Packing Brits

Blimey, our cousins across the pond would like a fighting chance, just like the rest of us:

A Daily Telegraph online poll has revealed that over 80 percent of Brits would rather a repeal on the hand gun ban over various other “new law” choices.

Uh oh, so much for the notion of living in a gun free zone.

With the Woolwich attack some folks have figured out that living gun free is a fool’s errand. And all over one death of a soldier, how rankled would they be if those double terrorist clowns went Ft. Hood style and started blasting away in to the crowd?

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as “Colliemum” asked, “…why should only criminals be ‘allowed’ to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?”

Well, DUH!!!!

The epiphany of realizing that their hide is just as valuable as anyone else’s, some Brits think their little gun free utopia is not working and would like the chance to even the playing field, do they not get to decide what kind of society they should have?

That argument, expressed here by some (one), that more guns walking around will make people less safe, OK, probably, but we cannot uninvent firearms, they already exist, so the notion of living anywhere gun free is ridiculous, they are out there. The individual citizen should, armed with the fact that he cannot prevent the existence of firearms in his neighborhood, should get to decide what if any precautions he will take knowing that guns are a reality.

The utopian society, where no firearms exist (hell, why stop there, lets roll with it and say no mean people or rude people exist either) would be preferable, but we have what we have, a violent world where some people will ply the upper hand ,illegally if necessary, to personally profit or gain.

Whether enough folks will decide to make a change, who knows, but more jihadi shenanigans will only make people more afraid, and more determined to become pro active in their own survival.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Just an observation: If I posted something in that tone (towards something/someone that I didn’t agree with) Iconoclast would be all over it for flame-baiting and being disingenuous and judgmental. But I’m certainly not going to get my tits in a tangle over it.

    That is an online poll. Something that people who feel strongly about guns are going to be attracted to. The Daily Telegraph is a paper that more people on the right (who want to repeal the law) are going to read. They’re also likely to get their mates to vote on it too. And other than the flat tax, the other options are very weak (greening of public spaces??! banning spitting??! – come on now). Those other options made it look very much like the poll was set up to get this result.
    Brits MIGHT be in favour of repealing the law, but what you have presented doesn’t even come close to indicating so.

    With the Woolwich attack some folks have figured out that living gun free is a fool’s errand. And all over one death of a soldier, how rankled would they be if those double terrorist clowns went Ft. Hood style and started blasting away in to the crowd?

    But that almost never happens. When did something like Ft Hood last happen in the UK?
    If it had, the UK public MIGHT have pressured the Govt into repealing the ban. But obviously as the ban is still in place, that sort of pressure has not occured.

    Well, DUH!!!!

    It’s a loaded question (BOOM! Tishhhhhhh).
    1. They aren’t allowed to, even when you put the word in italics.
    2. They don’t, very often at all, in some places. The UK being one.
    3. Criminals sometimes presumbly shoot people other than those listed (like other criminals). They don’t ONLY shoot the people listed.

    The epiphany of realizing that their hide is just as valuable as anyone else’s, some Brits think their little gun free utopia is not working and would like the chance to even the playing field,

    Some do. How many within the entire population, or voting population? This poll doesn’t assist us on that.

    do they not get to decide what kind of society they should have?

    Not via an online poll they don’t. And certainly not that one where the alternative choices are effectively just arrows pointing to the gun option.

    That argument, expressed here by some (one), that more guns walking around will make people less safe, OK, probably, but we cannot uninvent firearms, they already exist, so the notion of living anywhere gun free is ridiculous, they are out there.

    Not everywhere. As I said, in the US they might be, and you have the Constitution, so it’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Nobody has even remotely suggested uninventing firearms.
    “Living somewhere gun free” isn’t quite the same as “if guns are well regulated and we don’t have a gun (as defensive weapon) culture, less of us are probably likely to get killed by guns”. Cops here don’t have guns, and not many get shot.

    The individual citizen should, armed with the fact that he cannot prevent the existence of firearms in his neighborhood, should get to decide what if any precautions he will take knowing that guns are a reality.

