the UK has a history of politicians acting so that they can be seen to be doing something. It doesn't solve anything. It's purely gesture politics.



I believe that is true, although the rise in illegal gun possession would probably have occurred anyway, although of course there is no way to prove this.
What I find interesting is that you can have countries with high legal gun ownership/possession (i.e Switzerland, although perhaps not the best example as it’s mandated possession) but very low gun crime and on the other hand, Mexico, which believe it or not has very low legal gun possession but a snotgobblingly high number of gun crimes, (admittedly they just used machetes in the past but have upped the use of guns because they don’t get quite so messy).
Gun laws and gun crimes are not necessarily correlated….


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Official figures suggest that around 70% of guns seized by Mexican law enforcement originated in one of those 67,000 gun shops in the US…….


I think that fun fact requires further investigation.
Since it's now illegal for a FFl to export even inert lead projectiles without an end user certificate.

But if you are suggesting that the FFLs sold the guns legally and the purchaser took them to Mexico illegally, that's a whole different ballgame.

Bit like blaming the sports shop if someone got beat over the head with a cricket bat.


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I live in the supposed wild west US,


I was a Canadian resident many moons ago and visited the US a number of times over the years.

First thing is you can't generalise about the USA, it's 50 different countries under one umbrella and each one of those states has various differences within it.

I know things have changed now, but when I rocked up to US Customs the guy said "Are you a Canadian resident?" and when I replied yes he waved me through, no more questions no papers check.

Last time I visited about 20 yrs ago I flew in from Ireland. Cleared customs before even boarding the plane, walked off in Boston no further questions.

I did a tour of the New England States and since I was, at that time, a competitive shooter I visited a number of gun stores. 

For some one raised here it was mind boggling, At closing time the guy walked out with me and locked up, the entire shop full of all kinds of guns had less security than the local Mace. (7-11 for transatlantic readers)


----------



## Spectric (28 Dec 2021)

This issue of crime can only get worse, when you think that discipline has been removed from education and the kids know it then to them anything goes and so given the state of modern society and what can only be described as a hard bleak future where you will be expected to work, often in low paid jobs until you drop because the government cannot afford pensions then you can see why some get so desperate and look at alternative ways of making money faster. My advice to youngsters has always been to get out of this sinking ship because it is only going one way and opportunities can still be found elsewhere. America has a gun culture because unlike the UK which has always been occupied by a mix of English and others they had to steal it from the Indians and fight for every inch they wanted and so the gun just became part of them, now I doubt they could live without them but in the UK it is a very different culture, but this could change as we bring in more migrants from war torn countries because they have this gun culture from years of conflict.


----------



## artie (28 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Gun laws and gun crimes are not necessarily correlated….


It's been reported that US states with the least gun controls have the least crime.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (28 Dec 2021)

There are a few, what I would regard as, "intuitive truths" for the UK: 

the more guns, the more likely they will be used in self defence or the execution of crime.
more guns may reduce the incidence of other violence - eg: knife crime.
the police should have access to firearms to be deployed where required.
general police firearms issue risks greater mis-use vs those intensively trained. 
whatever the laws, some will ignore them, mostly in support of criminal intent.
relaxing gun laws risks a police vs criminal "arms race".
guns and ammunition can be smuggled - it would be naïve to think otherwise.
they will be sold illegally to those who want them
maximising penalties for firearms offences deters, but does not eliminate, gun crime
Comparing countries (UK, US, Mexico, Switzerland, etc) to understand which model of gun control is best or worst is pointless - it is a product of history, culture, legal systems, economic stresses etc. 

Question: do the rules we have work for the UK? IMHO mostly. There are no major changes that would materially improve the situation, and many that would probably make it materially worse.


----------



## John Brown (28 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> It's been reported that US states with the least gun controls have the least crime.


That may well be true. However, according to my brief Google, they have the highest gun death rate.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. Maybe petty crimes against property are lower because the perps are scared of being shot?


----------



## TRITON (28 Dec 2021)

danst96 said:


> That's never going happen or work.It's not comparable to tobacco, alcohol or marijuana in it's effects and damage to humans or it's addictiveness . Not only that but by dedemonizing it as you suggest would likely open it to more users which only goes one way in terms of the impact on general society, down down down. Extremely naive observation.





> It's not comparable to tobacco, alcohol or marijuana in it's effects and damage to humans or it's addictiveness


My my, who's being naive now. Alcohol is very damaging to society, and marajuana has an addictive quality about it, and as for tobacco ?, tobacco is both addictive and damaging to the body..


----------



## shed9 (28 Dec 2021)

This clearly isn't just about laws and the number of guns, either legally registered or otherwise. This is also a culture and mindset thing as much as anything.

The US has an average of 1.2 guns per person with the next in line (from a global perspective) being the Falkland Islands at an average of 0.62 guns per person. Deaths per 100,000 in the US equates to 4.4 whereas for the Falkland Islands its 0. 

I would add that when Australia enforced their National Firearms Agreement in 1996 which banned several classes of firearms and brought in stricter control, gun deaths went down dramatically across the country, ergo some countries with gun crime that apply restrictions retroactively and for future implementation see the benefits of that in society. That will only work in some countries though. The US is never going to give them up, that second amendment bumpf about organising militia to call government to account will always be used as some sort of God given right. Kind of ironic really as in the actual scenario of civilians rising up against government in the US will essentially consist of hill billies with AR15's being attacked by Black Hawk's and F-117 Stealth attack fighters.


----------



## Yorkieguy (28 Dec 2021)

I'm probably making a big mistake in entering this arena because rational, reasoned, debate on this topic is next to impossible. What I find surreal is that America has the highest level of 'religiosity' of any developed nation, (love thy neighbour, do as you would be done by, etc), yet per capita it has the highest level of violent crime including homicides.

Guns and the culture that underpins them can't be ignored, but other countries which have high levels of gun ownership such as Canada and Finland - where civilian gun ownership is the highest of any European Country, at 32 per 100 people, yet per capita have far lower levels of violent crime, and far fewer homicides or of police officers shooting civilians.

It's an enigma to me who so many Americans seemingly hate each other so much? Canadians just over the border seem to rub along well enough together with violent crime and homicides at a level on a par with Britain and Oz. (Why so many multiple homicides too - often in schools in the US. What's that all about?). The total number of homicides in the US reported in 2020 was 21,570, which was almost 5,000 more than the previous year. That death toll equates to seven 9/11s in just one year.

As to US Police Officers who die in service, there's a website entitled 'Officer Down Memorial Page', which gives the cause of death. In all, 479 officers are listed on the Memorial page who sadly died in service in 2021. Most officers weren't killed - they died. (Two thirds died from Covid19, 18 from heart attacks). 59 died from gunfire.

I wouldn't wish to disrespect, dishonour or devalue a single one of those, but to put things into perspective, in 2019 there were 906,037 full-time law enforcement employees and 94,275 part-time employees. State and local police employment, a total of 1,000,312 officers.

So 479 fatalities = 0.048% of Officers who died in service. Covid19 and heart attacks accounted for seven in ten of all deaths in service. Here's the Roll of Honour:

*Total Line of Duty Deaths 2021: 479*

*9/11 related illness *3
*Assault *5
*Automobile crash *22
*COVID19 *322
*Drowned *3
*Duty related illness *2
*Gunfire *59
*Gunfire (Inadvertent) *2
*Heart attack *18
*Motorcycle crash *3
*Stabbed *3
*Struck by vehicle *14
*Training accident *1
*Vehicle pursuit *3
*Vehicular assault *17
*Weather/Natural disaster *2
Source: Law Enforcement Line of Duty Deaths in 2021 (odmp.org)

Sadly, the trend of fatal shootings BY Police Officers in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 830 civilians having been shot, 241 of whom were Black, as of November 2021. In 2020, there were 1,021 fatal police shootings, and in 2019 there were 999 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 37 fatal shootings per million of the population as of November 2021.

Source: People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista

About 1,000 people a year are killed by police officers in the US, *according to an independent project that tracks police violence*. Most are shot dead. The majority of the world's police forces carry firearms, but no developed nation uses them against their citizens as often as officers in the US - *and disproportionately against African-Americans*, compared with the percentage of the population they represent.

Part of this is to do with gun culture - the US is home to *around half of the world's civilian-held firearms*. In 2020, fewer than 10% of people killed by police were *recorded as unarmed*.

Rashawn Ray, professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, says: "In most states people can carry guns either on their body or in their vehicles, so that escalates things for police - they instantly perceive that anyone can be a threat." (Why would they not do?).

So it's rather more complicated than to simplistically claim that the police are 'trigger-happy'.

There are around 18,000 police agencies in the US, but with no national standards on training, procedures and timescales vary across the country. On average, US officers spend *around 21 weeks training* before they are qualified to go on patrol. That is far less than in most other developed countries, according to *a report by the Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform (ICJTR)*.

The report looked at police training requirements in more than 100 countries and found that the US had among the lowest, in terms of average hours required. Also, many other countries require officers to have a university degree - or equivalent - before joining the police, but in the US most forces just require the equivalent of a high-school diploma.

In England and Wales, it has recently become *mandatory for officers to have a University degree*.

US police academies spend far more time on firearms training than on de-escalating a situation - 71 hours against 21, on average. Yes, just three working days of tuition on de-escalation - less than a third of the time spent in firearms training, then off out on patrol with a car, a badge and a gun, to put their own lives and everyone else's on the line. Heck, guys who mend washing machines get more training than that.

Maria Haberfeld, professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says: "Some police forces in Europe have police university, where training lasts for three years - for me the standouts are Norway and Finland." Finland has one the highest gun-ownership rates in Europe, *with around 32 civilian firearms per 100 people* - but incidents of police shooting civilians are extremely rare.

I'm not taking sides, not denigrating the US, which I've only visited as a tourist for two weeks 28 years ago, and I'm not proffering solutions - just making observations. I don't think anything will change any time soon.

David.


----------



## TRITON (28 Dec 2021)

shed9 said:


> the actual scenario of civilians rising up against government in the US will essentially consist of hill billies with AR15's being attacked by Black Hawk's and F-117 Stealth attack fighters.


Hillbillies holed up in the old homestead,barricaded in and firing from the windows, isn't really going to be much of a match against a battletank.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (28 Dec 2021)

Government rising up against government is the problem - not hillbillies defending the homestead. 

Had Trump allegedly encouraged a few thousand hillbillies equipped with AR15s or similar (rather than slogans and unkempt hair), the Capitol may have fallen. Democrat politicians killed etc. 

Target cruise missiles on the Capitol - probably not. And what side would the military have taken - Trump or Biden?

Trump would of course deny he had any role in a sincere display of public anger at a corrupt election (his views not mine).


----------



## bansobaby (28 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I think that fun fact requires further investigation.
> Since it's now illegal for a FFl to export even inert lead projectiles without an end user certificate.
> 
> But if you are suggesting that the FFLs sold the guns legally and the purchaser took them to Mexico illegally, that's a whole different ballgame.
> ...



The figure came from an article in the LA Times, I’m not aware of how rigorous their editorial scrutiny is, hence the use of “*suggest*”…

Of course I wasn’t suggesting that gun dealers are *directly *supplying Mexico en masse, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that one or two people might be taking advantage of the fact that you can buy a gun in the US more easily than you can buy a car numberplate in the UK.….or a f******** lollipop for that matter, and then shipping them in to Mexico….

The irony may be lost on some people.


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

John Brown said:


> That may well be true. However, according to my brief Google, they have the highest gun death rate.
> I'm not entirely sure what this means. Maybe petty crimes against property are lower because the perps are scared of being shot?



it makes petty criminals move their tent to states, where it is not legal to kill for taking tv.


----------



## bansobaby (28 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> It's been reported that US states with the least gun controls have the least crime.



I would like to see some evidence of that…..
It’s also a well known *fact *that Mexico has very stringent gun control in terms of legally held weapons.
I would also be interested in the figures for the US regarding crimes involving weapons which are legally registered, regardless of whether they were stolen before being used for the crime.
I believe, but do not have evidence to hand to prove it, that very few legally held guns are used criminally in the UK, mainly because of the strict security that comes with FAC entitlements


----------



## GregW (28 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> The figure came from an article in the LA Times, I’m not aware of how rigorous their editorial scrutiny is, hence the use of “*suggest*”…
> 
> Of course I wasn’t suggesting that gun dealers are *directly *supplying Mexico en masse, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that one or two people might be taking advantage of the fact that you can buy a gun in the US more easily than you can buy a car numberplate in the UK.….or a f******** lollipop for that matter, and then shipping them in to Mexico….
> 
> The irony may be lost on some people.


Well, it’s a common knowledge to some, that selling arms to Mexican cartel it’s a common practise by Democrats officials, for steady supply of heroine transported to Mexico from Afghanistan. All made under diplomatic cover.

these shouted loudest not to build wall to stop uncontrollable smuggling operations, including human trafficking and ammo. There are a common ways to undermine criminal organisations - it’s called profitability of enterprise.


----------



## bansobaby (28 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are a few, what I would regard as, "intuitive truths" for the UK:
> 
> the more guns, the more likely they will be used in self defence or the execution of crime.
> more guns may reduce the incidence of other violence - eg: knife crime.
> ...



I agree, as far as the UK goes, I think we have the balance about right.

As for comparing countries, I brought that up precisely to make the point that each one is different, but I maintain that the situation in the US has a direct impact on that in Mexico, something that I believe is sanctioned at a fairly high level….


----------



## danst96 (28 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> My my, who's being naive now. Alcohol is very damaging to society, and marajuana has an addictive quality about it, and as for tobacco ?, tobacco is both addictive and damaging to the body..



It's clear you dont understand it. Of course alcohol and marijuana are both addictive and harmful for society however, in the case with both by and large people can control their intake and majority never become addicted. For hard drugs like heroine it's a different scenario.

I agree tobacco is both harmful and addictive but you can't put it in the same conversation as heroin, that's naive


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> It's been reported that US states with the least gun controls have the least crime.



says a National Rifle Association report 

meanwhile

*“But about 30 careful studies* show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help”









More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows


More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?




www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## GweithdyDU (29 Dec 2021)

"They knew their beat and the people, they would be in a position to curb criminal activity before it got big time" 
The Krays et-al? It didn't seem to work for them. Awful people have been around for ever, be they gangland criminals, child-abusers, (now more openly discussed thankfully), burglars, etc. etc.


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Dec 2021)

Sideways said:


> Several years ago, I recall reading what I believe to be credible figures that said following the UK ban on handgun ownership and confiscation of all such registered sporting arms, the number of guns in (predominantly) illegal owner ship was now three times greater than before the registered guns were removed.
> Gun control in the UK has a history of politicians acting so that they can be seen to be doing something. It doesn't solve anything. It's purely gesture politics.



Is it gesture politics?

every country with strict gun controls has low gun violence.


----------



## TRITON (29 Dec 2021)

danst96 said:


> It's clear you dont understand it. Of course alcohol and marijuana are both addictive and harmful for society however, in the case with both by and large people can control their intake and majority never become addicted. For hard drugs like heroin it's a different scenario.
> 
> I agree tobacco is both harmful and addictive but you can't put it in the same conversation as heroin, that's naive


Clearly I dont understand it and only you in the whole wide world can 
Have you personal experience of taking (smoking/injecting) heroin ? or is your experience just 'natural'

Tobacco is addictive, so people arent really controlling their intake, its controlling them.
Alcohol is addictive and highly disorientating. People in a state of drunkenness arent in control, in fact they've lost control.
Marijuana is habit forming and most smoking it will continue to smoke it come hell or high water. While the addictiveness of it isnt as strong as tobacco or other drugs, it does clearly have an addictive nature, to which there are withdrawal symptoms. So again its not a case of people controlling it,but of it controlling them.
Heroin is addictive, and has strong withdrawal effects. But like all three above its not instantly addictive, and to become problematic you need to keep taking it, much like with tobacco or alcohol or even marijuana.

So on to danger. Smoking kills 78,000, alcohol kills 9000, heroin kills 2000
Most dangerous drug isnt heroin mate.


----------



## bansobaby (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Is it gesture politics?
> 
> every country with strict gun controls has low gun violence.


Wrong. Mexico has strict gun controls.


----------



## Blackswanwood (29 Dec 2021)

The point on gun controls is whether they are effective or not. Clearly in Mexico they are not as the border with the US is porous.









News from California, the nation and world - Los Angeles Times


The L.A. Times is a leading source of breaking news, entertainment, sports, politics, and more for Southern California and the world.




www.latimes.com





I think the U.K. has broadly got it right for our circumstances. Police who carry firearms are highly trained and don’t swagger around like Robocop. Gun crime is thankfully relatively low and the response when it does happen is robust. Arguably knife crime is more of an issue.

I also agree with a point made earlier that trying to draw conclusions based on what happens in the US is flawed as the circumstances (history, geography, attitudes, legal system etc) are so different. However the bodycam footage on the news yesterday of the LA Police Officers dealing with a report of an assault in a shop was quite sobering. While we may not have the full story I’d rather have our approach to gun ownership and policing.


----------



## clogs (29 Dec 2021)

Nobody has mentioned S. Africa yet.....
I've lived and worked in both the US and S.A......
America being far safer.......
I was heavily armed in Africa as it was comp nec...oftenworking in the bush.....
my idea was if I'm gonna get taken out I'll take as many intruders with me as poss....
g-day


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Wrong. Mexico has strict gun controls.


Shall we address the Mexico example?

Mexico has had strict gun laws since the 70s 

until around the mid 2000s gun crime was low

and then guns started being smuggled in from America, feeding Mexicans drug war.

70% of gun violence in Mexico is committed with American guns


So effectively Mexico has weak gun laws



Do you think it’s easy to smuggle in guns to the UK?


----------



## sploo (29 Dec 2021)

clogs said:


> my idea was if I'm gonna get taken out I'll take as many intruders with me as poss....
> g-day


Here's the issue with humans though: I broadly agree with you, but the reality is that you were probably statistically more likely to have shot yourself than ever tackled an intruder.

For the same reasons, people smoke and play the lottery... because I won't get lung cancer, and I'll win big one day; but the numbers clearly say the opposite. We humans ain't great at understanding the odds.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Dec 2021)

> Do you think it’s easy to smuggle in guns to the UK?



Very easy. Felixstowe handles 4m containers (20ft equivalents) each year (~ 48% of UK total). Other freight through the channel ports - Dover alone currently handles about 6000 HGVs per day (4m pa).

That they can all be searched is implausible - detection must rely upon intelligence and/or identification of anomalies. The real question is (a) where are weapons sourced (Eastern Europe, Middle East?), and (b) how they get loaded on to a superficially "normal" shipment. Organised crime has no real difficulty with drugs, counterfeit goods, even people etc - why should a few guns pose a problem.

As an aside, many decades ago I worked for a UK company which provided a middle east outfit with components for assembly, shipped on 40ft containers. Warehouse staff would routinely load a few cases of wine and spirits before filling the rest of the container with said components. Never exposed!


----------



## sploo (29 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Very easy. Felixstowe handles 4m containers (20ft equivalents) each year (~ 48% of UK total). Other freight through the channel ports - Dover alone currently handles about 6000 HGVs per day (4m pa).
> 
> That they can all be searched is implausible - detection must rely upon intelligence and/or identification of anomalies. The real question is (a) where are weapons sourced (Eastern Europe, Middle East?), and (b) how they get loaded on to a superficially "normal" shipment. Organised crime has no real difficulty with drugs, counterfeit goods, even people etc - why should a few guns pose a problem.
> 
> As an aside, many decades ago I worked for a UK company which provided a middle east outfit with components for assembly, shipped on 40ft containers. Warehouse staff would routinely load a few cases of wine and spirits before filling the rest of the container with said components. Never exposed!


I do get the impression that a lot of big drug busts (and presumably also other illegal goods) are more the work of investigations into the people running the operation than random searches of containers (so a few cases of booze would not be of interest).

I recall reading something a while back that Belgium had become a major center for illegal weapons shipping, but I can't remember if that was crime or terror related.

As for the UK, there are certainly guns on our streets but they do seem to be relatively rare. Whether that's down to tough rules/sentencing or good controls on illegal imports I don't know.


----------



## sploo (29 Dec 2021)

Ah yea, here's the article: Paris attacks: Is Belgium Europe's favourite gun shop?

I didn't know that Belgium used to have lax gun laws. Beer and chocolate would have been my guess


----------



## Spectric (29 Dec 2021)

How many guns would be removed from the streets if there was no drug syndicates, is the gun not just a tool of the drug dealers. If you think of drugs as a commodity that can generate huge wealth then you can see why places like mexico have such a high level of gun related deaths, it is just the cartels securing business interest. They also probably have the mexican police on their payroll as well. Maybe in the UK the gangs control their interest by bribery and corruption instead, so even though it is easy to aquire weapons in the UK maybe they are actually trying to avoid that path because the ones at the top are or feel untouchable and have so much money that people can just be paid to take holidays in HM's camps knowing they will still get more cash than they could legally earn working.


----------



## Jacob (29 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> ...... people can just be paid to take holidays in HM's camps knowing they will still get more cash than they could legally earn working.


How do you apply for this? I could do with a break.


----------



## Spectric (29 Dec 2021)

You just need to be in that game and not a nice woodworker !


----------



## bansobaby (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Shall we address the Mexico example?
> 
> Mexico has had strict gun laws since the 70s
> 
> ...



Nice sidestep, are you in politics?


----------



## sploo (29 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Nice sidestep, are you in politics?


I didn't read Robin's post as a sidestep, but it does bring up an important point that a leaky border (and significant corruption) means that strict guns laws become effectively moot.


----------



## GregW (29 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Very easy. Felixstowe handles 4m containers (20ft equivalents) each year (~ 48% of UK total). Other freight through the channel ports - Dover alone currently handles about 6000 HGVs per day (4m pa).
> 
> That they can all be searched is implausible - detection must rely upon intelligence and/or identification of anomalies. The real question is (a) where are weapons sourced (Eastern Europe, Middle East?), and (b) how they get loaded on to a superficially "normal" shipment. Organised crime has no real difficulty with drugs, counterfeit goods, even people etc - why should a few guns pose a problem.
> 
> As an aside, many decades ago I worked for a UK company which provided a middle east outfit with components for assembly, shipped on 40ft containers. Warehouse staff would routinely load a few cases of wine and spirits before filling the rest of the container with said components. Never exposed!



When contraband on international level is being found, unless direct threat, attics going throw, and than suddenly drivers having frequent coincidental stops while driving to local Tesco. Several times a week. Their phone loosing signal, they seen the same people asking them for direction on petrol station carpark.

no one cares for several cases of wine…


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Nice sidestep, are you in politics?


I stand by my claim that countries with tough gun laws have low gun violence, Mexico is an outlier because it has a leaky border with a lax neighbour.


----------



## D_W (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I stand by my claim that countries with tough gun laws have low gun violence, Mexico is an outlier because it has a leaky border with a lax neighbour.



It's a bit errant to assume that the 30% of guns that come from elsewhere to cartels wouldn't just come from eastern europe or china. What didn't really help was an intentional program under the Obama administration to try to sell guns to mexico on purpose just to see where they went. Though, I doubt that was a majority of anything - it was just dippy. 

The reason for problems with mexico go beyond a lax neighbor- they're related to money flow and the inability of the government to topple cartels (and in some cases, the money is probably partially flowing to the government).


----------



## bansobaby (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I stand by my claim that countries with tough gun laws have low gun violence, Mexico is an outlier because it has a leaky border with a lax neighbour.



Perhaps if you read some of the previous posts, you may notice that exactly this point has been made……
You made a statement of fact and then went back on it claiming ‘outlier‘ status on a country with one of the highest gun murder numbers in the world.
If we went a little deeper we might just find that there are more countries with relatively strict gun laws but high gun death numbers based on the shenanigans of their neighbours.
It is not a fact that strict gun laws equals low gun crime, there is more to it…..


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> no one cares for several cases of wine…



Were the wine coming into the UK you would be right. 

But going into a country with strict Islamic laws ..... _alcohol and other intoxicants are forbidden in the Quran, as they are a bad habit that drives people away from the remembrance of God_

Like cocaine arriving in Dover - they do care very much! Turn up at immigration with a bottle of whisky and 90% of the time it would be seized for destruction. Or for sale on the black market to ex-pats!


----------



## artie (29 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> no one cares for several cases of wine…


O I think they do.

But more importantly, if it worked for several cases of wine and spirits it should work for several cases of Tec-9s


----------



## selectortone (29 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> O I think they do.
> 
> But more importantly, if it worked for several cases of wine and spirits it should work for several cases of Tec-9s


I think a bit of baksheesh helps the border authorities in the Middle East look the other way when smuggling alcohol. That's been going on for a loooong time, probably since the Phoenicians. Arms shipments is a whole different ballgame.


----------



## artie (29 Dec 2021)

selectortone said:


> baksheesh .


Everyday's a school day. 

My vocabulary is growing.


----------



## selectortone (29 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Everyday's a school day.
> 
> My vocabulary is growing.


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> It is not a fact that strict gun laws equals low gun crime, there is more to it…


it is a fact

strict gun laws equals low gun crime
that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.

the connection between the 2 is well proven

only places like Mexico with drug wars are different.

Mexico has some of the most dangerous cities in the world for murder rate.


----------



## bansobaby (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> it is a fact
> 
> strict gun laws equals low gun crime
> that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.


You just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.


----------



## bansobaby (29 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Mexico has some of the most dangerous cities in the world for murder rate


I know, I’m living there at the moment…….


----------



## Fergie 307 (30 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> Perhaps if you read some of the previous posts, you may notice that exactly this point has been made……
> You made a statement of fact and then went back on it claiming ‘outlier‘ status on a country with one of the highest gun murder numbers in the world.
> If we went a little deeper we might just find that there are more countries with relatively strict gun laws but high gun death numbers based on the shenanigans of their neighbours.
> It is not a fact that strict gun laws equals low gun crime, there is more to it…..


The problem with any law is that it is only respected by the law abiding, the criminal couldn't care less about it. I think the reason we do better here is simply because of you use a gun in the UK you have a much greater chance of being caught than in many countries, that is far more of a deterrent than it actually being against the law. The fact that our police and public generally are pretty hot on this means that it brings a lot of attention, the last thing your criminal is looking for. So the use of guns tends to be reserved for special occasions rather than routine. Mexico is a good example of a country with fairly strict gun laws but rampant gun crime, why ? Because anyone using a gun there knows there is next to no chance of being caught or prosecuted.


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> You just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.


WRONG


those 2 sentences do not contradict, I suggest you read them again.


----------



## Keith Cocker (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Everyday's a school day.
> 
> My vocabulary is growing.



Another one for you. “He’s got loads of Ackers” i.e money. My dad often used the term. I think it was war time RAF slang amongst those who had been in Egypt.


----------



## graduate_owner (30 Dec 2021)

A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed. 

Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence. 

Third point - licences gradually increase in cost so that it becomes financially difficult to legally hold multiple weapons, especially mass killing ones. Eventually just owning one might not be worth bothering with.

So basically you try to minimise the legally owned guns, whilst making illegally owned ones easy to identify. I don't know if it would have any effect but could be worth trying. 

I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

graduate_owner said:


> A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed.
> 
> Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence.
> 
> ...


So how do your ideas coexist with the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Northern Ireland had for years and still has most if not all of the stipulations you made, even going so far as each individual pistol/rifle had to be ballistically tested and records kept.
It didn't stop thousands of deaths and to my knowledge not one crime was solved because of the ballistics data base.

Gun control is a nice idea but total pie in the sky just check out how easy it is to make one, even if all the existing ones magically evaporated tomorrow.

Unfortunately less and less people know anything about guns other than what they see in movies or on the six o'clock news.

A grown man actually said to me once "I don't believe in guns"
It's been a long time and I still haven't thought of an answer yet.


----------



## Droogs (30 Dec 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> Another one for you. “He’s got loads of Ackers” i.e money. My dad often used the term. I think it was war time RAF slang amongst those who had been in Egypt.


An Aker is an Egyptian or Sudanese equivalent of a penny and came into common parlance for British empire forces slang for money in the 1800s after Britain's protectorate of Egypt began. Just as the word Fellah arabic for farmer came into common usage in english around the same time such as "he's a nice feller" same spoken work but derivative spelling in english. I always find it fascinating how much of our language is imported due to the army and navy being based around the empire, bungaloe, bandage, khaki and puttee are great examples too


----------



## John Brown (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> So how do your ideas coexist with the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Northern Ireland had for years and still has most if not all of the stipulations you made, even going so far as each individual pistol/rifle had to be ballistically tested and records kept.
> It didn't stop thousands of deaths and to my knowledge not one crime was solved because of the ballistics data base.
> ...


You knew what he meant, I expect. 
It's a bit like telling your granddaughter that she "can" be excused, but should have used "may". I know what she meant.
Let's not even start on the less versus fewer minefield.


----------



## doctor Bob (30 Dec 2021)

I'd assumed fellah or fella was just a different pronunciation of Fellow.


----------



## John Brown (30 Dec 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> I'd assumed fellah or fella was just a different pronunciation of Fellow.


Me too.


----------



## Spectric (30 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> strict gun laws equals low gun crime


I can see that from both sides, but I would say it is also the second amendment in the states, if some scumbag armed or not attempts to steal from you then you have the right to put holes in them, that must be a detterent.
So in the Uk the law can be against the property owner and they have to prove they were in danger if they assault the scumbag because the scumbag has rights, that is unfair and we should be allowed to use any force on an intruder who should not be there. Would this be different between a culture living with guns and one like the UK where access is restricted, well if I was a crook I would certainly be more hesitant if I knew the people I was looking to rob had firearms. 

In the UK having a gun culture won't be good and the way to resolve crime is to get an efficient police force on the ground that are not tied to a desk or restricted by the PC brigade and then the issue goes away.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> So in the Uk the law can be against the property owner and they have to prove they were in danger if they assault the scumbag because the scumbag has rights, that is unfair and *we should be allowed to use any force on an intruder who should not be there*.



The downside of that approach is that it makes getting away with murder rather simple and foolproof. Verbally invite the victim to your house, kill them, make up excuse, home free.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

graduate_owner said:


> I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.



You have to send money if you want a response. A lot of it.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> A grown man actually said to me once "I don't believe in guns"
> It's been a long time and I still haven't thought of an answer yet.



"we believe in theories or religious hopes. You don't have to believe in guns - they exist and without a proof that our perception of reality isn't real, no belief is needed".


----------



## John Brown (30 Dec 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> The downside of that approach is that it makes getting away with murder rather simple and foolproof. Verbally invite the victim to your house, kill them, make up excuse, home free.


Also, it can lead to totally innocent people being shot, because they accidentally try to enter the wrong house.
Steal a TV, and get shot. Steal millions in a white collar crime, get off rather more lightly.
Why is one of these a "scumbag", and not the other?


----------



## Spectric (30 Dec 2021)

John Brown said:


> Why is one of these a "scumbag", and not the other?


Because one will steal an old persons life savings and often put them in hospital in the process whilst the other will be stealing from big companies and organiisations. Yes there is those in the middle who will scam anyone but they can be avoided, things like equity release, buy a funeral and use later or life insurance policies that when they do pay out will not even buy you a tin of beans.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> Another one for you. “He’s got loads of Ackers” i.e money. My dad often used the term. I think it was war time RAF slang amongst those who had been in Egypt.


Yep.

Another one I hadn't heard.

Will there ever be enough words for money or reproductive organs?


----------



## Designer1 (30 Dec 2021)

Completely unrelated to any above points but thought it was interesting, there's about 228 police officers per 100,000 people in the UK _(https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00634/SN00634.pdf)_ and about 206 police per 100,000 in the US _(Total police personnel per 100,000 residents in Canada and the U.S. 2003-2017 | Statista)_. Given that the US is also about 40 times bigger, police response times are affected. Not so much in cities but in rural areas definitely.

If you were living in a rural area, with a much slower police response time, wouldn't you want something to defend yourself? It could be at least 20 minutes before the police in rural US get to you, 20 minutes doesn't sound long but it would if you had someone circling your house with a weapon trying to rob you.


Also worth noting that during Trump's presidency there was another 50,000 police officers recruited, taking the total to the 700,000 mark, so before it was even less police officers per 100,000.

The UK has a reasonable balance IMO regarding gun laws, you can still own one with a reason (although some forces are more, shall we say difficult than others). I've always been an advocate of being able to legally defend yourself, if you get stabbed, you get taken to hospital. If you defend yourself and cause harm back, you get a prison sentence. Choose your outcome.

A lot of people are against this because then everyone would be carrying knives and weapons, people are usually afraid and paranoid of things they don't know. It's also only the law abiding citizens that follow the laws, never seen a criminal say "oi Dave, leave that switch knife, it's illegal now innit".

The situations a tricky one really, poor sod near me got stabbed and died, had he been carrying something to defend himself with, perhaps this might not have been the outcome. Whether it's legal or illegal to carry something, bad people will always carry anyway. Perhaps why every time anonymous gang members in London are asked why they carry a knife they say "because you need to defend yourself from getting robbed or you just keep losing everything", but then it's just a blood bath every weekend.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> The problem with any law is that it is only respected by the law abiding, the criminal couldn't care less about it. I think the reason we do better here is simply because of you use a gun in the UK you have a much greater chance of being caught than in many countries, that is far more of a deterrent than it actually being against the law. The fact that our police and public generally are pretty hot on this means that it brings a lot of attention, the last thing your criminal is looking for. So the use of guns tends to be reserved for special occasions rather than routine. Mexico is a good example of a country with fairly strict gun laws but rampant gun crime, why ? Because anyone using a gun there knows there is next to no chance of being caught or prosecuted.


