Rifleman Archive
Thread: The Politics of Firearms
Page 1 of 3
Waste93
Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:28 pm
#1
Bashbacharac wrote:
Er.... what's the point in having a big collection of guns at home?
It's something that I collect and enjoy. They are a piece of history. All those weapons are over 60 years old but still functional. I also use to do WW2 re-enactments so they were useful for that too.
Only wondering because in the UK we have a very anti-gun culture (thankfully).
Not sure about the thankful part. Since the banning of firearms in the UK the violent crime rate there has gone up considerably. Crime rates in London is actually worse than even New York City. Which leads to cases where you have victims getting more jail time than the criminals. Case in point is the UK guy in jail for shooting the two guys that broke into his house. The UK prosecutor actually opposed his release from jail on the grounds that he was still a danger to anyone who might break into his house. Maybe it's a cultural difference but that makes no sense to many here in the US.
In the US we have the right to self defense. That means you can use deadly force to protect yourself or the life of another in certain situations. It is a right that no longer applies in the UK. But it did at one time. It has only been in the last 100 years that the Brits have lost their ability to protect themselves. After centuries of being guaranteed to do so. I think that right was even enshrined in the Magna Carta to some extent.
One thing to remember, the US firearms culture started the same as the UK's. When the US was formed the right to carry weapons was required because of their experience while part of the British Empire. The American Revolution started because of the British attempt at restricting firearms. I know many are taught that it was a tax revolt, and that was a big part of it. But the actual war started when British troops were attempting to seize the weapons from a militia inConcord. American culture has been based around threindividual more so than the group. One way to ensure the ability of the individual to protect themselves is to keep them armed. The US Bill of Rights guarantees this with the Second Ammendment. This serves to purposes. At the time there was no standing army, the people (militia) were the arming. It also protected the people against tyranny. Since a tyrannical government will be hard pressed to survive and oppress an armed citizenry.
Actually most cultures that have banned guns have either had an increase in violent crime since the criminals feel safer or the government has confiscated the weapons and murdered large numbers of their own people.
In the UN arms control debate they talked about banning small arms to make the world safer. Yet there own data shows that more people were murdered by governments than by armed civilians.
Yes the school shooting in the UK was traumatic and tragic. But do you always ban things that were illegally used and killed someone? If so why are there still cars in the UK.
Do you use these things?
Yes. They all work and some I've even restored.
Do you kill things with them?
Some of them can be used for hunting. I do take them to the range on occasion and shoot them.
Or do you just sit up late at night stroking them?
No. But even if not used you need to take them out every couple of months to clean and oil them. They are also an investment. Some of them have doubled in value since I've held them.
Bashbacharac wrote:
Haha, I'm sorry mate, I was only jokin on that last part!
Thanks for answering, i was simply curious, to be honest. All the same, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want guns in my house! But that's just me.
That is fine. You have the right to not want them in your residence. But I think that everyone should have the choice and the right to defend themselves. Which is why I disagree with governments that ban them and ones that require them ( there are some towns in the US that municiple ordinances requiring a firemarm in every home ). But everyone should have the right to choose.
The main issue with firearms safety is education. Most accidental shootings by children are those children that were always told no about firearms and never learned about them except what they learned from TV, movies, and videogames. It's because they are curious. Those that were taught about them don't have as much curiousity so are much less likely to play with them. Reducing accidental shootings.
Waste93
Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:29 pm
#2
Bashbacharac wrote:
Good lord, I've made this one lurch off topic!
True. Maybe we should move this to another thread?
But anyway, I can quite see your point of view. A few responses though... The Tony Martin case (the farmer who shot intruders) is not particularly clear cut. As much as I can condone using force to defend yourself (and any Burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night's gonna get a plank wrapped around his head), in this case Martin shot the kid in the back. Meaning he was running away . Self defense? Your guess is as good as mine, but the police thought that the kid had seen the gun, and tried to flee. Clearly (and understandably) Martin was so angry that he shot this person... however, had there been no gun, there would have been no shooting. On the other hand, had there been no gun, would the burglars have run away? Would Martin himself have got attacked? Like I said, its a difficult one to call.