    Firearms “existing” in a neighbourhood isn’t the same thing as firearms being everywhere in the neighbourhood, or being used often as offensive or defensive weapons.
    In my view a society should determine what the allowable methods of defence are. In terms of what is used, and what level of force is appropriate. In my view the fact that guns simply exist doesn’t automatically mean that society doesn’t have the mandate to determine rules and regulations about them.

    The utopian society, where no firearms exist (hell, why stop there, lets roll with it and say no mean people or rude people exist either) would be preferable,

    My opinion doesn’t involve or require a comparison with a utopian society. I don’t live in a utopian society, and yet hardly anyone ever gets shot. Gun deaths in the UK aren’t that high either.

    but we have what we have, a violent world where some people will ply the upper hand ,illegally if necessary, to personally profit or gain.

    I thought the world was decreasing in violence? I thought violent crime in our Western World cities was dropping?
    I don’t see any increase in violence that could allow that to be used as a potential reason to repeal any gun laws – not here, and not in the UK.

    Whether enough folks will decide to make a change, who knows, but more jihadi shenanigans will only make people more afraid, and more determined to become pro active in their own survival.

    It certainly won’t be determined by a strange online poll, that’s for sure.
    Again, it’s far more reasonable (IMO) to look at violent crime stats as a whole, and how often guns were used. Reacting to single incidents seems a little knee-jerk.
    Don’t the anti gun-control crowd in the US despair after a mass-killing in the US because they know people will use it as an opportunity to try and get gun laws changed? Don’t they counter with the argument that the bigger picture needs to be considered (including the number of guns deaths overall, and leaving out suicides)?

    Thumb up 3

  2. CM

    Also, I just voted on the poll, but I’m not a Brit. Given that gun-control is a MUCH bigger issue in the US, I wonder how many of those votes are from Americans who want to help out their poor, deprived, gun-less cousins ;-)

    Also, from your piece:

    “While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.”

    Which is presumably why a repeal hasn’t occured, and isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Miguelito

    “While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.”

    So if you actually lock up the people that use guns to commit a crime… crimes involving the use of guns goes down? Gosh, who’d have thought of that?!?

    Thumb up 7

  4. richtaylor365 *

    If I posted something in that tone

    What tone was that, the “let folks decide for themselves what society that want to live in” tone?

    Something that people who feel strongly about guns are going to be attracted to.

    So gun nuts like online polls, over say telephone or other media polls, good to know.

    Those other options made it look very much like the poll was set up to get this result.

    Term limits and a flat tax are important to some people, but you think it was all set up just for the gun votes, come on.

    Brits MIGHT be in favour of repealing the law, but what you have presented doesn’t even come close to indicating so

    .

    Where did I say otherwise?

    But that almost never happens. When did something like Ft Hood last happen in the UK?

    The article mentions the Dunblane massacre and tags it as the impetus for the gun ban in the first place.

    If it had, the UK public MIGHT have pressured the Govt into repealing the ban.

    Which is exactly what I said in the post.

    Some do. How many within the entire population, or voting population? This poll doesn’t assist us on that.

    Never said it did, did I? of course, I guess you did not read this part ,” Whether enough folks will decide to make a change, who knows,”, did you?

    Firearms “existing” in a neighbourhood isn’t the same thing as firearms being everywhere in the neighbourhood, or being used often as offensive or defensive weapons.

    Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, and so it goes with you. No one is suggesting that a law be passed to make gun ownership mandatory, how silly. Even in the most gun friendly confines of Texas, I doubt the level of gun ownership would qualify as “everywhere”. Some would have them, some wouldn’t, another concept that should not be lost on you.

    In my view a society should determine what the allowable methods of defence are

    Which is exactly what I wrote in the post, but instead of agreeing with me, you will parrot the same concept and take credit for it.

    I thought the world was decreasing in violence? I thought violent crime in our Western World cities was dropping?

    More obfuscation (Why do I bother?) who said anything about violence increasing or decreasing, I only mentioned that violence exists in the world.

