Should Hand Guns Be Legal In the UK?
8 years ago in #life by thecryptofiend (74)
$47.75
- Promotion Cost $8.00
- Past Payouts $47.75
- - Author $44.31
- - Curators $3.44
335 votes
- tombstone: $13.14
- xeldal: $6.46
- datasecuritynode: $3.98
- enki: $3.87
- jesta: $1.25
- nanzo-scoop: $0.93
- pfunk: $0.89
- cyber: $0.88
- tuck-fheman: $0.79
- ericvancewalton: $0.68
- xeroc: $0.57
- wang: $0.56
- hermes-miner: $0.47
- boombastic: $0.43
- hermes: $0.39
- thecryptofiend: $0.39
- anonymous: $0.38
- sochul: $0.38
- neogen1: $0.37
- vortac: $0.36
- and 315 more
Should breathing be legal for humans?
Sometimes breathing can be deadly. Maybe we need a ban after all. I'll call my congressman!
Well if you are breathing there is ALWAYS a risk of death!
Lol:)
I agree with your assessment, including for my home country of Canada. There should be gun freedom and fewer restrictions on self-defense. If you remember, I'm the fellow who cited a wall-of-text that cited Sir William Blackstone :)
That said, I have to note that the United States has a cultural advantage when it comes to gun safety - two related ones, in fact, and they're both important ones:
The two obviously relate, as at least one of the members of a local NRA chapter is likely to be a LEO. So it's easy to get a professional opinion as to good/bad practices and the legalities.
Obviously, these practices comprise "self-regulation" in the old-fashioned Neighbourhood-Watch sense. They're the main reason why states with the looses gun laws tend to have low crime rates. I've read thread after thread after thread with pro-NRA folks discussing not only what gun you should buy but also what's a bad shoot - and what are good practices. Not so much in my home country of Canada, in large part because of the gun control.
If the gun laws are loosened - moreso repealed - a similar culture would have to arise, with a similar self-responsibility ethic.
Thanks yes for sure. If it ever happened (which it won't) it would need to be done responsibly with proper training and organisations to educate people.
Very well put @nxtblg - one thing I would say is that nobody knows how they are going to function (as opposed to react) when in a real situation, holding a gun, adrenalin, fear, panic, hair trigger ... you can train for it but as the footballers say, there is no replacement for match practice.
Sadly the testimony of some eye witnesses was not passed on by the media. The 'Britain First' claim was propaganda. Some witnesses saw three people struggling. Another witness saw a man hiding in a nearby graveyard with binoculars.
I won't go into details but this has all the hallmarks of a hit.
Even if it was she might still be alive if she was armed.
I agree. Not sure I care that she's dead though. Once I realised the regressive left will happily enable any level of violence to achieve their aims one begins to lose sympathy with them.
I'm sorry I don't agree with that no matter how strongly you disagree with her politics she doesn't deserve to be dead because of it.
What if you were a parent of one of the thousands of girls who were raped by the numerous rape gangs operating in the north? Some of the fathers of these girls were arrested for trying to rescue their daughters from imprisonment in compounds. The fathers were then prosecuted. The police and various MPs and civil servants colluded for years to protect this horrible practice. The reason for this was their mass immigration agenda. The regressive left require unlimited immigration at whatever the cost and will allow anything which furthers this agenda. Jo cox was a central part of this.
The people committing the crime are responsible in that case not Jo Cox.
And if Jo Cox made sure they weren't stopped?
You may not care that she is dead at a deep, emotional level. The problem with words is that these suggest that you are ambivalent about the murder of a wife, mother, daughter and highly respected member of her community which she served to the point that she became its representative in the House of Commons.
Her death saddened me immensely for her family and friends - you should see what she did! It also spoke of a malaise which is creeping in everywhere - the 'me' attitude. 'We' seems to have become a crusty old-fashioned attitude.
I think you've misunderstood my position. Let me give you some thoughts:
I regard the politics of the regressive left as holding almost total control of western governments. This has been engineered simply because their interests temporarily serve the interests of the establishment. (The EU, the migrant 'crisis' and the diversity agenda are bigger than any one political block. They all seems to have unlimited funding which can all be traced back to globalist financiers) Once society, the family and any sense of identity for most Europeans is broken down to nothing this sham ideology will be discarded and we will enter a banking controlled oligarchy. You might think this is paranoid. I've done enough research to know what's in the pipeline. Jo Cox, whether aware of it or not, was very much a part of this.