The fact that he was shotin the back is not conclusive proof that he was running away. I work in law enforcement and could give you examples of people being shot in places that didn't make sense at first. He could have heard another noise and started to turn, he could have been going for a light switch, his friend could have said something making him turn, he could have tripped over a cat, etc. He could have been turning for any number of reasons. However you also have to look that there is also absolutely no right to self defense in the UK anymore are articulated by the prosecutors (solicitors). You also have that rather foolish statement by those opposing Martins release that he was still a danger to burglars. If I remember correctly, there were two burglars. One was killed and the other wounded. The wounded one is already out of jail. Wasn't he also suing Martin for emotional and physical distress?
One other thing about the Martin case. He has been repeatedly robbed. Nor was it these kids first time robbing him.
But as you say what would have happened if he did not have a firearm? It's a guess. He might have been attacked he might not have been. Which is a big difference between the US and the UK in a point of law. In the US he probably wouldn't have been indicted since self defense relies upon a reasonable fear of life. Which in this case wouldn't be that hard since he had been a repeated victim and both burglars were younger and more likely stronger than Martin.
But in the UK that wasn't relevant since there is no right to self defense. In the Martin case the self defense arguement couldn't even really be used since there is no longer such a right.
That violent crime is on the increase is a damning indictment of our society, although it must be said that it is not uncontrollably increasing. But with guns off the street, at least there is less chance of getting shot by some mixed up kid. And we all know the damage mixed up kids can do; just look at your high school massacres. Would these have happened if their parents didn't own guns, and they had no way of obtaining them? No.
Again not quite true. Violent crime involving weapons has had a dramatic increase in the UK. There are actually more guns on the streets there now then there were before. Many of these weapons are also full autos from the stockpiles of collapsed Eastern European countries. Gang related crimes in the UK have gone up dramatically.The reason being that those that followed the law and turned in their weapons were those that were not likely to use them for crimes anyways. Those that have them now feel safer to use them since they know that the people the assault, rob, rape, etc are very unlikely to have the means to defend themselves. A clear indicator is the rapid increase on home invasions while the owners are home. The invaders have no fear of entering a residence since they know the person shouldn't be armed. In the US the number of home invasions in those areas where firearms are not heavily restricted are much lower. The criminal wants to steal property and maybe assault or rape people. They don't want to die.
As for the school shootings in the US. You make a couple of flawed assumptions. There is no indication that having a firearm at home led to these. Also there are plenty of illegal ways to obtain firearms. One thing to remember is that 30-40 years ago it wasn't uncommon for kids to bring firearms to schools and leave them in their vehicles. Also if the availability of firearms is what causes the shootings, then why have there been no shootings at gun shows like this? The reason that you see school shootings isn't the guns, it's how the media covers them. Any nut that wants to make a scene goes to kill children because they are kids which the media will cover and because they have little fear of being stopped by anyone at the school since it's highly unlikely anyone there will be armed and able to stop them.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if no one has a gun, then no one's going to get shot.
The most common murder weapon in the Soviet Union prior to the collapse was the hammer. Sure no one would get shot, instead they would be stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. Samuel Colt was correct in stating that the firearm is the great equilizer. As other weapons rely on physical strength, the firearm does not. So it allows the weak to defend themselves from the strong if neccessary.
Having the right to protect yourself is all well and good, but then it comes down to theold 'my gun's bigger than yours' argument, andfor a perfect way of condemningthat, think nuclear weapons.
Actually your example proves my point. Atomic weapons were a deterent. They prevented a full scale war like those seen in 1914 and 1939. The consequences were to drastic for that scale of combat to occur between nations. So you ended up with much smaller brush wars. Same thing with firearms. In a study done by John Lott in the US, he found that most cases where a firearm prevented a crime they were never reported. In this study it was shown that over 90% of the time the weapon only had to be displayed to stop the crime. The number of crimes prevented in the US this way was between 2-10 million. The number of crimes commited with firearms is well under 1 million.
So though people say "But is it worth it if it costs one innocent person their life ?" The response is should be "But what if it were to save the lives of two or more ?"
However, had I been a victim of armed robbery, i might well change my mind! There's certainly a few unprintable things I'd like to do to the thugs who robbed my 90 year old grandmother (thankfully without any violence).
