|
Post by pneawf on Aug 10, 2012 5:39:51 GMT
I find it amazing that Americans can fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The problem now is that the guns are there and banning them would affect nothing in the US. The criminals have the guns and would not give them up. The argument about illegal guns being used for crimes is daft beft those guns were legal until they were stolen. Had they not been in circulation to begin with they would never have become illegally owned. I'm glad we don't arm our depressive loons.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 10, 2012 7:55:46 GMT
I find it amazing that Americans can fail to see the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The problem now is that the guns are there and banning them would affect nothing in the US. The criminals have the guns and would not give them up. The argument about illegal guns being used for crimes is daft beft those guns were legal until they were stolen. Had they not been in circulation to begin with they would never have become illegally owned. I'm glad we don't arm our depressive loons. PNE, guns certainly would be in circulation regardless of the law. They will always be manufactured for military purposes and there will always be people who are willing to create a black market - illegally setting up the supply from military stocks. You simply cant take guns out of circulation - it's impossible. I think it is crazy that we are not allowed guns for self defence in this country, and find it even more crazy that we send our police out, unarmed, to fight crime where they have a a very real chance of coming up against an armed criminal.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 10, 2012 8:08:25 GMT
In the UK armed response units are deployed if any weapons are involved in a criminal act, so it's a myth to say that we send out police out unarmed. Also, the reason the US has such a problem with gun crime is simply because of the availability of them. The answer is not to allow more and more people to arm themselves to protect themselves against the few nutters who use them against other people, but to restrict access to them in the first place - fighting fire with fire just leads to an inferno.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 10, 2012 8:31:31 GMT
In the UK armed response units are deployed if any weapons are involved in a criminal act, so it's a myth to say that we send out police out unarmed. Also, the reason the US has such a problem with gun crime is simply because of the availability of them. The answer is not to allow more and more people to arm themselves to protect themselves against the few nutters who use them against other people, but to restrict access to them in the first place - fighting fire with fire just leads to an inferno. Armed units are only sent out when its known or suspected that weapons are involved. For the average plod on a Saturday night in London, he's policing a city full of criminals, many with guns. That's hardly a myth.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 10, 2012 8:51:04 GMT
and the great majority of gun use is between rival gangs.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 10, 2012 10:26:18 GMT
I have witnessed guns being fired in public 4 times 3 times in parties/clubs and once outside a school. I also know quite a few people who have easy access to guns. Contrary to what Jayram says I am very glad guns are not legal in this country, its bad enough with them being illegal. Can you imaging how many deaths there would be if they were, especially with the number of gangs springing up. there are enough deaths due to stabbing !!
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 10, 2012 11:31:30 GMT
I concur, HotHead.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 10, 2012 17:17:19 GMT
In the UK armed response units are deployed if any weapons are involved in a criminal act, so it's a myth to say that we send out police out unarmed. Also, the reason the US has such a problem with gun crime is simply because of the availability of them. The answer is not to allow more and more people to arm themselves to protect themselves against the few nutters who use them against other people, but to restrict access to them in the first place - fighting fire with fire just leads to an inferno. Armed units are only sent out when its known or suspected that weapons are involved. . Yes, that's what I said. (check quote in bold)
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 10, 2012 17:26:41 GMT
Armed units are only sent out when its known or suspected that weapons are involved. . Yes, that's what I said. (check quote in bold) Yep, so it is not a myth to say that we send out police officers unarmed to deal with criminals who have guns. Every time a police officer goes out on duty he or she s at risk of encountering an armed criminal.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 10, 2012 17:38:58 GMT
Ok you are both making the same argument but taking the other side of the stick.
Sensi is saying that we send armed response units to deal with armed threats, but Jayram is saying that people on the streets are armed but our "standard" policemen and women are not.
Both views are correct. Not sure I'd want all of our police armed though, FFS most of the police shootings in recent years have ended up being criticised for being wrong. The rich dude in Chelsea apparently shouldn't have been shot dead, you have of course duggan who was unarmed, you had the Menezes guy in Stockwell who was not a terrorist but shot dead. Too many mistakes are being made, can you imagine how bad it would be if our police were all armed ?!!
And the families of the wrongfully dead have to suffer afterwards .. with some 2 bob apology from the Met.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 10, 2012 21:16:13 GMT
Yes, that's what I said. (check quote in bold) Yep, so it is not a myth to say that we send out police officers unarmed to deal with criminals who have guns. Every time a police officer goes out on duty he or she s at risk of encountering an armed criminal. But you don't want armed coppers picking up drunks spilling out of the clubs on a saturday night, that's why we have the concept of Bobbys on the beat. Armed response units in any major police force in the UK are more than well equipped to deal with armed incidents. You seem to be taking a stance that because anyone could be potentially carrying a gun, everyone should carry one to protect themsleves ? Do you see how that logic creates the very thing that you are trying to prevent ?
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 10, 2012 23:14:11 GMT
Yep, so it is not a myth to say that we send out police officers unarmed to deal with criminals who have guns. Every time a police officer goes out on duty he or she s at risk of encountering an armed criminal. But you don't want armed coppers picking up drunks spilling out of the clubs on a saturday night, that's why we have the concept of Bobbys on the beat. Armed response units in any major police force in the UK are more than well equipped to deal with armed incidents. You seem to be taking a stance that because anyone could be potentially carrying a gun, everyone should carry one to protect themsleves ? Do you see how that logic creates the very thing that you are trying to prevent ? No not really. You are assuming a normal person would be tempted to shoot someone for no reason. 99.9% of people who carry guns in the states - or keep them in the house for self defence - never use them. The vast majority of all gun crime is linked to rival gang warfare in the US. Here's an interesting link of an interview with John R Lott Jr, who has studied the subject. www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/ Also, some of the stats quoted on gun crime can be misleading. For example for every 100 people in Thailand there are 15.6 guns, compared to 88.8 in the USA. However murders with firearms in Thailand 20k, USA 9k. Somewhere like Switzerland 45.7 guns per 100 people, yet only 68 murders with firearms. The comparisons used between the USA and the UK is meaningless. The cultures are different and there is conflicting evidence on whether a gun ban in the USA would lead to more or less murders by firearms.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 10, 2012 23:54:34 GMT
But Jayram - lots of people who have killed someone are "normal" people who just flipped. I saw a documentary on murderers and most of them were just normal people who happened to be in the wrong place, in a scenario that was unexpected and the outcome was they killed someone. If you walk with a gun or knife and get in a situation where you flip you WILL kill someone.
Take road rage, if you had a gun don't tell me you wouldn't shoot the person.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 11, 2012 1:29:11 GMT
But Jayram - lots of people who have killed someone are "normal" people who just flipped. I saw a documentary on murderers and most of them were just normal people who happened to be in the wrong place, in a scenario that was unexpected and the outcome was they killed someone. If you walk with a gun or knife and get in a situation where you flip you WILL kill someone. Take road rage, if you had a gun don't tell me you wouldn't shoot the person. The research I referenced suggests that normal people don't flip to the extent they will shoot someone. I would say that someone who flips to the extent where they will start shooting people is not normal. This debate is just not as cut and dried as first appears - there is even a suggestion based on actual changes to the law in the US that relaxing gun laws in certain states reduces gun related murder.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 11, 2012 6:24:43 GMT
Gun crime is largely cultural. In the UK we witness street crime, but we don't feel we need to go out armed. In the US ordinary people feel they have to protect the 'homeland' and have an arsenal at home !!(did you like that?).
|
|