    Reacting to single incidents seems a little knee-jerk.

    Which is what they did with the original gun ban.

    Don’t the anti gun-control crowd in the US despair after a mass-killing in the US because they know people will use it as an opportunity to try and get gun laws changed?

    I think they despair over the tragic loss of life and wonder why existing laws are not better enforced.

    “While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.”

    What about the next paragraph:

    But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

    Thumb up 3

  5. CM

    So if you actually lock up the people that use guns to commit a crime… crimes involving the use of guns goes down? Gosh, who’d have thought of that?!?

    Yep. And so regular folks presuambly don’t feel that they need guns to protect them from criminals with guns. The law and the targetting has either resulted in a significant reduction in gun violence, or or I suppose it’s a co-incidence. A single incident involving mentally ill people using Islam shouldn’t change that. In fact, as I’ve said elsewhere, a lack of guns on the scene may have kept the death and injured toll to what it was.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    What tone was that, the “let folks decide for themselves what society that want to live in” tone?

    For a start, in the other thread you repeatedly said “there is no talking to” me etc. Did you assume I wouldn’t respond to your opening post here? As Iconoclast said to me – what was your goal?

    Some examples:
    – As if I don’t think people should have a ‘fighting chance’ to defend themselves
    – “so much for the notion of living in a gun free zone” – as if the poll says anything about how you have interpreted the argument
    – “some folks have figured out that living gun free is a fool’s errand” – not an accurate interpretation
    – uninventing firearms, comparison to some utopian society

    As I say, I’m not complaining about it (I’d much rather discuss the substance), it was simply an observation about what applies when someone is on the same ‘team’.

    So gun nuts like online polls, over say telephone or other media polls, good to know.

    Huh? Not really sure how you got that. People tend to take part in polls (online or otherwise) if they feel strongly about the issue. It’s selective. Doesn’t matter what the issue is. Online polls mean that people can easily get like-minded people to take part.

    Term limits and a flat tax are important to some people, but you think it was all set up just for the gun votes, come on.

    Might not have. A 10 year term limit for a PM? Hmmm, still not particularly interesting. Especially to those who aren’t in the UK. I did suggest that flat tax was the other issue of significance listed. Perhaps the ‘flat tax’ people didn’t get the memo to take part.

    Where did I say otherwise?

    With comments like “Blimey, our cousins across the pond would like a fighting chance, just like the rest of us”.

    The article mentions the Dunblane massacre and tags it as the impetus for the gun ban in the first place.

    That was 17 years ago. And perhaps resulted in action being taken which has, overall, significantly reduced gun crime and gun related murder.

    Which is exactly what I said in the post.

    Ok.

    Never said it did, did I? of course, I guess you did not read this part ,” Whether enough folks will decide to make a change, who knows,”, did you?

    I did. Did you read the part before that when I concurred that ‘some do’?
    I agree, whether enough people decided to make a change, who knows. I was simply pointing out (maybe redundantly, sure) that nothing in that poll gives us any sort of clue on that. But your piece seems to suggest that they are ‘waking up’ or something similar, and that this poll is an indication of that.

    Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, and so it goes with you

    Not even remotely. You’re putting up an argument that nobody has made. It’s perfectly reasonable to point that out.

    No one is suggesting that a law be passed to make gun ownership mandatory, how silly.

    Not nearly as silly as suggesting that’s what I said or meant.

    Even in the most gun friendly confines of Texas, I doubt the level of gun ownership would qualify as “everywhere”. Some would have them, some wouldn’t, another concept that should not be lost on you.

    It isn’t. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word ‘everywhere’. Prevalent then.

    Which is exactly what I wrote in the post, but instead of agreeing with me, you will parrot the same concept and take credit for it.

    Then I’m confused. I thought you’re arguing that guns should be allowed, and it’s up to individuals to decide whether they want to own them or not. I’m saying I think it should be up to society to decide the first part. I wasn’t attempting to take credit, or misrepresent your position.