Again it should be everyones choice. But what if your grandmother only had to display a firearm to stop the attackers?
Waste93
Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:30 pm
#3
Spawnofhell wrote :
right guys that was just load of rubbish to me both r wrong and correct weapon = bad weapon = a scary factor stats are not only thing to go by i could say 20% crashs r done by drunk males that means 80% r done by sober that doesnt sound right but yet it is as there tens of thousands more sober than drunk. stats r no way to build a arguement on I've never read stats like that if u did english over here u are taught to look past these aswell in maths. stats r a bases andu both put over a good arguement yet flawed in many ways, american 5-6 times bigger than UK meaning any stats cant be directly converted over as there will be errors. america is wrong weapon are not good allow the use of them is not good you allowing people to care legal weapon of small destruction to be carried around in your pocket. i dont mind people having the odd gun sitting up in the wall to remind the of a bloody awful war that the american played little to no part and still claim victory for "helping" us out, i dont mind that if there disabled like no bullet or some other way that all good. if u really want to defend yourself get real security system take up some form of unarmed combat aka (krate judo etc) or even self defense classes america so famed about. this will allow u to take them down the intrude with no leathal force over here in ireland u go into someone house ull be shot down we know it crime rate over here only on old people and the young everyone else can defend themself do. only rarity r these crimes done. the most popular crimes over here r burning out cars houses and just destroy property.
that case of the buglars is a very unsual case a lot of people agree and disagree with the judge that judge had a lot of pressure on himself.
the right to defend urself doesnt give u the right to kill we do have the right to fight back and defend if not disable. not to kill this man seriously didnt just defend himself but start to try (or did) kill one of them this is so not what defend yourself is this man was taking revenge not just fighting back and so they judge in my eye made the right choose though with so many factorys it was going to be a lose lose for what ever call the judge made.
sorry about the seriously bad english its late (early over here) 4:45 am and its so load of rubbish i started to get angry also im dsylexic (sp?) .
well my conculision and 2 cents america is not uk and will never be the uk vice verusa.
96)?96:this.scrollHeight)">
Spawner - Infinity
[Master Medic] 4444
[Master Doctor] 4444
[Master Rifleman] 4444
LiakyK
Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:55 pm
#4
You should see the southern US. A very high percentage of them have at least one gun in the house, if not multiple guns. I would love to see the US Govt tell the people around here they cant have guns... we will have another Civil war.
RemoMoxey
Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:17 am
#5
There's a lot of good points from everyone. But you're compairing apples to oranges. The US/UK governments are TOTALLY different.
In America we have a government "of the people, for the people, by the people". What that means is anyone can run for Congress, or even President (IF they meet the requirements). If there's a law I don't like, I can write to my Senator/Representative and work to get that law changed. Everyone is protected by the simple phrase "all men, under God, created equal". Simply put it means that EVERYONE has a say in what the government should do.
In the UK they have the right to do whatever the Queen (or King) thinks is best for the country as a whole. This system is fundamentally flawed (as evidenced by the Monarchy being simply a Figurehead now). Parliment still looks like an "Elitist" group to me. The Few ruling the Many (which is yet another fundamentally flawed system).
Now, my whole point....Countries build armies to protect themselves, shouldn't the people of those countries be allowed to protect themselves?????
p.s.Before I get flamed, by no means is the US system the end-all-be-all, best, foolproof system....it's got it's fair share of problems.
Ranger_Rick
Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:18 am
#6
Waste93 wrote:
And now for something a little bit different. Enjoy the pics. They are all from my private collection and fully functional.
Mauser K98k
Walther K43
Tokarev SVT40
M1 Carbine
M1 Garand
Lee Enfield No4 Mk1*
Lee Enfield No4 Mk1(T)
AR15 (preban)
I see you own not one, but two fabulous Enfield's. This post brought back a lot of memories, as the Enfields was the first rifle I ever owned. The Enfield .303 was my first rifle, given to me by my father, given to him by his father...where legend has it, it came into my grandfather's possession as a gift from a biological family member who was a WWI vet stationed with British forces. My grandfather was adopted, but eventualy learned of his family and met some of them. From there the story just gets even more ridiculous, regardless it's a good yarn. Ilove the rifle, and find it muchbetter in many respects tothe similar 30-aught-six.