That is a good point. I was thinking about the differences in "culture" when it comes to firearm ownership in different countries. Even seeing a gun is a pretty rare occurrence in most areas of the UK; so it's something that would definitely get you lots of attention.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

Designer1 said:


> ...
> If you were living in a rural area, with a much slower police response time, wouldn't you want something to defend yourself? It could be at least 20 minutes before the police in rural US get to you, 20 minutes doesn't sound long but it would if you had someone circling your house with a weapon trying to rob you.
> ...


This is a very persuasive argument, but IMO also the root of a problem; you can either have a firearm easily to hand, or you can lock it away and keep it safe.

Lock it away and it's much less likely you could ever get to it in time in the event of an attack. Keep it to hand and you're massively more likely to end up with an accidental shooting (yourself or a member of your family) than you ever are to actually use it to defend yourself.

One other factor is even the likelihood of being capable of using the firearm in a "real" situation. A (relatively) untrained, inexperienced civilian (i.e. almost all of us) is unlikely to be able to operate appropriately in the event of an unexpected life threatening situation - regardless of how many people reckon they could handle it. It would also be interesting to know what odds experienced military or law enforcement personnel would give a civilian with a handgun vs an unexpected attack by a shooter with an AR-15 (or equivalent).


----------



## Spectric (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> This is a very persuasive argument, but IMO also the root of a problem; you can either have a firearm easily to hand, or you can lock it away and keep it safe.


For any tool to be useful it needs to be easily accessable, but kept safe. You would not keep a fire extinguisher in a systainer would you although many people do hide useful tools out of the way in them.


----------



## voyager (30 Dec 2021)

Guns and how or if they should be available to the public is a tough and emotive subject.
Here in the UK legislation and restrictions are tough.
for the record, i have an FAC and shoot for both sport and Hunting/pest control.
to get an FAC for certain calibres of firearms in the UK is a long and laborious process, mental health declarations, safe storage, alarms, restrictions on how and where they can be used, not to mention the types that can be owned and used. 
Your local FAC officer does not just hand out certificates without some very intensive checks.
In the usa there is state dependant rules which range from picking up an AR from Tesco's to having a waiting period of 2 weeks from application. also some states allow concealed carry and some not, in the UK for the public there is no concealed carry and very stiff penalties for the slightest infringement of FAC regulations.
The criminal fraternity in the UK have easy access to firearms of pretty much any description so as a result the police have many more ARU's than they have ever had.
On balance the banning of handguns and certain types of rifle was probably a wise move, however those of us who live and work in rural communities have a mostly different view on rifles and shotguns than perhaps those living in cities.


----------



## Designer1 (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> This is a very persuasive argument, but IMO also the root of a problem; you can either have a firearm easily to hand, or you can lock it away and keep it safe.
> 
> Lock it away and it's much less likely you could ever get to it in time in the event of an attack. Keep it to hand and you're massively more likely to end up with an accidental shooting (yourself or a member of your family) than you ever are to actually use it to defend yourself.
> 
> One other factor is even the likelihood of being capable of using the firearm in a "real" situation. A (relatively) untrained, inexperienced civilian (i.e. almost all of us) is unlikely to be able to operate appropriately in the event of an unexpected life threatening situation - regardless of how many people reckon they could handle it. It would also be interesting to know what odds experienced military or law enforcement personnel would give a civilian with a handgun vs an unexpected attack by a shooter with an AR-15 (or equivalent).



I think most people actually don't go to the range with it to be honest, which kind of defeats the point, anyone that's tried using a pistol (myself included) knows how much of a challenge it is, even more so than a rifle.

It's a completely different method even in a controlled range. Add that with fear and a situation like you say, and yeah accidents go through the roof.

As far as I'm aware they do carry out background checks, but that don't turn you into John Wayne unfortunately. Range time does though.

Ar-15's imo get too much bad press, there are various other semi-auto rifles out there that don't get the heat the ar-15 does. Semi auto shotguns never come under fire but they're arguably even more dangerous. It's more time to reload one but after a while you can definitely stick a solid 5 shells in less than 15 seconds. Compared to a reload of about 7 for a magazine fed rifle.

One of my favourites is when the news say "assault rifle 15". It's armalite rifle! Does my tree in.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> Because one will steal an old persons life savings and often put them in hospital in the process whilst the other will be stealing from big companies and organiisations.



You can read that as "stealing from one person is bad, stealing from a lot of people is OK".


----------



## shed9 (30 Dec 2021)

Designer1 said:


> Completely unrelated to any above points but thought it was interesting, there's about 228 police officers per 100,000 people in the UK _(https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00634/SN00634.pdf)_ and about 206 police per 100,000 in the US _(Total police personnel per 100,000 residents in Canada and the U.S. 2003-2017 | Statista)_. Given that the US is also about 40 times bigger, police response times are affected. Not so much in cities but in rural areas definitely.
> 
> If you were living in a rural area, with a much slower police response time, wouldn't you want something to defend yourself? It could be at least 20 minutes before the police in rural US get to you, 20 minutes doesn't sound long but it would if you had someone circling your house with a weapon trying to rob you.
> 
> ...


The language of this being a 'bad people' centric issue and the concept that it doesn't apply to the law abiding proportion of society is a huge misconception. Not all crime involving weapons, either bladed or firearm is because a bad person went out with that weapon and the victim didn't have a similar tool for defence. That's simplistically ignorant of reality. 

Access to weapons (or rather convenient access) as opposed to carrying weapons is the issue and that access is generally a grey area to say the least. By way of example, the proportion of women killed by domestic violence in the UK by knives is the same as women killed by guns in the US. By that token, should we arm every women appropriately in each respective country or only arm those who are married to bad men who are not law abiding and how would that work? 

Our prisons are not full of bad people, they are full of people who did bad things,.


----------



## Designer1 (30 Dec 2021)

voyager said:


> On balance the banning of handguns and certain types of rifle was probably a wise move, however those of us who live and work in rural communities have a mostly different view on rifles and shotguns than perhaps those living in cities.



I've definitely found this too, I'm in the sticks and noticed if you speak to someone near you, they'll gladly tell you about their outing the night before or whenever. Tell someone that lives in the city they'll debate if they should call the police


----------



## Designer1 (30 Dec 2021)

shed9 said:


> Not all crime involving weapons, either bladed or firearm is because a bad person went out with that weapon and the victim didn't have a similar tool for defence.



If someone goes out with a weapon and causes harm, the consensus is, they're a bad person.


----------



## Designer1 (30 Dec 2021)

shed9 said:


> By that token, should we arm every women appropriately in each respective country or only arm those who are married to bad men who are not law abiding and how would that work?


That would be upto the individual to choose if they need to defend themselves, if a woman wants to defend herself against domestic violence, go get something to use for defence. If another woman doesn't feel she needs one, she doesn't have to get one. It's not for us to allocate it's for them to decide.

Imo if you do a bad thing, you're a bad person. Just my opinion though. It doesn't make sense to me if someone was stood there saying "I'm just robbing this old lady, it's a bad thing but I'm a good person honestly". It doesn't click in my head they're a good person


----------



## John Brown (30 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> Because one will steal an old persons life savings and often put them in hospital in the process whilst the other will be stealing from big companies and organiisations. Yes there is those in the middle who will scam anyone but they can be avoided, things like equity release, buy a funeral and use later or life insurance policies that when they do pay out will not even buy you a tin of beans.


White collar criminals are just as likely to steal an old person's life savings.
But I said steal a TV, anyway. You made the leap to life savings and hospital.
Anatole France put it better than I can:
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."


----------



## shed9 (30 Dec 2021)

Designer1 said:


> That would be upto the individual to choose if they need to defend themselves, if a woman wants to defend herself against domestic violence, go get something to use for defence. If another woman doesn't feel she needs one, she doesn't have to get one. It's not for us to allocate it's for them to decide.
> 
> Imo if you do a bad thing, you're a bad person. Just my opinion though. It doesn't make sense to me if someone was stood there saying "I'm just robbing this old lady, it's a bad thing but I'm a good person honestly". It doesn't click in my head they're a good person


If your take away from all this is the definition of what constitutes a bad person then not sure you understand the problem.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

This is a very interesting and emotive subject and congratulations to everyone for keeping it civil.

But there's a few incorrect assumptions.

You can't swan into Walmart and put an AR15 in your trolley with the beans. At very least you will be subject to a background check and possibly a waiting period which varies by state, before you can pick it up

It's not ok to shoot someone stealing your TV, you will be in deep dung unless he threatens your life.

Some states have stand you ground laws which means they won't give you much trouble if you defend your self and property.

Others don't and you are expected to run if you can and only defend yourself if cornered.

To invite someone to your house and shoot them dead and pretend they threatened you would be folly. American homicide detectives see a lot of crime scenes and know how to read them.


----------



## bansobaby (30 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> WRONG
> 
> 
> those 2 sentences do not contradict, I suggest you read them again.


You said:
“strict gun laws equals low gun crime
that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.”

The first line is a definitive statement with no qualification.
The second line states that the definitive statement does not hold true in all instances.
Granted, the lack of any punctuation could create room for confusion, but does it not change the fact that there is contradiction.


----------



## bansobaby (30 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> The problem with any law is that it is only respected by the law abiding, the criminal couldn't care less about it. I think the reason we do better here is simply because of you use a gun in the UK you have a much greater chance of being caught than in many countries, that is far more of a deterrent than it actually being against the law. The fact that our police and public generally are pretty hot on this means that it brings a lot of attention, the last thing your criminal is looking for. So the use of guns tends to be reserved for special occasions rather than routine. Mexico is a good example of a country with fairly strict gun laws but rampant gun crime, why ? Because anyone using a gun there knows there is next to no chance of being caught or prosecuted.



Very true, and its also quite likely that some individuals know that their life expectancy is so low that the authorities are actually much less feared than the ‘opposition’.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> Lock it away and it's much less likely you could ever get to it in time in the event of an attack. Keep it to hand and you're massively more likely to end up with an accidental shooting (yourself or a member of your family) than you ever are to actually use it to defend yourself.



This is a false statement. You're not unlikely to be involved in some kind of accident, but that claim relies on calling suicides "accidents". Guns are used defensively in the US a lot. The are, unfortunately, often used for suicides, too. If you are not suicidal, the chance that you will have a gun suicide is pretty low. 

One of the reasons I ditched my guns ( along with the fact that where I live, they're not really functional - no crime to speak of, no ability to hunt ) was that down the road, what if I have a child suffering from depression? 

If I were a divorce attorney or police investigator with lots of folks who didn't like me walking around in public, I may think differently. But, I'm not. That said, when you boil fatal accidents and homicides down to numbers that don't include Suicides and drug/inner city activity, the rates aren't very high. The defensive uses are a lot higher. I can't imagine that the defensive use that involves actually shooting and hitting someone is very high - deterring someone from confronting you in a bad area might be higher (like pull up the shirt or have someone knocking and telling them you are armed). 

Living in the states in a very low crime area, I only have stories from a few acquaintances who live rural in areas where there are meth problems who talk about how it can be difficult to motivate some people who are stealing your stuff. Large dogs and firearms seem to get through to them no matter how high they are.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (30 Dec 2021)

Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.

A "burglar - householder" arms race may have some limited impact on the incidence of theft - but it will certainly increase the number of shootings.

Unless proficient in weapons use, fit and trained in self defence, the best solution if threatened is either run or invite the intruder to help themselves. Possessions are more easily replaced than body parts.


----------



## selectortone (30 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.


Yep. Thus my point earlier about the vast majority of UK citizens wanting to keep the genie in the bottle. Once it's out it will be virtually impossible, as in the USA, to put it back in again.

btw: I used to shoot at a range here in Bournemouth, before the post-Hungerford legislation, so I'm not speaking from complete ignorance when it comes to firearms. The first time I held a rifle was in Hong Kong when I was five in 1956. It was a service issue Lee-Enfield .303 that my RAF Dad was issued with during the Double Ten riots and kept under his bed. He told me under NO circumstances was I to touch it, so of course I took to first opportunity, when he was out, to sneak in there and play cowboys and indians with it. It was unloaded and, fortunately, he never told me where he had hidden the ammunition.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.


A gun won't deter a burglar but an alarm will. ???

Advice from local plod is that burglary's are mostly opportunistic, and sight of an alarm box on your gable will encourage them to seek a quieter target.

Sounds plausible, but what happens when most folk have a box on the gable.

Will the burglars make a rota so they can rob the few unalarmed homes left?

A lot I think depends on what the intruder is seeking. He's unlikely to get into a shootout with you over your DVD collection, on the other hand if he thinks you have a couple of hundred thousand in used notes under the bed he might chance it.

I know it's practically unthinkable in the UK for a young woman to go out on a date with a revolver in her purse.

In some parts of the US it's quite common, and has saved lives.

I know we live in one of the safest regions of the world but there were 695 homicides in England and wales in 2020 and I bet every single one of them in their last moments would have given all they had for a gun and the knowledge of how to use it.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> To invite someone to your house and shoot them dead and pretend they threatened you would be folly. American homicide detectives see a lot of crime scenes and know how to read them.



I didn't intend to present it as a sensible idea - just the emergent consequence of the silly idea of letting people do anything they want to defend their property.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> This is a false statement. You're not unlikely to be involved in some kind of accident, but that claim relies on calling suicides "accidents". Guns are used defensively in the US a lot. The are, unfortunately, often used for suicides, too. If you are not suicidal, the chance that you will have a gun suicide is pretty low.



I wasn't actually thinking of suicides (though that in itself is a valid issue). Every time I've seen any stats on accidental shootings (by which I mean accidentally injuring yourself, or a family member, or a family member shooting another family member) the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy" (so I do feel the statement was true).

I'll be absolutely honest; if I lived in a high crime area (where firearms were reasonably easy to purchase, but also prevalent amongst criminals) I'll admit I'd seriously consider owning one; but I would still have to concede that the statistics usually show self harm (intentional or accidental) is a much more likely scenario than actually using it to protect yourself.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> I didn't intend to present it as a sensible idea - just the emergent consequence of the silly idea of letting people do anything they want to defend their property.


As has been said before, circumstances are everything.

You come home to find someone making off with the gnome from your garden, it would be hard to justify shooting him.

If someone shot your dog and kicked in your door it would not be prudent to hesitate before dispatching him.

I've heard people talking about the wild west where a man would be executed for horse theft, but to take a mans horse and consign him to travel by foot in some areas would be certain death and the culprit just as culpable as if he had shot him.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.


I'm sure I read a story some years about a US state (that had a spate of car jackings) allowing victims to use deadly force against attackers; the end result being that car jackers simply starting shooting first rather than risking threatening people and getting themselves shot.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy"


Unfortunately there can be no accurate record of the number of times a gun is used to stop a bad guy.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Unfortunately there can be no accurate record of the number of times a gun is used to stop a bad guy.


It's a very good point. Though; there must be some statistics somewhere (and heck, if it were common I'd assume the NRA would make a lot of noise about it). The problem is that any such incident will get a lot of media attention ("brave civilian fights off evil intruder"), but frequent home accidental shootings are less of a story.


----------



## Cabinetman (30 Dec 2021)

graduate_owner said:


> A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed.
> 
> Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence.
> 
> ...


 Sorry G O, they may be Americans but certainly not stupid, they would eat any proponent of those ideas for breakfast. That was Tony Blair‘s method of control.


----------



## John Brown (30 Dec 2021)

I think this is one of those subjects about which nobody is likely to change their mind.
What I find strange, however, is the idea that the US Constitution is written in stone. After all, it has been amended before. Slavery, votes for women... no doubt numerous others. I guess there are no votes in it, though.


----------



## Spectric (30 Dec 2021)

John Brown said:


> What I find strange, however, is the idea that the US Constitution is written in stone.


From what I have read and heard any parts involving the so called NRA are, once you give someone the right to do something it is never going to be easy to retract that right especialy after so many years of having it.


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> This is a very interesting and emotive subject and congratulations to everyone for keeping it civil.
> 
> But there's a few incorrect assumptions.
> 
> ...



With the exception of gun fair sales where no background, history or mental health status checks are required providing both vendor and buyer are same state residents.
I think some states have prohibited such things but many still allow it. A few recent well known court cases have highlighted just how easy it is for anybody to obtain weapons via this method.


----------



## shed9 (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I know we live in one of the safest regions of the world but there were 695 homicides in England and wales in 2020 and I bet every single one of them in their last moments would have given all they had for a gun and the knowledge of how to use it.


Of those 695;

275 (39.6%) were killed by a sharp instrument (this is typical year on year). 23 of those were 17 or younger.​115 (16.6%) victims were killed by hitting and / or kicking.​45 (6.5%) were under the age of 16.​31 (4.5%) were killed by strangulation / asphyxiation.​39 (5.6%) were refugees left to die in the back of a lorry.​A third of all victims were under the influence of a substance with 19% on alcohol, 7% on illicit drugs and a further 7% on both.​Only 30 (4.3%) were killed with firearms.​​Does a gun in the majority of those statistics present a reversal of situation in 'every single one of them'? Perhaps we should arm children with firearms? Just what use would the refugees have with a gun in that position? I also question the rationale and the outcome of placing guns into a situation where the victim is intoxicated. Additionally how may times was the victim was the original assailant (albeit I expect that number to be very small, but possible none the less). The whole suggestion of placing a gun into a situation without any understanding of circumstance is sheer ignorance. Homicides are most likely to occur within a residential setting so that means that having access to a gun to prevent a homicide essentially means placing guns in homes. Of the female victims, they were more commonly killed by a partner, ex-partner or a member of family, again with almost half killed in a domestic setting. The reason women are so readily stabbed in these situations is because a knife is to hand and is common place in the home. Now imagine putting guns in the home as common place as knives?

You're more likely to be a victim of COVID than homicide (especially by firearm) so get that shot instead 

Guns beyond controlled sport and land management have no place in the home or society. It really is that simple.




​


----------



## GweithdyDU (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> Like heroin? Wow. Totally naive.


Actually, pure heroin is not a drug that normally kills. A greater percentage of alcohol drinkers will die from their addiction that smack heads. The City is run on heroin and amphetamines which is likely why they won't introduce testing. The biggest societal problem with heroin (IMO) is poor users not being able to sustain their habit without being a thieving little toe-rag. Second biggest problem (IMO) (and often related to the first) is that the drug gets cut, which lleads to two issues. Firstly, what it is cut with is often more dangerous than the damn heroin, and secondly, when pure, or at least less doctored than is usual heroin is available and a user takes the same amount as they normally do, it becomes an overdose. 

I've spent many years working as a mentor to both drug and alcohol addicts, and agree that many do succeed in giving up and lead great productive lives. Many end up doing drug rehab and educational work and their insight is very useful. 

One thing I don't get though is injecting addicts that use street drugs but won't have a Covid vaccine because they don't trust the scientists or even the science. Mad when one consider this means they trust a street-dealer of illegal drugs more than a pharmacologist/epidemiologist who is happy to put their name to their work! 

Who'd have thought a woodworking forum would throw up such interesting debates on societal issues? Brilliant!


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> It's a very good point. Though; there must be some statistics somewhere (and heck, if it were common I'd assume the NRA would make a lot of noise about it). The problem is that any such incident will get a lot of media attention ("brave civilian fights off evil intruder"), but frequent home accidental shootings are less of a story.


Yes, I get your point and I'm sure it happens quite a bit but it's mostly anecdotal.

There are I'm sure some people who make the news because they used a legal firearm to stop a robbery or home invasion.

I'm also quite sure that illegal arms are used for the same reason but not reported.

The fact that people know you carry a gun may have the effect of discouraging an attack.

I talked to a guy in Vermont a number of years ago.

He had a Colt 1911 .45acp semiautomatic pistol in a holster on his belt he said he wore it when he went to town and had never been messed with.

Impossible to know if it discouraged any or how many.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> With the exception of gun fair sales where no background, history or mental health status checks are required providing both vendor and buyer are same state residents.


Only if it's a private sale.

A FFL still has to do a background check.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> From what I have read and heard any parts involving the so called NRA are, once you give someone the right to do something it is never going to be easy to retract that right especialy after so many years of having it.


Rights are not given or taken. 

The right to self defence has to be the most basic and moral right of all.
And if you have the right to self defence who can pick and choose what implement you use.

If governments can take away your rights when it suits them, then you didn't have any in the first place.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Only if it's a private sale.
> 
> A FFL still has to do a background check.


As I understand it a background check to enable ownership of a firearm in the US is merely checking that the person has no prior convictions. 

Have a quick read of the restrictions (or lack of them) in some states here … some seem to reference no background check required.









The Top 10 Most Gun Friendly States :: Guns.com


There is no perfect state, it all depends on what’s important to you, whether it’s hunting, concealed carry, or both. If you are looking to get out of a anti-gun state here are the top 10 most welcoming states for gun owners.




www.guns.com





Whatever the detail is I think we can agree that it is substantially easier to buy a gun in the US than the UK.


----------



## TRITON (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> He had a Colt 1911 .45acp semiautomatic pistol in a holster on his belt he said he wore it when he went to town and had never been messed with.


Easy enough thing is just shoot him in the back of the head. No risk.
He could be carrying a fully automatic assault rifle, but it's no good unless the would be perpetrator is facing his victim.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> I wasn't actually thinking of suicides (though that in itself is a valid issue). Every time I've seen any stats on accidental shootings (by which I mean accidentally injuring yourself, or a family member, or a family member shooting another family member) the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy" (so I do feel the statement was true).
> 
> I'll be absolutely honest; if I lived in a high crime area (where firearms were reasonably easy to purchase, but also prevalent amongst criminals) I'll admit I'd seriously consider owning one; but I would still have to concede that the statistics usually show self harm (intentional or accidental) is a much more likely scenario than actually using it to protect yourself.



It's perhaps a sad statement, but well more than half of gun deaths are self inflicted. We parsed the stats on here maybe earlier in this thread.


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Only if it's a private sale.
> 
> A FFL still has to do a background check.





A gun collector/unlicensed dealer can set up a stall at a gun fair, local civic centre or wherever and sell weapons to any random aspiring Rambo that happens to walk past. No checks, no nothing. Something like 25% of gun sales are carried out this way.
Another sadly silly aspect of US gun sales is the 3 day loophole. If a licenced dealer carries out a background check and hears nothing by the 3rd day Rambo gets the gun, long gone by the time background results arrive on the 4th/5th day etc. 
There's a few more ways, such as marriage/bearing a child, that enable gun sales without the proper security protocol.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> As I understand it a background check to enable ownership of a firearm in the US is merely checking that the person has no prior convictions.
> 
> Have a quick read of the restrictions (or lack of them) in some states here … some seem to reference no background check required.
> 
> ...



Generally no criminal record for violent, felony or drug crimes and no involuntary mental commitment. The other somewhat humorous question is whether or not you've ever renounced your citizenship.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> A gun collector/unlicensed dealer can set up a stall at a gun fair, local civic centre or wherever and sell weapons to any random aspiring Rambo that happens to walk past. No checks, no nothing. Something like 25% of gun sales are carried out this way.
> Another sadly silly aspect of US gun sales is the 3 day loophole. If a licenced dealer carries out a background check and hears nothing by the 3rd day Rambo gets the gun, long gone by the time background results arrive on the 4th/5th day etc.
> There's a few more ways, such as marriage/bearing a child, that enable gun sales without the proper security protocol.



What percentage of crimes are committed with gun show loophole guns? I don't think it's very high.


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> What percentage of crimes are committed with gun show loophole guns? I don't think it's very high.



No idea.
One is too many.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> Whatever the detail is I think we can agree that it is substantially easier to buy a gun in the US than the UK.



Lest you think I am arguing for the sake of it I am not.

I agree it is much easier to* legally* purchase a firearm in the USA.

I have been told but can't prove that it is extremely easy to buy a gun in the UK 



Blackswanwood said:


> As I understand it a background check to enable ownership of a firearm in the US is merely checking that the person has no prior convictions.
> 
> Have a quick read of the restrictions (or lack of them) in some states here … some seem to reference no background check required.
> 
> ...


I believe mental problems are considered as well.

Those stats are very interesting. 

Those are the top 10 gun friendly states yet in six of them only a little over 30% are gun owners. 

The background checks referred to in those statistics are universal checks mandated by 22 states. Which means that in those states if you want to sell your 30-06 to your neighbour you have to do a background check on him first. 

In the ten states mentioned you can do a private sale without a background check but you can't rock up to walmart and buy a Glock 17 without one.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> No idea.
> One is too many.



That's very limp language, in the sense that it ignores the reality of numerical exposure. If you want to solve a problem, you solve it at the core. One is too many is fine in a sample of 100, but not 350 million. 

I see that 77% of crimes in the USA related to guns are stolen or similar circumstances. The gun show fascination is ignoring material factors. The reason it's not a priority is because it's a tiny minority of actual crime and more than half of sales are through vendors. Only a fraction of the other half are in no background states.

You literally could probably create an initiative to keep fathers in the home and generate a greater effect.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> Easy enough thing is just shoot him in the back of the head. No risk.
> He could be carrying a fully automatic assault rifle, but it's no good unless the would be perpetrator is facing his victim.


You are absolutely right, but how many even in America would risk a murder charge to steal someones wallet or a days takings?


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> Another sadly silly aspect of US gun sales is the 3 day loophole. If a licenced dealer carries out a background check and hears nothing by the 3rd day Rambo gets the gun,



I don't see how this is silly. Someone needs a gun. Nobody objects within three days, the sale goes ahead.
Please don't put a emotional slant on this. It's not necessarily Rambo. It could just as easily be a frail old lady living on her own.
BTW it's not a loophole, it's the law.



Noel said:


> long gone by the time background results arrive on the 4th/5th day etc.


Not long gone by any means. The record of the sale is there along with id details if they flouted the rules they can be brought to book.



Noel said:


> There's a few more ways, such as marriage/bearing a child, that enable gun sales without the proper security protocol.


Would you mind elaborating on that?


----------



## woodieallen (30 Dec 2021)

GregW said:


> Well, it’s a common knowledge to some, that selling arms to Mexican cartel it’s a common practise by Democrats officials, for steady supply of heroine transported to Mexico from Afghanistan. All made under diplomatic cover.
> 
> these shouted loudest not to build wall to stop uncontrollable smuggling operations, including human trafficking and ammo. There are a common ways to undermine criminal organisations - it’s called profitability of enterprise.


Well, it's not common knowledge to me and so would you like to share your sources? Any actual references out there to support what you've written ?


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> That's very limp language, in the sense that it ignores the reality of numerical exposure. If you want to solve a problem, you solve it at the core. One is too many is fine in a sample of 100, but not 350 million.
> 
> I see that 77% of crimes in the USA related to guns are stolen or similar circumstances. The gun show fascination is ignoring material factors. The reason it's not a priority is because it's a tiny minority of actual crime and more than half of sales are through vendors. Only a fraction of the other half are in no background states.
> 
> You literally could probably create an initiative to keep fathers in the home and generate a greater effect.



I've come across this attitude in pro gun Americans in the past. It's almost NRA text/narrative - small numbers, doesn't really matter, let's ignore it. Or guns are stolen from responsible owners, nothing to do with us.
Many countries that have experienced a mass shooting incident react immediately. Laws and regulations are changed and whole heartedly supported by the public. In the States it's been a case of offering "prayers" and doing nothing.

PS - The background check on the individual who murdered 9 at the Charleston church shooting didn't arrive back within the 3 day time limit.


----------



## woodieallen (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> ......
> 
> I have been told but can't prove that it is extremely easy to _illegally_ buy a gun in the UK
> 
> ....



Just added the qualifier that you accidentally left off. You have to go through a lot of hoops to buy one legally.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Lest you think I am arguing for the sake of it I am not.
> 
> I agree it is much easier to* legally* purchase a firearm in the USA.
> 
> ...



The number of guns known to be in circulation in the US probably means it’s easier for one to be obtained illegally there than in the UK. There are undoubtedly those in the criminal fraternity in the UK who can readily obtain access to a gun and it’s a known fact that guns get passed around criminal groups. There is also a problem with replica guns being activated but I would expect most criminals recognise that the extra risk of getting involved with guns makes it not worthwhile.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> I've come across this attitude in pro gun Americans in the past. It's almost NRA text/narrative - small numbers, doesn't really matter, let's ignore it. Or guns are stolen from responsible owners, nothing to do with us.
> Many countries that have experienced a mass shooting incident react immediately. Laws and regulations are changed and whole heartedly supported by the public. In the States it's been a case of offering "prayers" and doing nothing.
> 
> PS - The background check on the individual who murdered 9 at the Charleston church shooting didn't arrive back within the 3 day time limit.



You can try to generalize all you want. I don't share your obsessions.


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I don't see how this is silly. Someone needs a gun. Nobody objects within three days, the sale goes ahead.
> Please don't put a emotional slant on this. It's not necessarily Rambo. It could just as easily be a frail old lady living on her own.
> BTW it's not a loophole, it's the law.
> 
> ...



Think it's called the "Boyfriend Loophole", have a look.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Dec 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Well, it's not common knowledge to me and so would you like to share your sources? Any actual references out there to support what you've written ?


It was called “Fast and Furious” (that’s not a joke) and allegedly happened about ten years ago. From memory Arizona gun stores were told to let Mexicans buy weapons if they were heading back over the border and they were supposed to be tracked to get to the heart of the drug cartels. @D_W being a local probably recalls better than me!

Edit - sorry @D_W I should have said American and not implied you were from Arizona!


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

That's accurate, but I'm sure the feds do strange things to study the effect. One or a couple of the guns were used to shoot us law enforcement or something and it exploded into a political football. 

Obama's ag proceeded to make conflicting statements under oath, but there's no real penalty to that when you're a presidential appointee.


----------



## Noel (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> You can try to generalize all you want. I don't share your obsessions.



Case rested.


----------



## D_W (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> Case rested.



I work as an applied mathematician. Significance in numbers is a meaningful thing. I don't parrot information from other sources or get caught up in hypothetical perfect solutions. It's nonsense unless actual problem solving of significance occurs first.


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Dec 2021)

John Brown said:


> What I find strange, however, is the idea that the US Constitution is written in stone



I find it amusing to see Americans screaming “you can not amend the 2nd amendment”


----------



## Jacob (30 Dec 2021)

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!


----------



## Jacob (30 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I find it amusing to see Americans screaming “you can not amend the 2nd amendment”


They can only count up to two?


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Dec 2021)

Total GV deaths 2021 up to yesterday 44,594

number of mass shootings 687

number of children killed 1,519


this website is updated daily, it listed every single incident with street and town etc.


https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Dec 2021)

Jacob said:


> Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
> 
> 
> View attachment 125463


Lovely pic of the Jacob family


----------



## Fergie 307 (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Rights are not given or taken.
> 
> The right to self defence has to be the most basic and moral right of all.
> And if you have the right to self defence who can pick and choose what implement you use.
> ...


surely the right to beat arms is enshrined in the constitution, and was therefore effectively given by government in the first place. Clearly when it was written there were no automatic weapons or mass school shootings etc. I dare say those responsible for drafting the amendment would be pretty appalled to see how it is being abused by the gun lobby today. There is no conceivable reason for a member of the public in any civilised country to own an assault rifle. They are designed to kill people on a battlefield, and have no other purpose. They aren't a good hunting weapon, or particularly useful for personal defence in the home. Unfortunately the constitutional right has been abused to suggest that it should refer to any weapon atall. I have no doubt there are some in the NRA who would try and use it to justify having a mini gun or similar if they could.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> Think it's called the "Boyfriend Loophole", have a look.



I just looked it up, I hadn't heard of it before.

But it's not a loophole. It's the law. and could be changed if it was a serious problem.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> surely the right to beat arms is enshrined in the constitution, and was therefore effectively given by government in the first place. Clearly when it was written there were no automatic weapons or mass school shootings etc. I dare say those responsible for drafting the amendment would be pretty appalled to see how it is being abused by the gun lobby today. There is no conceivable reason for a member of the public in any civilised country to own an assault rifle. They are designed to kill people on a battlefield, and have no other purpose. They aren't a good hunting weapon, or particularly useful for personal defence in the home. Unfortunately the constitutional right has been abused to suggest that it should refer to any weapon atall. I have no doubt there are some in the NRA who would try and use it to justify having a mini gun or similar if they could.


The constitution doesn't give rights it merely acknowledges them and states in the case of the second amendment, words to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
The reason for the second amendment was so that the people could hold an overpowering government in check, so that's why assault rifles are fine to own.

BTW a mini gun is legal to own but they're pretty expensive and there's extra tax to pay.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

Noel said:


> No idea.
> One is too many.


I remember this argument from the late 90's when the GB pistol buyback was being introduced.

If it saved one life it was worth it.


----------



## artie (30 Dec 2021)

There's another small point that no one has mentioned.
It's not just the second amendment in America.

Our own Bill of Rights confirms our right to keep and bear arms, Lord Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, 

Even to this day to my knowledge no one in the UK has been convicted of carrying a weapon for self defence.

Thousands of facs have been issued for self defence when circumstances require it.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> It's perhaps a sad statement, but well more than half of gun deaths are self inflicted. We parsed the stats on here maybe earlier in this thread.