    More obfuscation (Why do I bother?) who said anything about violence increasing or decreasing, I only mentioned that violence exists in the world.

    No obfuscation. Changes in laws usually occur in reaction to something. For Brits to start putting serious pressure on being able to own guns would presumably only come from a change in something. Like a noticaable increase in crime involving guns, where gun-less innocents are maimed or killed by gun-wielding crims. Or a knee-jerk reaction to individual incidents, even if overall gun related crime is dropping rapidly.
    It’s sad to see that you appear to be going back to “why do I bother”. I don’t think there’s any need for that.

    Which is what they did with the original gun ban.

    Did they, or was that a ‘final straw’ sort of situation? I guess we’d need to see what has happening before that happened.

    I think they despair over the tragic loss of life and wonder why existing laws are not better enforced.

    Well then in addition to that. I wasn’t attempting to describe a well-rounded complete reaction.

    What about the next paragraph:

    I’ll have a look at what the pointy-head ivery-tower academics had to say….. ;-)

    Thumb up 2

  7. hist_ed

    So I have to agree with CM about the poll numbers. They are shit. Even carefully constructed polls calling random people can skew things big time with the wording of their questions (e.g. asking “Are you pro-choice?” and “Are you pro-abortion?” get different results). This was just crap.

    Hmmmmm, will I get a bunch of down arrows?

    Thumb up 5

  8. hist_ed

    I will add that the fact that after the soldier was murdered on the street, the government advised it soldiers not to wear their uniforms out in public means it’s just time for Britain to pack it in. You guys are done; it’ll be easier if you just recognize it and adopt sharia law now.

    Thumb up 5

  9. Argive

    So I have to agree with CM about the poll numbers. They are shit. Even carefully constructed polls calling random people can skew things big time with the wording of their questions (e.g. asking “Are you pro-choice?” and “Are you pro-abortion?” get different results). This was just crap.

    Hmmmmm, will I get a bunch of down arrows?

    Not from me. Statistically speaking, voluntary response polls are useless, because they don’t even try to get a representative sampling. The respondents just wind up being the ones who care the most about a particular issue.

    Thumb up 4

  10. Poosh

    I’d like arms to defend myself from the scum who are arresting people for “hate speech” towards Muslims. This is happening a lot. Yet if I posted the hate speech in the Koran, I’d get away scott free!

    Though, for these people, such as those who contact the police about offensive anti-Muslim speech, I’d rather beat them to death with Mill’s On Liberty.

    Thumb up 4

  11. CM

    …after the soldier was murdered on the street, the government advised it soldiers not to wear their uniforms out in public…

    Didn’t take long for that to be reversed.

    Thumb up 0

  12. hist_ed

    I gave you one. If only the skew the polling.

    godammit only 1 down arrow? What’s a guy gotta do around here to get a comment hidden?

    Thumb up 2

  13. Iconoclast

    Just an observation: If I posted something in that tone (towards something/someone that I didn’t agree with) Iconoclast would be all over it for flame-baiting and being disingenuous and judgmental.

    Just an observation: CM is full of it — I was “all over it” because CM posted something with which, he claimed in essence, nobody would agree. I explained this to him at least twice, but he obviously still doesn’t get it. I also explained what was disingenuous and judgmental about it, but again, he (conveniently) doesn’t get it.

    But I’m certainly not going to get my tits in a tangle over it.

    Looks to me like you already have.

    Thumb up 3

  14. CM

    Just an observation: CM is full of it — I was “all over it” because CM posted something with which, he claimed in essence, nobody would agree. I explained this to him at least twice, but he obviously still doesn’t get it. I also explained what was disingenuous and judgmental about it, but again, he (conveniently) doesn’t get it.

    Bollocks. I said the posted link “certainly wouldn’t find favour here”. Nothing inherently disingenuous or judgmental about acknowledging that. You just decided to take offence and start a completely pointless and tedious argument. Just like you did with my mention of Michael Moore.

    Looks to me like you already have.