Regardless, now the rifle is somewhere in my parents house tucked away. I personally haven't owned a gun since I was a kid but, politically I'm a firearm Fanboy. And not to get to much into the debate, but yesEurope has strick anti-gun laws, however they have the most terrible knife attacks I've ever heard of. Regardless, I think we need to treat the behavior of violence and not the method... but I'm a dork who doesn't know anything anyways.
MrSensitive
Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:49 am
#7
over here in ireland u go into someone house ull be shot down we know it crime rate over here only on old people and the young everyone else can defend themself do. only rarity r these crimes done. the most popular crimes over here r burning out cars houses and just destroy property.
I feel strongly about assaults on personal property. If I am defending my property and in so doing have to "disable" a criminal with my legally held firearm- am I doing any responsible citizen a disservice?
i dont mind that if there disabled like no bullet or some other way that all good. if u really want to defend yourself get real security system take up some form of unarmed combat aka (krate judo etc) or even self defense classes america so famed about. this will allow u to take them down the intrude with no leathal force
If I kill somebody with my fists while defending my property, how is this different than using a gun? In one case the gun is the tool, in the other your training is.
i dont mind people having the odd gun sitting up in the wall to remind the of a bloody awful war that the american played little to no part and still claim victory for "helping" us out,
I hope you are talking about WWII, it would be very easy to discredit every ounce of drivel that comes out of your mouth. We lost thousands of people coming to the defense of our allies which included your famliy.I mean no offense to the great armed forces of the UK (I am US military and have worked with some of your lads) but you should be thankful that you are not speaking German right now. Instead you can speak whatever it is you are speaking.
SpawnofHell
Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:03 am
#8
well now that im awake i can start to be a bit better i feel better last night didnt go to plan (no corvette pritty bad loot from NS execpta defesne vs dizzy 11) so wasnt the best of times thanks to the mod who ever took this out of the other forums. as everyone has said it is orange to apple. it is working for is the house of lords which was the elitist house is now very weak and cant do much compared to the house of common which is elected by the people so in a sense we are like america from the people by the people stuff. we can get laws changed if we wanted just might take ever so slightly longer as well the economy has factories if people have the pushing force to burglar the will do it with or without the worry of being shot.
take the scenary (in the usa) you've return home and see 2 people running from your front door you get out of your car see your weapon has you get out aim and pull the trigger several times (from what you say this is all allowed) you hit one and he fall the other run off free so how. you walk over to the one you shot and find that your bullet has stroke him in the back of the head, now youve killed someone in cold blood people say it won't effect them but it does and it will. over here this exact same story end with no one getting killed and insurace paying for damage.
in UK it is possible to get licenses for gun and people do people just like the raw power of holding a gun but a license is only to shot one with out being fined not to shot at people also its a damn slight hard to get meaning only those that want it do get it. but i have no knowledge on what required and the rest so im not sure.
also everyone over here is just slight pissed at ameria for coming into world war 2 in the last closing years of the war and no more and still saying we saved your bacon in world war 2. england doesnt need to fight wars we are surround by nations we have been for year and are all nearly part of the EU so if any break treaties all countries are allowed to attack.
as well if you think we r tea drinking wimps over here recently my friend read a magisne stating on the best top end special forces aka SAS navy seal etc. and the UK SAS was rank in the top 4-5 and the Navy Seal was down near the buttom but the list only had 20 in it.
but to frank we r we even arguing we r too different people and different opininons on how should be done i think weapon can be a deterent but its like the death penality would you ever really want to take a life, from read about it in english lesson (we had to right a speech on capital punishment) most people are against it cause it does take a life. the last person to be killed by law over here was inthe late 50s i believe yet most of america still carry it on actually all of it does if the need arises.