I never used to think about being a white person. To even ponder it seemed somehow distasteful. In the recent years I was forced to think about my identity by ever increasing levels of ridicule, blame and shaming for things I had no connection with. Now my whole family, including my baby son are supposed to share some collective guilt for murky areas of world history. Again, Jo Cox was very much a part of this thinking.
The idea that 'we' meaning the whole world, should all think collectively is perhaps the heart of the single most evil ideology created. We're taught to fear Fascism, despite the fact that the greatest slaughter in the history of mankind was carried out by the left. The Bolsheviks murdered 30 million ethnic Russians brutally in the name of peace and love and togetherness....and most importantly, collectivism.
I'm very careful when I think about that what 'we' should and shouldn't do because if history is to be taken as an example, any attempt to include the entire world in any way of thinking ALWAYS foreshadows violence on an appalling scale against those who refuse to take part.
And then we're told violence isn't the answer. Sadly, history shows that once discussion has failed, violence is always the answer. Whoever wins with violence wins totally. The British establishment is currently gearing up to treat its own people like the enemy. Jo Cox was part of this establishment and any respect they had for her means nothing to me.
In short, with her politics Jo Cox made herself an enemy of myself, of my family, of most of my friends and of any people who share my values. Passively, and in the name of collectivism, she was prepared to do violence against all of us. I don't care that she's dead. I don't care about the feelings of her husband who shared her values. It is a tragedy for her children but to mourn for two children I have never met in a world of tragedy would be hypocritical. It would be publicly signalling my virtue.
These issues are not always as simple as a flat, monotone 'Me' or 'We'....
Your words are well-met, sir. I do understand the sentiment and historical backdrop which you explain this from. If I glossed over any of this in your initial post, may offer my sincere apology for doing so, it was not intended.
The filthy mess we are in as a political population is degrading to such an extent that I fear for any grasp at 'standards'.
Two world wars against fascism and Britain is fascist in all but name. Nearly every election in the world in the past two years has retained incumbent or voted in a more right wing administration. Le Pen's acceptance is huge and gaining momentum.
My comments around 'we' as opposed to me were very much intended at the local level - family, friends, community.
To be honest, I know little of Jo Cox's political leanings. No matter what they were, I understand that they were well intentioned and motivated. Nobody deserves to die for well-intentioned and motivated views; democracy (such as we have) determines Government of the people for the people by the people.
The prospect of this moving inexorably towards some One State World, the Orwellian nightmare, is anathema.
I have spent twenty years of my life in Australia and the past five in Ecuador. Australia is well coined as a nanny state; South America is one of the last vestiges of freedom as far as I can tell. Yes, there are million and one things to moan about but the experience of day-to-day living is a world apart!
Thank you again for your well phrased response. I believe we may be in the same chapter, if not on the same page!
those who banned guns and thus make self defense harder should be held responsible for the deaths.
Thanks for your comments. Yes it is worth exploring as a position because the criminals are not going to follow any laws. Why penalise the ordinary person.
criminals are not going to follow any laws. odd how few 'lawmakers' seem to realize that.
or do they? are they intentionally disarming the victim? Why would they do such a thing?
Well it is interesting to consider why. They put across the argument that having guns makes everyone at greater risk but those statistics I cited on open carry would suggest otherwise.
more guns...less crime.
Sorry but statistically, the converse seems to bear out.
Look at the statistics of gun related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
Don't you think that more guns available would increase these numbers in the UK.
Sure, guns don't kill people by themselves, people kill people.
But when people have no guns available, they cannot kill with guns.
That is certainly possible. It is hard to know though. Also I'm sure some people would ask if it is more important to give people freedom of choice. For example a lot of people die as a result of cars but we don't ban them. Just something to think about.
@thecryptofiend NO
definitely no, we're peaceful here and hopefully it stays.
It was more peaceful when I first came than the past 2 years and we know it's not because of the Europeans.
So - hopefully they get to see that and join the peace act :)
I hope it doesn't start here.
Prefer love to reign.
I sympathise with what you are saying. It is just a thought experiment it will never happen. The problem is the criminals will get guns anyway.