That in itself is deeply saddening. I suspect that for those suffering from issues that might lead them to consider self harm, a gun provides an apparently quick and easy solution to the problem. Not that it's a good thing, obviously.


----------



## sploo (30 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> The constitution doesn't give rights it merely acknowledges them and states in the case of the second amendment, words to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
> The reason for the second amendment was so that the people could hold an overpowering government in check, so that's why assault rifles are fine to own.
> 
> BTW a mini gun is legal to own but they're pretty expensive and there's extra tax to pay.


The defending-myself-from-the-government argument really is a daft one these days. Holed up in a building (armed to the teeth with automatics) merely makes for a nice clean target for something toasty dropped from a stealth aircraft. They wouldn't even see the thing that killed them.

Besides, it's all just a misunderstanding; the right to bare arms is a proclamation about sunbathing. Ahem.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> The defending-myself-from-the-government argument really is a daft one these days. Holed up in a building (armed to the teeth with automatics) merely makes for a nice clean target for something toasty dropped from a stealth aircraft. They wouldn't even see the thing that killed them.
> 
> Besides, it's all just a misunderstanding; the right to bare arms is a proclamation about sunbathing. Ahem.


I'm wondering what building would hold Americas 120 million or so gun owners?

And I hope you're not in charge of tactics should insurrection come around.


----------



## TRITON (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> You are absolutely right, but how many even in America would risk a murder charge to steal someones wallet or a days takings?


Judging from many cases,it doesn't appear many even need that much of a motive.

I think what they need to do is revert to the 1800's and all walk around in original garb, with a gun and holster.
Then save the planet and they all go horse


----------



## Keith Cocker (31 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> the way to resolve crime is to get an efficient police force on the ground that are not tied to a desk or restricted by the PC brigade and then the issue goes away.


Actually, the PC Brigade might help especially if they also recruited some of the Wokies


----------



## Henniep (31 Dec 2021)

A gun and a car are equally fatal, depending on how you use them. Both are adequately cover by law. Both have consequency if you abuse them. So... if you respect them everybody is safe. If you choose to abuse them, for whatever reason, all the laws in the world will not prevent disaster and plenty heart ache.


----------



## Jacob (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> ...Even to this day to my knowledge no one in the UK has been convicted of carrying a weapon for self defence.
> 
> ......


Worth remembering if you are caught out there with your AK47 - just plead self defence!


----------



## Blackswanwood (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Even to this day to my knowledge no one in the UK has been convicted of carrying a weapon for self defence.



I think plenty have been convicted for this. The notion of needing to carry a knife for self defence is a major factor in the number of people falling victim to such crimes. When the Police come across someone carrying a knife they prosecute successfully.

In the case of guns "self defence" isn't a legitimate reason to obtain a firearms licence in the UK. The acceptable reasons are sporting or legitimate business such as land management.


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (31 Dec 2021)

Henniep said:


> A gun and a car are equally fatal, depending on how you use them. Both are adequately cover by law. Both have consequency if you abuse them. So... if you respect them everybody is safe. If you choose to abuse them, for whatever reason, all the laws in the world will not prevent disaster and plenty heart ache.



A few key differences though; cars have utility beyond making holes in things (yes, I know MacGyver used a revolver as a spanner once), and we require car owners to pass a test, have insurance, and prove that their car is in roadworthy condition.


----------



## Jacob (31 Dec 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> A few key differences though; cars have utility beyond making holes in things (yes, I know MacGyver used a revolver as a spanner once), and we require car owners to pass a test, have insurance, and prove that their car is in roadworthy condition.


and you can't kill many school kids with a car. You might whack one or two if you are lucky. This is why Hamilton used guns instead of attacking with his little van. Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia


----------



## Lons (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Only if it's a private sale.
> 
> A FFL still has to do a background check.


Yebbut how many are private sales and how many of those are actually under the counter dealers posing as private? My last visit was an eye opener for me, in Arizona driving back from the Grand Canyon to Vegas I spotted what we call a car boot sale, it was pretty big and at least 90% of sellers had guns and other weapons openly displayed for sale, some had little else and there was ammo as well. I handled quite a few of the guns from hand pistols through to semi automatics and have no doubt I could have bought any of them with no checks and despite being a tourist, I was offered several at very low prices indeed.
The lack of any police presence or control was shocking IM_O

The gun laws in the US, like any other law could be changed but never will be, it's much like our NHS where major restrictions and changes would most likely be political suicide so they dare not do it and pay lip service. As a reaction in the UK we would see strikes, in the US the gun brigade would be out in the streets rioting, firing shots in the air or worse.


----------



## Stan (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Even to this day to my knowledge no one in the UK has been convicted of carrying a weapon for self defence.



They have! I have witnessed it in court more times than I can recall.

Instant arming is one thing. Carrying a weapon in case of some potential future event is a completely different legal thing.


----------



## Blackswanwood (31 Dec 2021)

Lons said:


> The gun laws in the US, like any other law could be changed but never will be, it's much like our NHS where major restrictions and changes would most likely be political suicide so they dare not do it and pay lip service. As a reaction in the UK we would see strikes, in the US the gun brigade would be out in the streets rioting, firing shots in the air or worse.


That pretty much sums it up! 

I also think most of are not best placed to opine on what the US should do as their history, geography and outlook is different to ours. 

In my view we have a pretty sound approach to guns for our situation in the UK and I'm keen to see it stay that way.


----------



## RobinBHM (31 Dec 2021)

interesting this argument that guns are important for defence.

Its funny how America has big gun conventions, big gun shows.

it’s funny how America doesn’t have big shows for home security, door locks, alarm systems…

maybe guns aren’t bought for security..l….l

if you have a gun for security you gotta have that thing cocked ready to fire 24 7.


----------



## RobinBHM (31 Dec 2021)

bansobaby said:


> You said:
> “strict gun laws equals low gun crime
> that holds for the vast majority of countries in the world.”
> 
> ...


Zero contradiction.

the first statement is not qualified, it doesn’t say 100% of the time, does it?

Nor does it say “ includes countries with major drug war problems”

so I repeat

”strict gun laws equals low gun crime”
the evidence proves it.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Lons said:


> Yebbut how many are private sales and how many of those are actually under the counter dealers posing as private?


It doesn't matter. They are all private sales unless you go to a FFL
You are free to buy and sell guns in most states, Arizona being one.




Lons said:


> My last visit was an eye opener for me, in Arizona driving back from the Grand Canyon to Vegas I spotted what we call a car boot sale, it was pretty big and at least 90% of sellers had guns and other weapons openly displayed for sale, some had little else and there was ammo as well. I handled quite a few of the guns from hand pistols through to semi automatics and have no doubt I could have bought any of them with no checks and despite being a tourist, I was offered several at very low prices indeed.


[/QUOTE]

I wasn't there but going by my previous experience, the people you met there were most friendly, helpful and welcoming. Were any of them mean to you in any way?
Hell they were even willing to knock the price down so you would have the means to defend yourself.

Ammo isn't controlled in most places, A guy in new hampshire was amazed when I showed him my FAC with a 1000 rnd limit for this and that ammo.
He wanted to give me a .50 cal round as a souvenir. lol

So I said "If I wanted to buy 100 of those .50 cal, you would sell them to me?"

"Help you carry them to the car" he replied.

I'm just thinking Lots of guys here trying to apply Soccer rules to a Baseball match.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

TRITON said:


> I think what they need to do is revert to the 1800's and all walk around in original garb, with a gun and holster.


That's legal in some states. No permits, licences needed.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Henniep said:


> A gun and a car are equally fatal, depending on how you use them. Both are adequately cover by law. Both have consequency if you abuse them. So... if you respect them everybody is safe. If you choose to abuse them, for whatever reason, all the laws in the world will not prevent disaster and plenty heart ache.


The only school attack that I am aware of in NI happened when pupils at Sullivan Upper School, in Hollywood were attacked by a man called Garnet Bell with a flame thrower.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> we require car owners to pass a test, have insurance, and prove that their car is in roadworthy condition.


AFAIK anyone getting a FAC for the first time is required to undergo a period of supervision by an experienced shooter.
Gun owners insurance is highly recommended and sometimes a requirement. Insurance for clubs and ranges is very cheap which reflects the safety of these locations.


----------



## Spectric (31 Dec 2021)

I can see that an issue here on this discussion is that unless you have been to somewhere like the states and experienced the gun culture first hand then it is not easy to explain. When I was out there it was a strange feeling being surrounded by guns, pickups with riffles on display just like we used to have Sharon & Dave stickers in our windscreens and shops with huge displays of guns for sale with nobody taking a second glance except myself. I met a guy in Wyoming who put us up for the night and had what could only be described as an arsenal of weapons, to him it was just a collection like someone who collects stamps here in the UK but just normal there and it does give you an odd feeling. I cannot ever forsee this gun culture in the UK, who could imagine seeing M16's for sale in Asda's!


----------



## clogs (31 Dec 2021)

when u are allowed to visit France again.....
go to a Brocante or car boot....loads'a used shot guns for sale, I was even offered a pump action model, as new but not at his price.....hahaha....
getting rounds is a little harder but there's plenty of hunters that will help u out....


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

Lons said:


> Yebbut how many are private sales and how many of those are actually under the counter dealers posing as private?



None - firearms dealers are audited by the ATF on a regular basis. A gun transferring in without transfer out paperwork is a loss of a class III license (and a loss of making a living) and then worse once punishment is decided. 

It's bad for you as an individual if you don't follow gun laws. It's far worse if you're a licensed dealer, and your paperwork will be audited at some point. 

(when I quit shooting and hunting, I sold all of my stuff through a licensed dealer just so he'd ship anything going to a recipient and also to make sure - in principle, not by legal requirement - that any recipients were legally entitled. The latter wouldn't have been an option once I involved the dealer - he has to do a background check. The fee is fairly small, and the service for transfer was only $25 per gun all inclusive plus the cost of shipping. If the recipient isn't a class III holder and a gun is shipped, it needs to be received by a class III holder (dealer). As in, if I'm in PA and I ship a gun to someone in VA or have a dealer do it on my behalf (either way), it must be shipped to a dealer and the individual picks it up there.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> When I was out there it was a strange feeling being surrounded by guns, pickups with riffles on display just like we used to have Sharon & Dave stickers in our windscreens and shops with huge displays of guns for sale with nobody taking a second glance except myself.



Places like wyoming or any rural ranch areas are almost like a different country. I haven't seen a gun in person in PA, other than on a police officer - in at least five years (check that, my dad does have a gun cabinet with hunting rifles and shotguns, but that's hardly what you're describing - other than that...). 

In rural areas of PA (like very rural), you may still see something in a truck rack - I think a lot of that has ceased because you're just asking for someone to steal your stuff. But, I'm sure you could see it here and there. I saw a lot of that growing up in central PA - a lot being maybe one in five hundred or one in a thousand cars, but you'd see it on regular occasions - but when visiting my parents in the same place, don't see it any longer. 

That said, what you'd see in wyoming or rural texas isn't very representative of 95% of the US.

There are definitely collectors in a lot of places with large collections, though. Some rich, some not (and if someone is wealthy enough, they may even have machine gun collections - which require the same thing as a dealer license to possess. I've not heard of anything legal like that being used in a crime - it's cheap stolen handguns that are used for most crime here).


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> interesting this argument that guns are important for defence.
> 
> Its funny how America has big gun conventions, big gun shows.
> 
> it’s funny how America doesn’t have big shows for home security, door locks, alarm systems…



Well, that's not true. Our convention centers generally have at least two home shows a year and home security is a pretty large part of them. Not exclusively (though there may be some security only shows aimed at professionals).

But I'd guess something like 95% of guns bought in the US are leisure guns. Either target shooting, collecting or hunting.

People applying for a carry permit are probably applying for security. I had a carry permit at one point because the hunter's safety instructor told us to get one (they're $19 for five years) as you're technically breaking the law if you target shoot or hunt and stop anywhere along the way (get gas or pick up food, etc). I doubt most people who have a carry permit actually carry, though. I never did. If you have a carry permit, then it's legal for you to be stowing certain things in your trunk and stop for a gallon of milk. It also, I guess, tells any law enforcement officer that you have no criminal record. 

I've not felt unsafe in the states, so the idea of carrying anything seemed like an unnecessary hassle. If I lived in an area where I felt unsafe enough to carry, it would seem like moving away is a better option.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> The constitution doesn't give rights it merely acknowledges them and states in the case of the second amendment, words to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
> The reason for the second amendment was so that the people could hold an overpowering government in check, so that's why assault rifles are fine to own.
> 
> BTW a mini gun is legal to own but they're pretty expensive and there's extra tax to pay.


I find it truly horrifying that anyone could contemplate allowing a citizen to own a mini gun, what possible justification could there be? As for the overpowering government argument I had always assumed that this was to prevent ever again being placed under the authority of an outside power, like the British. That's fair enough. But would anyone, other than perhaps those sitting in a foil lined room with a colander on their head, seriously suggest this could be applied to your current system of government? You live in a democracy. If you don't like the current resident of the White House, you can vote them out after four years. Or, as has so often happened, use your votes to change the balance of power in the Senate and congress, so he or she can't actually do the things you don't like. None of this requires people taking to the streets with automatic weapons, or is ever likely to. I cannot think of any other society which is prepared to allow its children and other citizens to be randomly murdered in large numbers, and fight like mad to resist any measures that might mitigate the problem. Bonkers.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

you do realize that to "own a minigun", you have to file for a class III license and your house is then free game for ATF and government agencies to search any time 24 hours a day. No warrant is needed, and no notice needs to be given ahead of time. 

If you're wondering whether or not the ATF ever does inspections at odd hours, they did so to a dealer near where I grew up, showing up at his house and his store overnight because they suspected he wasn't keeping documentation properly. That turned out to be the case - the dealer wasn't keeping older records (he thought the rules were a pain for things that were no longer relevant) and he was shut down. 

Translation - who actually owns a minigun? I'd bet you could actually find a list of names - you'd have to be extremely wealthy, and everyone on vacation in your area who watched terminator movies would say "can I come over and try it?!?". 

I did know exactly one person who had automatic rifles and a class III without being a dealer - actually, my dad knew the guy. I never met him. The back story was that he married a wealthy lady who inherited a bunch of money and spent her money on machine guns and mcintosh audio equipment. 

There was one loophole here that I didn't like, and that was that the "bump stock" was interpreted under the obama administration to be a legal firearm and not an automatic rifle because the gun itself didn't repeat, but the movement of the shooter's hand (influenced by a trick stock) did. I thought it should be class III and the interpretation by the ATF was to the letter of the law and not the spirit. 

Trump got in office, declared it a machine gun and had it moved to class III. As a matter of how hopeless politics can make people (or how irrational), there was almost no backlash to Trump more or less overruling agencies and demanding something because he felt "it's a machine gun". It'd have been an enormous pain if it occurred under Obama. 

Bump stock is what the las vegas shooter used. I could not understand why Obama didn't make a stink when the ATF ruled it wasn't functionally a machine gun part and was happy to see Trump have it moved to restricted status.


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

Getting back to the subject of armed law enforcement and understanding that we do not see the vast majority of competent officers going about a dangerous job without acting as judge, jury and executioner a thing that has always puzzled me is when a police shooting makes headline news they always seem to keep firing until the gun is empty. If using a 45 you would think that unless you are dealing with a suspected suicide bomber one hit would do the job, it would be quite exceptional to still be threatening with a hole that size in any part of the body. Also the officer with the now empty gun is vulnerable until they can reload. I would expect fire and assess before firing again to be very much part of the training. Does anybody know, is it just that when we see footage it is because things have gone very wrong?


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

While I was typing this came up on a news channel I had open. Bloody tragic. Glad I live in a place where I wouldn't assume anyone entering my house had a gun.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> involving the so called NRA


It really is called the National Rifle Association, or NRA.


Fergie 307 said:


> I find it truly horrifying that anyone could contemplate allowing a citizen to own a mini gun, what possible justification could there be? As for the overpowering government argument I had always assumed that this was to prevent ever again being placed under the authority of an outside power, like the British. That's fair enough. But would anyone, other than perhaps those sitting in a foil lined room with a colander on their head, seriously suggest this could be applied to your current system of government? You live in a democracy. If you don't like the current resident of the White House, you can vote them out after four years. Or, as has so often happened, use your votes to change the balance of power in the Senate and congress, so he or she can't actually do the things you don't like. None of this requires people taking to the streets with automatic weapons, or is ever likely to. I cannot think of any other society which is prepared to allow its children and other citizens to be randomly murdered in large numbers, and fight like mad to resist any measures that might mitigate the problem. Bonkers.


The "Founding Fathers" were were a bunch of revolutionary freedom fighters, who a) would be classed as terrorists today, and b) had just won their revolutionary war and thrown out their evil overlord despotic foreign dictator (or king, as he liked to be referred to). They very much wanted the revolutionary spirit to live on forever, where every man was an independent master of his own destiny. If you could bring any of them back to life they would be truly appalled at the current lack of freedom, and would almost certainly take up arms against the oppressive new government which has failed the revolutionary ideals in almost every way. 

If you are wondering how effective an armed insurrection might be in the USA, have a look at Afghanistan who have just, in their view, overthrown their own evil overlord despotic foreign dictator. 

And a final thought - at no point in the American revolutionary war was more than 5% of the population involved - it doesn't take much for a militant minority to enforce their will on the majority. Good times ahead for all of us. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> you do realize that to "own a minigun", you have to file for a class III license and your house is then free game for ATF and government agencies to search any time 24 hours a day. No warrant is needed, and no notice needs to be given ahead of time.
> 
> If you're wondering whether or not the ATF ever does inspections at odd hours, they did so to a dealer near where I grew up, showing up at his house and his store overnight because they suspected he wasn't keeping documentation properly. That turned out to be the case - the dealer wasn't keeping older records (he thought the rules were a pain for things that were no longer relevant) and he was shut down.
> 
> ...


I don't know if this is true - I hope it's not but didn't Obama try and fail to get the sale of automatic weapons to suspects on a terrorist watch list made illegal? IF that's correct that's the gun lobby saying you're not having anything stop trying - I would be interested to know the truth if anyone state side has the correct information to share


----------



## RobinBHM (31 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> Well, that's not true. Our convention centers generally have at least two home shows a year and home security is a pretty large part of them



But not attended by gun enthusiasts looking to improve their “defences”

that’s the thing, the claim guns are a defence is simply untrue.


----------



## bansobaby (31 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Zero contradiction.
> 
> the first statement is not qualified, it doesn’t say 100% of the time, does it?
> 
> ...


Ok, so 2 equals 2 except when it doesn’t ??????

You win, I give up


----------



## bansobaby (31 Dec 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Total GV deaths 2021 up to yesterday 44,594
> 
> number of mass shootings 687
> 
> ...



That’s a very interesting web site, thanks for posting the link.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> I find it truly horrifying that anyone could contemplate allowing a citizen to own a mini gun, what possible justification could there be? As for the overpowering government argument I had always assumed that this was to prevent ever again being placed under the authority of an outside power, like the British.



Haven't you noticed that The District of Columbia is not in the United states?



Fergie 307 said:


> If you don't like the current resident of the White House, you can vote them out after four years.


There were a lot of questions asked regarding the accuracy of vote counting in the last presidential election, still not settled last I heard.

But even so and even in the UK how many of the population actually voted for the party calling the shots?


----------



## Spectric (31 Dec 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> They very much wanted the revolutionary spirit to live on forever, where every man was an independent master of his own destiny. If you could bring any of them back to life they would be truly appalled at the current lack of freedom, and would almost certainly take up arms against the oppressive new government which has failed the revolutionary ideals in almost every way.


So long live the wild west concept, but once all the land was owned by someone then what hope did that revolutionary spirit have as there was nothing left to gain and so people settled down under the thumb of so called democracy.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> I don't know if this is true - I hope it's not but didn't Obama try and fail to get the sale of automatic weapons to suspects on a terrorist watch list made illegal? IF that's correct that's the gun lobby saying you're not having anything stop trying - I would be interested to know the truth if anyone state side has the correct information to share


Do you hope it's not true because you think it would be wrong to infringe peoples rights just on suspicion or do you hope it's not true because you think it should have been done?


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

Someone sent me a PM more familiar with the restrictions in the US - there's a middle ground for restricted hardware. A "tax stamp" where you pay for a background check from the fed. gov in the US and you get your purchases recorded and reported to local authorities. 









It's still legal to own a machine gun (it's also extremely difficult and especially expensive)


In May of 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which among other things, made the sale of fully-automatic firearms, manufactured before that year, illegal. Owning the guns are still legal. It's just exceptionally difficult and very expensive.




www.washingtonexaminer.com





I don't know anyone who has done this without a class III license, but I don't know many of the latter in the first place who aren't gun dealers, and it could be that the one guy I know who is a collector is both to make it easier for him to buy and sell. 

In the interest of factual accuracy (as there was never a point where I would've considered any of the above - owning something that was even military styled (like an AR 15) was beyond my limits of taste).


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Dec 2021)

Spectric said:


> so people settled down under the thumb of so called democrac


I dont know if you are aware of this, but the USA is not a democracy: it is a republic - a very different fish. It has now morphed into a "representative democracy", which seems to mean government by the oligarchy, but the founding fathers were very, very leery of anything democratic, because it is a tyranny of the majority. Still, that would be better than a tyranny of the billionaire class, or even worse a tyranny of scientism - both of which we seem to have this week. 

I think that quote at the time was, "You have a republic - if you can keep it". It's possible that they couldn't.


----------



## Designer1 (31 Dec 2021)

Off topic (again) but what's people's thoughts on this? Imo I think they had every right to show the arms but not fire until an attempt to clearly harm them was made. I.e self defence only.

Article attached for reference.









Missouri governor pardons couple who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter demonstrators


A lawyer for McCloskeys said pardon ‘vindicates’ their conduct




www.google.co.uk


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Do you hope it's not true because you think it would be wrong to infringe peoples rights just on suspicion or do you hope it's not true because you think it should have been done?


Because it should have been done. There are two sets of rights those of the individual and society. In this country we hold people on bail before trial if there is enough evidence to convince a court they may post a significant threat or are likely to abscond. Strangely we don't let them buy machine guns.


----------



## John Brown (31 Dec 2021)

"There were a lot of questions asked regarding the accuracy of vote counting in the last presidential election, still not settled last I heard."
Yeah, there are a lot of questions asked about whether the earth is flat, or Santa Claus exists. Also still not settled, last I heard.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

The vote count questioning is hocum. If there was anything significant in terms of vote count errors, it would be provable in court. The candidate who got the most votes (relatively easily) won, and if anyone doesn't like it, they should examine the behavior of the prior President first and then see if they can figure out why something easily proven in court (inaccurate vote totals) never materialized.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Haven't you noticed that The District of Columbia is not in the United states?
> 
> 
> There were a lot of questions asked regarding the accuracy of vote counting in the last presidential election, still not settled last I heard.
> ...


I do apologise I should have paid more attention to where you were, it's a federal district isn't it? 
In relation to your further comment, that's democracy ! Being governed by people most of us didn't actually vote for! Daft in many ways I agree, PR would be better in my opinion. However you do it you will always have a significant proportion of the population being governed by the people they didn't vote for, still no real reason to claim to be oppressed, still less to take to the streets with guns. The recent decision in relation to travelling vigilantes, or whatever you want to call them, was an eye opener. Presumably next time there is some large scale public disorder people will be flooding in from miles around with automatic weapons, keen to take advantage of any opportunity to "defend themselves".


----------



## dannyr (31 Dec 2021)

Did a little girl just shoot herself dead on Christmas day? 

Suffer the cihldren.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> Because it should have been done. There are two sets of rights those of the individual and society. In this country we hold people on bail before trial if there is enough evidence to convince a court they may post a significant threat or are likely to abscond. Strangely we don't let them buy machine guns.


That's not a very good analogy. People who are on bail awaiting trial have been charged with an offence, so the CPS at least are convinced there is a case against them, and that they are likely to be convicted. Your initial reference was to people who are on a watch list. Now some may be on that list because they are convicted terrorists, but other will be there because they are simply suspected of involvement in some kind of offending, or are known to sympathise with the ideals of, say ISIS. If we go down the road where people's rights can be restricted in the basis of mere suspicion, that is a very slippery slope. The police for example can arrest you on suspicion of having committed an offence, but have to then quickly establish their case sufficiently for you to be charged, or let you go.


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

Designer1 said:


> Off topic (again) but what's people's thoughts on this? Imo I think they had every right to show the arms but not fire until an attempt to clearly harm them was made. I.e self defence only.
> 
> Article attached for reference.
> 
> ...


IMO Showing your ability to defend yourself to a potentially dangerous mob could well be the best course of action, better than looking vulnerable then having to kill to protect yourself. Pointing the weapon crosses a line, is it justified, I think you would have to be there to know. I sometimes think our laws go to far to protect the guilty have you heard of Tony Martin a Norfolk (UK) farmer who shot a burglar in his home, in his case the law could not protect him but he was convicted this explains why









Mental Health and Personal Safety Specialists


Experts in workplace Mental Health and Personal Safety.




www.oakwoodtraining.co.uk





In better circumstances he should not have done what he did. But he was an old man, these people broke into his home not once but repeatedly, he did not get adequate protection from the law and I don't think the effect of this over years was properly understood by the jury, the fact he lied may have swayed them and obviously I haven't seen the evidence they saw.

Where the line should be drawn I'm not qualified to say, I don't think our courts always get it right but I still have a better impression of our system than the American one.


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> That's not a very good analogy. People who are on bail awaiting trial have been charged with an offence, so the CPS at least are convinced there is a case against them, and that they are likely to be convicted. Your initial reference was to people who are on a watch list. Now some may be on that list because they are convicted terrorists, but other will be there because they are simply suspected of involvement in some kind of offending, or are known to sympathise with the ideals of, say ISIS. If we go down the road where people's rights can be restricted in the basis of mere suspicion, that is a very slippery slope. The police for example can arrest you on suspicion of having committed an offence, but have to then quickly establish their case sufficiently for you to be charged, or let you go.


True. But there is quite a difference between imprisonment and not being allowed to buy an AR15


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Designer1 said:


> Off topic (again) but what's people's thoughts on this? Imo I think they had every right to show the arms but not fire until an attempt to clearly harm them was made. I.e self defence only.
> 
> Article attached for reference.
> 
> ...


I've never heard of someone being pardoned for a misdemeanor before.

I think they did the right thing, they let the protestors know they were armed and gave them the opportunity to leave them alone. Which they wisely did.
They could have stayed hidden inside and, under the castle doctrine blew away any who entered. A much worse outcome for everyone.

But here's something I have often wondered watching American cop documentaries.

Cops pull their guns regularly and point them at people during traffic stops, street stops etc.

How is this not assault/battery or whatever term is applicable?


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> True. But there is quite a difference between imprisonment and not being allowed to buy an AR15


It was always a strange idea. If you ban someone for being on the list - presumably via some equivalent of the CPS - you would effectivly be telling them they were on the list, could be an issue ya think?


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> Because it should have been done. There are two sets of rights those of the individual and society. In this country we hold people on bail before trial if there is enough evidence to convince a court they may post a significant threat or are likely to abscond. Strangely we don't let them buy machine guns.


Not quite the same as removing a persons rights just because he's being investigated.

How many on watch lists are ever convicted of anything? I know you don't know the answer.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> True. But there is quite a difference between imprisonment and not being allowed to buy an AR15


Not really. I am not a supporter of unrestricted access to firearms, in my view no one should be allowed to own military type firearms.. However if you live somewhere where you do have the right to buy such weapons then it is a dangerous idea that that, or indeed any other right, should be restricted on the basis of mere suspicion, without evidence.


----------



## Droogs (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> Not quite the same as removing a persons rights just because he's being investigated.
> 
> How many on watch lists are ever convicted of anything? I know you don't know the answer.


Quite a few have gone on to commit acts of violence, we the ones on MI5s watchlists have.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> It was always a strange idea. If you ban someone for being on the list - presumably via some equivalent of the CPS - you would effectivly be telling them they were on the list, could be an issue ya think?


It's one of the inevitable weaknesses in any society that enjoys a level of freedom. There will undoubtedly be occasions where the suspicion of an individual is correct, but can't be substantiated. In this case you have to accept that you can't really do anything about it. The alternative is to allow the authorities to take action against people without any evidence, just on the basis that they don't like the look of them, or the people they associate with, or the ideas they have. I know which system I would rather live under.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

Droogs said:


> Quite a few have gone on to commit acts of violence, we the ones on MI5s watchlists have.


And some haven't been in any watchlist. In any case it would be quite impossible to adequately monitor everyone on a watchlist, there are simply too many. What is the alternative, lock up everyone who makes into a watchlist, whether there is any hard evidence or not?


----------



## Blackswanwood (31 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> And some haven't been in any watchlist. In any case it would be quite impossible to adequately monitor everyone on a watchlist, there are simply too many. What is the alternative, lock up everyone who makes into a watchlist, whether there is any hard evidence or not?



There is no easy answer as to how to handle those that the vast majority of society feel need a close eye being maintained on them. Personally I’d risk hurting their feelings by not letting them own a gun though.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

And to you too, let's hope 2022 is an improvement on 2021 !

Nice that this thread has remained as a civilised, and very interesting, debate.


----------



## Ozi (31 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> Not really. I am not a supporter of unrestricted access to firearms, in my view no one should be allowed to own military type firearms.. However if you live somewhere where you do have the right to buy such weapons then it is a dangerous idea that that, or indeed any other right, should be restricted on the basis of mere suspicion, without evidence.


Who said without evidence. I'm assuming some system similar to our CPS or a court would need to enact the ban. It's easy to see the rights of the person being restricted not so easy to see the rights of potential victims if the suspicions are true. It appears we have some common ground on the access to firearms, why do you (as I do) accept limiting the rights of those of whom there is no suspicion. 

There is evidence from opinion polling that if tightening American gun laws were put to a referendum there would be a majority in favor of some restrictions.

Incidentally I agree with you on the slipperiness of the slope, in this case the loss of liberty is minor and to my mind outweighed by the risk to the innocent who have a right to be protected but it would set a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Lons (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> It doesn't matter. They are all private sales unless you go to a FFL
> You are free to buy and sell guns in most states, Arizona being one.



I wasn't there but going by my previous experience, the people you met there were most friendly, helpful and welcoming. Were any of them mean to you in any way?
Hell they were even willing to knock the price down so you would have the means to defend yourself.

Ammo isn't controlled in most places, A guy in new hampshire was amazed when I showed him my FAC with a 1000 rnd limit for this and that ammo.
He wanted to give me a .50 cal round as a souvenir. lol

So I said "If I wanted to buy 100 of those .50 cal, you would sell them to me?"

"Help you carry them to the car" he replied.

I'm just thinking Lots of guys here trying to apply Soccer rules to a Baseball match. 

That well and truly confirms my points Artie, those being that virtually anyone it seems can buy a gun and ammunition in many states across the US so that means anywhere in the country as it's simple to cross border states without checks.
The fact the people are friendly which I did find to be the case is completely irrelevant and in any case who wouldn't be friendly if they were trying to sell me something.
Fact : guns everywhere on open sale so easy for most people to access.
Fact : being friendly today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow or if they fuel up with alcohol or drugs or someone gets into a heated argument with them.

People do things in the spur of the moment, you can run away from a knife unless the perpetrator is a practiced knife thrower but put a gun in his or her hand instead and you're much more likely to be hit, especially if it's a semi auto.


----------



## Lons (31 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> None - firearms dealers are audited by the ATF on a regular basis. A gun transferring in without transfer out paperwork is a loss of a class III license (and a loss of making a living) and then worse once punishment is decided.



How do you know they aren't? I disagree and perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant so read again what I said which was *" Yebbut how many are private sales and how many of those are actually under the counter dealers posing as private? "*

Some of those selling at the "boot sale" I attended were very definitely "dealers" and certainly not private individuals selling off a few items. Note that I didn't say *legitimate *or *registered* dealers but the fact they were posing as private sellers changes nothing in the same way that sellers on ebay pretend to be private individuals when they are in fact a business, legitimate or otherwise.

By saying "none" you're implying there is no black market in gun sales.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

I'm saying registered dealers don't. There are collectors who are private and not selling for income, but to improve their collections. I don't know those rules that well. There are also rules for antiques referred to as curios and relics. I don't know those that well , either. 

My point to you was that income generating individuals not registered as dealers will probably get in trouble and the idea that they're an appreciable source of gun violence is false. The vast majority of crimes are committed with stolen or unlawfully obtained guns.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

Ozi said:


> Who said without evidence. I'm assuming some system similar to our CPS or a court would need to enact the ban. It's easy to see the rights of the person being restricted not so easy to see the rights of potential victims if the suspicions are true. It appears we have some common ground on the access to firearms, why do you (as I do) accept limiting the rights of those of whom there is no suspicion.
> 
> There is evidence from opinion polling that if tightening American gun laws were put to a referendum there would be a majority in favor of some restrictions.
> 
> Incidentally I agree with you on the slipperiness of the slope, in this case the loss of liberty is minor and to my mind outweighed by the risk to the innocent who have a right to be protected but it would set a dangerous precedent.