UK and USA r different we have matured while you havent we r past the days of killing each other. read r history and read your they r similar but just in different times. eventually america will stop capital punish and catch up with the rest of the civilised world (btw i dont mean your on civilised thou that the way just came out)
ps sorry for terrible english as u know i'm dislexic (sp?)
this is my last post here ill read replies but that it. bring this up anywhere else and the rifleman will lose another member
xPREDATORx
Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:27 am
#9
i dont know what the hell is goin on in this thread but just some info...
america is not 5-6 or even abit larger than england its about 50times bigger than england.
how cam u compare london to new york??? when new york is so much higher?
then go on about fire arms and then crime rates? these too have nuthin to do with each other.
(why? because gun legal or ilegal people using them in crime used them any ways)
england and both america are both violent places.
america usually = higher firearms crime because the ease of obtaining a fire arm
england= usually results in hand to hand fights and stabbings.
martial arts r martial arts lethal or non lethal any violentperson can kill some one with his barehands trained or untrained.
UWSkeletor
Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:31 am
#10
wow, it's interesting to see how other countries view the good 'ol US of A.
SpawnofHell wrote:
well now that im awake i can start to be a bit better i feel better last night didnt go to plan (no corvette pritty bad loot from NS execpta defesne vs dizzy 11) so wasnt the best of times thanks to the mod who ever took this out of the other forums. as everyone has said it is orange to apple. it is working for is the house of lords which was the elitist house is now very weak and cant do much compared to the house of common which is elected by the people so in a sense we are like america from the people by the people stuff. we can get laws changed if we wanted just might take ever so slightly longer as well the economy has factories if people have the pushing force to burglar the will do it with or without the worry of being shot.
take the scenary (in the usa) you've return home and see 2 people running from your front door you get out of your car see your weapon has you get out aim and pull the trigger several times (from what you say this is all allowed) you hit one and he fall the other run off free so how. you walk over to the one you shot and find that your bullet has stroke him in the back of the head, now youve killed someone in cold blood people say it won't effect them but it does and it will. over here this exact same story end with no one getting killed and insurace paying for damage.
Now I'm not law expert, but I'm pretty sure this would not be legal in the US. If you see two people running from your house when you come home then you are not in any danger, so you have no right to shoot them. Now, if you are sleeping in your house and someone breaks in things could be different, but if you just drive home and see people running from your house you can't just gun them down.
in UK it is possible to get licenses for gun and people do people just like the raw power of holding a gun but a license is only to shot one with out being fined not to shot at people also its a damn slight hard to get meaning only those that want it do get it. but i have no knowledge on what required and the rest so im not sure.
also everyone over here is just slight pissed at ameria for coming into world war 2 in the last closing years of the war and no more and still saying we saved your bacon in world war 2. england doesnt need to fight wars we are surround by nations we have been for year and are all nearly part of the EU so if any break treaties all countries are allowed to attack.
Interesting. Did you ever think that there mightbe a direct correllation to us coming there and it being "the last closing years of the war"?
as well if you think we r tea drinking wimps over here recently my friend read a magisne stating on the best top end special forces aka SAS navy seal etc. and the UK SAS was rank in the top 4-5 and the Navy Seal was down near the buttom but the list only had 20 in it.
but to frank we r we even arguing we r too different people and different opininons on how should be done i think weapon can be a deterent but its like the death penality would you ever really want to take a life, from read about it in english lesson (we had to right a speech on capital punishment) most people are against it cause it does take a life. the last person to be killed by law over here was inthe late 50s i believe yet most of america still carry it on actually all of it does if the need arises.
UK and USA r different we have matured while you havent we r past the days of killing each other. read r history and read your they r similar but just in different times. eventually america will stop capital punish and catch up with the rest of the civilised world (btw i dont mean your on civilised thou that the way just came out)
ps sorry for terrible english as u know i'm dislexic (sp?)
this is my last post here ill read replies but that it. bring this up anywhere else and the rifleman will lose another member
Waste93
Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:00 am
#11
SpawnofHell wrote:
well now that im awake i can start to be a bit better i feel better last night didnt go to plan (no corvette pritty bad loot from NS execpta defesne vs dizzy 11) so wasnt the best of times thanks to the mod who ever took this out of the other forums. as everyone has said it is orange to apple. it is working for is the house of lords which was the elitist house is now very weak and cant do much compared to the house of common which is elected by the people so in a sense we are like america from the people by the people stuff. we can get laws changed if we wanted just might take ever so slightly longer as well the economy has factories if people have the pushing force to burglar the will do it with or without the worry of being shot.
take the scenary (in the usa) you've return home and see 2 people running from your front door you get out of your car see your weapon has you get out aim and pull the trigger several times (from what you say this is all allowed) you hit one and he fall the other run off free so how. you walk over to the one you shot and find that your bullet has stroke him in the back of the head, now youve killed someone in cold blood people say it won't effect them but it does and it will. over here this exact same story end with no one getting killed and insurace paying for damage.