@thecryptofiend they already have, they brought a lot - sad fact
I completely agree. Have a look at the results of Australia which had the biggest mass shooting in the world, ever. Reluctantly, they handed in their weapons. Still there is gun-related crime but the overall situation is radically better. If you suggest that anyone who bans guns should be blamed for someone shot, then equally, the same should be said for anyone killed in a mass shooting - pro-gun people have blood upon their hands - cake and eating it ...
@ebryans, exactly
It's not only gun control that is pretty crazy in this country as well as the rest of Europe, but self-defence laws are utterly retarded as well. Here in the UK and elsewhere is is practically illegal to defend yourself successfully against someone if you are not careful because of the way the law is worded.
When you are attacked you are supposed to use 'reasonable' force, but that is so vague it is simply down to how the jury and the judge feel at the time what is reasonable and what isn't. Much like with police officers who can arrest people on "reasonable suspicion" it leaves far too much room for people to abuse that law and put otherwise innocent people who just defended themselves in jail.
We aren't even allowed relatively non-lethal weaponry in Europe generally, there was a girl in Denmark who was attacked by somebody and she used pepper spray to defend herself, doing everything right, she didn't kill her attacker and managed to keep herself safe yet she was threatened with a fine because she had the pepper spray in the first place. The police didn't give a fuck about the fact that she was attacked, all they cared about was the fact that she had the pepper spray.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/12125645/Danish-girl-who-used-pepper-spray-on-attacker-faces-prosecution.html
I absolutely believe that if Jo Cox had a gun things would have definitely turned out differently, but these people here in Europe and particularly in the UK are so utterly paranoid and irrational about firearms they will never admit it or allow people to even open carry a handgun.
They're too fucking fearful and scared of everything, so nothing in this area will change.
Good points. Yes the self defence thing is tricky - the pepper spray thing is insane. I agree the fear of firearms would never allow it. Interesting thought exercise though.
As far as I'm concerned it should be a case of, who attacked first and was anyone killed? In which case it could escalate then into if the death was justified or not when the person defended themselves. For cases like this where you have these two people walking away unharmed it shouldn't be an issue, the victim should get help and counselling if necessary and the scumbag that attacked her should end up in jail.
As pointed out by this scenario though you can now see what deliberately vague law can do to a persons' life even by any persons definition they are completely innocent.
Yes like in the video you mean? Absolutely. Also think of the psychological impact on the daughter she has to live with that her whole life.
Quality post... Upvoted and Following.
I wish we didn't need guns at all. But as a handgun owner I feel that we much do all we can do to protect ourselves. But not living in fear or paranoia.
When I was just a kid I would ride my bike a few blocks from home to the local gun store. A wise man that was ex-millitary, ex-police ( I think) and worked at the gun store told me "A gun won't save your life, but good tactics will." That piece of wisdom has stayed with me to this day.
So regardless of if you have a gun or not you should always have good tactics, be aware of your surrounds, who is approaching you, exits, safe places to duck and cover, etc... Soon it becomes automatic.
But yes I think people should have the right to have a gun in the UK as gun control only favors the Criminals.
But my favorite thing to shoot is my Camera. You can see my work on my page. :)
Thanks. Yes I agree I would call that preparedness and it is very important. Without it a lot of people just freeze in a situation (any emergency for that matter). It is something that should be taught to everyone in schools not just for self defence but for resuscitation, natural disasters any kind of emergency.
Me too but I'm not a pro like you. Am already following you:)
I agree schools teach too much crap and not enough of what really matters such as life saving skills, health, and how to make start your own business which it should just a hand full of books can change a persons live.
Yes for sure.
Historically there have been other reasons for the left's opposition to guns, but today, like most leftist ideology, it's simply about seeking government control of nearly every matter in an individuals life. "You shut up and do as we say"....The backlash to this is not surprising.
Yes but it is not just a left thing at least not in terms of politics. It seems all politicians want this from both sides. I don't even vote any more because I don't see any difference between left and right.