I think the original proposition was that by virtue of your name being on a watchlist, you would be prohibited from buying a firearm, without any evidence as to why your name was on the list in the first place. If the process were subject to some process whereby the authorities had to justify this to an independent body, that is a very different matter. 
As to firearms, I have no objection to them in principle. If people want to own pistols for target shooting, as I used to, I see no problem with that. Equally those who hunt, whether it be with a rifle or shotgun. In all cases it seems only sensible that suitable measures are taken to ensure that these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, either by way of completely unsuitable people being licenced to own them, or through lax security. I for example never took my pistol home, it was stored at the club. Most of not all mass shootings in the UK, Dunblane, Hungerford etc, have been committed by licenced holders using licenced weapons. The outcome of subsequent enquiries has tended to be that there were clear signs before the event that these individuals were unstable, and there would have been ample justification to rescind their licences. So any form.of licensing needs to be much more robust, and the considerable cost should fall on those seeking a licence.
My objection is to the general public being allowed to own military type weapons, or full automatics. I can see no justification for this, and in my view it should not be allowed. I think the government are perfectly justified in imposing such a restriction for the greater good, just as we say people should not drive their car whilst drunk, and deprive them of their licence if they do so.
In the UK the government has decided to impose what amounts to a ban on pistol ownership, and restrictions on many other types of weapons. The argument seemed to be that removing weapons from circulation would improve matters, and if some leisure shooters were inconvenienced then so be it. I don't object to the sentiment, but believe the logic was flawed, particularly in relation to pistols. Historically very few crimes were committed using handguns stolen from legitimate owners. This is still the case. The vast majority of gun crime involves handguns, pretty much all of which have been brought into the country by criminals. Gun crime is higher now than ever before in our history, although still at very low levels compared to.many other countries..


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

*Benjamin Franklin* Quote: “It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.”

I suspect some of you will disagree with that


----------



## Lons (31 Dec 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm saying registered dealers don't. There are collectors who are private and not selling for income, but to improve their collections. I don't know those rules that well. There are also rules for antiques referred to as curios and relics. I don't know those that well , either.
> 
> My point to you was that income generating individuals not registered as dealers will probably get in trouble and the idea that they're an appreciable source of gun violence is false. The vast majority of crimes are committed with stolen or unlawfully obtained guns.


I accept that DW but the point you made was specifically to my post which never mentioned registered dealers in fact the opposite entirely so why make the point at all and quote my sentence? 
You said "none" in a direct response so as I said you misunderstood what I said. That's fine, we all do that sometimes.


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I'm wondering what building would hold Americas 120 million or so gun owners?
> 
> And I hope you're not in charge of tactics should insurrection come around.


The hardcore anti-government crazies probably only number a few thousand though. Plus, if the US military is good at one thing it's blowing s**t up. Lots of it. Sometimes fairly indiscriminately. 

So I'm pretty sure that Uncle Sam would have few problems with a group of automatic toting nut jobs.


----------



## John Brown (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> *Benjamin Franklin* Quote: “It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.”
> 
> I suspect some of you will disagree with that


I actually agree with that.
I still think the proliferation.of guns is a bad thing.


----------



## jcassidy (31 Dec 2021)

Any joe can bang off a dozen rounds on a range a go home all Ramboed up, but crucial core skills such as acquiring sight picture in a busy environment, reloading, dealing with a type 1 or 2 stoppage, one handed use and reloads, etc. are only developed and maintained by many many hours of deliberate practice.


----------



## D_W (31 Dec 2021)

Lons said:


> I accept that DW but the point you made was specifically to my post which never mentioned registered dealers in fact the opposite entirely so why make the point at all and quote my sentence?
> You said "none" in a direct response so as I said you misunderstood what I said. That's fine, we all do that sometimes.



Yes, I read your original point as supposing registered dealers who went to gun shows and selling as individuals.

That got us on photographic negative points. I've only been to one show in the northeast. Computer show on one side and gun show on the other. That's not a large sample, but it looked like 90% registered dealers trying to dump junk (like tables with 200 of one type of magazine, cheap ammo). I spent my time on the computer side (which wasn't much better).


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> The hardcore anti-government crazies probably only number a few thousand though. Plus, if the US military is good at one thing it's blowing s**t up. Lots of it. Sometimes fairly indiscriminately.
> 
> So I'm pretty sure that Uncle Sam would have few problems with a group of automatic toting nut jobs.


I'd just like to point out my postings are about gun owners. If you want to discuss anti government crazies and nut jobs that's a totally different kettle of fish.


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I'd just like to point out my postings are about gun owners. If you want to discuss anti government crazies and nut jobs that's a totally different kettle of fish.


It's the bit of the Venn Diagram that overlaps that was the context. The point was simply that those who claim to own guns to protect themselves from their government might as well be armed in order to protect themselves from incoming asteroids; it'd have about as much use.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Lons said:


> you can run away from a knife unless the perpetrator is a practiced knife thrower but put a gun in his or her hand instead and you're much more likely to be hit, especially if it's a semi auto.


I'd say so.


My point was there's a idea among some people that gun owners are different, you only have to look at some of the comments on this thread.
Admittedly I have found this attitude most prevalent amongst those who have never fired or seen a gun fired and base their beliefs on what they've seen in the movies.

My impression of the gun owners and competitive shooters I've met in the UK. Ireland, USA and various European countries is that they are almost to a man/woman law abiding, fair minded individuals with a well tuned moral compass.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> *Benjamin Franklin* Quote: “It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.”
> 
> I suspect some of you will disagree with that


Not me, with you all the way.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> I'd say so.
> 
> 
> My point was there's a idea among some people that gun owners are different, you only have to look at some of the comments on this thread.
> ...


Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's not them we get to hear about.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Dec 2021)

sploo said:


> The point was simply that those who claim to own guns to protect themselves from their government might as well be armed in order to protect themselves from incoming asteroids; it'd have about as much use.


Is this purely for American revolutionaries, or revolutionaries in general? The American military machine has proved it has no answer to terrorist/unconventional /asymmetric warfare. Killing all the civilians may be a somewhat defensible strategy abroad, but at home? 

Please note I am not advocating for an uprising, but I think the idea that F35s always beat AR15s is not necessarily correct.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Fergie 307 said:


> Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's not them we get to hear about.


You make a very pertinent point.

<> 7.8 billion people in the world.
<> 200 countries 
And we get spoon fed a few minutes of so called news every 30 minutes, 24 hours a day.

How much of what's going on do we know.

Precious little I'd say.


----------



## artie (31 Dec 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> There is no easy answer as to how to handle those that the vast majority of society feel need a close eye being maintained on them. Personally I’d risk hurting their feelings by not letting them own a gun though.
> 
> Happy New Year!


This is all very well when talking about "them"

Would you be so cavalier when you accidentally dropped your wallet and a young (insert ethnic group watched by the security services) picked it up and returned it.

Unknown to you he's on a watch list and now someone thinks you're worth watching, 

So suddenly you can't buy a ticket to leave town.

After all nobody needs to leave town, you can get everything you need in town, why would anyone want to leave town anyway?


----------



## Blackswanwood (31 Dec 2021)

artie said:


> This is all very well when talking about "them"
> 
> Would you be so cavalier when you accidentally dropped your wallet and a young (insert ethnic group watched by the security services) picked it up and returned it.
> 
> ...



Sorry but I don’t get your point.

If anyone wants to watch me they’ll quickly get bored. As for leaving town I’m not sure that equates with owning a gun.


----------



## sploo (31 Dec 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Is this purely for American revolutionaries, or revolutionaries in general? The American military machine has proved it has no answer to terrorist/unconventional /asymmetric warfare. Killing all the civilians may be a somewhat defensible strategy abroad, but at home?
> 
> Please note I am not advocating for an uprising, but I think the idea that F35s always beat AR15s is not necessarily correct.


I was mostly thinking about the "prepper" types in the US who advocate owning firearms to protect themselves from their government. They always seem to be unaware that their government has marines, and tanks... and stealth bombers.


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Sorry but I don’t get your point.
> 
> If anyone wants to watch me they’ll quickly get bored. As for leaving town I’m not sure that equates with owning a gun.


I'll spell it out.

Would you be happy if your basic right to travel was curtailed because plod or MI whatever took an interest in your movements?


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I'll spell it out.
> 
> Would you be happy if your basic right to travel was curtailed because plod or MI whatever took an interest in your movements?



You’re coming across as a bit confrontational. 

Balancing the rights of individuals versus the greater good is a complex matter. Of course I would be concerned if the Police arbitrarily curtailed my right to travel. The notion though is a long way from permitting someone who the courts have deemed a risk and requiring to be monitored to own a gun.

I’m not going to get into a debate about the wider issues of civil liberties as it’s not something that can be dealt with via forum soundbites so let’s leave it there.

Happy New Year.


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> You’re coming across as a bit confrontational.



That's your perception, over which I have no control.



Blackswanwood said:


> Of course I would be concerned if the Police arbitrarily curtailed my right to travel. The notion though is a long way from permitting someone who the courts have deemed a risk and requiring to be monitored to own a gun.



No you've missed the point, maybe deliberately,
I didn't say" if the Police arbitrarily curtailed your right to travel."
I said If you were on a watch list you wouldn't be happy if your rights were removed but you would be happy if others rights were removed.




Blackswanwood said:


> I’m not going to get into a debate about the wider issues of civil liberties as it’s not something that can be dealt with via forum soundbites so let’s leave it there.
> 
> Happy New Year.


I don't know if anything can be solved on internet forums, but it passes the time and gives a glimpse of how others think.

Happy new year.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> No you've missed the point, maybe deliberately,
> I didn't say" if the Police arbitrarily curtailed your right to travel."
> I said If you were on a watch list you wouldn't be happy if your rights were removed but you would be happy if others rights were removed.



Sorry but you did reference the Police unless plod has a different meaning to the one I took it to mean…



artie said:


> I'll spell it out.
> 
> Would you be happy if your basic right to travel was curtailed because plod or MI whatever took an interest in your movements?



As I said civil liberties isn’t something I feel can be effectively debated on a forum like this so I’m out of it and will leave you to crack on if you feel it can be.

Cheers


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Sorry but you did reference the Police unless plod has a different meaning to the one I took it to mean…


I did indeed, I also referenced "MI whatever" I'm sure you understand what I meant by that.

So can we get on with a somewhat adult discussion. This thread, so far, has been the most civil and balanced I've seen on this site.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I did indeed, I also referenced "MI whatever" I'm sure you understand what I meant by that.
> 
> So can we get on with a somewhat adult discussion. This thread, so far, has been the most civil and balanced I've seen on this site.



Your reply came through and crossed as I was adding a final paragraph via an edit Artie. I’m certainly remaining civil and balanced.

Sorry but I’m not familiar with “MI whatever” but if it’s part of the legal or security system of the U.K. it can be added to my reference to the Police.


----------



## Ozi (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> *Benjamin Franklin* Quote: “It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison 1 innocent man.”
> 
> I suspect some of you will disagree with that


I'm not going to disagree, imprisonment is an extreme punishment and not just of the individual it brakes up families with some very negative outcomes. There is quite a difference with measures to limit someones ability to cause harm even pre-trial when they must be assumed innocent. Stopping an innocent man owning a military style gun while under investigation does not equate. 

I still have no idea how it could have been practically applied, which may of been why it was blocked. To be effective all gun dealiers would have had to know someone was on a terrorist watch list, that would be a frightening situation, I think I'm starting to see where it fell down.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

I think the issue is that I'm not at all sure that an individual being on a watch list is something that is determined by any sort of judicial authority. The reasons may well be based on intelligence sources that the security services are, quite understandably, unwilling to reveal or discuss. You have to have a great deal of faith of you are prepared to accept that the answer to the question, " why is Mr X on a watchlist? " might be " because we say he should be, but we can't or won't tell you why". The scope for this to be abused, intentionally or otherwise is obvious. whilst it is just a watchlist, is a means for the security service to keep an eye on someone, that's fair enough. As soon as you move to a situation where you start to restrict someone's rights based purely on their being on that list that is an entirely different matter. You don't have to go too far back to see when membership of CND or the communist party, for example, would have seen your name on a watchlist. We know now that members of CND were placed under surveillance, had their phones tapped and so forth, because the authorities considered them to be subversive elements. So whilst I have every confidence that our security service are doing their best to manage this delicate juggling act, to suggest that it is incapable of being abused is a little naive. The truth is that we place considerable power in their hands, and have to trust them to use it wisely, likewise those who are responsible for overseeing what they are doing. Getting back to guns, I think the problem in America is that the second amendment seems to be regarded by many as being sacrosanct, and cannot be reviewed in light of the massive changes in society and weapons that have taken place since it was written. At that time the state of the art weapon was a muzzle loading musket. You would not get far trying to carry out a mass shooting with one of those, the reloading time alone would enable most of your potential victims to run out of range before you were ready to fire your second shot. A modern assault rifle is clearly a very different matter. So I think you need to ask those who own such weapons how their lives would be materially affected if they were no longer able to do so. I suspect the truthful answer would be not atall. Yes it would impinge on their right to bear arms, but if that were for the benefit of society in general then so be it. There are plenty of precedents, you cannot for example drive you car down the road at whatever speed it may be capable of, because as a society we believe your ability to do that should be controlled, so we have speed limits. Admittedly our right to drive a car is not enshrined in a constitution, but if it were I am sure no one would suggest that preventing you from driving your Ferrari past the local school at 150mph would be a catastrophic infringement of your constitutional rights. In short when the most advanced weapon you could own was a musket it was perfectly reasonable for the amendment to be taken at face value, and without any qualification. That is no longer the case and I would suggest that it does need qualifying and should no longer be taken to mean essentially anything you can get your hands on.
Interesting debate.
And a happy New Year to everyone.


----------



## selectortone (1 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> At that time the state of the art weapon was a muzzle loading musket. You would not get far trying to carry out a mass shooting with one of those, the reloading time alone would enable most of your potential victims to run out of range before you were ready to fire your second shot. A modern assault rifle is clearly a very different matter.


Indeed. Logically (in order to be able to be able to rise up successfully against a tyrannical government) the 2nd Amendment should be revised to include miniguns, tanks, ground attack helicopters and all associated armament, A-10s, cruise missiles etc etc. Otherwise it is obsolete.


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

I think some are putting two unrelated things together.
The second amendment is not the cause of school shootings.
We all know of other heavily armed societies where mass shootings are rare.
If the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow there are enough guns in circulation to kill everyone ten times over.
What's the reason for mass shootings?


----------



## John Brown (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I think some are putting two unrelated things together.
> The second amendment is not the cause of school shootings.
> We all know of other heavily armed societies where mass shootings are rare.
> If the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow there are enough guns in circulation to kill everyone ten times over.
> What's the reason for mass shootings?


I don't think there is a reason.
I think they are facilitated by the easy availability of guns, and the gun culture generally.
Of course there are enough guns in circulation to kill everyone ten times over, but does that mean you should just give up and sit on your hands?
Or maybe people in the US think mass shootings are an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of gun ownership, just like society regards automobile related deaths as an acceptable consequence of driving.
I certainly don't have any answers, but I think it's worth trying anything to reduce gun deaths.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (1 Jan 2022)

> Please note I am not advocating for an uprising, but I think the idea that F35s always beat AR15s is not necessarily correct.



Completely right - Afghanistan demonstrated the inadequacy of cutting edge military tech, funded by almost limitless budgets, confronting a few (highly motivated) blokes equipped with AK47s, possibly some ground to air missiles, living in caves, no protective kit etc.


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> I don't think there is a reason.
> I think they are facilitated by the easy availability of guns, and the gun culture generally.



I grew up in what was described as the most heavily armed area in Western Europe. And that was just the legal stuff.

Anyone who had the desire could have obtained an illegal gun.

Legal ones required many hoops to be jumped through. 

At one time the only way to get a legal gun was if someone was relinquishing it. No new imports.
The scarcity of legal guns did not stop terrorists from killing thousands.

The relatively ease with which one could acquire an illegal gun did not cause school shootings.

I think the answer lies elsewhere.



John Brown said:


> Of course there are enough guns in circulation to kill everyone ten times over, but does that mean you should just give up and sit on your hands?



Sorry we are far removed and can do no more than type about it.




John Brown said:


> Or maybe people in the US think mass shootings are an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of gun ownership, just like society regards automobile related deaths as an acceptable consequence of driving.



Possibly




John Brown said:


> I certainly don't have any answers, but I think it's worth trying anything to reduce gun deaths.


I don't think it's worth trying just anything.


----------



## selectortone (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> The relatively ease with which one could acquire an illegal gun did not cause school shootings.


The vast majority of school shootings in the USA are with legally acquired weapons. Here, at Hungerford and Dunblane both perpetrators had legal guns. This is why we have such strict legislation here, and why most people agree with it. Illegal weapons are generally used in gang-related shootings or serious crime.


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> The vast majority of school shootings in the USA are with legally acquired weapons.


Communication can be difficult and I fail often, I'll try another way.

A legally acquired firearm in the USA.
Were it acquired in the same way in the UK would be an illegal firearm

So that fact doesn't affect the state of mind of the user or why he/she want's to kill multiple people.


----------



## GregW (1 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> and you can't kill many school kids with a car. You might whack one or two if you are lucky. This is why Hamilton used guns instead of attacking with his little van. Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia


----------



## Jacob (1 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> View attachment 125615


Wouldn't happen. Killing people with knives cars and bombs is just not so much fun or they'd already be at it.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Indeed. Logically (in order to be able to be able to rise up successfully against a tyrannical government) the 2nd Amendment should be revised to include miniguns, tanks, ground attack helicopters and all associated armament, A-10s, cruise missiles etc etc. Otherwise it is obsolete.


I must confess that was an argument that had occurred to me, and of course is entirely logical if you accept the tyrannical government as an ongoing threat. Doesn't bear thinking about !


----------



## artie (1 Jan 2022)

Back in the 1700s a muzzle loading musket was the pinnacle of cutting edge technology and rightly or wrongly it was broadly accepted that a freeman had the right to own one.

Later Samuel Colt invented a six shot revolver giving a single man the firepower of six.

Walter Hunt came up with a repeating rifle

Winchester lever action rifles

John Moses Browning produced the 1911

Gaston Glock. etc etc etc

Nobody said O hold on the constitution only applies to muskets.

Why now?


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I think some are putting two unrelated things together.
> The second amendment is not the cause of school shootings.
> We all know of other heavily armed societies where mass shootings are rare.
> If the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow there are enough guns in circulation to kill everyone ten times over.
> What's the reason for mass shootings?


Agree up to a point. The problem is that easy access to these sort of weapons makes the outcome of someone who is mentally disturbed or whatever going on the rampage much worse. I suppose the argument would be that removing access to these weapons would be a relatively quick way to mitigate the risk, whilst you embark on the much longer and more difficult task of addressing the problems behind it. Having said that, as you point out, in the USA there are so many of these weapons in circulation that practically speaking it would be very difficult, even if the will was there from the legislature. I think some kind of further control will come in time, sadly many more will have to be killed before sufficient numbers of people decide enough is enough to actually make it happen.


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Back in the 1700s a muzzle loading musket was the pinnacle of cutting edge technology and rightly or wrongly it was broadly accepted that a freeman had the right to own one.
> 
> Later Samuel Colt invented a six shot revolver giving a single man the firepower of six.
> 
> ...



The current interpretation as I recall it is that reasonable measures can be used - as in, you're not going to be able to shoot explosive shells for recreation out of never-deactivated military hardware. But this was inferred from English law from several hundred years ago. 

Determining where the line is otherwise is well above my pay grade. The only time that I personally woke up was when the ATF decided that a stock that turns an AR into a machine gun (that functions the same way as a sear and action that fires automatically) wasn't the same thing. But that got solved, at least for any newly made bump stocks. 






Bump Stocks | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such...




www.atf.gov





Actually, they did one better with the final rule - they required destruction of those already in existence.

Trump was an enormous nuisance, but there are two things that I liked about him. One was this, and the other was less posturing for war or getting involved in pointless military skirmishes. If there is a bigger waste than pointless wars with nothing to win, I don't know what it would be.


----------



## selectortone (1 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> If there is a bigger waste than pointless wars with nothing to win, I don't know what it would be.


I agree entirely. However, wars are never pointless if you're an arms manufacturer. How many cruise missiles (@$800k a pop) were loosed off in the two Gulf Wars? How much gear was left behind in Afghanistan? It all has to be replaced. Nice little earners there.


----------



## John Brown (1 Jan 2022)

So I guess the difference in gun death rates is all down to Americans having more murderous tendencies. Nothing can be done...


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Back in the 1700s a muzzle loading musket was the pinnacle of cutting edge technology and rightly or wrongly it was broadly accepted that a freeman had the right to own one.
> 
> Later Samuel Colt invented a six shot revolver giving a single man the firepower of six.
> 
> ...


I can see your point, however I think there has to be a stage where you have to ask if things have gone too far, and does this still reflect the intentions of those who drafted it. If we keep on extending your time line then should everyone be permitted to have a mini gun on the front porch? Or if you really believe it should apply to absolutely anything then how about a nuke?
I can't think of any similar case where something written over 200 years ago has not been revisited to reflect changes that have occurred in the meantime.
I am quite sure those who drafted this would have thought of a readily portable machine gun, capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute, as pure fantasy, just as I am sure they would have considered the idea that in years to come people would go on the rampage killing children in schools completely inconceivable. I certainly doubt they would have believed how quickly both would become reality.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> The current interpretation as I recall it is that reasonable measures can be used - as in, you're not going to be able to shoot explosive shells for recreation out of never-deactivated military hardware. But this was inferred from English law from several hundred years ago.
> 
> Determining where the line is otherwise is well above my pay grade. The only time that I personally woke up was when the ATF decided that a stock that turns an AR into a machine gun (that functions the same way as a sear and action that fires automatically) wasn't the same thing. But that got solved, at least for any newly made bump stocks.
> 
> ...


I hadn't realised they had mandated destruction of existing ones, good call. I do remember reading that when Trump initially decided to ban them he put it from a date some weeks in the future, and that every gun shop in America sold out overnight! Don't know how true that is. 
Agree with you about wars, high time the US, and ourselves, stopped sticking out noses in other people's business. It rarely ends well for either party.


----------



## clogs (1 Jan 2022)

speaking of violence....mmmmm.
JACOB, I just noticed ur avatar with a push stick instead of a sword......
made me chuckle.....nice one.....


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I hadn't realised they had mandated destruction of existing ones, good call. I do remember reading that when Trump initially decided to ban them he put it from a date some weeks in the future, and that every gun shop in America sold out overnight! Don't know how true that is.
> Agree with you about wars, high time the US, and ourselves, stopped sticking out noses in other people's business. It rarely ends well for either party.



The magazine capacity figure has come and gone here. When magazines were limited to 10 rounds under the Clinton admin, the number of "pre-ban" magazines in later years seemed to be endless. "pre ban" bump stocks would've showed up for years like new fender "unplayed" vintage guitars seem to be popping up from vintage guitar dealers. 

Something like a bump stock is far beyond just increasing the capacity in a gun magazine (it turns a legal gun into a legal machine gun - legal at the time before amending the definition of machine gun). I guess gatling guns would be curio and relic, but it would be like saying a gatling gun isn't automatic because you have to turn the crank. It's a machine gun. 

No clue if they were moved to Class III and then allowed to be kept by Class III holders, but Class III holders have a lot of requirements both in terms of records and storage, so I can't get cranked up about those folks owning weird toys.


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Agree with you about wars, high time the US, and ourselves, stopped sticking out noses in other people's business. It rarely ends well for either party.



The dippiest part of it is "hey, they haven't been raised like us at all, but if we go in and topple their government, they'll want to operate society just the same way we do". 

Instant corruption follows, disillusionment follows that and everything is akin to putting on a musical and pretending the people in the musicals really are the characters.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> The magazine capacity figure has come and gone here. When magazines were limited to 10 rounds under the Clinton admin, the number of "pre-ban" magazines in later years seemed to be endless. "pre ban" bump stocks would've showed up for years like new fender "unplayed" vintage guitars seem to be popping up from vintage guitar dealers.
> 
> Something like a bump stock is far beyond just increasing the capacity in a gun magazine (it turns a legal gun into a legal machine gun - legal at the time before amending the definition of machine gun). I guess gatling guns would be curio and relic, but it would be like saying a gatling gun isn't automatic because you have to turn the crank. It's a machine gun.
> 
> No clue if they were moved to Class III and then allowed to be kept by Class III holders, but Class III holders have a lot of requirements both in terms of records and storage, so I can't get cranked up about those folks owning weird toys.


I hasn't realised until very recently that the Gatling was offered from very early on with an option to be electrically powered. Presumably this would have been for installation in fixed fortifications, I can't imagine the battery technology of the day would have made it practical in any other scenario.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> The dippiest part of it is "hey, they haven't been raised like us at all, but if we go in and topple their government, they'll want to operate society just the same way we do".
> 
> Instant corruption follows, disillusionment follows that and everything is akin to putting on a musical and pretending the people in the musicals really are the characters.


You are so right, "all these poor people need is to be shown the American (or British) way, and they will live happily ever after". Utter nonsense, and totally disrespectful.


----------



## D_W (1 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I hasn't realised until very recently that the Gatling was offered from very early on with an option to be electrically powered. Presumably this would have been for installation in fixed fortifications, I can't imagine the battery technology of the day would have made it practical in any other scenario.



Interestingly, my 1895 Montgomery ward catalog has a lot of household batteries. They are primitive (and large), but I get the sense that battery power was temporarily popular due to lack of electricity distribution. Your thoughts about portability are probably right.


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Interestingly, my 1895 Montgomery ward catalog has a lot of household batteries. They are primitive (and large), but I get the sense that battery power was temporarily popular due to lack of electricity distribution. Your thoughts about portability are probably right.


Completely off topic but does your catalogue have any adverts for Waterbury watches? I collect these and love some of the old adverts for them.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Completely off topic but does your catalogue have any adverts for Waterbury watches? I collect these and love some of the old adverts for them.



I don't have it at hand right now, but will tomorrow late day and will take a look. There are a LOT of watches in the catalog, but less like adverts and more like a dense listing.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

Thank you.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> If we keep on extending your time line then should everyone be permitted to have a mini gun on the front porch? Or if you really believe it should apply to absolutely anything then how about a nuke?


The point of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the power of government. Actually all the original amendments did just that. The idea of every household having a mini nuke is the logical conclusion taken to its absurd extreme, but think about SWAT teams conducting no - knock entries to serve warrants for non payment of parking tickets, which has actually happened: if every house was fortified to repel violent government overreaching and abusing its powers, things might be different. Until then we get babies killed by flash - bangs thrown into cots and similar craziness. 

The USA runs its legal system as a for - profit, massive employment and wealth extraction system - they lock up even more people than the evil chinese do, for example. Is that that a sign that government needs limiting? Or just that all Americans are mad, violent lunatics who need locking up all the time? I could accept either argument, because American culture seems to work on the basis that you fix your problems by killing people (see virtually any Hollywood film for details, and explains why Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie).









Countries with the most prisoners 2022 | Statista


At the end of 2022, China had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with almost 1.7 million people in prison.




www.statista.com





Is it possible that the American culture has been created by the revolutionary fervour so deeply ingrained in the culture? If so, why don't the French shoot each other all the time? Unanswerable questions that are fun to mull over. Did WWI and then WWII cull europe of its violent genetics? It's an idea I have seen put forward a few times over the years, but somewhat off topic for this thread.


----------



## clogs (2 Jan 2022)

T_N,
The French are too busy eating cheese and getting cheesed....hahaha...

happy New year to all.....


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The point of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the power of government. Actually all the original amendments did just that. The idea of every household having a mini nuke is the logical conclusion taken to its absurd extreme, but think about SWAT teams conducting no - knock entries to serve warrants for non payment of parking tickets, which has actually happened: if every house was fortified to repel violent government overreaching and abusing its powers, things might be different. Until then we get babies killed by flash - bangs thrown into cots and similar craziness.
> 
> The USA runs its legal system as a for - profit, massive employment and wealth extraction system - they lock up even more people than the evil chinese do, for example. Is that that a sign that government needs limiting? Or just that all Americans are mad, violent lunatics who need locking up all the time? I could accept either argument, because American culture seems to work on the basis that you fix your problems by killing people (see virtually any Hollywood film for details, and explains why Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie).
> 
> ...



I wonder if we were able to ask those who wrote the US constitution and subsequent amendments whether they would feel it’s turned out as they intended …


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The USA runs its legal system as a for - profit, massive employment and wealth extraction system - they lock up even more people than the evil chinese do, for example. Is that that a sign that government needs limiting? Or just that all Americans are mad, violent lunatics who need locking up all the time


America is a libertarian, free market capitalist society.

When free markets are free, society works to benefit the rich. 
That creates huge social inequality….and crime is always linked to poverty……but wealthy republicans push the agenda that harsher prison sentences equals less crime.


America the land of the free that incarcerates 1% of its population…..a bit ironic really.


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The point of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the power of government



let’s be honest, that’s a crock of poo, isn’t it?

Thats just dog whistle politics for gun totin red necks to shout and scream whilst they down their Jack Daniels.


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> let’s be honest, that’s a crock of poo, isn’t it?
> 
> Thats just dog whistle politics for gun totin red necks to shout and scream whilst they down their Jack Daniels.


Surely it was the original intention?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Jan 2022)

That an answer to the wisdom of perpetuating the 2nd amendment can be determined through rational debate about politics, personal freedoms, weapons capability, technological progress, international comparators of crime and deaths etc is fatuous.

It is a principle established 230 years ago. A world of muskets, monarchy, slavery and empire. Before any more than the faint stirrings of the industrial revolution, organised police forces, US civil war, or even the right for most to vote.

Circumstances that made the 2nd A an important part of the constitution no longer exist.

A remaining argument may be moral - a capacity for self defence and to rise against an over-reaching State. But as the State holds all the trump cards (equipment, trained and disciplined military etc) it seems unlikely a coherent, effective response could be implemented. 

The paradox. 

In 1791 the State relied upon the support of the people for its very existence following independence. 
In 2022 the people rely upon the State for their very existence in (a) securing a framework for the necessities of life (food, law and order, clean air etc), and (b) protection from terrorism, external military threats, and internal abuses Facebook, Twitter, Internet etc


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

I think you guys oversimplify what the populace and the military would do in the event of a government and populace scuffle. Most of the military would probably abandon their positions. 

As to people in other countries determining what's relevant in U.S. law vs not, I think you're probably not in the right branch of government in the right country to determine that. The courts here interpret the law that's here and the legislature can overturn the amendment if there's a need.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

I mean, unless you want us to start telling you how dumb we think it is that you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> That an answer to the wisdom of perpetuating the 2nd amendment can be determined through rational debate about politics, personal freedoms, weapons capability, technological progress, international comparators of crime and deaths etc is fatuous.



fatuous
[ˈfatjʊəs]

ADJECTIVE

silly and pointless.



Terry - Somerset said:


> It is a principle established 230 years ago. A world of muskets, monarchy, slavery and empire.



Nothing changed then except the effectiveness of the muskets.



Terry - Somerset said:


> Circumstances that made the 2nd A an important part of the constitution no longer exist.


What were they and where have they gone?



Terry - Somerset said:


> A remaining argument may be moral - a capacity for self defence and to rise against an over-reaching State. But as the State holds all the trump cards (equipment, trained and disciplined military etc) it seems unlikely a coherent, effective response could be implemented.


This state that you speak of is but a fiction.
Remove the citizens, where is the state.



Terry - Somerset said:


> The paradox.
> 
> In 1791 the State relied upon the support of the people for its very existence following independence.
> In 2022 the people rely upon the State for their very existence in (a) securing a framework for the necessities of life (food, law and order, clean air etc), and (b) protection from terrorism, external military threats, and internal abuses Facebook, Twitter, Internet etc


You make a very good point but taking it a bit further there must be many more very competent people around who are able to not only provide for their own families but provide for those not able or willing to provide for themselves.


----------



## selectortone (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I mean, unless you want us to start telling you how dumb we think it is that you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.


No need to tell many of us how dumb that is.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I mean, unless you want us to start telling you how dumb we think it is that you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.


O, it's not a make believe believe monarchy, and although she/it is partially funded by "us" it's just a drop in the ocean to her other streams of income from all around the planet, even the land of the free and the home of the brave.


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but the last time I checked, they weren't implicated in any school massacres.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but the last time I checked, they weren't implicated in any school massacres.



It's kind of low wit to draw equivalences to two things that have nothing to do with each other. But it's also expected. 

Maybe you missed the point. I don't really care if you guys support the queen - it seems goofy to me. I don't have any ideas regarding how you should stop giving the queen public money because it's not an issue for someone living in the US.


----------



## gregmcateer (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but the last time I checked, they weren't implicated in any school massacres.



True, but there is some suspicion that a certain member of the family may have recruited his girlfriends from around the school gates. Allegedly


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> No need to tell many of us how dumb that is.



Well, regardless of what it is, if the majority of the UK likes the whole queen thing, I think it's your business and not mine. The only time it's ever cramped my lifestyle was a girlfriend two decades ago who wanted to sit and watch royal family related stuff all the time - sort of like a soap opera to people in the US - not because it's a soap opera there, but because to us (given that the royal family has no relevance in the US), it might as well be. 

There have been times that the US media has depicted Britain as the land of tabloids and people sitting and watching the queen and all of the royal family bits all day. I doubt that there isn't a little more than that going on there.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> America is a libertarian, free market capitalist society.
> 
> When free markets are free, society works to benefit the rich.
> That creates huge social inequality….and crime is always linked to poverty……but wealthy republicans push the agenda that harsher prison sentences equals less crime.
> ...