    Well then I’d recommend seeing an optician as soon as possible. Those aren’t tits, and they ain’t in a tangle.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    What about the next paragraph:

    Looks like this is a non-peer-reviewed article. It’s from a conservative Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students (i.e. it has a politically biased editorial board).
    Which might be why there is precious little “data” there – it’s all in the form of tables, with no statistical analysis. It apparently also includes false data – the murder rate in Luxembourg is overstated by an order of magnitude, and that country plays a major role in the argument based on their Table 2. And they discuss the (false) sky-high homicide rate of Luxembourg in the text. That wouldn’t have passed peer-review. It’s either dishonesty or incompetence.

    As I understand it the actual peer-reviewed “Harvard studies” on gun violence generally come to the opposite conclusion. You can find some of it here:
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

    Thumb up 0

  16. Iconoclast

    Bollocks.

    Nothing inherently disingenuous or judgmental about acknowledging that.

    Those aren’t tits, and they ain’t in a tangle.

    Knee-jerk denials noted and dismissed. All you’re doing is demonstrating that you still don’t get it.

    I said the posted link “certainly wouldn’t find favour here”.

    I am aware of what you wrote, and, unlike you apparently, I am aware of what it means.

    Thumb up 3

  17. Iconoclast

    Let the record show that it was CM who started off this thread by dragging my name into it. He apparently wants to pick another fight, which I am willing to oblige. This thread is probably dead anyway.

    Thumb up 3

  18. CM

    Knee-jerk denials noted and dismissed.

    Still waiting for your definition of a “knee jerk denial”. In that example I yet again disagreed with you and explained why.

    I am aware of what you wrote, and, unlike you apparently, I am aware of what it means.

    Wow, it just doesn’t get any more insufferably arrogant than that.
    I would say “let the record show” but it does (very clearly) already.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Iconoclast

    Still waiting for your definition of a “knee jerk denial”.

    Seems rather self-explanatory to me — not surprising that you seem to need clarification…

    In that example I yet again disagreed with you and explained why.

    Sure, if “denial” == “explanation”. Go ahead and show us the “explanation”. Then we can see whether you will move goal posts or simply demonstrate utter cluelessness.

    Wow, it just doesn’t get any more insufferably arrogant than that.

    Says the guy who started this thread by dragging my name into it. You are one to talk — your arrogance is downright legendary.

    Thumb up 2

  20. CM

    So does mean you won’t provide a definition?

    A legend I’ve never heard of. Just sounds like a knee-jerk denial there Iconoclast. Or as I usually refer to it: “No you are!” Yawn.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Iconoclast

    So does mean you won’t provide a definition?

    Your ability to be obtuse is also legendary.

    A legend I’ve never heard of

    And Sleepy Hollow is a legend Ichabod Crane never heard of…

    Thumb up 2

  22. CM

    Your continuing avoidance simply lends weight to my claim that it’s just something you throw out randomly when someone disagrees with you. Because I don’t simply respond with “you’re wrong”, or anything similar. I explain why I think you are.

    So, for future reference: if I don’t understand what you mean, I shouldn’t bother to ask. Is that right?

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    Your continuing avoidance simply lends weight to my claim that it’s just something you throw out randomly when someone disagrees with you.

    I have explained my use of the term already — if you didn’t pay attention then, there is no reason for me to expect you to do so now. As far as “definitions” are concerned, online dictionaries are available. Learn how to use one and quit being obtuse. You are obviously free, however, to deny that I ever provided an explanation, but doing so would be another example of knee-jerk denial, given the utter predictability of such a denial.

    Because I don’t simply respond with “you’re wrong”, or anything similar.

    There have been times where you have done exactly that. I pointed out an example of such, and you responded by essentially calling me a liar. For the record, examples are, by their very nature, cherry-picked. Nothing at all dishonest about that, unless you are a paranoid, delusional fuck.

    So, for future reference: if I don’t understand what you mean choose to be an obtuse bore, I shouldn’t bother to ask. Is that right?

    Fixed it for you.

    Thumb up 2