Ok, I live in Honduras, everyone is armed around here, we have one of the highest murder rates in the world so there just might be something that ties gun ownership and murder I guess. I am not against you having a gun, but I do think you should have some sort of mental test, and of course an aptitude test to see if you can handle weapons, and most important of all the guts to use the weapon, these murderers are going to shoot are you sure you will? Or are you just going to be carrying a weapon so a criminal can steal it? You have to consider all of these things, Rambo was a movie, real life is not like that, and I highly doubt a weapon would have prevented the murder of this lady, a murderer is highly motivated and shoots as soon as he gets the chance. We have hit men here who just kill and off they go on a motorcycle you can have a machine gun to defend yourself, no use, they shoot first and you don't get to use your weapon, in fact a friend of mine was killed this morning while he was opening the gate to take out his car, a guy was waiting for him and shot him, my friend was carrying a .357 didn't get to use it.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Absolutely as another poster said this would need to be done carefully with the right education and some sort of testing would be needed to make sure you aren't handing out guns to people who are mentally unstable.
I do not want to get shot. I have had, through work, to be in situations which are highly dangerous. A troop of 6 soldiers is not uncommon. I am always the one who is unarmed ... why? Because the unarmed person is the last one, if you are on the other side, that you should shoot at. A thinking game?
Interesting way of framing it:) I suppose it is a thinking game.
Well, when it is my own life at stake, this is what I choose! I am offered weaponry, by the way!
OK. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Now only criminals are armed...how much sense does that make?
And then you have a police force that takes their guns away. :-)
If you think it won't work, jump on a plane and come and visit me, and I'll show you how it works.
I know it is too late for the US to be this free, but the UK still has a chance.
That was my reasoning in this thought experiment.
Look at the results of Australia. We laugh at the NRA - 'my right' to bear arms - absolutely, under the Second Amendment, and please understand the meaning of the word, amendment, you have the right to bear arms, a law which when introduced included the reality of a minute or so between shots! I can have an opinion but no consitutional influence, which is right too. To suggest that you are safer with the right to bear arms is to express wilful ignorance.
Our rights come from our Creator...The Constitution just prevents govt from usurping them!
I do not understand the sequitor, The Constitution specifically outlawed religious argument as to the running of the USA and the people of Washington have thoroughly usurped the Constitution! Wilful ignorance is, I hope, not a national malaise. It is a political football rather than an issue dealt with in a rational way.
"We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Has nothing to do with religion! Has nothing to do with handguns in UK anyway!!
I think there are a couple of big differences between the USA and other countries. 1) The right to keep and bear arms is written into our Constitution, in the Bill of Rights. It would take a massive effort throughout all of the states to remove it. 2) Americans would rather use their firearms to protect their Second Amendment right than to give it up willingly. Because the federal government is so out of control, states are nullifying federal legislation that unconstitutionally violates the Second Amendment.
People who want to live in victim-rich zones are free to move to a state that constricts their right to self defense. As for me, I'll stay right here with my neighbors and all our guns, thank you very much.
The Second Amendment was an amendment - amendments can be amended.
The Second Amendment is more accurately the second right in the Bill of Rights, which fundamentally predates the Constitution due to the fact that it was based on the Magna Carta. Government did not "give" us those rights, otherwise it would be the "Bill of Privileges." Government cannot take away what it cannot give. Our rights are something we are born with, and the right to bear arms (self defense) -- including and especially against a tyrannical government -- is not something that can be legislated for or against (i.e., "amended"). It is one of our natural human rights. The biggest difference between the United States and other countries is this: Americans understand that being well armed is critically necessary to maintaining liberty, for which we will put on lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line to protect.
Yes certainly the culture is very different to the UK but there are some gun owners and enthusiasts here too who feel that they are never listened to.
short answer, yes.
well written again, sir.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm just trying to get a good discussion going like in the early days of Steemit. Thank you for your support:)
Well Yah they should get their rights back... it's not about safety, it is about governmental controls on the citizens.
Will it ever happen in the UK, there is always a possibility as globally we are seeing the governments loose their tyranny (oh excuse me, control) and the people beginning to reassert their individual rights.
Good points. I see this in some ways like the drugs issue and the arguments they make in relation to those. Of course things could change but I just think there is a deep seated fear of guns in UK culture now that will be difficult to change.
Although I do think guns should be more available to law-abiding UK citizens, changing the laws on guns is a terrible uphill battle in a country where even butter knives are feared.
I know it would never happen. I think we can be sure of that:)