I think statistically, close to half of the crime comes from two things:
* households with broken families
* households with controlling mothers or terrible drunken abusive fathers

What's apparently out of bounds now is providing a message of how honorable it is to be a good father despite the payback not being monetary. It's viewed now as being bigoted and the only group I can think of who has pushed a public campaign of making note of fatherhood is a one-off not-for-profit that's funded by various churches. 

When they place signs near me, they get defaced instantly. 

Serial killers often come from one of the two bits above, though there are some who are just genuine defects from birth.


----------



## selectortone (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Well, regardless of what it is, if the majority of the UK likes the whole queen thing, I think it's your business and not mine. The only time it's ever cramped my lifestyle was a girlfriend two decades ago who wanted to sit and watch royal family related stuff all the time - sort of like a soap opera to people in the US - not because it's a soap opera there, but because to us (given that the royal family has no relevance in the US), it might as well be.
> 
> There have been times that the US media has depicted Britain as the land of tabloids and people sitting and watching the queen and all of the royal family bits all day. I doubt that there isn't a little more than that going on there.


The Royal Family have many fans outside the UK. It's one of the reasons trotted out whenever there is any criticism - it promotes tourism. Personally, their attitude to tne monarchy is one of the few things which I agree with the French on.


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I think you guys oversimplify what the populace and the military would do in the event of a government and populace scuffle. Most of the military would probably abandon their positions



Surely it has to be crazy to imagine that the American public needs guns just in case the government has to be overthrown.

America is not some tin pot banana republic….even though Trump pushed it that direction.

If the people really think democracy is that fragile, they should get on and change the political system.


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> The Royal Family have many fans outside the UK. It's one of the reasons trotted out whenever there is any criticism - it promotes tourism. Personally, their attitude to tne monarchy is one of the few things which I agree with the French on.


Personally I prefer the monarchy, anachronistic though it is, to a presidential system. I see no point in having a prime minister if a president takes all the power. Although the Royal family do perpetuate privilege in the UK, which is holding us back.


----------



## Spectric (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.


Yes we do tend to hang onto surplus history, the monachy is a relic from the days of when we enjoyed war with France and Spain and needed some figure head to fight for, a bit like the church of England helped justify the crusades convincing the people it was gods will.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Surely it has to be crazy to imagine that the American public needs guns just in case the government has to be overthrown.
> 
> America is not some tin pot banana republic….even though Trump pushed it that direction.
> 
> If the people really think democracy is that fragile, they should get on and change the political system.



My point is we're in the fantasy realm talking about that kind of thing in general - first that some group is going to stage some kind of rebellion, and second that it would follow into wide spread bombing of citizens. Neither is going to happen, and both in the row, even less likely. 

This isn't China where most folks will fall in line - this is kind of fantasy stuff. The democracy isn't remotely close to as fragile as the news likes to make it out to be, and most of the nonsense in the news is drummed up by the news itself and then stirred further to sell advertisements. I just spent 5 days with people of varying political beliefs and the only thing that came up was one nutty person who kept insisting that "we don't know yet if Omicron makes people less sick, and this could cause a crisis". I tried to explain data sets and most likely estimates to them - view outcomes, not politics, not supposition - no luck. 

I'm not sure, though, why everyone loves to imagine that there's a militia that will rise up and there will be some kind of government reaction that involves bunker busters or something. It's weird. As to the viability of just bombing people and coming to control, in terms of reviewing real outcomes, what have we found in Afghanistan? it's not a path anyone will take - the government's track, and that of the private sector is to maintain economic stability, which helps keep social and political stability, regardless of the news. The likelihood is greatest that the news will continue to highlight the five percent of nuts on each end and pretend it's the norm, but day to day life on the ground won't change.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Personally I prefer the monarchy, anachronistic though it is, to a presidential system. I see no point in having a prime minister if a president takes all the power. Although the Royal family do perpetuate privilege in the UK, which is holding us back.



You guys should have a separate thread where the automatic response isn't "the queen doesn't cost us much, the RF has their own assets and generates their own money", but rather - is it time for those assets to be the property of the public and used for social good.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Yes we do tend to hang onto surplus history, the monachy is a relic from the days of when we enjoyed war with France and Spain and needed some figure head to fight for, a bit like the church of England helped justify the crusades convincing the people it was gods will.


The church of England justified the crusades? Did you do any history atall?
The crusades took place hundreds of years before the Church Of England was established. The Crusades were called for by a variety of Popes, all of whom seemed oblivious to the commendably unambiguous commandment "thou shalt not kill", a blindness which sadly has afflicted the clergy ever since, hence the blessing of bombs about to be dropped on people and other similar nonsense.


----------



## Spectric (2 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> The crusades took place hundreds of years before the Church Of England was established.


Yes but they were still under the same pretence, forgot old Henry was not that old.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> America is a libertarian, free market capitalist society.
> 
> When free markets are free, society works to benefit the rich.
> That creates huge social inequality….and crime is always linked to poverty……but wealthy republicans push the agenda that harsher prison sentences equals less crime.
> ...


So what's the alternative? A socialist command economy perhaps? Has anyone tried that? How did it go? Did everyone live happily ever after?


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> is it time for those assets to be the property of the public and used for social good.


Isn't that a sort of communist idea?
A quick google search turns up a value of $600,000 dollars for Her Majesty. I personally think that's grossly understated.

Of course it all depends how it's counted and and the terminology. What is the Queen, the Monarchy and the Crown?


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Well, regardless of what it is, if the majority of the UK likes the whole queen thing, I think it's your business and not mine.


It's not a matter of liking it.

She rules by divine right


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I mean, unless you want us to start telling you how dumb we think it is that you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.


It seems to me that you started the "low wit" thing, D_W.
I was just expressing my opinion that your comparison was nonsensical.


----------



## Cabinetman (2 Jan 2022)

Someone asked earlier if World War I and II had wiped out the French peoples violent tendencies, don’t know but ever since the Napoleonic wars the French have been on average shorter than they were before, Napoleon was well known for having the tallest men he could find for his army and despite what people on here have said about inefficient muskets an awful lot were killed by them.


----------



## doctor Bob (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but the last time I checked, they weren't implicated in any school massacres.



one of them would take on a girls school given the opportunity..


----------



## Cabinetman (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> There have been times that the US media has depicted Britain as the land of tabloids and people sitting and watching the queen and all of the royal family bits all day. I doubt that there isn't a little more than that going on there.


Funnily though when I’m stood in the queue in American supermarkets and they have all those tempters including magazines for people, it never fails to amaze me that the Royal family is on at least half of the front covers.
And although a fairly low percentage of Americans have a passport the ones that do, love coming here and the Royal family is one of the big draws. Ian


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

Cabinetman said:


> Funnily though when I’m stood in the queue in American supermarkets and they have all those tempters including magazines for people, it never fails to amaze me that the Royal family is on at least half of the front covers.
> And although a fairly low percentage of Americans have a passport the ones that do, love coming here and the Royal family is one of the big draws. Ian



That's pretty much what most of us see about the royal family; the tabloids at the supermarket. Not sure how many of them sell.


----------



## doctor Bob (2 Jan 2022)

I do like the queen but it seems mental that in the modern world royalty exists.
I think it's well past it's sell by date.
I wouldn't miss it.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Isn't that a sort of communist idea?
> A quick google search turns up a value of $600,000 dollars for Her Majesty. I personally think that's grossly understated.
> 
> Of course it all depends how it's counted and and the terminology. What is the Queen, the Monarchy and the Crown?



I think it's communist if it's private business seized. I guess a claim could be made that the queens money is private enterprise, but who made the initial investment? And any supplemental investment needed along the way?


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> So what's the alternative? A socialist command economy perhaps? Has anyone tried that? How did it go? Did everyone live happily ever after?


"Crime is always linked to poverty" This sort of stereotypical nonsense really annoys me, it is so condescending. You are but a hairs breadth from concluding that poor person equals potential criminal. The overwhelming majority of people who are socially disadvantaged, or living in poverty, do not commit crime, and would no more think of doing so than I would hope you or I would. Are social disadvantage and poverty factors, yes, but there are many others. To suggest that one necessarily leads to the other is a gross over simplification.


----------



## doctor Bob (2 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> "Crime is always linked to poverty" This sort of stereotypical nonsense really annoys me, it is so condescending. You are but a hairs breadth from concluding that poor person equals potential criminal. The overwhelming majority of people who are socially disadvantaged, or living in poverty, do not commit crime, and would no more think of doing so than I would hope you or I would. Are social disadvantage and poverty factors, yes, but there are many others. To suggest that one necessarily leads to the other is a gross over simplification.



Absolutely, but the real truth is most people, rich or poor are nice honest people.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I think it's communist if it's private business seized. I guess a claim could be made that the queens money is private enterprise, but who made the initial investment? And any supplemental investment needed along the way?


As I recall is boils down to a bunch of Frenchmen coming over here some years ago and bashing the locals on the head, then taking everything the locals had and distributing it amongst themselves. Their descendants then passed it on and so on. You could argue that since the locals had probably acquired the stuff in the same way in the first place, they had little cause for complaint. Throughout human history is has ever been thus, and some would say continues to this day. Sadly we are a quarrelsome species.

As an amusing aside, when I type quarrelsome my auto correct thinks I mean Australians ??


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

Maybe autocomplete was seeded from an older dictionary.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Absolutely, but the real truth is most people, rich or poor are nice honest people.


Indeed, and the one thing all criminals have in common is a degree of contempt for their fellow citizens, and indeed society in general.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Maybe autocomplete was seeded from an older dictionary.


Ah, so Australians were more quarrelsome in times past? There may be something in that. From their performance in two world wars I can only say thank goodness they were on our side !
Wish they weren't so damn good at cricket though.


----------



## Spectric (2 Jan 2022)

All this sounds like hoarding, some people can live minimalistic lifestyles whilst others hoard and in the case of our monachy it is definately a case of hoarding, keeping hold of something with little use in case it comes in handy one day. To make it worse we also have kept all the associated baggage and trimmings that have become attached to it over the years, so is it not time for the truth to come out, lets see how many breaks in that so called royal linage by giving them ancestory DNA test and see how many of us have royal connections.


----------



## selectortone (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> My point is we're in the fantasy realm talking about that kind of thing in general - first that some group is going to stage some kind of rebellion, and second that it would follow into wide spread bombing of citizens. Neither is going to happen, and both in the row, even less likely.


But, but, but...... isn't that the whole justification for the existence of the 2nd Amendment? If it's all such a fantastical scenario why is it still here?


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

Given how keen some of the ancestors were on distributing royal favour, I can imagine there would be quite a few! I just love the way she sails serenely on. The occupants of the monkey house we call the house of commons could certainly learn from her example.


----------



## Spectric (2 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> But, but, but...... isn't that the whole justification for the existence of the 2nd Amendment? If it's all such a fantastical scenario why is it still here?


No different to our monarchy, you get something in place and you become stuck with it forever, good, bad or indifferent.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> That's pretty much what most of us see about the royal family; the tabloids at the supermarket. Not sure how many of them sell.


If they didn't sell they wouldn't be there.
Anyway I'm no fan of Royalty or governments for that matter, but it seems to me that POTUS has sort of taken on royal status.

It appears to me a lot of things are done by executive order nowadays, is that any different than the Queens pleasure?


----------



## Cabinetman (2 Jan 2022)

I looked it up to save you all the time, President of the United States


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> If they didn't sell they wouldn't be there.
> Anyway I'm no fan of Royalty or governments for that matter, but it seems to me that POTUS has sort of taken on royal status.
> 
> It appears to me a lot of things are done by executive order nowadays, is that any different than the Queens pleasure?



Executive orders are usually toothless or based on execution of law already in place. They can't be an expansion of power.

And, we elected the president.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Executive orders are usually toothless or based on execution of law already in place. They can't be an expansion of power.


I genuinely don't understand.
Do you mean by toothless, that it has no effect?
If the law is already in place, why does it take an executive order to activate it?


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> The democracy isn't remotely close to as fragile as the news likes to make it out to be


Trump did his best to destroy democracy, but the American voting system resisted his attempts to bypass democracy.

I think that is proof America is democratic, not that democracy is that real anywhere really.


----------



## RobinBHM (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> And, we elected the president


its not so much elect as choose between 2 dung choices, billionaire A or billionaire B

Trump or Biden
Clinton or Trump.

as opposed to 
Johnson or Corbyn…….


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

Is anything done "by the queen's pleasure"?
But to get back to the original topic, if it's not the ubiquity of guns that leads to the very high gun death rate in the US, compared with other civilized countries, then what other theories are proposed?


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

I remember a reporter interviewing workers leaving one of the car factories in Detroit. He asked one guy who he was going to vote for out of Reagan and, I believe, Ford?
His reply "Some choice huh, a movie star or a bum", priceless!


----------



## Vann (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> ...But Guns don't kill people. People kill people...



And if you give them ready access to guns they can do it quickly and efficiently while they're still angry - before they've had a chance to cool down and think about it. 



John Brown said:


> No. People with guns kill people. It's very rare for a gun to kill anyone without another person being involved. Australia did the experiment for you. I'm sick of people trotting out trite phrases like "guns don't kill people". Total bo11ocks.



Quite right.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> Is anything done "by the queen's pleasure"?


Every act of HER government.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

I think it was Will Self who wryly observed to the audience on Question Time that we get the politicians we deserve because we moan if they lie to us, but if they try and tell us the truth we won't vote for them. Pretty accurate really.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

Vann said:


> And if you give them ready access to guns they can do it quickly and efficiently while they're still angry - before they've had a chance to cool down and think about it.


Works for a knife, golf club or bare hands just the same.


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Every act of HER government.


That is a formality, as you know. Not comparable to an executive order.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

Apologies to our American friends, it was Carter, not Ford. Stupid of me as I knew Ford was a Republican so would hardly have been running against another, doh!


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> That is a formality, as you know. Not comparable to an executive order.


It's a fact.

I don't know much/anything really about executive orders, waiting for DW to fill me in.


John Brown said:
I'm sick of people trotting out trite phrases like "guns don't kill people". Total bo11ocks.

Lets get real, anything from a pebble up through rocks, clubs, arrows etc can be used to kill people.

There is a deep seated fear in people when it comes to guns, mostly from people who know nothing about them.

So out come the knee jerk reaction, ban them.

You said Australia did the experiment.

So tell us what was the outcome of the Australian experiment. Have there been no more murders?


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Every act of HER government.


I'd love to know what she thinks of some of the activities of "Her" government. I bet she must occasionally wish she could go down there and bang their heads together.


----------



## selectortone (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Every act of HER government.


Artie, you're taking the p*iss. You can't really believe that. When was the last time a monarch stopped the enactment of a bill? (It was 1709)

Do you actually believe that every bill enacted since then was at the monarch's pleasure? They agreed with every single one? It's ceremonial.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> You can't really believe that. When was the last time a monarch stopped the enactment of a bill? (It was 1709)


I understood it was in 1707 by Queen Anne.

So you've just proved my point?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> But to get back to the original topic, if it's not the ubiquity of guns that leads to the very high gun death rate in the US, compared with other civilized countries, then what other theories are proposed?


Well, another theory might be abortion or lack of availability therof. The murder rate in the usa is actually much, much lower than it was in the 70s. Some politicians claimed they were responsible for the remarkable drop because of their fabulous left wing or right wing policies, but the clever peeps at Freakanomics put forward the theory that Roe vs Wade was actually the cause: all those unwanted, unloved babies suddenly weren't being born, and weren't growing up living on the margins of society, with no morals and no desire to be law abiding. The original paper may be here: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue/Donohue and Levitt (2001).pdf but I couldn't get it to download. Here's an updated podcast for those with time and interest: Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics


----------



## selectortone (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I understood it was in 1707 by Queen Anne.
> 
> So you've just proved my point?


Yep. Definitely taking the pish.


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> It's a fact.
> 
> I don't know much/anything really about executive orders, waiting for DW to fill me in.
> 
> ...


Yep. Zero murders in Australia since.


----------



## John Brown (2 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Well, another theory might be abortion or lack of availability therof. The murder rate in the usa is actually much, much lower than it was in the 70s. Some politicians claimed they were responsible for the remarkable drop because of their fabulous left wing or right wing policies, but the clever peeps at Freakanomics put forward the theory that Roe vs Wade was actually the cause: all those unwanted, unloved babies suddenly weren't being born, and weren't growing up living on the margins of society, with no morals and no desire to be law abiding. The original paper may be here: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue/Donohue and Levitt (2001).pdf but I couldn't get it to download. Here's an updated podcast for those with time and interest: Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics


Interesting. I hadn't heard that theory before.


----------



## artie (2 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> Yep. Zero murders in Australia since.


What are we to take from that?


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I genuinely don't understand.
> Do you mean by toothless, that it has no effect?
> If the law is already in place, why does it take an executive order to activate it?


That's correct. It can be a toothless suggestion or a matter of enforcement policy. The executive branch enforces the law.


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Trump did his best to destroy democracy, but the American voting system resisted his attempts to bypass democracy.
> 
> I think that is proof America is democratic, not that democracy is that real anywhere really.



Kind of a limp version of "destroy democracy". I remember when this board was all in a lather about the riots coming and I told you there'd be none. How many were there?


----------



## D_W (2 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> its not so much elect as choose between 2 dung choices, billionaire A or billionaire B
> 
> Trump or Biden
> Clinton or Trump.
> ...



I think the two guys you mentioned are more incompetent, but maybe they do have less money on their side. Not sure how worse but poorer is good. 

Biden isn't particularly wealthy.


----------



## Cabinetman (2 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Well, another theory might be abortion or lack of availability therof. The murder rate in the usa is actually much, much lower than it was in the 70s. Some politicians claimed they were responsible for the remarkable drop because of their fabulous left wing or right wing policies, but the clever peeps at Freakanomics put forward the theory that Roe vs Wade was actually the cause: all those unwanted, unloved babies suddenly weren't being born, and weren't growing up living on the margins of society, with no morals and no desire to be law abiding. The original paper may be here: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue/Donohue and Levitt (2001).pdf but I couldn't get it to download. Here's an updated podcast for those with time and interest: Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics


 I’m sure I read Freakonomics and the other theory that was proposed and there was a very convincing graph, that showed it was the exclusion of lead from petrol, and the resultant unsettling of young brains, particularly in built up areas. It also showed the explosion in crime after the lead was introduced.
It was the same scientist that came up with lead in petrol, who decided it would be a good idea to use CFCs in refrigerants, plus one other blinder I can’t remember. The guy, I think his name was Smith – an American has caused untold damage when there were other alternatives - or so I read. Ian


----------



## Lons (2 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> That's pretty much what most of us see about the royal family; the tabloids at the supermarket. Not sure how many of them sell.



Well if they don't sell in quantity that makes American supermarkets pretty dammed inefficient when it comes to shelf sales space, if something doesn't sell in a supermarket in the UK it's fairly quickly removed and replaced with items that do sell.


----------



## Jake (3 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Kind of a limp version of "destroy democracy". I remember when this board was all in a lather about the riots coming and I told you there'd be none. How many were there?



Just the one where they wanted to hang the VP and the Speaker and probably others but were eventually beaten off.


----------



## Jake (3 Jan 2022)

John Brown said:


> That is a formality, as you know. Not comparable to an executive order.



It's very similar to delegated powers under legislation here The only difference is the entirely theoretical (as proved by Rees-Mogg's complete contempt for the Queen over prorogation) fantasy that the government is wielding HMG's power rather than its own.

That prorogation debacle ended the British pompous establishment's best argument for a constitutional monarchy - that it's a handbrake on an authoritarian take-over by the executive. 

The Queen knew full well it was an outrage and unlawful and agreed anyway. 

Shocking. Would have caused a revolution in less complacent times.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> Well if they don't sell in quantity that makes American supermarkets pretty dammed inefficient when it comes to shelf sales space, if something doesn't sell in a supermarket in the UK it's fairly quickly removed and replaced with items that do sell.



They're not there in the quantity that they used to be, but that may have something to do with the internet providing the same stories for free.


----------



## doctor Bob (3 Jan 2022)

Bowling for Columbine, was an interesting film to watch back in the day.
Made in 2002 so not sure how it stands up now, but it felt like an eye opener. After the Columbine mass shooting it seemed an opportunity to do something, yet it was missed.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Completely off topic but does your catalogue have any adverts for Waterbury watches? I collect these and love some of the old adverts for them.



No dice on the Waterbury. Just a mention on an alarm clock that the alarm is "the famous waterbury" type. It looks like American pocket watch makers were too well organized by then and that's mostly what's in the catalog.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Well, another theory might be abortion or lack of availability therof. The murder rate in the usa is actually much, much lower than it was in the 70s. Some politicians claimed they were responsible for the remarkable drop because of their fabulous left wing or right wing policies, but the clever peeps at Freakanomics put forward the theory that Roe vs Wade was actually the cause: all those unwanted, unloved babies suddenly weren't being born, and weren't growing up living on the margins of society, with no morals and no desire to be law abiding. The original paper may be here: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/donohue/Donohue and Levitt (2001).pdf but I couldn't get it to download. Here's an updated podcast for those with time and interest: Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics


The murder rate decline is due to huge incarceration increases in the 1990s.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Bowling for Columbine, was an interesting film to watch back in the day.
> Made in 2002 so not sure how it stands up now, but it felt like an eye opener. After the Columbine mass shooting it seemed an opportunity to do something, yet it was missed.



I think parts of the film were criticized for being edited too far from the truth, but these incidents do bring a question...if legislation is going nowhere, what else can we look at? What's a pattern with the kids. Internet, antidepressants, antipsychotics, certain parental situations?


----------



## Droogs (3 Jan 2022)

Cabinetman said:


> I’m sure I read Freakonomics and the other theory that was proposed and there was a very convincing graph, that showed it was the exclusion of lead from petrol, and the resultant unsettling of young brains, particularly in built up areas. It also showed the explosion in crime after the lead was introduced.
> It was the same scientist that came up with lead in petrol, who decided it would be a good idea to use CFCs in refrigerants, plus one other blinder I can’t remember. The guy, I think his name was Smith – an American has caused untold damage when there were other alternatives - or so I read. Ian


Thomas Midgley Jnr, the greatest environmental disaster since an Allosaurus having a holiday in Florida looked up and thought, "What the Frack is that up there, looks a bit iffy"


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> No dice on the Waterbury. Just a mention on an alarm clock that the alarm is "the famous waterbury" type. It looks like American pocket watch makers were too well organized by then and that's mostly what's in the catalog.


Thanks for looking anyway.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> No dice on the Waterbury. Just a mention on an alarm clock that the alarm is "the famous waterbury" type. It looks like American pocket watch makers were too well organized by then and that's mostly what's in the catalog.


Waterbury are probably one of the least known of the American watch manufacturers, even though in the 1880's they were arguably the biggest watch maker in the world, in terms of numbers produced at any rate. Made their name selling cheap watches for the average Joe, at around $2.50 when the cheapest alternatives were four or five times that price. They sold millions of them all over the world in the 1870's through to the 1890's and became a household name. Got into financial difficulties by the end of the century, and eventually became part of Ingersoll, and later absorbed into Timex. I collect American pocket watches, so have quite a few examples of Egin, Waltham and Hamilton. The Waterburys are still my favourites though. Very clever design of the movement, only forty or so components in the original ones, versus over a hundred in a conventional watch of the time. Unfortunately for me good ones now fetch rather more than $2.50 !


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Ahhh...I have had only two pocket watches, both Hamilton. It's possible that wards had a house brand case and put Hamilton's in them as there are a few cheap watches in that range in the catalog.


----------



## Spectric (3 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Every act of HER government.


Is that why a new PM has to go and see her, to have the strings attached like a puppet from Thunderbirds!! That could explain some of bumbling Borris's antics.


----------



## Spectric (3 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Do you actually believe that every bill enacted since then was at the monarch's pleasure? They agreed with every single one? It's ceremonial.


Spot on, she is just a figure head in a circus that only has any power in theory, again historical drama like that silly person who insist on damaging a very nice solid door in parliament with a stick, just vandalism. Actually can you call someone "black rod" these days, could be thought of as racist pornography.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Waterbury are probably one of the least known of the American watch manufacturers, even though in the 1880's they were arguably the biggest watch maker in the world, in terms of numbers produced at any rate. Made their name selling cheap watches for the average Joe, at around $2.50 when the cheapest alternatives were four or five times that price. They sold millions of them all over the world in the 1870's through to the 1890's and became a household name. Got into financial difficulties by the end of the century, and eventually became part of Ingersoll, and later absorbed into Timex. I collect American pocket watches, so have quite a few examples of Egin, Waltham and Hamilton. The Waterburys are still my favourites though. Very clever design of the movement, only forty or so components in the original ones, versus over a hundred in a conventional watch of the time. Unfortunately for me good ones now fetch rather more than $2.50 !



OK, I looked closer - there is a section of pocket watches in the catalog - long, maybe 100 different options, and within some of those, separate case metal and movement options. In those is an option for "montgomery ward's special movement", but most of the watches aren't cheap. 

However, I did find in a totally different section - with the alarm clocks, and nowhere close to the pocket watches - a single solitary pocket watch with budget clocks - the "short stemwind waterbury" for $1.35. 

"Can be carried as a pocket watch or hung on the wall". 

In the main watch section, the cheapest adult watch is $4.10 (that I can see, though there's so many, I could've missed one) and in "bargains" under the watch section, there is a "boy's pocket watch" with a nickel plated case for $3.00...

...check that, there is a 7 jewel montgomery ward branded watch for $3.65.

That would've been about a skilled day's wage at the time for a journeyman. 

The way they stuffed the waterbury watch in another section almost suggests they were afraid if they didn't, too many people would order it. Waltham, Elgin and Hampden are listed as the branded movements on the higher cost watches (a 17 jewel movement in a lower cost case is about $20 in the catalog, an a solid gold watch just over $112). 

Interestingly, watches and quality rifles are about the same price, with the highest grade double rifles about the same as the gold watch or slightly more.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jan 2022)

They did make the original dollar watch, a fairly crude thing with only an hour hand, very rare now. Probably their most famous watches were the long wind series C and E. They had a turbillion movement that revolves inside the case once an hour. Called long winders as they have a main spring nine feet long, and took about 150 turns of the crown to fully wind up. To put that in perspective a conventional watch the same size has a spring about 22 inches long. I think prices for these went as low as $1.50 in some cases, and they were even included as a free gift to promote some products by the big mail order companies of the day. A working series E will cost you $500+ today, and quite a lot more for a really good one.


----------



## Vann (3 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Works for a knife, golf club or bare hands just the same.


Oh no it doesn't. You have to go home to get the golf club. Unless you're really good with a knife you'll miss or fail to deliver a fatal stab at more than about 10 yards. And it's really hard to do with bare hands unless you're highly trained (and the intended victim isn't too much bigger than you).

So, NO, it doesn't work just the same.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Suffolkboy (3 Jan 2022)

Vann said:


> Oh no it doesn't. You have to go home to get the golf club. Unless you're really good with a knife you'll miss or fail to deliver a fatal stab at more than about 10 yards. And it's really hard to do with bare hands unless you're highly trained (and the intended victim isn't too much bigger than you).
> 
> So, NO, it doesn't work just the same.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



I had the opportunity to visit a police firearms training establishment a few years ago where among other things we were shown videos of police engagements to try to illustrate how quickly armed response officers have to make their decisions based on what they see before them. 

The videos were from real incidents from various parts of the world and will stick with me forever. Utterly chilling. Believe me. This sentence is just not true. 

"Unless you're really good with a knife you'll miss or fail to deliver a fatal stab at more than about 10 yards. And it's really hard to do with bare hands unless you're highly trained (and the intended victim isn't too much bigger than you)."

I am reminded of a particular incident where a suspect is 10-15 yds from an armed police officer in america. The suspect is armed only with a knife, and the officer the usual pistol etc. 

The video is filmed from the officers partner's bodycam who has a pistol drawn. 

The suspect advances on the officer and delivers a fatal wound before the officer can draw his pistol, or his partner, who has already drawn can get a shot off. The suspect turns on the second officer, (with the pistol already drawn), covers a good 20-30yds while the officer fires 6-8 times (maybe more) and stops the suspect only two or three feet from himself. 

I guess my point is not to underestimate a person, trained or otherwise who is holding a knife and don't overestimate the capabilities of a gun.


----------



## Droogs (3 Jan 2022)

@Vann Now, that sounds like the voice of experience speaking


----------



## artie (3 Jan 2022)

Vann said:


> Oh no it doesn't. You have to go home to get the golf club. Unless you're really good with a knife you'll miss or fail to deliver a fatal stab at more than about 10 yards. And it's really hard to do with bare hands unless you're highly trained (and the intended victim isn't too much bigger than you).
> 
> So, NO, it doesn't work just the same.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.


My post " Works for a knife, golf club or bare hands just the same. "
was in reply to yours quoted below. 
It's perfectly true.
You may not like it.
But You might have to go home for a gun.
Unless you have experience with a gun you could miss at ten yards.
And it's really hard to use a gun to shoot someone unless you've been trained.

*Vann said:*
*And if you give them ready access to guns they can do it quickly and efficiently while they're still angry - before they've had a chance to cool down and think about it.*


----------



## selectortone (3 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> My post " Works for a knife, golf club or bare hands just the same. "
> was in reply to yours quoted below.
> It's perfectly true.
> You may not like it.
> ...


OK Artie, you take the golf club, I'll take the revolver. Let's see who comes out on top.


----------



## sploo (3 Jan 2022)

According to Wikipedia, a "Mass Shooting" is variously defined as being a minimum of three or four deaths (or sometimes five).

So... how many times has such a death toll occurred when someone entered a school, workplace, shopping centre, or other busy area armed with a golf club, knife, or bare hands? I'll concede it'll almost certainly be a figure greater than zero, but definitely dwarfed by the number of mass shootings.

Point being; yes, you can kill people with just about anything, but there are few more effective ways to harm a large number of people in a short period of time than carrying a firearm.


----------



## artie (3 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> OK Artie, you take the golf club, I'll take the revolver. Let's see who comes out on top.


That's not what it was about.


----------



## artie (3 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> According to Wikipedia, a "Mass Shooting" is variously defined as being a minimum of three or four deaths (or sometimes five).
> 
> So... how many times has such a death toll occurred when someone entered a school, workplace, shopping centre, or other busy area armed with a golf club, knife, or bare hands? I'll concede it'll almost certainly be a figure greater than zero, but definitely dwarfed by the number of mass shootings.
> 
> Point being; yes, you can kill people with just about anything, but there are few more effective ways to harm a large number of people in a short period of time than carrying a firearm.


Absolutely.
I haven't checked but I would think the number of firearm deaths due to mass shootings is way smaller than the total number, even though they get vastly more air time.
It's quite difficult to keep up when making a point in reply to what someone says.
Then somebody else takes that reply and applies it to something else.


----------



## selectortone (3 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> That's not what it was about.


.


----------



## RobinBHM (3 Jan 2022)

288 people have died THIS year from gun violence in America.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

about 349.999999 million didn't. 

I wonder how many kids were neglected because their parents were busy arguing about school shootings using terms like "they'll be likely", climate change or religion.


----------



## Noel (3 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> 288 people have died THIS year from gun violence in America.



Saw some stats the other day:

In the first 48 hours of the new year, America has seen:

•85 gun deaths
•206 gun injuries
•9 mass shootings
•4 children shot
•21 teenagers shot
•4 incidents of defensive use
•6 unintentional shootings

There were 7 mass shootings on New Year’s day.

2021 stats


20,658 gun deaths
•40,358 gun injuries
•691 mass shootings
•1,055 children (age 0-11) shot
•4,585 teenagers (age 12-17) shot
•1,236 incidents of defensive use
•1,988 unintentional shootings
~24,090 suicides [CDC estimate]

Line 4, 1.000 babies and kids???


----------



## Droogs (3 Jan 2022)

That's just depressing


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Noel said:


> Saw some stats the other day:
> 
> In the first 48 hours of the new year, America has seen:
> 
> ...



no doubt some of the 1055 are accidents from people not securing their guns or educating children and some are murders. But quite a lot of those are also parents having their kids in places where they shouldn't be. 

I'll relay something that happened to my dad - he was student teaching in easton, pa. 6th graders - 12 years old. This would've been around 1971. He told me that a group of about a dozen of them cornered him and I laughed (unlike me, my dad has been in some fisticuffs and not gotten caught - he's also strong for his size). He wasn't kidding. he said one of the kids in the group accused him of something and they were aiming to get him on the ground and beat him unconscious. 12 year olds!!! )

As he was running down the hall, one of the teachers saw him coming, opened the door, and quickly closed it (steel doors with reinforced glass). 

Easton still isn't a great place, but it's not as bad. I would guess the murder rate in the entire US was greater per capita back then. Those kids - some of them if their birthday hadn't occurred, would be in 0-11 and I could see them carrying a gun on the streets. 

Now, here's where things go odd (50 years later). Those of us in the US figure other than london, you could just about go anywhere safely in the UK. I saw a narrowboat show on amazon and the fellow driving the boat was near birmingham or something (I'm sure I have the wrong town) and he said the canal stank of weed, and that wandering around there on foot would be unsafe. 

in England!! Nobody in the US would give a second thought of going most places in England because we think most european cities are safe here save pickpocketing, perhaps and petty theft. 