That scenario wouldn't be legal in most cases in most states in the US either. If they were in the house when you walked in it would be. But if they are running down the street generally not.
in UK it is possible to get licenses for gun and people do people just like the raw power of holding a gun but a license is only to shot one with out being fined not to shot at people also its a damn slight hard to get meaning only those that want it do get it. but i have no knowledge on what required and the rest so im not sure.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. But it is very difficult to get a license in the UK. Also those licenses are for shotguns as pretty much everything else is banned. I think that even the UK Olypmic shooting team can't practice there. Or something like that.
also everyone over here is just slight pissed at ameria for coming into world war 2 in the last closing years of the war and no more and still saying we saved your bacon in world war 2. england doesnt need to fight wars we are surround by nations we have been for year and are all nearly part of the EU so if any break treaties all countries are allowed to attack.
Sounds like improper history is being taught there. WWII started in Europe in Sept '39. The US joined in Dec '41. The war ended in May '45 (VE day). So the US was involved with most of the war. Another thing to remember is that after the fall of France you had the 'Phony War' where there was little actual combat. Until the US joined the UK was only really doing defensive operations. It wasn't until the US joined that the offensive was taken.
You also have to remember that though the US did not offically send troops until '41 we were sending supplies. It was called the Lend Lease Act. It allowed the US to provide war materials to the UK without which there is a fair chance the UK could have fallen.
as well if you think we r tea drinking wimps over here recently my friend read a magisne stating on the best top end special forces aka SAS navy seal etc. and the UK SAS was rank in the top 4-5 and the Navy Seal was down near the buttom but the list only had 20 in it.
Most Americans do not think that. Most Americans have great respect for the UK and we are fairly close to them. Kind of ironic though since the first two wars that the Americans fought were against the UK.
The SAS is a superb special forces unit. One thing to keep in mind though when looking at ranking of special forces. US special forces usually have much more specialized rolls than Europeans ones. Which is also why we have more types. But yes the SAS does deserve to be in the top rankings.
but to frank we r we even arguing we r too different people and different opininons on how should be done i think weapon can be a deterent but its like the death penality would you ever really want to take a life, from read about it in english lesson (we had to right a speech on capital punishment) most people are against it cause it does take a life. the last person to be killed by law over here was inthe late 50s i believe yet most of america still carry it on actually all of it does if the need arises.
Yes we still execute people. But as you said, it's "ifthe need arises". In the US we believe that there are times that someone commits a crime of such a nature that they forfeit the right to live. It isn't done lightly. There are many safeguards in place. Automatic appeals and such. By the time it is time to carry out the sentence, a decade or two have usually passed.
UK and USA r different we have matured while you havent we r past the days of killing each other. read r history and read your they r similar but just in different times. eventually america will stop capital punish and catch up with the rest of the civilised world (btw i dont mean your on civilised thou that the way just came out)
I'm not sure about the matured comment. It could also be that Europe is weary. The US and Europe have different views on how to do things. The Europeans believe that you can talk anyone out of anything. That diplomatic pressures are enough. The US believes that there are times when force is neccessary.
Part of that has to do with your history. Conflicts in Europe were usually fairly evenly matched. This led to long and drawn out wars. Which has led to the attempts to resolve everything diplomatically and with treaties. Which is what helped lead to WW1. The entanglement of treaties got everyone involved. It also led to WW2. Remember Chamberlains "peace in our time" comment after Germany had walked into Czechoslovakia. The rest of Europe, not wanting war, let him take over a soverign country. These action enboldened Germany and allowed them to take a large part of Europe without firing a shot. He could have easily been stopped when he walked into the Ruhr valley. But he wasn't. Diplomatic pressures failed and led to WW2.
