Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jknight8907, Jun 24, 2013.
No, we really don't. That poll is populated by bored right-wingers who would probably vote 90% in favour of the reintroduction of the birch, capital punishment, transportation to the colonies and public execution.
Sorry for my ignorance but keeping up on U.S. Federal, State, and local laws is a full time job.
Do you have something about guaranteed gun ownership in your Parliament Acts or other Papers?
No no no nononononononono!!!!!!!!!!! I do not want guns to come back! I cannot express this enough! I'd seriously conciser leaving this country if gun ownership regulations were loosened.
No. Our law here is generally reactive and is formed in a response to events etc.
Self protection / security was never a legitimate reason to own guns here since 1966 and the original firearms acts. These were, I think a response to the increase in armed crime following the war.
However prior to Dunblane (1996) you could possibly own a handgun but under strict conditions (Firearm Certificate) and you had to prove a legitimate use. Legitimate use included target shooting and I think some vets might have had them as opposed to bolt guns for putting down large animals etc. Following Dunblane there was a blanket ban imposed on the private ownership of all handguns regardless. This never affected the use of guns by people for self defence as you couldn't get one for that anyway. I suspect any serious pressure for a relax on the ban comes from the fact that even the single shot .22 olympic style target pistols were banned as well but I don't think there's any real public desire to change it though. It won't happen. Target shooters don't have enough influence here.
Our firearms laws are reactive as opposed to being part of a philosophy or a larger political worldview - you're allowed to own things unless they're specifically restricted and that tends to happen following an atrocity etc. So, there's nothing to stop you buying say a crossbow (despite the fact they lethal and you're not allowed to hunt with one) as they're not generally used in crime etc. This attitude does seem to work quite well in allowing people some freedoms but prevents mass harm.
I do sometimes think that the police are becoming their own worst enemy in this sort of situation - their increasing use of body armour and military style clothing to counter the 'terrorist threat' and to send aggressive messages to well armed criminals will gradually make us feel less safe. (Even if we're actually safer?) and I suspect this might drive a desire to have more aggressive means of self defence among the general public.
Roadbloc - understand the sentiment but I'm not sure where you'd go, the only country with similar gun laws that I can think of would probably be Japan.
Thankfully there is no serious pressure in the UK to alter gun laws. Nothing like the NRA here, the issue isn't really discussed in the media, and I very rarely overhear people here saying we should have guns (in fact I am far, far more likely to hear people laughing at US gun-nuttiness).
This poll was small and probably suffered from interest bias - ie the very few people who are passionate about having guns in the UK bothered to vote, the majority who don't even think about the issue didn't.
The article makes it sound like a dramatic ban took place in 1996, but even before them very few people would have been able to own a hand gun. With the exception of certain shotgun classifications (which are still licensed and restricted) pretty much all firearms have been heavily restricted and very rare for decades. There are around 500,000 shot gun licences in the UK, and 125,000 firearms licences.
Hand gun laws are not going to be relaxed in the UK, and rightly so.
I like the current gun laws. If anything an all out ban would suit me. I do not see a need for firearms recreational or not in today's society.
However I do think police should be allowed to carry something more than CS spray and a stick.
...depends which colony, anywhere in New Zealand, Vancouver and Montreal would be great.
More seriously, am I to understand that the Daily Telegraph is read by a similar crowd to the Daily Mail?
I don't know about that, but what does surprise me is just how many Daily Mail readers there are.
Nobody is quite as bad as Daily Mail readers (I use the term "readers" loosely) but Telegraph readers are still pretty ignorant/bigoted. I think of the Telegraph being to the Daily Mail what UKIP is to the BNP.
Unfortunately Happybunny's stats show just how stupid the plebs in the UK can be.
They're already arrogant as it is with a stick. With a gun they'd feel invincible.
You guys just don't understand Freedom!!
And yet over 20 thousand people are killed by guns each year in the States and not in self defense.
Gun Violence in the U.S., note that the page is being disputed.
Check out this GunPolicy.org which compares U.S. gun deaths to other countries. In the link example, I chose, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia.
I didn't say gun... I said something more than....
And please don't put many in the same pot as a few bad eggs!
What more is there to carry?
Taser, or some form of non leathal gun would be ok
I think that the British Police have all ready proved their capacity to cause problems and distress without firearms.
Smear campaigns against innocence people by undercover police agents. It's now no longer a case of a few bad apples, the whole system is rotten to it's core.
I'm British and none of my friends, family or myself want guns. Hmm.
Who needs a gun when you have cricket bats and anti-stab knives? Though I doubt those are INGSOC approved either.
A quote from the posted link:
Not this one again.
I posted in another thread about this "study". That post can be found here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=17257092&postcount=273
Here is a summary of its content ...
1. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is a student-edited law review. It is not peer reviewed.
2. The publication has a stated conservative and libertarian political slant.
3. The "study" contains gross and obvious errors and cherry-picked data sources to substantiate the conclusion the authors wanted to find.
Other than that ...
Instead of just posting them verbatin lets look where the quote came from (not surprisingly the article didn't provide references).
The Journal, whilst sounding respectable, is actually a partisan source only publishing conservative and libertarian articles and opinion. Furthermore the authors of this paper were Don B. Kates, a lawyer with the conservative right wing think tank the Pacific Research Institute, and Gary Mauser, an associate of another right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute. One could perhaps question their objectivity.
Citation not provided. Because this data is incredibly poor.
A quote that is not supported by current data. If we use a source that isn't biased from Harvard;
No they don't. OP's probably never left the country and therefore hasn't a clue of what they are on about.
Incredibly flawed methodology.
I voted (for a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces) ... and I'm not British.
For future reference could you give us a list of groups that you consider non-baised?