If the onion could be peeled back on the stats above (Aside from the suicides - I know nobody who has been shot or shot at, but lost a relative and two HS classmates to suicide ), I'd imagine we would find instantaneous "crimes of passion" and bedroom role playing didn't have too much to do with most of the above. And we're not doing a whole lot to solve what's behind most of the rest.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> My post " Works for a knife, golf club or bare hands just the same. "
> was in reply to yours quoted below.
> It's perfectly true.
> You may not like it.
> ...


Artie.
I'd have to agree with you if we are talking about pistols. Take your average person out of the supermarket queue and give them a pistol, they'd be hard pressed to hit a man sized target reliably at even twenty feet, and that's a target that's standing still. Proficiency with a pistol takes a LOT of practice. People watch too many movies where the bad guys blaze away to little effect, while the hero nails his man first time with a pistol from 50 yards away, yeah whatever! 
I think what people are referring to is more your semi and full auto assault rifles, where you can lay down so many rounds that, even without any real skill, you can still do an awful lot of damage in a very short space of time. Look at any of your recent mass shootings and the ranges at which people were killed, and the, God forgive me, deaths per minute figure. Can you seriously suggest they could have accomplished the same with a golf club? Or their fists?


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

My wife got in a school shooting pac or action group or whatever you call it. She wanted me to sign up for it and it was some huge time commitment. I said to her "I will not, not because I don't care about victims of school shootings, but because I think there are a whole lot more preventable deaths that nobody is looking for."

While parents are terrified off the relatively less common school shootings, nobody is interested in teaching their kids to spot friends who have started to use drugs, or friends suffering severe depression and flashing signs of suicide. 

Like many males, my wife believes all of my ideas are stupid. But my kids participate in the "Kind kids" initiative now.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Artie.
> I'd have to agree with you if we are talking about pistols. Take your average person out of the supermarket queue and give them a pistol, they'd be hard pressed to hit a man sized target reliably at even twenty feet, and that's a target that's standing still. Proficiency with a pistol takes a LOT of practice. People watch too many movies where the bad guys blaze away to little effect, while the hero nails his man first time with a pistol from 50 yards away, yeah whatever!
> I think what people are referring to is more your semi and full auto assault rifles, where you can lay down so many rounds that, even without any real skill, you can still do an awful lot of damage in a very short space of time. Look at any of your recent mass shootings and the ranges at which people were killed, and the, God forgive me, deaths per minute figure. Can you seriously suggest they could have accomplished the same with a golf club? Or their fists?











Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2021 | Statista


Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,012 homicides in 2021.




www.statista.com





look through this - the unidentified weapons are probably mostly handguns - a rifle just doesn't make much for concealment and as damaging as they are when they're used, it's seldom.

..and ..fists, hands and feet 

I'd bet the bulk of these handgun murders are at very very close distance.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> They had a turbillion movement



(!!) the one in the wards catalog does have a minute hand.

I can't imagine that copyright law covers 1895 catalog content, though this book is copyrighted (there is commentary in the beginning of it by whoever reprinted it - I'm guessing it applies to that).

One of the other great things that I've never seen before is "the shower ring", which is literally a hose with a ring at the end that you put over your head and in the days before showers being common, it would dispense water down your body in a way that you could wash, and the ladies could get clean without messing up their favorite "hair did".


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2022)

we now interrupt this solving of the worlds worst first world problems with a picture of a $1.35 accurate timekeeping device - even includes a porcelainized dial. (sorry about the blur)


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Can you seriously suggest they could have accomplished the same with a golf club? Or their fists?


No of course not.
But can't you see that is not the statement that my reply for given to?


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Take your average person out of the supermarket queue and give them a pistol, they'd be hard pressed to hit a man sized target reliably at even twenty feet,


I would wager if you took your average person out of the supermarket queue and give them an assault rifle they might not even get it to work.

But before we carry this discussion any further, should we define "assault rifle" and find out just how many are in private hands?


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> we now interrupt this solving of the worlds worst first world problems with a picture of a $1.35 accurate timekeeping device - even includes a porcelainized dial. (sorry about the blur)
> 
> View attachment 125836


That's really interesting, shame it doesn't say what model it is, but with the sub second hand it's a Series J or later. Never seen them advertised at that low a price before. I have a couple of Series J watches. They pioneered the use of modern mass production methods in watchmaking, but even so this is much more complicated than the earlier ones so amazing they could turn them out for that price. if you see one in the flesh they are actually very nicely made, certainly don't look or feel cheap like some of the later Ingersoll ones for example. Did you say this catalogue was 1895? The single hand dollar ones were made in about 1870. Like everything as they got into their stride prices tumbled. Like Ford with the Model T, about $900 at launch but more like $300 a few years later.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> (!!) the one in the wards catalog does have a minute hand.
> 
> I can't imagine that copyright law covers 1895 catalog content, though this book is copyrighted (there is commentary in the beginning of it by whoever reprinted it - I'm guessing it applies to that).
> 
> One of the other great things that I've never seen before is "the shower ring", which is literally a hose with a ring at the end that you put over your head and in the days before showers being common, it would dispense water down your body in a way that you could wash, and the ladies could get clean without messing up their favorite "hair did".


Love the shower ring. And They tend to have all sorts of similar weird but ingenious stuff in those old catalogs.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2021 | Statista
> 
> 
> Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,012 homicides in 2021.
> ...


There is a very interesting book titled I believe "Shooting to live" or similar. This was written by a chap who was responsible for training police in the far East back in probably the 1950's or 60's, Shanghai I think. Lots of cops we're getting killed and he realised this was because their training, largely firing at static targets at some distance, was completely unsuitable. He looked at the incidents and realised that the vast majority of engagements were taking place at very close quarters, a few feet typically. He overhauled the training with the emphasis on being able to get the weapon into play quickly and shooting accurately at short range by good hand eye coordination. This proved very successful. It's a good read for anyone interested in pistol shooting.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I would wager if you took your average person out of the supermarket queue and give them an assault rifle they might not even get it to work.
> 
> But before we carry this discussion any further, should we define "assault rifle" and find out just how many are in private hands?


Indeed, my point was simply that most people aren't going to hit a damn thing with a pistol at any great range, without a great deal of practice. If you can make it work then the long gun is easier.
I am sure that there is probably a definition somewhere, but I would say anything from the good old 30 calibre carbine onwards. The point being that many of these incidents do seem to feature this type of weapon, relatively compact and capable of semi or full auto. Out of interest I know there are some restrictions on full auto, does that also apply to the burst fire capability, where you can select to fire say three rounds for each trigger pull.
As to the number owned, I have no idea, but suspect it would be quite an alarming number, or alarming to us in the UK anyway.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> No of course not.
> But can't you see that is not the statement that my reply for given to?


Come on Artie, you certainly implied that a golf club, knife or fists were equally capable of being used to kill people, which in absolute terms is of course perfectly true. But the context was a discussion of mass killings, and in that context it really doesn't work.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Back in the 1700s a muzzle loading musket was the pinnacle of cutting edge technology and rightly or wrongly it was broadly accepted that a freeman had the right to own one.
> 
> Later Samuel Colt invented a six shot revolver giving a single man the firepower of six.
> 
> ...



because it applies to well trained militia, and all of them, should be well trained to open carry 24/7 and act as militia.
Public is the great threat to any criminal - having ALL MEMBERS AS PUBLIC WELL TRAINED, AND CARRY TO KILL CRIMINALS. It works great on Holland, where ALL police is in casual wear conceal carry. I witnessed attempted robbery in sandwich shop, with 2 police standing in the queue… 2 seconds arrest


----------



## BucksDad (4 Jan 2022)

Moderators can we move this topic to Off Topic 2 forum please.. I think this counts as controversial and to be honest topics like this really should be "opt-in" viewing which Off Topic 2 is designed for


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Come on Artie, you certainly implied that a golf club, knife or fists were equally capable of being used to kill people, which in absolute terms is of course perfectly true. But the context was a discussion of mass killings, and in that context it really doesn't work.


My reply about golf clubs etc was to this statement made by someone else.
*" And if you give them ready access to guns they can do it quickly and efficiently while they're still angry - before they've had a chance to cool down and think about it. "

Which if you read it, it doesn't mention assault weapons or mass shooting.
But refers to the speed that an action can be carried out.*
_
*You're trying to say because it's in this thread you can give it different meaning.*
_
*Can I take your posts about watches and apply them to guns just because they're in the same thread.*


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I am sure that there is probably a definition somewhere, but I would say anything from the good old 30 calibre carbine onwards.


That's not the definition adopted by even the most controlling states.
Why call a semiautomatic rifle an assault rifle?
Only reason I can think of is that it sounds more threatening and makes for more emotive headlines.


----------



## Vann (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> That's not what it was about.



Yes it is!

You're trying to argue that just as many people would be killed by golf clubs, knives and bear hands if people didn't have access to guns. 

I'm trying to argue that that's not the case because people with guns can kill more efficiently with guns than with your alternatives.

Selectortone just suggested you imagine trying to do each other in with various weapons, and when you didn't get the gun you backed out. How come?

If you were right armies would still be armed with spears etc instead of guns. But you're wrong. It's obvious that people with guns can more easily kill other people.

But you're still defending guns. Why are you against making it harder to kill others?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jan 2022)

A bit weird these long thread about guns. Unhealthy and creepy - maybe some people need a bit of counselling?
Can we change the subject - how about 'guillotines' instead? Then we could move on to nooses and scaffolds?


----------



## D_W (4 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> A bit weird these long thread about guns. Unhealthy and creepy - maybe some people need a bit of counselling?
> Can we change the subject - how about 'guillotines' instead? Then we could move on to nooses and scaffolds?



Not every single thing needs to go back and forth between corbyn and starmer.


----------



## sploo (4 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> A bit weird these long thread about guns. Unhealthy and creepy - maybe some people need a bit of counselling?
> Can we change the subject - how about 'guillotines' instead? Then we could move on to nooses and scaffolds?


Somewhat related; but I have always thought that, in any pro-gun argument, if you replaced the word "gun" with something else (e.g. "chainsaw", or "baseball bat", or "nunchucks") and then replay the sentence it becomes clear just how silly many of the arguments sound - and how even the gun advocates might start to feel a bit embarrassed about the argument. Point being that the debate on gun ownership is so polarised that it becomes more about "the right" than a rational argument based on evidence.

Same goes for "God" and "little green men from Mars"... but I really am likely to be stirring things up with that one.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Vann said:


> Yes it is!
> 
> You're trying to argue that just as many people would be killed by golf clubs, knives and bear hands if people didn't have access to guns.


That's not what my post said you have embellished it.
I've already explained, more than once, that my comment about golf clubs etc was in response to this comment 
*" And if you give them ready access to guns they can do it quickly and efficiently while they're still angry - before they've had a chance to cool down and think about it. "* 
See you said guns, you didn't say assault rifles or full auto.
Then in a later comment you said that having to go home for a golf club would give someone a chance to cool down, well guess what there are plenty other blunt instruments.
BTW how many people do you think would have a gun/assault weapon on them and wouldn't have to go home for it??



Vann said:


> I'm trying to argue that that's not the case because people with guns can kill more efficiently with guns than with your alternatives.


I agree



Vann said:


> just suggested you imagine trying to do each other in with various weapons, and when you didn't get the gun you backed out. How come?


I understood that he wanted us to attack a school or some such and see who could kill the most.
It wasn't a scenario I wanted to discuss

On the other hand if he was challenging me to a duel, Then again, he was applying my comment to something other than what I directed it at.

If he was suggesting that two people set out to kill someone each, one with a revolver and the other with a golf club I think the golf club would be just as effective and quieter giving a better chance of escape.



Vann said:


> But you're still defending guns. Why are you against making it harder to kill others?
> 
> Cheers, Vann.


I'm not against making it harder for people to kill each other.

Thing is, if I have a problem, I like to find out what's causing the problem and then fix it.

The old standby "If it saves one life it's worth it" cuts both ways guns can save lives.

Lots of people hate guns, are afraid of guns, don't understand guns, don't want to know about guns and that's up to them.

But effectively banning guns is just a fantasy in the real world


----------



## Spectric (4 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Nobody in the US would give a second thought of going most places in England because we think most european cities are safe


Big mistake, the promotional advertising would like you to think so but parts of London are probably no go for most and other big towns and cities are going the same way and it shows you do not need a gun culture for criminal gangs to thrive, knives and swords can be good enough. Then a lot of people from the UK make the same mistake, they go abroad and think they are safe and can wander around doing what they like without realising it is a different culture and not just another UK suburb.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> because it applies to well trained militia, and all of them, should be well trained to open carry 24/7 and act as militia.
> Public is the great threat to any criminal - having ALL MEMBERS AS PUBLIC WELL TRAINED, AND CARRY TO KILL CRIMINALS. It works great on Holland, where ALL police is in casual wear conceal carry. I witnessed attempted robbery in sandwich shop, with 2 police standing in the queue… 2 seconds arrest


Actually it's "Well regulated militia"
What is the Militia? It's every able bodied man between 18 and 65 although younger and older have served in time of need.




GregW said:


> It works great on Holland, where ALL police is in casual wear conceal carry.


I seriously doubt that, but I haven't been there recently.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> .......
> 
> But effectively banning guns is just a fantasy in the real world


They have been very effectively banned in the UK. e.g. There has been only one multiple shooting since Dunblane 1996, as compared to the USA epidemic.
Unlikely ever to be zero - you can make your own gun if you really want to.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> Big mistake, the promotional advertising would like you to think so but parts of London are probably no go for most



Which parts, I think there are are few parts I wouldn't walk through at 2am, and would maybe avoid a few housing estates but I think on the hole you are totally wrong. How often do you travel through London as I'm curious as to where your fear comes from.


----------



## D_W (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Which parts, I think there are are few parts I wouldn't walk through at 2am, and would maybe avoid a few housing estates but I think on the hole you are totally wrong. How often do you travel through London as I'm curious as to where your fear comes from.



London wasn't one of the unsafe areas mentioned in the video I saw. 

As an American, I'd probably have walked right through any of them. I hate to sound naive, but I'm not sure I'd recognize the difference between "that's weed" and "there are hippies around". I guess if there's the same smell without the hippies, that'd be a clue. 

I spent an internship living in a section 8 housing area outside of Pittsburgh (because a friend chose our apartment not-so-wisely). I didn't stay in at night there, either - realistically, the most you usually get from locals is a stinkeye look "you lost? you crazy?"

Separately, I wonder if pickpocketing has lost a little of its shine now that most people don't carry much cash and most phones are locked.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jan 2022)

BucksDad said:


> Moderators can we move this topic to Off Topic 2 forum please.. I think this counts as controversial and to be honest topics like this really should be "opt-in" viewing which Off Topic 2 is designed for


Have to say I don't agree. I think this has remained a remarkably civilised and interesting debate.


----------



## RobinBHM (4 Jan 2022)

BucksDad said:


> Moderators can we move this topic to Off Topic 2 forum please.. I think this counts as controversial and to be honest topics like this really should be "opt-in" viewing which Off Topic 2 is designed for


May I gently suggest all threads are “opt-in viewing…….


----------



## Spectric (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> How often do you travel through London as I'm curious as to where your fear comes from.


I avoid London now at all cost, but thirty deaths last year and it is no good saying it won't happen to me. A freind lived down on the south coast and he avoided some areas of Hastings at night and it was not uncommon for people to get assaulted at a cash machine, and a quote


The rise in crime in England and Wales is accelerating, according to police figures, which show a 14% year-on-year increase in offences recorded by forces across England and Wales.

Knife crime has gone up even more steeply, by 21% in the 12 months to September, and gun crime has risen by 20%, according to quarterly figures released on Thursday.

Police chiefs said the increases – including a 32% rise in domestic burglary to 261,965 offences and an 18% rise in vehicle-related crimes (443,577 offences) alongside the sharp rises in violent crime – marked a turning point after more than 20 years of sustained falls in these categories.

The UK is no longer the country it used to be, as life gets tougher then there will always be people who look for easier pickings.


----------



## BucksDad (4 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> May I gently suggest all threads are “opt-in viewing…….



My point was this thread appears in the "what's new" list because it's in the general forum and is imo, in the wrong place.

Anyway I found the "Ignore thread" button now which works fine


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> and gun crime has risen by 20%, according to quarterly figures released on Thursday.


Surely not, couldn't be. 

Someone told me no later than today that guns are effectively banned in the UK


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> I avoid London now at all cost, but thirty deaths last year and it is no good saying it won't happen to me.



Why not, chances of me being murdered in London are very very slim, I'm the wrong demographic, plus I don't wear flash watches or use a cash point at 2 in the morning or try and buy drugs. London really is a great day out, one of the best cities in the world. Media paint a picture which is often unrelatable, seems to be their job now to instil panic in everybody about everything.


----------



## Spectric (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Someone told me no later than today that guns are effectively banned in the UK


So are class A drugs but we still have a big drug problem and that generates lots of cash and with money you can buy most things and you have to ask yourself the question, are the police really doing all they can or are they just now like a guard dog on a short chain.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Surely not, couldn't be.
> 
> Someone told me no later than today that guns are effectively banned in the UK


They are effectively banned in the UK but this will never be 100% and there will be variations year on year. 
You could work it out yourself if you didn't spend all your time talking 100% tosh


----------



## selectortone (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Surely not, couldn't be.
> 
> Someone told me no later than today that guns are effectively banned in the UK


I would bet that pretty much all of that gun crime increase is gang related and carried out with illegal weapons. It has nothing to do with the historical mass shootings being discussed in this thread which were all perpetrated with legally held weapons and which led to the ban on most people keeping them.

I think you know that Artie, you just like being ornery.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Surely not, couldn't be.
> 
> Someone told me no later than today that guns are effectively banned in the UK



Banned only for individuals which cares for having criminal-free records….
Rest uses guns as they pleased….


----------



## RobinBHM (4 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Banned only for individuals which cares for having criminal-free records….
> Rest uses guns as they pleased….


ah yes the old "there's no point having gun controls as criminals ignore rules"

but the UK has tight gun controls and very low gun violence.......


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> So are class A drugs but we still have a big drug problem and that generates lots of cash and with money you can buy most things and you have to ask yourself the question, are the police really doing all they can or are they just now like a guard dog on a short chain.



Not so much class A. Revenues steadily stopped from 2014, when GOV is a main supplier of class A drugs transported officials from Afghanistan, based on The Law Acts for fighting Terrorism.
BTW. Same reason Yakuza not selling A Class anymore as much, but switched to Blue Tuna counterfeit business.

secondary, all skunk cannabis is under HM MI offices supervision. Rest going to prison sooneror later.

there is only one solution, legalisation all, and increase early/teen education about effects of substances, how they long term effect dopamine inhabit body ability, and live in general. Idiots/uneducated will abuse them selfs regardless who supply drugs.

EDIT: that is unrealistic, when BAN is most common solution for common ignorance and no self responsibility for poor choices.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> So are class A drugs but we still have a big drug problem


If we still have a big drug problem then drugs aren't effectively banned



Spectric said:


> and that generates lots of cash and with money you can buy most things


If you can buy most things with money, I take it you are including guns so...



Spectric said:


> and you have to ask yourself the question, are the police really doing all they can or are they just now like a guard dog on a short chain.


That's a whole other matter.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> Media paint a picture which is often unrelatable, seems to be their job now to instil panic in everybody about everything.


Couldn't agree more.
My prescription for a happier live is turn off the TV and eat more greens.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> ah yes the old "there's no point having gun controls as criminals ignore rules"
> 
> but the UK has tight gun controls and very low gun violence.......



You took my post wrong way.
Society is more and more ignorant by generation, and that’s only reason I would not give fork any teen on the street, as they will poke someone’s eye to get likes on TikTok…. 
As Anarchist, I believe it’s my responsibility to protect The Law and my personal safety, without relying on others. I’m well trained in hand2hand, and firearms. Not makes me a criminal  same, I can’t see any reason why not to shoot2kill armed criminal. Whoever can’t find their place in The Law society, can jump of the cliff as far I’m concerned. BUT, everyone should be helped if they want to return to Law society, and don’t poke me to rant about “prison system” as it a joke at far as re-socialisation goes.


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Idiots/uneducated will abuse them selfs regardless who supply drugs.



That's quite a statement.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> That's quite a statement.



Me included… but I not blame whole universe for it  took things into my own hands. And here I am preaching about stupid choices


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Me included… but I not blame whole universe for it  took things into my own hands. And here I am preaching about stupid choices



I sorted myself out as I couldn't control my intake, but I know plenty of people who abuse themselves with no consequences and have a good time. I wouldn't call them uneducated or idiots.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> I would bet that pretty much all of that gun crime increase is gang related and carried out with illegal weapons.


So they haven't been effectively banned then?



selectortone said:


> It has nothing to do with the historical mass shootings being discussed in this thread which were all perpetrated with legally held weapons and which led to the ban on most people keeping them.


I suppose you can make the thread about whatever you want, but it started out about police shooting escaping civilians in the USA and wandered as far off topic as antique American pocket watches.



selectortone said:


> I think you know that Artie, you just like being ornery.


If not agreeing with ill thought out posts and sound bites is ornery ...

On the subject of mass shootings in the UK There was one in 1987 and I think that resulted in the banning of most semi automatic rifles.

Another in 1996 which resulted in the pistol ban.

Both of these incidents while tragic were the only ones up to that point in the 20 century,

So around 1999 the big pistol buy back took place ruined livelihoods and ruined thousands of peoples preferred sport.
Ah well you say, if it saved one life....

In 2010 we had the Cumbria shootings.
The *Cumbria shootings* was a shooting spree which occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, taxi driver Derrick Bird, killed twelve people and injured eleven others before killing himself in Cumbria, England 

In 2021 we had the Plymouth shooting
The *Plymouth shooting* occurred in the Keyham area of Plymouth, Devon, England, United Kingdom, on 12 August 2021. The gunman, 22-year-old Jake Davison, shot and killed five people and injured two others before fatally shooting himself 

So there you have it Two mass shootings before the "effective bans " and two after.


----------



## selectortone (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> So they haven't been effectively banned then?


Illegal weapons have always been banned.


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Illegal weapons have always been banned.


you left out a word.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> So they haven't been effectively banned then?
> 
> 
> I suppose you can make the thread about whatever you want, but it started out about police shooting escaping civilians in the USA and wandered as far off topic as antique American pocket watches.
> ...


Compare it to the number of mass shootings in USA.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> Illegal weapons have always been banned.



soon, after banning all illegal offensive weapons….

only legal multi-tool left to use: SPORK


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> I sorted myself out as I couldn't control my intake, but I know plenty of people who abuse themselves with no consequences and have a good time. I wouldn't call them uneducated or idiots.



here is how it is possible, and still can’t understand why it is NOT a basic education requirement to pass secondary school….

https:// youtu. be/QmOF0crdyRU


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> So they haven't been effectively banned then?
> 
> 
> I suppose you can make the thread about whatever you want, but it started out about police shooting escaping civilians in the USA and wandered as far off topic as antique American pocket watches.
> ...



research  you will find out why Second Amendment is even questioned 

*Mass Formation Psychosis*


----------



## doctor Bob (4 Jan 2022)

greg: I'm afraid I can't do a 2hr plus video, is it a video telling me how I can control my intake? If it is, the issue is that I like being substance free, and wouldn't have it any other way even with a guaranteed no consequences choice. Life is full and enjoyable.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> greg: I'm afraid I can't do a 2hr plus video, is it a video telling me how I can control my intake? If it is, the issue is that I like being substance free, and wouldn't have it any other way even with a guaranteed no consequences choice. Life is full and enjoyable.



well, you just spend more hours looking like personally irrelevant individuals moaning about gun control, which none here have any direct power to reconcile the law…

not only “intake”, but how be free of need to dopamine spiking all together…. (Whatever you use to fake crank the system)

PS. I’m doing windows now  can’t really write much


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

doctor Bob said:


> greg: I'm afraid I can't do a 2hr plus video, is it a video telling me how I can control my intake? If it is, the issue is that I like being substance free, and wouldn't have it any other way even with a guaranteed no consequences choice. Life is full and enjoyable.


I recently watched a series on netflix. 8 seasons, 12 episodes in each season, one step at a time.
Just like Confucius say.


----------



## GregW (4 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I recently watched a series on netflix. 8 seasons, 12 episodes in each season, one step at a time.
> Just like Confucius say.



Stoicism is another topic 
But, yes… 

https:// youtu .be/0oVsLkPqXWo


----------



## artie (4 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Stoicism is another topic
> But, yes…
> 
> https:// youtu .be/0oVsLkPqXWo



Brilliant.

There's a lot of homespun wisdom in that.


----------



## GregW (5 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Actually it's "Well regulated militia"
> What is the Militia? It's every able bodied man between 18 and 65 although younger and older have served in time of need.
> I seriously doubt that, but I haven't been there recently.



Militia, is a citizens in duty to protect. And there is always time to “of need” when anyone is in public.
You confuse it with military service provided by Government, to protect the citizens.
By The People’s Constitution, all citizens are made responsible to their Republic, not to rely only on Government services.


----------



## Fergie 307 (5 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> You took my post wrong way.
> Society is more and more ignorant by generation, and that’s only reason I would not give fork any teen on the street, as they will poke someone’s eye to get likes on TikTok….
> As Anarchist, I believe it’s my responsibility to protect The Law and my personal safety, without relying on others. I’m well trained in hand2hand, and firearms. Not makes me a criminal  same, I can’t see any reason why not to shoot2kill armed criminal. Whoever can’t find their place in The Law society, can jump of the cliff as far I’m concerned. BUT, everyone should be helped if they want to return to Law society, and don’t poke me to rant about “prison system” as it a joke at far as re-socialisation goes.


Have to agree with you regarding the prison system. Only ways it could really work would be by have a really effective 're rehabilitation programme as a first step, and locking up up persistent offenders, who are unwilling or incapable of rehabilitation, for life, to save the rest of us from their depredations. In fact we do neither.


----------



## Fergie 307 (5 Jan 2022)

Artie
Apologies for taking it way off topic with the Watch discussion, but I hope you found it an interesting diversion. 
Back to guns, and gun control. Have you thought about a referendum? Both sides would get to put their position to the public, neither would of course lie to you, quote misleading statistics, or exaggerate anything in support of their case. At the end you would have a nice definitive decision, which everyone would be happy had been arrived at In the finest traditions of democracy. Not sure if anyone has tried such an idea, but might be worth a go........???


----------



## artie (5 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Artie
> Apologies for taking it way off topic with the Watch discussion, but I hope you found it an interesting diversion.


No need to apologise.
I just find it funny when someone says "O you shouldn't this or that this thread is about..." when in fact most threads take many detours along their course.
I only picked on the watches because it was such a contrast to what the thread started out about.




Fergie 307 said:


> Back to guns, and gun control. Have you thought about a referendum? Both sides would get to put their position to the public, neither would of course lie to you, quote misleading statistics, or exaggerate anything in support of their case.



Of course, no one would ever do that. 



Fergie 307 said:


> At the end you would have a nice definitive decision, which everyone would be happy had been arrived at In the finest traditions of democracy. Not sure if anyone has tried such an idea, but might be worth a go........???


Sounds like a great idea. 
I'm trying to think of any recent referendums and if everyone was happy with the outcome.


----------



## Fergie 307 (5 Jan 2022)

Before I have to take to a bunker somewhere to avoid the incoming from the last post, my observation was simply that it ill behoves us to try and tell others how to run their affairs when we aren't exactly brilliant at running our own.


----------



## sploo (5 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Artie
> Apologies for taking it way off topic with the Watch discussion, but I hope you found it an interesting diversion.
> Back to guns, and gun control. Have you thought about a referendum? Both sides would get to put their position to the public, neither would of course lie to you, quote misleading statistics, or exaggerate anything in support of their case. At the end you would have a nice definitive decision, which everyone would be happy had been arrived at In the finest traditions of democracy. Not sure if anyone has tried such an idea, but might be worth a go........???


Given some of the deranged babbling that's resulted from the vaccine argument (e.g. thinking of the moron sandwich that is Marjorie Taylor Greene... Twitter aiding unidentified enemies in "a Communist revolution" etc) I can assume that a US gun referendum would be pure entertainment... in a look-at-that-car-repeatedly-crashing kinda way.


----------



## jim1950 (5 Jan 2022)

this is all a long way from the UK workshop forum I joined, must be many gun forums for this sort of stuff.
I'm not anti gun but I do think it's totally out of control in some countries.


----------



## artie (5 Jan 2022)

jim1950 said:


> this is all a long way from the UK workshop forum I joined, must be many gun forums for this sort of stuff.
> I'm not anti gun but I do think it's totally out of control in some countries.


OK I'll bite.

What is out of control?


----------



## RobinBHM (5 Jan 2022)

jim1950 said:


> this is all a long way from the UK workshop forum I joined, must be many gun forums for this sort of stuff.
> I'm not anti gun but I do think it's totally out of control in some countries.


Oh well, back to the safe topics of push sticks and sharpening


----------



## Jacob (5 Jan 2022)

Nobody seems to want to talk about guillotines, garotting, or the noose? 
Why is this? 
Is it the absence of cowboy or glamorous gangster associations?
Guillotine sharpening could have some mileage in it I imagine.


----------



## D_W (5 Jan 2022)

Someone asked earlier about guns that shoot a burst instead of continuous fire. Like the military uses (from what I understand) - a 3 shot burst with a trigger pull. 

No, those are not legal for the average citizen to own. 

I think that burst option was added to military rifles to cut back on spray-and-pray people blazing through ammunition.


----------



## Daniel2 (5 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Oh well, back to the safe topics of push sticks and sharpening



It continues to amaze me how people can complain about a thread, rather
than just opting to not read/continue with it.


----------



## Daniel2 (5 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Nobody seems to want to talk about guillotines, garotting, or the noose?
> Why is this?
> Is it the absence of cowboy or glamorous gangster associations?
> Guillotine sharpening could have some mileage in it I imagine.



Yes, why not ?
A guillotine sharpening thread would be right up my street.
I've been thinking about making one, in readiness for the coming
revolution. But, it needs to be sharp.


----------



## Suffolkboy (5 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Yes, why not ?
> A guillotine sharpening thread would be right up my street.
> I've been thinking about making one, in readiness for the coming
> revolution. But, it needs to be sharp.



Guillotines are easy to sharpen. You just need to make sure you use one of those oval stones with white spirit on, a nice coarse one so that the sound of the stone being slowly dragged across the edge of the blade can be heard from as far away as possible.


----------



## Suffolkboy (5 Jan 2022)

Also. No stropping necessary.


----------



## D_W (5 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Nobody seems to want to talk about guillotine..
> Why is this?



well, the hobby machines just aren't that affordable and the insurance is a puppy (that's an interesting conversion by the polite word maker, but I get the reference).

Plus, in some states, you're required to store them in a guillotine safe with a lock on the blade.


----------



## Fergie 307 (5 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> Yes, why not ?
> A guillotine sharpening thread would be right up my street.
> I've been thinking about making one, in readiness for the coming
> revolution. But, it needs to be sharp.


I think i was the weight of the blade, length of drop and the angle of the edge that was primarily responsible for its effectiveness. Don't think the blade probably needed to be particularly sharp.


----------



## Daniel2 (5 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think i was the weight of the blade, length of drop and the angle of the edge that was primarily responsible for its effectiveness. Don't think the blade probably needed to be particularly sharp.



That's comforting to know, in my case.
I'm carp at sharpening.
But, some good info there, thanks.


----------



## selectortone (5 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> That's comforting to know, in my case.
> I'm carp at sharpening.
> But, some good info there, thanks.


A long drop also adds to the anticipation of the guillotinee.


----------



## GregW (5 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Have to agree with you regarding the prison system. Only ways it could really work would be by have a really effective 're rehabilitation programme as a first step, and locking up up persistent offenders, who are unwilling or incapable of rehabilitation, for life, to save the rest of us from their depredations. In fact we do neither.



criminals are not born criminals. It comes with choices. Children education about choices and consequences are non existing. Consequences are long term
Even after “punishment” there is less chance they stay away from that way of live, if situation surrounding individual is significantly worst.


Daniel2 said:


> Yes, why not ?
> A guillotine sharpening thread would be right up my street.
> I've been thinking about making one, in readiness for the coming
> revolution. But, it needs to be sharp.


----------



## D_W (5 Jan 2022)

Daniel2 said:


> It continues to amaze me how people can complain about a thread, rather
> than just opting to not read/continue with it.



I like the usual complaint (the one here was sort of indirectly hinting, but not direct) of "this isn't a woodworking topic and it shouldn't be allowed in this forum" when the header for the Off-Topic forum literally states that the purpose of the forum is for topics not related to woodworking topics.

>> For non-woodworking related topics - yes I know it's a scary thought but there is a life outside woodworking <<



behind only general woodworking and tools in post count.


----------



## GregW (5 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I like the usual complaint (the one here was sort of indirectly hinting, but not direct) of "this isn't a woodworking topic and it shouldn't be allowed in this forum" when the header for the Off-Topic forum literally states that the purpose of the forum is for topics not related to woodworking topics.
> 
> >> For non-woodworking related topics - yes I know it's a scary thought but there is a life outside woodworking <<
> 
> ...



looks like plandemic bare it’s fruits 
COVID gestapos everywhere 
And civilised discussion is being complained about  I bet as soon as Mike Superintendent sees it, I got banned again for 30 days


----------



## sploo (5 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> Plus, in some states, you're required to store them in a guillotine safe with a lock on the blade.


Don't mess with me man - I proudly open carry!