The mature view of diplomacy only works if everyone is playing by the same book. If someone isn't though it fails. I can point to Kosovo, Iraq, and othersas further examples of where this didn't work. There are times when a stand has to be made.
ps sorry for terrible english as u know i'm dislexic (sp?)
this is my last post here ill read replies but that it. bring this up anywhere else and the rifleman will lose another member
Waste93
Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:04 am
#12
xPREDATORx wrote:
i dont know what the hell is goin on in this thread but just some info...
america is not 5-6 or even abit larger than england its about 50times bigger than england.
how cam u compare london to new york??? when new york is so much higher?
The stats are done on a per capita basis. That means that measure crime rates per 10k people. So you can compare places of different sizes since that is taken into account.
then go on about fire arms and then crime rates? these too have nuthin to do with each other.
(why? because gun legal or ilegal people using them in crime used them any ways)
Yes. But we are also looking at laws banning firearms and how that effects the crime rate. Places that allow citizenry to carry weapons if they choose generally have lower crime rates.
england and both america are both violent places.
america usually = higher firearms crime because the ease of obtaining a fire arm
Actually the UK firearms crime rate is going higher than the US. If measured per capita to take into account the different population size.
england= usually results in hand to hand fights and stabbings.
martial arts r martial arts lethal or non lethal any violentperson can kill some one with his barehands trained or untrained.
Yes.
MrSensitive
Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:58 am
#13
also everyone over here is just slight pissed at ameria for coming into world war 2 in the last closing years of the war and no more and still saying we saved your bacon in world war 2. england doesnt need to fight wars we are surround by nations we have been for year and are all nearly part of the EU so if any break treaties all countries are allowed to attack.
I don't know where to begin here. I know that Waste has already addressed this but I can't read this and in good conscience, not respond.
Last closing years? We were fighting in the war for the majority and we were helping you out with the lend lease act from the beginning.
In my military experience both during peace time and war time I have worked with your forces. Nobody ever makes comments like "we saved your bacon". If you want to invent self emasculating statements fine, but don't attribute them to the attitude of the American populace.
Yes, England is surrounded by nations, by nations that they have historically been at war with for decades at a time. If I remember right, before the EU was even a glimmer of thought, all nations were "allowed" to reciprocate hostilities. This worked out very well when the Nazis decided to advance on you.
as well if you think we r tea drinking wimps over here recently my friend read a magisne stating on the best top end special forces aka SAS navy seal etc. and the UK SAS was rank in the top 4-5 and the Navy Seal was down near the buttom but the list only had 20 in it.
If I look back on the other posts the only references I see being made to your military were yours and mine. I speak of your forces with the utmost respect so I've no idea where the tea drinking wimp thing came from. The SAS boys are hard core, the SEALS are hardcore, DELTA FORCE is hardcore. Truthfully though, the Israelis and the Australians are some of the most well put together forces I have come in contact with. All that is moot though, as I mentioned you are the one who brought this up.
but to frank we r we even arguing we r too different people and different opininons on how should be done i think weapon can be a deterent but its like the death penality would you ever really want to take a life, from read about it in english lesson (we had to right a speech on capital punishment) most people are against it cause it does take a life. the last person to be killed by law over here was inthe late 50s i believe yet most of america still carry it on actually all of it does if the need arises.
UK and USA r different we have matured while you havent we r past the days of killing each other. read r history and read your they r similar but just in different times. eventually america will stop capital punish and catch up with the rest of the civilised world (btw i dont mean your on civilised thou that the way just came out)
The death penalty isn't just a deterrent, it is a punishment. It is removing a problem from society. I don't support the death penalty in all cases, but there are times where it makes sense, more sense than using taxpayer's money to feed shelter and care for the individuals that perpetrated the crimes against the same taxpayers. For note, you are not "past the days of killing each other" you are just past the days of doing it to the people who deserve it.
I am happy you are not going to comment any more. It makes me sick to my stomach listening to all the anti-American sentiment in the world. I am thankful that when push comes to shove the military of the UK is composed of solid upstanding individuals who represent your flag far more appropriately and admirably than its citizenry does.
Page 1 of 3