(my back is knackered though; Madame La Guillotine is bl**dy heavy)


----------



## Jacob (5 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> Don't mess with me man - I proudly open carry!
> 
> (my back is knackered though; Madame La Guillotine is bl**dy heavy)


No good for school massacres (I'm told). Unless Festool can get on the case? Start with an MFT?


----------



## D_W (5 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> No good for school massacres (I'm told). Unless Festool can get on the case? Start with an MFT?



They won't do more, just maybe a little more neatly and the guy that services them will be johnny on the spot.


----------



## Ozi (6 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I think statistically, close to half of the crime comes from two things:
> * households with broken families
> * households with controlling mothers or terrible drunken abusive fathers
> 
> ...


Very true. I think we all know that not everyone is equal but believe all should have equal opportunity, then at the same time work to give our own children every advantage we can. 

The last bit is the bit I don't understand. I think we probably have the same proportion of "genuine defects from both" In England most just sit and stew, the best from their point of view they could do is attack someone with a knife etc. and even their twisted imagination doesn't see that going well, if they could lay their hands on serious guns we would have as many school shootings as America.


----------



## GregW (6 Jan 2022)

all problems starts when children are constantly told NOT as order “you being told”, instead explained HOW or INSTEAD OF. 
But which parent have a lot of time to explain reality to children? Much easier to BLAME others for own failures.



Ozi said:


> Very true. I think we all know that not everyone is equal but believe all should have equal opportunity, then at the same time work to give our own children every advantage we can.
> 
> The last bit is the bit I don't understand. I think we probably have the same proportion of "genuine defects from both" In England most just sit and stew, the best from their point of view they could do is attack someone with a knife etc. and even their twisted imagination doesn't see that going well, if they could lay their hands on serious guns we would have as many school shootings as America.



Also, do you know that children left alone unattended and which have whatever they want to have, both have PERSONALITY DISORDERS due to dopamine stress when hit “reality” in adulthood? There is ZERO education on parenting 



D_W said:


> I think statistically, close to half of the crime comes from two things:
> * households with broken families
> * households with controlling mothers or terrible drunken abusive fathers
> 
> ...



Effects of zero education on behaviour dependency of dopamine receptors misuse and/or abuse, passed to venerable children adapting the needs to their reality.
It’s easier to abuse “alcohol”, than facing own “fears”. There is zero education on self motivation for children, instead children are being sold imaginary portraits of perfection and to obey the system.


----------



## Keith Cocker (6 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Nobody seems to want to talk about guillotines, garotting, or the noose?
> Why is this?
> Is it the absence of cowboy or glamorous gangster associations?
> Guillotine sharpening could have some mileage in it I imagine.


Wood turning of knitting needles for the Tricoteuses would be of interest


----------



## artie (6 Jan 2022)

Ozi said:


> if they could lay their hands on serious guns we would have as many school shootings as America.


I don't think so and the statistics don't support it either.

Up to 1987 or so semiauto rifles were available in the UK.
Up to 1996 or so handguns were available.

In the hundred years before 1996 there were two mass shootings of civilians by a civilian in GB.
in the 25 year period after 1996 there were two mass shootings of civilians by a civilian in GB.

Doesn't look like the availability of guns is a deciding factor. But it's a nice short sound bite for the evening news.

I just know someone will come back and say " There would have been more shootings if guns hadn't been banned" even though gun crime increased sharply in the following years, and there were as many mass shootings in a 25 year period than in the previous century.

Marcus Aurelius even had a saying in Roman times something like "a sword kills no one without a hand to guide it"


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Jan 2022)

selectortone said:


> A long drop also adds to the anticipation of the guillotinee.


And if you want to be really cruel you can put your victim in it face up, so they can see it coming. I think they actually did that in some places.


----------



## D_W (6 Jan 2022)

Ozi said:


> Very true. I think we all know that not everyone is equal but believe all should have equal opportunity, then at the same time work to give our own children every advantage we can.
> 
> The last bit is the bit I don't understand. I think we probably have the same proportion of "genuine defects from both" In England most just sit and stew, the best from their point of view they could do is attack someone with a knife etc. and even their twisted imagination doesn't see that going well, if they could lay their hands on serious guns we would have as many school shootings as America.



The last comment wasn't intended to compare different societies. Apparently, Russia has had some extremely prodigious serial killers, aided by bureacratic apathy and the ability to ignore or hide the fact that people were disappearing. Certainly the environment that nutters can operate in makes for differences. 

My point with it was more to say that you can't just make a 100% blanket statement that if you "had all dads and moms and people who go to church that everyone would be better". it's probably likely that the overall totals would be better, but there are still going to be a few people who are genuinely defective who aren't just helped by having a good dad around. 

I read a few things about mass killers and it's hard to get an honest viewpoint - some groups seem to be determined to say "well, they just spring out of nothing", and others seem to be determined to attribute all of them to lack of a dad. The more realistic studies suggested that a large number of the serial killers were products of a household where dad was gone and mom was a rotten person, or dad was there and was abusive and belittling/alcoholic, etc (not just like dad says "your'e a disappointment every 6 months or so, but is abusive continuously every day - the killers in that case lose their sense of productive human relationships and seek to find a situation they can control - that doesn't end well). 

Ed kemper comes to mind in terms of the bad mother. Ed gein, also, but for a different reason - the mother who makes it impossible for the son to get away. 

maybe it's the name Ed!! Ed makes dead!


----------



## Spectric (6 Jan 2022)

jim1950 said:


> I'm not anti gun but I do think it's totally out of control in some countries.


Everything is getting out of control, not just guns. Boil this down to simplicity and you soon realise that guns are no more dangerous than a car or pitchfork, the problem is that humans seem to have some built in trait for not getting on with each other and like to blame others for their problems or life and then resort to killing, the gun is just a tool to some like drills are to many of us. On a larger scale you have conflicts between countries, they are not settled diplomatically because this inbuilt trait kicks in and violence occurs. As I have said before, once AI gets going then humans will become extinct or servants to AI because AI will see us for who we are and realise we are just to much trouble.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Nobody seems to want to talk about guillotines, garotting, or the noose?
> Why is this?
> Is it the absence of cowboy or glamorous gangster associations?
> Guillotine sharpening could have some mileage in it I imagine.


Ok, so I have retired to the bunker, tin hat firmly on my head.......how about a guillotine sharpening guide, anyone?


----------



## Droogs (6 Jan 2022)

OK, First get yourself a Frenchman ...


----------



## Ozi (6 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I don't think so and the statistics don't support it either.
> 
> Up to 1987 or so semiauto rifles were available in the UK.
> Up to 1996 or so handguns were available.
> ...


Factually you are correct in that it was possible to own those guns at that time in the UK but are you seriously suggesting that the ease of obtaining them was in any way comparable.

There are countries with high levels of gun ownership and much lower levels of related crime but they have much higher levels of education related to the use of firearms.


----------



## artie (6 Jan 2022)

Ozi said:


> Factually you are correct in that it was possible to own those guns at that time in the UK but are you seriously suggesting that the ease of obtaining them was in any way comparable.


Comparable to what?
There was no difficulty in obtaining them I think the fact that Michael Ryan had at least one proves that.



Ozi said:


> There are countries with high levels of gun ownership and much lower levels of related crime but they have much higher levels of education related to the use of firearms.


I don't see what education has to do with having the desire to pick up a gun and shoot someone.


----------



## Fergie 307 (6 Jan 2022)

I think there is an important point here. In the UK we may not have always had strong regulation of guns, we have a long history of registration. This has meant that, when changes have been made to legislation, it is fairly easy for the authorities to know who has what weapons. I believe the same is true in Australia. 
Whilst I am no student of the history of gun law in the USA, I suspect you don't have to go very far back to find a situation where there was essentially no regulation of registration requirement at all, and of course it has always been the case that there will be wide variations from state to state.So I am guessing there are probably a great many firearms in the USA which were acquired perfectly lawfully, but are completely unknown to the authorities. Nothing to criticise there, just a reflection of the very different history of our countries. Perhaps Artie, or one of our other contributors across the pond could comment. 
The issue being that if that is the case then even if the US authorities wanted to introduce the sort of measures we have, it would be virtually impossible to do so from a practical point of view.


----------



## GregW (6 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think there is an important point here. In the UK we may not have always had strong regulation of guns, we have a long history of registration. This has meant that, when changes have been made to legislation, it is fairly easy for the authorities to know who has what weapons. I believe the same is true in Australia.
> Whilst I am no student of the history of gun law in the USA, I suspect you don't have to go very far back to find a situation where there was essentially no regulation of registration requirement at all, and of course it has always been the case that there will be wide variations from state to state.So I am guessing there are probably a great many firearms in the USA which were acquired perfectly lawfully, but are completely unknown to the authorities. Nothing to criticise there, just a reflection of the very different history of our countries. Perhaps Artie, or one of our other contributors across the pond could comment.
> The issue being that if that is the case then even if the US authorities wanted to introduce the sort of measures we have, it would be virtually impossible to do so from a practical point of view.


Perfect point.
Bare in mind that country creation and border frictions associated with it was in Europe a millennia ago, where US stopped wiping native population several decades pass.
Fire arms were necessity to be save from everyone not complying with rising authority of US government, slaves, natives, foreigners running to America from European common laws, AND the size comparison it self, local common diversity.
UK it’s strange situation when English from London visit North Wales….. 
how about add 2 time zones coast to coast difference….

PS. registration of weapons goes in UK to Middle Ages…
Remember law about unregistered 6 feet long bow possession in Nottingham, or no sharpen short sword permitted in Scotland in Scottish home??


----------



## GregW (6 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> Comparable to what?
> There was no difficulty in obtaining them I think the fact that Michael Ryan had at least one proves that.
> 
> 
> I don't see what education has to do with having the desire to pick up a gun and shoot someone.



Education level:
Lest compare a dentist on 100k per year;
Person after 12y of higher education will rarely knife attack and stab gramma in local park, to gain money via robbery in order to purchase cigarettes in local petrol station….
More common in low educated unemployed group of people…


----------



## artie (6 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Education level:
> Lest compare a dentist on 100k per year;
> Person after 12y of higher education will rarely knife attack and stab gramma in local park, to gain money via robbery in order to purchase cigarettes in local petrol station….
> More common in low educated unemployed group of people…


Quite right you are, but we're talking about guns my reply was to Ozi who said.
*" There are countries with high levels of gun ownership and much lower levels of related crime but they have much higher levels of education related to the use of firearms. "*

Maybe I should have said.
I don't think being educated in the use firearms would necessarily negate their use, but it would quite likely mean they could be used more efficiently.


----------



## artie (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I am guessing there are probably a great many firearms in the USA which were acquired perfectly lawfully, but are completely unknown to the authorities. Nothing to criticise there, just a reflection of the very different history of our countries. Perhaps Artie, or one of our other contributors across the pond could comment.
> The issue being that if that is the case then even if the US authorities wanted to introduce the sort of measures we have, it would be virtually impossible to do so from a practical point of view.


I think that is a valid point as far as the USA is concerned, 

But the reality is when tons of illicit drugs and even people can cross borders pretty much unhindered, there's no reason why guns can't.
I understand that there is likely not the appetite for guns that there is for mind altering substances but there is a market and with rising crime that market may increase, both in the criminal community and in the general public.
More people may adopt the old adage, better tried by twelve than carried by 6.


----------



## TRITON (7 Jan 2022)

artie said:


> I don't think so and the statistics don't support it either.
> 
> Up to 1987 or so semiauto rifles were available in the UK.
> Up to 1996 or so handguns were available.
> ...


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> ....... the problem is that humans seem to have some built in trait for not getting on with each other .....


Exactly the opposite.
The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits. We are pack animals.
The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers.
Read "Humankind a Hopeful History" Rutger Bregman.








Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature


The Dutch historian’s overview of debate around humanity’s core instincts has blind spots, but its optimism is invigorating




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Exactly the opposite.
> The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits.


I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.


----------



## Daniel2 (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.



How can someone say they are not like this, without sounding argumentative ?


----------



## sploo (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.


I don't think your comment above is completely incompatible with Jacob's point that "_The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers._"

The vast majority of people would much rather just get on with their lives in (relative) peace; but throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them" - leading to conquest, war, and persecution.


----------



## selectortone (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.


It's tribalism, be it about race, religion, politics, gangs or whatever. It's been here forever.


----------



## Spectric (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits


If that was the case then why two world wars, and so many others. It is because domination came about through conquering and occupying lands, the Roman empire was not through narrative and the American Indians did not willingly allow all the foreign unwanted to occupy their lands, humans are an aggressive form of bacteria that runs wild and destroys all in it's path and often for no other reason than wants.


----------



## sploo (7 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> If that was the case then why two world wars, and so many others.


WWI was a complex set of political events, with tensions between various European powers; but one major claimed factor was the German royal's envy of the British Empire.

WWII was the result of a post-WWI German depression being used by a small number as an excuse to persecute a section of their population, and stir up war.

In both cases, still compatible with the idea that it's a small number of people that are ultimately responsible for taking the masses into conflict.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2022)

Spectric said:


> If that was the case then why two world wars,


Because as I said, the crazies have more power and influence. What really drove the crazies mad was pacifism and resistance. When WW1 troops had temporary Christmas cease fires this caused deep ructions and the establishment thought they were losing their grip.


> It is because domination came about through conquering and occupying lands,


Largely a worthless enterprise - the British Empire was reckoned to be non profitable, except for the military and transport industries supporting it. Other nations traded without invading or destroying local economies.


> the Roman empire was not through narrative


Actually there was a touch of sense about the Roman empire which probably perpetuated it - 212AD they granted Roman citizenship to all (except women, slaves etc) . But the world would still have been better off without it.


> .... humans are an aggressive form of bacteria that runs wild and destroys all in it's path and often for no other reason than wants.


Not all humans! A very large percentage (I'd guess 99% to 99.99%) wish only to get on with their lives and have no inclination to exploit or destroy the lives and livelihoods of others.


----------



## J-G (7 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> ...throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them"...


Never better summed up than by Oscar Hammerstein II in South Pacific - - - "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" - - - "... before you are 6 or 7 or 8, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught! "


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> WWI was a complex set of political events, with tensions between various European powers; but one major claimed factor was the German royal's envy of the British Empire.


It was ordinary people cajoled into fighting for Imperial interests. Defending trade contracts and colonialism, not "the nation" or against impending invasion or anything remotely glorious or valuable to those who did the fighting.


> WWII was the result of a post-WWI German depression being used by a small number as an excuse to persecute a section of their population, and stir up war.
> 
> In both cases, still compatible with the idea that it's a small number of people that are ultimately responsible for taking the masses into conflict.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Because as I said, the crazies have more power and influence. What really drove the crazies mad was pacifism and resistance. When WW1 troops had temporary Christmas cease fires this caused deep ructions and the establishment thought they were losing their grip.Largely a worthless enterprise - the British Empire was reckoned to be non profitable, except for the military and transport industries supporting it. Other nations traded without invading or destroying local economies.Actually there was a touch of sense about the Roman empire which probably perpetuated it - 212AD they granted Roman citizenship to all (except women, slaves etc) . But the world would still have been better off without it.Not all humans! A very large percentage (I'd guess 99% to 99.99%) wish only to get on with their lives and have no inclination to exploit or destroy the lives and livelihoods of others.


And the emperor who introduced this was one of the most despotic nut cases ever, which is saying something when you are talking about Roman emperors. When his father died he murdered his own brother, and his entire family, to ensure his succession. Far from being an altruistic measure the extension of citizenship was to raise more taxes to finance the numerous wars he was engaged in, either to brutally suppress revolts amongst those who weren't too keen on being under Roman rule, or to further expand the empire. He was eventually assassinated by his own bodyguard. Do please learn something about history before spouting this sort of drivel.. And in relation to your last point, your quoted percentage might also refer to the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> It was ordinary people cajoled into fighting for Imperial interests. Defending trade contracts and colonialism, not "the nation" or against impending invasion or anything remotely glorious or valuable to those who did the fighting.


Again Jacob, you need to learn your history. Prior to the first world war Germany had started numerous other wars with France, Denmark and so on. All aimed at expanding German influence, and all enthusiastically supported by the vast majority of her population, as we're both the first and second world wars, at least until the tide turned against them. Very little cajoling required. And not just in Germany. If you think of the holocaust, people often choose to forget that anti semitism was rife throughout most of europe. You only have to look at the shameful enthusiasm most countries had for complying with the Nazis instructions to round up and ship out their Jewish opulations. Sure you can argue that they weren't aware they were going to be murdered, but they certainly didn't think they were off to Butlins. The vast majority of the populations of most imperial powers were enthusiastic supporters of empire. Just as the majority in the fledgling United States were all for expansion at the expense of the native Americans, you could go on and on. So this idea that everyone just wants to get on with every one else, and have to be whipped up by some few nasty people in order to do bad things is absolute tosh.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> ...... Do please learn something about history


I think you should. I was reading Mary Beard on the subject. JA Hobson on Imperialism is also essential reading


> .......... the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them.


I think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch. One book which puts a lot of things in context is Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. It's a very pacy read too


> So this idea that everyone just wants to get on with every one else, and have to be whipped up by some few nasty people in order to do bad things is absolute tosh.


A childish simplification but yes broadly the picture! 
If you want to know a little about the enthusiasm of the Americans try A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
Already mentioned Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature is an easy read too.
Hope that helps.


----------



## Lons (7 Jan 2022)

_Fergie 307_
_And in relation to your last point, your quoted percentage might also refer to the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them._


Jacob said:


> I think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch.



Interesting that the die hard Labour areas is where shops like Sports Direct, well known for very cheap far east production as well as zero hour contracts and below minimum wage is the go to shop for the locals. Just saying!  Everything for a quid does extremely well also but their suppliers pay top dollar of course.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> I don't think your comment above is completely incompatible with Jacob's point that "_The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers._"
> 
> The vast majority of people would much rather just get on with their lives in (relative) peace; but throughout history there always been those that tell us to fear and hate "them" - leading to conquest, war, and persecution.


I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.


As I said - do a bit of reading. 
If you want to know about the background of "People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior." you could watch the series or read the book: Black and British: A Forgotten History
The aforementioned Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. is brilliant in how it links colonialism, slavery, land clearances, the cotton trade, the conditions of the working class, etc


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> I think you should. I was reading Mary Beard on the subject. JA Hobson on Imperialism is also essential readingI think they do give a damn. They have been doing for along time - throughout history in fact. You need to read about the Labour movement, you are very out of touch. One book which puts a lot of things in context is Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. It's a very pacy read too
> A childish simplification but yes broadly the picture!
> If you want to know a little about the enthusiasm of the Americans try A People's History of the United States - Wikipedia
> Already mentioned Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature is an easy read too.
> Hope that helps.


So Jacob enlighten me as to which of the things I said were historically inaccurate? The very good Mary Beard rightly considers a number of possible motivations for the idea of universal citezenship, you simply choose the quote the one that suits your argument. The fact is that this idea came about at the same time as the imperial purse was under great strain owing to the numerous wars and insurrection being fought. A sudden great expansion in citizenship resulted in a massive expansion in tax revenue. Given the absence of any evidence of altruism in anything else he got up to I can't really see the justification for looking for it here.
I don't dispute what you say about the Labour movement, however that's not entirely the point. 
Why is it that companies making goods by these methods thrive, if we are so concerned. Or why we still rear chickens in barbaric conditions. The answer is simply because most people care more about being able to buy a cheap chicken or T shirt than they do about the consequences. Out of sight out of mind, one of the most damaging attitudes of all in many ways.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> As I said - do a bit of reading.
> If you want to know about the background of "People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior." you could watch the series or read the book: Black and British: A Forgotten History
> The aforementioned Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. is brilliant in how it links colonialism, slavery, land clearances, the cotton trade, the conditions of the working class, etc


Jacob you make my point for me. How can you read about slavery and conclude that the essence of human nature is for us to be kind to one another??


----------



## sploo (7 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think that the reality is that throughout human history people have cooperated, and got along very nicely, with others who look and think the same way they do. People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior. These people can therefore be treated in ways that would be quite unacceptable within their own peer group, because their rights and feelings are regarded as unimportant in comparison to those of ones own group. The vigour with which this attitude is pursued varies between indifference to the rights of the supposedly inferior group, all the way up to and including the desire to destroy them entirely, hence the holocaust or the sort of ethnic cleansing and genocide we have seen all over the world. It also applies to the dreadful treatment meted out to do many indigenous people, whether it be aborigines in Australia, Native Americans or the numerous tribes in places like Brazil. Very often colonists either chose to deliberately wipe out the indigenous population, or were completely indifferent to their fate, so long as their own aspirations were met. And it continues to this day in places like China, Myanmar and elsewhere. So the idea that our basic nature as a species is to be kind and respectful.of others is, I'm very sorry to say, idealistic nonsense.


I think that's sometimes described as "othering". Dehumanising groups different to our own makes it much easier to convince "the people" that those others don't matter.

I am as grumpy a git as the best of them (and frankly a downright misanthrope), but I'm not so negative about the basic nature of people. Generally I don't believe that people desire conflict; it's mostly down to the poisonous voices in our societies that tell us to fear and hate.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

Regarding the history of the Labour movement, again there are some interesting points. Were those behind early worker protection measures such as The Cotton Mills Act in the early nineteenth century, equally vociferous in calling for protection for the slaves who picked the stuff in the first place..er, no. They were interested in improving conditions or their own people, but never uttered a peep regarding slavery. It was left to others to take up that cause.


----------



## Fergie 307 (7 Jan 2022)

sploo said:


> I think that's sometimes described as "othering". Dehumanising groups different to our own makes it much easier to convince "the people" that those others don't matter.
> 
> I am as grumpy a git as the best of them (and frankly a downright misanthrope), but I'm not so negative about the basic nature of people. Generally I don't believe that people desire conflict; it's mostly down to the poisonous voices in our societies that tell us to fear and hate.


Oh I agree, and I am very pleased that most people of my acquaintance are perfectly pleasant. Unfortunately I think that an Alien civilisation looking at our history in its entirety would be hard pressed to escape the conclusion that, as a species, we are an argumentative and violent lot. If we could determine how people who, as individuals, are perfectly reasonable can collectively do such awful things to one another the world would be a much better place.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Jacob you make my point for me. How can you read about slavery and conclude that the essence of human nature is for us to be kind to one another??


Slavery was developed and imposed by powerful minorities with vested interests but opposed by the majority, especially the slaves, and was fought against and largely eradicated. Maybe you didn't know this?


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> _Fergie 307_
> _And in relation to your last point, your quoted percentage might also refer to the numbers of people who are happy to flock to cheap clothing stores to buy their £2 tee shirts etc, and don't give a damn for the exploitation of the people, often children, who work in sweat shops for pence a day making them._
> 
> 
> Interesting that the die hard Labour areas is where shops like Sports Direct, well known for very cheap far east production as well as zero hour contracts and below minimum wage is the go to shop for the locals. Just saying!  Everything for a quid does extremely well also but their suppliers pay top dollar of course.


It's history repeating itself - the cotton trade was massive and provided near slave level work and appalling living conditions on British workers - with the raw material largely produced by actual slaves.
But in fact when alerted to exploitative conditions public reaction has affected guilty businesses and they've had to retrench.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Regarding the history of the Labour movement, again there are some interesting points. Were those behind early worker protection measures such as The Cotton Mills Act in the early nineteenth century, equally vociferous in calling for protection for the slaves who picked the stuff in the first place..er, no.


Er yes. The opposition to slavery was immensely popular in Britain and widely supported across class and other divides.


> They were interested in improving conditions or their own people, but never uttered a peep regarding slavery. It was left to others to take up that cause.


Absolute nonsense. You really don't know your history do you!
Abolitionism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia





Working class and women abolitionists - National 4 History - BBC Bitesize


The place of the working class in Scotland and of women in the abolitionist movement.



www.bbc.co.uk









The abolition of slavery: Britain’s first mass working-class campaign


By James McKinney On 25 March 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed, which began to put an end to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Socialists should too should be celebrating this bicentenary because of the black slave resistance which accompanied the abolition and the opening it...




www.workersliberty.org


----------



## RobinBHM (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> But in fact when alerted to exploitative conditions public reaction has affected guilty businesses


I haven’t seen much outcry about the way Amazon, Sports Direct etc treat people. Amazon even restrict people’s toilet breaks. (I know SD went belly up)


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> I haven’t seen much outcry about the way Amazon, Sports Direct etc treat people. Amazon even restrict people’s toilet breaks. (I know SD went belly up)


There has been quite a lot - it's well known. A lot of people boycott Amazon and SD. Unions are on the up at the moment so maybe they'll get on the case.


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> There has been quite a lot - it's well known. A lot of people boycott Amazon and SD. Unions are on the up at the moment so maybe they'll get on the case.



Unless I am mistaken the increase in membership is in the public sector. Private sector membership has fallen.


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's history repeating itself - the cotton trade was massive and provided near slave level work and appalling living conditions on British workers - with the raw material largely produced by actual slaves.
> But in fact when alerted to exploitative conditions public reaction has affected guilty businesses and they've had to retrench.


C'mon Jacob, that reply hasn't got anywhere near to answering my post. Everyone in the country who reads a newspaper, watches TV or goes on the internet is well aware of the practices of companies such as Sports Direct who are an excellent example, Ashley was ordered in front of MPs to answer to his dodgy practices foe example, so the very people I mentioned, especially in Labour stongholds are very happy to buy very cheap clothes and shoes produced in the far east sweat shops. Not raw materials for UK production but finished products so no UK factories involved just warehouse and shop staff. The buyers know that but instead of voting with their feet they choose to support the companies by handing over their cash. If you don't believe it then I suggest you stand outside one of the shops for a couple of hours, perhaps you might even be able to combine that with some early campaigning, you never know, could double your vote count next time.  
There ya go, I hope that suggestion helps.


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> C'mon Jacob, that reply hasn't got anywhere near to answering my post. Everyone in the country who reads a newspaper, watches TV or goes on the internet is well aware of the practices of companies such as Sports Direct who are an excellent example, Ashley was ordered in front of MPs to answer to his dodgy practices foe example, so the very people I mentioned, especially in Labour stongholds are very happy to buy very cheap clothes and shoes produced in the far east sweat shops. Not raw materials for UK production but finished products so no UK factories involved just warehouse and shop staff. The buyers know that but instead of voting with their feet they choose to support the companies by handing over their cash. If you don't believe it then I suggest you stand outside one of the shops for a couple of hours, perhaps you might even be able to combine that with some early campaigning, you never know, could double your vote count next time.
> There ya go, I hope that suggestion helps.



Spot on. The vast majority of U.K. consumers don’t give a toss about where/how it was made as long as they get a bargain.


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> There has been quite a lot - it's well known. A lot of people boycott Amazon and SD. Unions are on the up at the moment so maybe they'll get on the case.


Rubbish
Amazon have never been busier and are rapidly growing and Sports Direct had huge queues when they reopened after lockdowns, you really need to look for yourself instead of relying on dodgy reporting.

_Robin
I haven’t seen much outcry about the way Amazon, Sports Direct etc treat people. Amazon even restrict people’s toilet breaks. (I know SD went belly up)
_
When did Sports Direct go bust Robin? Ashley has recently handed over the day to day running to his daughter's partner but still holds the reins and as far as I know they are trading quite nicely despite Ashley's claims to be losing hundeds of millions £s due to the pandemic, he's still trying to buy out companies and personally wants Derby County Football Club as well now that he got his £300 million for Newcastle. Maybe I've missed something?


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> C'mon Jacob, that reply hasn't got anywhere near to answering my post. Everyone in the country who reads a newspaper, watches TV or goes on the internet is well aware of the practices of companies such as Sports Direct who are an excellent example, Ashley was ordered in front of MPs to answer to his dodgy practices foe example, so the very people I mentioned, especially in Labour stongholds are very happy to buy very cheap clothes and shoes produced in the far east sweat shops. Not raw materials for UK production but finished products so no UK factories involved just warehouse and shop staff. The buyers know that but instead of voting with their feet they choose to support the companies by handing over their cash. If you don't believe it then I suggest you stand outside one of the shops for a couple of hours, perhaps you might even be able to combine that with some early campaigning, you never know, could double your vote count next time.
> There ya go, I hope that suggestion helps.


We all know what goes on at Amazon and SD and many do boycott them. I presume you do too.
If you are concerned about it why don't you join a Union? Unite looks like the current general purpose favourite and has increasing membership and promises action.
Interesting how suggesting that things could be better has brought out this deep pessimism and anger, not to mention the gun crazies! But maybe you are not as powerless as you think?
Blaming Labour voters for supporting Amazon and SD looks like stretching it a bit! 
PS Maybe you should read Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman review – a tribute to our better nature as a matter of urgency. It's principle target is the culture of pessimism and powerlessness that we see here.
It's pop science, a light read, but non the worse for that.
PPS and as for the campaigning - why don't you do that - stand outside SD and protest about the exploitation you are so angry about? What is stopping you? protests outside sports direct - Google Search


----------



## RobinBHM (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> There has been quite a lot - it's well known. A lot of people boycott Amazon and SD. Unions are on the up at the moment so maybe they'll get on the case.


Not as much as there should be.

this digital age + globalisation has led to a period where businesses like Amazon have far too much power.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> Not as much as there should be.
> 
> this digital age + globalisation has led to a period where businesses like Amazon have far too much power.


I agree.


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> We all know what goes on at Amazon and SD and many do boycott them. I presume you do too.
> If you are concerned about it why don't you join a Union? Unite looks like the current general purpose favourite and has increasing membership and promises action.
> Interesting how suggesting that things could be better has brought out this deep pessimism and anger, not to mention the gun crazies! But maybe you are not as powerless as you think?
> Blaming Labour voters for supporting Amazon and SD looks like stretching it a bit!
> ...


Don't be stupid, I never said labour voters buy from Amazon or specifically SD I did say that SD were the "go to shop in Labour strongholds" where of course voters of other parties also live and are able to purchase in shops of their choice..

I don't shop at SD but have been in a few times out of curiosity but apart from the ethical issues they sell a lot of carp and your glib comment that "many do boycot them" means diddly squat without evidence. I do buy from Amazon very occasionally when there's little other option especially because of restrictions due to the virus however I avoid it as much as possible, I presume you don't buy from them ever!

Unions - don't make me laugh.  I'm retired and not interested but in any event given my personal experience as well also on behalf of my late father with a certain union I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, looking at a number of dodgy MPs who have used that route into easy politics election only serves to strengthen that view. You can keep your campaigning to yourself as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate your recommended reading list btw but I don't need it, I'm good thanks.

Personally I'm not pessimistic or angry in fact usually the opposite but I certainly don't like the violence and am with you on the gun crazies issue.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> ...... your glib comment that "many do boycot them" means diddly squat without evidence. ......


It's a well known fact of life. I used to buy from both but no longer. Ditto many people I know. Every little helps!


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's a well known fact of life. I used to buy from both but no longer. Ditto many people I know. Every little helps!


Another quote without substance.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jan 2022)

Ditto many people I know


Jacob said:


> It's a well known fact of life. I used to buy from both but no longer. Ditto many people I know. Every little helps!




Virtue signallers. You're in good company.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Ditto many people I know
> 
> 
> 
> Virtue signallers. You're in good company.


I thought the term "virtue signalling" had gone out of fashion. I suppose things are different in Cornwall!


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> Another quote without substance.


I'm not going to supply a list of all the virtue signallers I know - you'll just have to take my word for it!


----------



## Droogs (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's a well known fact of life. I used to buy from both but no longer. Ditto many people I know. Every little helps!


Oi! Tesco aren't any better you know,


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Droogs said:


> Oi! Tesco aren't any better you know,


Never go to Tescos either. You name it, we virtue-signal at it! 
Tends to be Co-op for us. Not the best but OK.


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> you'll just have to take my word for it!



As you know I'd never do that it's end of conversation..


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Just wondered if those who are concerned about our "virtue signalling" would be happier if we did moonies or something?
Open to suggestions.


----------



## Lons (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Just wondered if those who are concerned about our "virtue signalling" would be happier if we did moonies or something? Open to suggestions.



Well I suppose people would be able to see your lips move when you speak.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> As I said - do a bit of reading.
> If you want to know about the background of "People who look and think differently, whether because of race, religion or whatever are often viewed as being inferior." you could watch the series or read the book: Black and British: A Forgotten History
> The aforementioned Beacon Press: The Many-Headed Hydra. is brilliant in how it links colonialism, slavery, land clearances, the cotton trade, the conditions of the working class, etc


Oh Jacob I do a great deal of reading, but I always try to seek out both sides of an argument rather than reading material that is heavily biased in favour of my existing point of view. This is the sort of thing that leads to universities refusing to hear from speakers who's views they disagree with, and the whole WOKE idea of living in what is effectively an echo chamber, where you are only prepared to.listen to people who hold the same views you do yourself and shout down or demonize everyone else. This is not a good way to ensure a balanced view of the world, and makes a mockery of the notion of freedom of speech.


Jacob said:


> Er yes. The opposition to slavery was immensely popular in Britain and widely supported across class and other divides.Absolute nonsense. You really don't know your history do you!
> Abolitionism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> ...


To fully understand how remarkable the rise of British abolitionism was, both as a political movement and as a popular sentiment, it is important to remember how few voices were raised against slavery in Britain until the last quarter of the eighteenth century.[7]
The above is a quite from the very Wikipedia article you directed me too. The facts are that slavery had been outlawed in the UK as far back as the 12th century. Didn't stop us continuing to exploit slaves elsewhere, again out of sight out of mind. It was largely Quakers and other religious groups who were the founders of the abolitionist movement, not the Labour movement.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Jan 2022)

Quote obiously, bloomin auto correct got me again.


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Slavery was developed and imposed by powerful minorities with vested interests but opposed by the majority, especially the slaves, and was fought against and largely eradicated. Maybe you didn't know this?


Jacob it may have escaped your notice but every society throughout history has taken and used slaves, back to the dawn of recorded history. Who do you think captured most of the black African slaves, the answer is other black Africans. They were dab hands at it because they had been doing it for millennia before the white man showed up. Don't take my word for it watch the very interesting series of documentaries on the subject presented by Samuel L Jackson. There is an emotional interview with the current chief of the Ashanti tribe, who apologises for their role as the leading slave takers and traders at the height of the trade from Africa to the Americas. As to it having been eradicated, are you not aware of modern day slavery, it's actually a specific offence in our current law. Maybe you didn't know this?


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Jacob it may have escaped your notice but every society throughout history has taken and used slaves, back to the dawn of recorded history. Who do you think captured most of the black African slaves, the answer is other black Africans. They were dab hands at it because they had been doing it for millennia before the white man showed up. Don't take my word for it watch the very interesting series of documentaries on the subject presented by Samuel L Jackson. There is an emotional interview with the current chief of the Ashanti tribe, who apologises for their role as the leading slave takers and traders at the height of the trade from Africa to the Americas. As to it having been eradicated, are you not aware of modern day slavery, it's actually a specific offence in our current law. Maybe you didn't know this?


What point are you trying to make exactly?


----------



## Fergie 307 (8 Jan 2022)

That it wasn't "developed and imposed by powerful minorities", for thousands of years it was integral part of every society.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> That it wasn't "developed and imposed by powerful minorities", for thousands of years it was integral part of every society.


So people volunteered to be slaves?


----------



## Fergie 307 (9 Jan 2022)

Now you are just being deliberately obtuse. Of course people didn't volunteer They were taken. Often prisoners of war or equally tribes would carry out raids on their neighbours to acquire slaves. The only significant groups I can think of that didn't indulge in this practice, as far as I am aware, were the native americans, and the Australian Aboriginies. This may well be because neither lived in established cities, but maintained a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Slavery, strangely seems to be a practice that arises from a more settled lifestyle ! All the major civilisations practiced slavery, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Aztecs, Maya and so on. The ancient Britons, Gauls and Germanic tribes also took slaves from their rivals. The practice was widespread across Africa, and is well documented in India, China and was carried on by the Vandals, Goths, Vikings, Mongols and Huns. So, as I say, it was an integral part of pretty much every society worldwide going back thousands of years.


----------



## TRITON (9 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> So people volunteered to be slaves?


Not really volunteering, like maybe you do with the local canal clean up, but more some big bloke with a sword gives you one of two options.


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Jan 2022)

seems to me, yet again, that some, really don't want a discussion but just want one upmanship. The topic is irrelevant to them, it's all about them. It's their game or hobby if you wish.
I try not to play their game anymore.


----------



## Keith Cocker (9 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Regarding the history of the Labour movement, again there are some interesting points. Were those behind early worker protection measures such as The Cotton Mills Act in the early nineteenth century, equally vociferous in calling for protection for the slaves who picked the stuff in the first place..er, no. They were interested in improving conditions or their own people, but never uttered a peep regarding slavery. It was left to others to take up that cause.


It’s not really my period of history but I think there was quite an overlap between supporters of factory reform and abolition of slavery in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Also the cotton manufacturers and cotton workers of Lancashire were strong supporters of the Union and abolition during the American Civil War.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2022)

TRITON said:


> Not really volunteering, like maybe you do with the local canal clean up, but more some big bloke with a sword gives you one of two options.


 
No unlike the clearance of the highlands - they didn't all decide they'd like to go to America for a pleasant change they had the roofs pulled off their cottages; hence the expression "turfed off" (turf roofs).


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Now you are just being deliberately obtuse. Of course people didn't volunteer They were taken. Often prisoners of war or equally tribes would carry out raids on their neighbours to acquire slaves. The only significant groups I can think of that didn't indulge in this practice, as far as I am aware, were the native americans, and the Australian Aboriginies. This may well be because neither lived in established cities, but maintained a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Slavery, strangely seems to be a practice that arises from a more settled lifestyle ! All the major civilisations practiced slavery, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Aztecs, Maya and so on. The ancient Britons, Gauls and Germanic tribes also took slaves from their rivals. The practice was widespread across Africa, and is well documented in India, China and was carried on by the Vandals, Goths, Vikings, Mongols and Huns. So, as I say, it was an integral part of pretty much every society worldwide going back thousands of years.


Getting closer!
Not quite accurate that the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Aztecs, Maya, Britons, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Indians, Chinese, Vandals, Goths, Vikings, Mongols and Huns all practiced slavery.
In fact it was only _a small sector_ of each of these communities who forced their will on the majority, by virtue of having power through various means - principally by "owning" the land, however they came by this dubious right.
They might gather local support by force, or by cultivating antagonism and fear of "the others" and many other means. False "nationalism" is common.
It is a process still with us loud and strong - a large proportion of the UK population even today, seriously believe that we are under alien attack from evil forces cunningly crossing the channel by night in leaking rubber dinghies!


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> ...... Quakers and other religious groups who were the founders of the abolitionist movement, not the Labour movement.


The "Labour" movement is used as a general term covering dissenters of all sorts, concerned with conditions of ordinary people, from a long way back. Quakers were part of it too, along with Methodists and others.


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Jan 2022)

Lons said:


> When did Sports Direct go bust Robin



my Apols must’ve imagined it…..a bit of wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## Spectric (9 Jan 2022)

In reality many people today are still slaves, they work many hours trying to pay for a home and to live but are only treading water and have no way out. We believe we have freedom and use it as an excuse often to not do or participate in something but it is being slowly taken away behind our backs and once the majority realise it will be too late. Are we not losing our freedom of speech, more and more things are becoming no go, what happens once you have extracted all words that are deemed no longer acceptable but are what makes us individuals and gives people their character. We end up with a society of clones who will all be sterile when it comes to our language, comedians and such will be extinct and you could end up with the "thought police" as in Orwells 1984!


----------



## Daniel2 (9 Jan 2022)

I'm convinced my wife is a secret member of The Thought Police.


----------



## Fergie 307 (9 Jan 2022)

Not for the first time Jacob you manage to effectively end what had been an interesting thread. I have no interest in reading any more of your drivel, life is too short.
And many thanks to all those who have participated in what has been one of the most interesting discussions in a long time. Have a happy, prosperous and safe New Year everyone.


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Jan 2022)

To return to guns…..

there have been lengthy discussions regarding tight gun control and relaxed gun control.

how could America tighten its gun control, given there are around 400 million guns, that’s a big skip, right!


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Slavery was developed and imposed by powerful minorities with vested interests but opposed by the majority, especially the slaves, and was fought against and largely eradicated. Maybe you didn't know this?



Very idealistic. Maybe you can find the time in the history of the world where the agreeable minority ruled and smashed all unseemly interests. The whole idea of being universally friendly to each other is just a seed for tyranny.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> To return to guns…..
> 
> there have been lengthy discussions regarding tight gun control and relaxed gun control.
> 
> how could America tighten its gun control, given there are around 400 million guns, that’s a big skip, right!



I guess we could take the receivers out of them and start turning them into lamps to sell on etsy.

Instead of steampunk, we could call them...

.....I don't know. PiecePunk?


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> To return to guns…..
> 
> there have been lengthy discussions regarding tight gun control and relaxed gun control.
> 
> how could America tighten its gun control, given there are around 400 million guns, that’s a big skip, right!


There's talk of civil war Is the US really heading for a second civil war? which could be one way of shocking the Americans out of their madness - the current gun/homicide rate obviously doesn't alarm enough of them.
"........._.most people tend to assume civil wars are started by the poor or oppressed. Not so. In America’s case, it is a backlash from a white majority destined to become a minority by around 2045, an eclipse symbolized by Barack Obama’s election in 2008_........"
Or perhaps climate change crisis will help clear their minds as they won't be able to shoot their way out of it.








Tornadoes and fires and snow – oh my! Wild December closes out a 2021 of extreme weather


December capped an extreme weather year, with deadly tornadoes, extreme snow and rain and high winds.



eu.usatoday.com


----------



## TRITON (9 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> To return to guns…..
> 
> there have been lengthy discussions regarding tight gun control and relaxed gun control.
> 
> how could America tighten its gun control, given there are around 400 million guns, that’s a big skip, right!


400 million registered, but i think the adjusted figure taking into account all the illegally held, as well as 'Grandpa's old guns' put the figure at more than twice that.



Jacob said:


> There's talk of civil war



Theres always talk of 'civil war' as well as invasion by a foreign nation, alien incursions etc etc.


Jacob said:


> Or perhaps climate change crisis will help clear their minds as they won't be able to shoot their way out of it.



No, I think they're tried that already 
I remember reading something about firing missiles into tornadoes in an attempt to break them up and dissipate the moving air.


----------



## artie (9 Jan 2022)

TRITON said:


> 400 million registered, but i think the adjusted figure taking into account all the illegally held, as well as 'Grandpa's old guns' put the figure at more than twice that.


Wikipedia says there are 120 firearms per 100 civilians. 

So if we take the population at 326 million that come to 391.2 million firearms in civilian hands.

Would be less if they only count adults, anyway, it's only an estimate.


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Jan 2022)

D_W said:


> I guess we could take the receivers out of them and start turning them into lamps to sell on etsy.
> 
> Instead of steampunk, we could call them...
> 
> .....I don't know. PiecePunk?


I actually can’t see a way to remove guns when there are so many.

The argument will be only the law abiding will give them up and leaves baddies with guns and goodies with no protection.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> I actually can’t see a way to remove guns when there are so many.
> 
> The argument will be only the law abiding will give them up and leaves baddies with guns and goodies with no protection.



I don't have too much to conclude about that - though at least in some areas, I don't think the armed status of the law abiding folks has much effect on the bad guys. Maybe in really bad areas, and maybe in rural areas the idea that the population is armed prevents things like property crimes. 

There's no real prevailing sentiment to disarm society in the states so I can't really think to consider much further in terms of what would work. Addressing individual issues without just assuming they're solved by removing guns is a worthy thing, though. Why do we have 24k gun suicides a year? I can't imagine that we can't trim that to 20k or 14k or 10k or whatever it may be.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Not for the first time Jacob you manage to effectively end what had been an interesting thread. I have no interest in reading any more of your drivel, life is too short.
> And many thanks to all those who have participated in what has been one of the most interesting discussions in a long time. Have a happy, prosperous and safe New Year everyone.


  
You might try reading more drivel by Rutger Bregman Utopia for Realists - Wikipedia it could do you good!
"Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek"
Haven't read it myself I've just ordered a copy.


----------



## GregW (9 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Exactly the opposite.
> The world-dominating success of homo sapiens is based on cooperation and co-existence - deeply entrenched natural traits. We are pack animals.
> The cynics, misanthropes, xenophobes, racists, mysogynists, psychopaths, power/wealth hungry, lethal weapon obsessives, otherwise antisocial and deranged, have a huge disproportionately disruptive effect compared to their numbers.
> Read "Humankind a Hopeful History" Rutger Bregman.
> ...


 
The worst punishment for human to be destroyed, is to force one into solitary confinement for extensive time, with no light, and sleep deprival by sudden noises.


----------



## GregW (9 Jan 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have to say history doesn't support your view at all. Throughout the history of mankind strong groups have forcibly taken whatever they wanted from weaker groups. Look at the history of any of the ancient empires, the behaviour of the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, ourselves all over the world. The crusades, the list goes on and on. Every major civilisation has made extensive use of their fellow humans as slaves. And there have been wars going on somewhere virtually continuously for as far back as you like to go. Sadly we are unfortunately a nasty argumentative and selfish species.


“Never underestimate well organised stupid people, who believe their way of live is superior to all”
“Indoctrination is way of dominance, not a intellectual support”


----------



## GregW (9 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> Slavery was developed and imposed by powerful minorities with vested interests but opposed by the majority, especially the slaves, and was fought against and largely eradicated. Maybe you didn't know this?


Nope. Society changed way how slavery operates.
Almost 99.6% of world population is slaves to banking cartel.
Over 140 countries are economically enslaved by economically rich country.
Most rich countries on Earth have most economically poor nations, due to banking or warfare system exploitation.

US vs Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan
UK+France+Holland+Belgium vs most of Africa continent
UK vs India
Catholic Church vs all other free humans alive not paying taxes from their faith of choice (including almost all Christians)

capitalism outsourced slavery to poor nations, first destroying nation by war, than famine, than indoctrination to consumptionism leading to central banking debt, “helping” a nation from poverty by collecting national debt in mineral resources.

we are living in world wide economically bound prison


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> Nope. Society changed way how slavery operates.
> Almost 99.6% of world population is slaves to banking cartel.
> Over 140 countries are economically enslaved by economically rich country.
> Most rich countries on Earth have most economically poor nations, due to banking or warfare system exploitation.
> ...


That's it in a nutshell! And it's top down from relatively small hegemonies.


----------



## GregW (10 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's it in a nutshell! And it's top down from relatively small hegemonies.



slavery comes from lack of power.

Before power was dictated by numbers of clubs, bigger muscle, technological weapon advances…
Now its influence to wage war without economic repercussions, to set up “new better” government to pay its debt for “liberation”….

For those lucky once in countries waging wars, knowledge is power, but to learn difference between banknotes and money, you must meet wealthy so can be explained.
No government will teach how whole population of Earth is robbed by eternal public debt to banking cartel.

does anyone does know how much debt you gave on hand holding one Dollar/Pound/Euro in banknote? It’s getting to 2-3k on MINUS….

Public hysteria about guns?
If people would know how economy works today, they would shoot all ruling class for treason.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> You might try reading more drivel by Rutger Bregman Utopia for Realists - Wikipedia it could do you good!
> "Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek"
> Haven't read it myself I've just ordered a copy.


"utopia for realists"

oxymoron


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> "utopia for realists"
> 
> oxymoron


Well yes obviously! Supposed to be ironic - a "wry comment".
But the powers that be would have you stay pessimistic about any chance of socialist improvement, let alone utopia. It's up to you if you want to allow them to tell you what to think.


----------



## sploo (10 Jan 2022)

GregW said:


> ...solitary confinement for extensive time, with no light, and sleep deprival by sudden noises.


I think that's called "becoming a parent"...


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Jan 2022)

A clear definition of slavery is the "legal ownership of people who are forced to work and obey". 

This does not include most organisations operating in the UK (eg: SD, Amazon). They may reasonably be described as exploitative in taking advantage of a dominant position, and may even knowingly or unknowingly support slavery in their overseas suppliers. 

AFAIK employees can still leave SD or A for pastures new. This is exploitation, not slavery - possibly no more attractive but very different in character. 

Most human progress has relied upon cooperation.. Primitive communities needed specialists working together for survival - bow makers, flint workers, skinning, butchery, tanning etc. 

The bronze age, through the industrial revolution, to today needed cooperation on a wide geographic and social scale - access to raw materials (coal, iron ore, wood, copper, tin), wide range of skills (miners, ore processing, metal workers), infrastructure (transport, communications, power), etc.

The organisation of so diverse a set of inputs did not happen spontaneously. It needed people with vision, resolve, leadership skills, to make it happen. 

Unsurprisingly these people may also have been attracted by the rewards of leadership - money, recognition and public acclaim. Many would exploit their workforce in pursuit of their goals - by modern standards some were fairly enlightened, but many not.

In many ways homo-sapiens are no different to other higher level animals - monkeys, wolves, big cats, deer, etc select pack leaders through competition, and dominate the group subservient to them. The leaders get the pick of food, and mates. Ultimately their dominance is challenged and another prevails - all very philosophical!


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> A clear definition of slavery is the "legal ownership of people who are forced to work and obey".
> 
> This does not include most organisations operating in the UK (eg: SD, Amazon). They may reasonably be described as exploitative in taking advantage of a dominant position, and may even knowingly or unknowingly support slavery in their overseas suppliers.
> 
> ...


There is no clear distinction - it's a matter of degree.


> ........The organisation of so diverse a set of inputs did not happen spontaneously. It needed people with vision, resolve, leadership skills, to make it happen.


And/or cooperative communal effort


> Unsurprisingly these people may also have been attracted by the rewards of leadership - money, recognition and public acclaim. Many would exploit their workforce in pursuit of their goals - by modern standards some were fairly enlightened, but many not.


Even less surprising are the number of people who are attracted to the common good without necessarily getting personal recognition or other benefit, for their part in it.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2022)

Jacob said:


> And/or cooperative communal effortEven less surprising are the number of people who are attracted to the common good without necessarily getting personal recognition or other benefit, for their part in it.



Comedy hour has begun.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2022)

RobinBHM said:


> "utopia for realists"
> 
> oxymoron



written by someone with a degree in history who writes newspaper columns.

Maybe his next book will be "success without the burden of successful outcomes!"


----------



## Keith Cocker (11 Jan 2022)

Writing books about how things might be made better seems a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## D_W (17 Jan 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> Writing books about how things might be made better seems a reasonable thing to do.



it does seem to be easier and more profitable than actually getting involved in the legislative process. Ask bernie - he has a lot of ideals and never allows them to get stuck in the legislative process.


----------



## johnbaz (28 Jan 2022)

Hi all

There doesn't seem to be many pics posted about the subject matter!

I've collected airguns for a few decades, The count stood at 185 but i've added a few more since then, I used to be a member at a range but as I workd 12 hour days and nights and used to get called in every so often, I was too tired to go and let my place go..

I presume the thread was started about real guns rather than airguns but i'll add a few pics..






That's a few of mine, I don't normally shoot living things, In fact I hardly shoot them at all, I'm more a collecter of nice bits of engineering!, I think i've only been to a range with any guns twice in the last five years!!..

In the pic below, The one in the centre with the plywood stock I swapped a BSA for it, The owner had chopped wood out of the rear part of the stock to make a Biathalon trainer and left it so thin that it split in to two parts!, He used multi coloured electrical tape to hold the parts together! 

I begged a few pieces of 1"Birch ply from our patternshop and made the sporter stock that's fitted to it!





Here's some good old British Webley mk3 rifles, Unfortunately Webley is a Turkish company now and BSA is Spanish owned by the airgun giant, Gamo 









Old pre war BSA Underlever rifles, One is pre WW1 too made in 1907! (Third down)..





Some old Webley overlever pistols..





When I said I don't kill things, I've don Bonsai for many years and grey Squirrels started damaging my trees so I decided to remove a few, I shot three and the rest stayed away, They have killed three of my trees before that, One was quite a large one, I got home from work and noticed through the window something on the surface of a large Chinese Elm, Went to investigate, They had dug in to the soil and found a large root so chewed through it and pulled it out to bury a nut!, Half the tree perished after a few weeks, the rest died the following year!

John..


----------



## D_W (28 Jan 2022)

from the land of real guns, and having had 10 "real" ones in the past, including .45-70 octagonal barrel, and up to a .454 casull ruger SRH (thought I'd like to try hunting for deer with a pistol)...converted all of those to tool and guitar money. 

...at any rate. LOVE air guns. If I ever get back into shooting, it probably won't be much for anything but airguns. My dad was a bit more cautious than many here - when I was little, I was barred from shooting any "real" guns by myself, and thus spent a lot of time walking the woods with a bag of cans and two pellet guns (to stage little shooting galleries). 

I think most kids these days won't get the sensation of "real" touch because they won't be able to get away from apps and texts long enough to do that.


----------



## MARK.B. (30 Jan 2022)

I've collected airguns for a few decades, The count stood at 185 but i've added a few more since then,

My God man you need Therapy


----------



## Keith 66 (31 Jan 2022)

185? You are an amateur compared to one guy i know, A dedicated airgun collector, Ten years ago i asked him how many he had. The answer was "About 400 air rifles & 450 air pistols, I need to stop buying them".
He hasnt stopped & you could probably add another 100 of each onto those numbers. He has forgotten half of what he has got but just has to have them all. Auctioneers must love him because once he bids on something, anything, he will not stop until he has won it.
Dont get me wrong i have a small collection but i shoot them & see little point in collecting for collectings sake.


----------



## johnbaz (1 Feb 2022)

Keith 66 said:


> 185? You are an amateur compared to one guy i know, A dedicated airgun collector, Ten years ago i asked him how many he had. The answer was "About 400 air rifles & 450 air pistols, I need to stop buying them".
> He hasnt stopped & you could probably add another 100 of each onto those numbers. He has forgotten half of what he has got but just has to have them all. Auctioneers must love him because once he bids on something, anything, he will not stop until he has won it.
> Dont get me wrong i have a small collection but i shoot them & see little point in collecting for collectings sake.




Hi Keith

I have a friend up in Skipton that has enough guns that if He fired a different one each day it would take over two years to shoot every single one!! 

I'm getting to the stage that I may not be here for a heck of a lot longer and am thinking of getting rid of a load as i'd hate to leave the wife and kids stuck with them, I asked the wife what she would do with them if I popped off, She said she'd order a skip! 

I also collect watches, Binoculars, Tools, In fact ball sorts of stuff, I've collected watches for 46 years and have over 2000 of those, Also have around 40 guitars and probably 70 Bonsai trees, It would be a full time job for my lads to get rid of all my cra  er junk after i'm playing with the worms!! 


John


----------



## MARK.B. (1 Feb 2022)

OK change of plan John forget the Therapy and use the time to catalogue the lot that way the lads or your wife who i might add must have the patience of a saint, can get on with spending the proceeds of your collections


----------



## Keith 66 (1 Feb 2022)

Hi John, Usually we meet in the gentlemens section of the airgun forums, trouble is if a few collectors pop off at once the market will be flooded & prices collapse! As for guitars I keep making cigar box guitars, its the eternal quest for the elusive perfect tone! Funny thing is the first one i built still sounds the best to me, but i keep trying to better it.


----------



## UserError (2 Feb 2022)

I have a couple of old airguns, left over from my youth - how would I sell them in this day & age as the gun shop I bought one from has long since gone? FWIW they're a somewhat sad BSA Cadet of some vintage & a BSA Mercury that I bought as a teenager in the 80's. I refurbished the innards of the Mercury a number of years ago with goodies from Knibbs, plus a scope, the details of which escape me ATM. Our garden's now not big enough & the kids didn't take to the effort of break barrel, having been used to newfangled compressed air ones whilst at Cadets. I'm assuming they're not worth much, but I might as well liquidate them and I'd rather they clogged up someone else's house than mine . Many thanks.


----------



## skeetstar (2 Feb 2022)

Have a look on guntrader to get an idea of prices. You then need to find someone who might want them. Unless they are rare and special I doubt that they're worth much.


----------



## Keith 66 (2 Feb 2022)

A BSA Cadet is getting quite sought after, a rough one is about £30 a good one around £80 a mint one with all its etching on the cylinder over a hundred. Mercury probably about the same, good rifles but nowhere near the same build quality.


----------



## Spectric (2 Feb 2022)

johnbaz said:


> I've collected airguns for a few decades,


A nice collection, do you not include Pneumatic or pump ups like the old Sharp Inova, a great gun with a little modification!


----------



## johnbaz (2 Feb 2022)

Spectric said:


> A nice collection, do you not include Pneumatic or pump ups like the old Sharp Inova, a great gun with a little modification!


I have a few multipumpers, These are the cheap 'Throwaway' Chinese B45-3 with the plastic magazine that has to be manually indexed!





An Innova at the top and Ace below..





Some American one..







John


----------



## johnbaz (2 Feb 2022)

A few years ago a chap from here in Sheffield contacted me asking if I would consider refinishing two Daystate Airwolf stocks that he tried to freshen up with Truoil, He'd slapped way troo much on and it wouldn't cure, Each time he brought the guns out from the slips, It dragged loads of the fleece out that was stuck to them!

He said he would give me a BSA Superstar for doing them!

I kept him updated with progress reports and pics through email, It took longer than normal due to arthritic flare ups again but he was happy to wait..

These are the finished stocks after I de furred them, Stripped them back to bare wood then reoiled them..





The Rotary breech (RB2) Superstar I was given, These are fab airguns!





The chap was so happy that he brought me a 'Bonus' in the shape of a BSA Scorpion spring powered pistol!, I was going to add one to the collection and expected to pay around £200 for a good boxed example, This one had been under his bed untouched for twenty years!!










John


----------



## Lons (2 Feb 2022)

John are you an expert? 
I hope you don't mind me asking but I have a old Webley Junior pistol I want to move on and don't know where as the usual Ebay, Facebook and Gumtree are ruled out. any ideas where I should look?


----------



## stuart little (3 Feb 2022)

Lons said:


> John are you an expert?
> I hope you don't mind me asking but I have a old Webley Junior pistol I want to move on and don't know where as the usual Ebay, Facebook and Gumtree are ruled out. any ideas where I should look?


Try Gun Star.


----------



## Lons (3 Feb 2022)

stuart little said:


> Try Gun Star.


Many thanks, will do


----------



## artie (27 Feb 2022)

This thread went slightly off topic and seems to be fizzled out.

Maybe I could put some life into it by saying, I read recently that you are many times more likely to die in the USA from prescription medicine than lead injection from a gun.


----------



## shed9 (27 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> This thread went slightly off topic and seems to be fizzled out.
> 
> Maybe I could put some life into it by saying, I read recently that you are many times more likely to die in the USA from prescription medicine than lead injection from a gun.




In your opinion, the thread went off topic so you thought you would do everyone a favour by opening a door onto your anti-vaccine narrative by way of bringing the pharmaceutical industry into a gun discussion?


----------



## Jacob (27 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> This thread went slightly off topic and seems to be fizzled out.
> 
> Maybe I could put some life into it by saying, I read recently that you are many times more likely to die in the USA from prescription medicine than lead injection from a gun.


Thats very interesting Artie! The things you learn! An endless source of wit and wisdom! 
Just wondered how many people have recovered from things with the help of prescription medicine, as compared to lead injection from a gun?
Maybe shooting is the best way to cure diseases? It'd shorten waiting times no end - just what the NHS really needs.
What do you think Artie?


----------



## TRITON (27 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> This thread went slightly off topic and seems to be fizzled out.
> 
> Maybe I could put some life into it by saying, I read recently that you are many times more likely to die in the USA from prescription medicine than lead injection from a gun.


Oh Artie
Oh Artie, Artie,Artie,Artie,Artie. 
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## D_W (27 Feb 2022)

If you limited that statement just to opioids, it's probably true. Opioids seem to be effective for acute pain, but they've become a long-term therapeutic treatment without much justification for it and the number of deaths originating from opioid use (street or otherwise) are higher than total gun deaths - especially if you remove suicides. The path appears to be opioids to increasing dose leading to fentanyl and then death. 

100,306 deaths due to drug overdose in 2021 according to the CDC. a little over 75k of those are opioid deaths. 

I've never taken an opioid, so the path described is academic to me (by that, I mean not even by prescription - they are, surprisingly, offered as first line pain medications for even small things. It's ridiculous. )


----------



## shed9 (27 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Thats very interesting Artie! The things you learn! An endless source of wit and wisdom!
> Just wondered how many people have recovered from things with the help of prescription medicine, as compared to lead injection from a gun?
> Maybe shooting is the best way to cure diseases? It'd shorten waiting times no end - just what the NHS really needs.
> What do you think Artie?


Don't do it, it'a an artie trap, disengage, disengage.....


----------



## artie (27 Feb 2022)

Welcome to webDC - "Everything Chiropractic" reported figures of 98,000 deaths by medical error in 2020. more than twice the 45,000 who died from gunshot wounds.


----------



## D_W (27 Feb 2022)

shed9 said:


> Don't do it, it'a an artie trap, disengage, disengage.....



I just provided the numbers for opioids. They're not difficult to see. I'm not sure if there are cases where any of the new classes of opioids actually save lives. Other medicine is less arguable (not all of them, though. I doubt the net effect of benzodiazepines is positive).


----------



## Jacob (27 Feb 2022)

artie said:


> Welcome to webDC - "Everything Chiropractic" reported figures of 98,000 deaths by medical error in 2020. more than twice the 45,000 who died from gunshot wounds.


  
Keep working on it Artie. You could ask yourself what a chiropractor is for starters.


----------



## TRITON (27 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> You could ask yourself what a chiropractor is for starters.


Not back to that again...

Honestly Jacob, you're spineless...


----------



## SamG340 (27 Feb 2022)

Jacob said:


> Just wondered how many people have recovered from things with the help of prescription medicine, as compared to lead injection from a gun?



That's the problem with statistics, you can make them say what ever you want, 8 out of 10 people know that


----------



## SamG340 (27 Feb 2022)

johnbaz said:


> Hi all
> 
> There doesn't seem to be many pics posted about the subject matter!
> 
> ...



John that's a serious collection you've got there !

Are you in the airgunforum ?


----------



## artie (28 Feb 2022)

johnbaz said:


> Some old Webley overlever pistols..


I think you need to add a nice Hammerli AP40 to that collection.


----------



## cerro (28 Feb 2022)

When I was in the Marines (7 years) if you let a round off by accident it was automatic 28 days 10AS. thats CB in the army


----------



## OCtoolguy (1 Mar 2022)

Unless you live in either Chicago or New York City. The ghettos in those two cities are overrun with illegal gun ownership and the crazy fools love to kill each other. I'm a responsible gun owner and was at one time the California state pistol champion. I love my right to own a gun and will fight to the death to see that our second amendment stays in effect. It's there to protect all the other amendments.


----------



## Jacob (1 Mar 2022)

OCtoolguy said:


> Unless you live in either Chicago or New York City. The ghettos in those two cities are overrun with illegal gun ownership and the crazy fools love to kill each other. I'm a responsible gun owner and was at one time the California state pistol champion. I love my right to own a gun and will fight to the death to see that our second amendment stays in effect. It's there to protect all the other amendments.


About 1.4 million people have died from firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.
Seems you have lost the battle.








Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Scruples (1 Mar 2022)

TRITON said:


> Nobody is, everyone in the UK knows the UK police have an armed division.


Yes, but not covertly armed, and certainly not PCSOs


----------



## TRITON (1 Mar 2022)

Scruples said:


> Yes, but not covertly armed, and certainly not PCSOs


No, we have covertly armed police too, but admittedly those are more concerned with the security of the country, when following possible terrorists. The last one we shot was being followed at the time when he went on a stabbing spree.
Plenty of armed officers on patrol in cars too. Like the terrorist threat, they are there in fast cars and heavily armed and acutely trained for sudden derisive action.

I dont think anyones ever claimed pcso's have or have ever been considered arming them, with firearms or tasers. Besides, the threads moved on some 40 pages from that post, i hardly think it is relevent now.


----------



## D_W (1 Mar 2022)

Jacob said:


> About 1.4 million people have died from firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011.
> Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.
> Seems you have lost the battle.
> 
> ...



Not a relevant number until you remove the suicide component, which is something like 60% to 2/3rds of the total.


----------



## Jacob (1 Mar 2022)

D_W said:


> Not a relevant number until you remove the suicide component, which is something like 60% to 2/3rds of the total.


The suicides die from the gun too.
But why even bother to look for excuses in such and appallingly insane scenario.


----------



## RobinBHM (1 Mar 2022)

artie said:


> Welcome to webDC - "Everything Chiropractic" reported figures of 98,000 deaths by medical error in 2020. more than twice the 45,000 who died from gunshot wounds.



there is no point wearing a seat belt because people die from alcohol poisoning


----------



## D_W (1 Mar 2022)

Jacob said:


> The suicides die from the gun too.
> But why even bother to look for excuses in such and appallingly insane scenario.



Yes, jacob, your justifications are the only ones worth bothering with. 

Remove the suicides because the way you use the term is misleading. Gun violence implies that someone may do something violent to you. Suicides are out in that. 

Take away drug-related and felony related shootings, and I believe we sorted through this before - somewhere around 1/5th to 1/10th of the gun deaths could "happen to you and me while we're just going about our business".

Context is important. 

This is kind of like your BBC threads where you talk about all of the must watch stuff to be informed about. Imagine if you didn't watch those and you volunteered somewhere instead. Sort of like the hand wringing over the gun stuff - nobody here is going to have any regard for your opinion if you're not local.


----------



## D_W (1 Mar 2022)

Actually, never mind that I posted here. I don't really care either and I don't even have any guns. I figured earlier this week that I'd stay in the parts of forums where people make things, which means not the HT forum and not the opinion forums (the ukraine thing sucked me back in). If the threat of nuclear exchanges doesn't make clear why most of us here don't care about guns, I don't know what would. 

And I do much prefer building things and solving problems building, especially tidy stuff like tools and guitars. Jacob - that sort of leaves you out.


----------



## johnbaz (15 Mar 2022)

SamG340 said:


> John that's a serious collection you've got there !
> 
> Are you in the airgunforum ?



Hi Sam

Yes, I'm on the Airgunforum, Also on the BBS and several other Airgun forums  

I went yo the Vintage airgun fayre on sunday, Didn't stay long and resisted spending too much!

I only brought this 'Precision' air rifle by Oscar Will, It wouldn't push a pellet out of the barrel and the whole gun was very dull, Five mins with Mr Sheen later and half a dozen drops of 3 in 1 through the transfer port and it shoots (And looks!) lovely!!









John


----------

