Background: On the other forum I belong too (not survival, prep, gun related), A guy from England (We'll call Brit #1) posts a thread about so many people getting attacked with knives recently in England. So I couldn't help but jump in and feel around a little about everyones attitude on gun rights. I'm posting the meaty parts here for you to eavesdrop on. I always find it interesting if not scary what other people think. The discussion is still very much going, so I'll update it as new posts are made. Characters are color coded for your easy reference. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brit #1: That's 28 stabbings in London and the year isn't even out, Most of the victims seem to have emanated from the black community There is something wrong with certain communities in London, esp. if certain element's feel the need to resort to using knives/guns etc to protect themselves or prove how big they are...Looks like the recent change in law raising the time servied for being caught in possession of offensive weapons to 4 years just isn't having the desired result (i.e serving as a deterent) Whilst it is encouraging at someone is already in custody and being questioned over the incident...It just baffles me as to why certain communities can't learn to live together and stamp out this 'knife/gun' culture from within their community...Yet these are the same communities that constantly accuse the police of racism, this that and the other Blackjack: It's not a "knife/gun" problem, it's a criminal problem. It's too bad you're government took away the victims rights to adequately protect themselves. You can't keep the criminals from getting weapons, you can only stop the law abiding from doing so. Brit #1 Slightly wrong there Blackjack...All that's happened is that the government have clarified certain elements of that part of english law Blackjack: Then I apologize, I have been misled. I thought it was illegal in England to carry a firearm. No? Brit #2 In England, its illegal to keep ANY object for use as a weapon for pre-meditated self defence. Therefore if you keep a baseball bat beside your bed and use it against a robber, you will likely end up on a charge..... if you keep a duster and a tin of furniture polish next to the bat, and you say you were polishing the bat when the robber appeared, the use of the baseball bat was not pre-meditated and you wont go to jail. "I was cleaning my gun and this guy appeared in my house!" is a valid defence "This guy came in my house so I loaded my gun and gave him a full magazine in the face" isnt a valid defence. Brit #1 Under English law you have a 'right; to defending yourself using 'reasonable force'...It is only illegal to carry unregistered guns/firearms in the UK, but we don't have a 'right' to bear arms (if that's what you mean) Blackjack So then I was right, and I'll restate...... <!--quotec-->It's too bad you're government took away the victims rights to adequately protect themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't use "pre-meditated" defense? WTF is that! You can't plan to defend yourself? And exactly what is "reasonable force" when it comes to defending your life? The absolute idiocy of this bullshit just amazes me, but the US is headed there as well with this new trend toward fascism that we're under. Wouldn't want the populace able to defend itself. Brit #2 You can plan to defend yourself, but you cant plan to use a weapon to defend yourself. Self Defence as a reason for obtaining a firearm certificate waas specifcially removed quite a while ago, probably the 1968 firearms act but im not sure. Reasonable force = pay day for lawyers. Its basically up to the court decide if, based on the circumstances, the force used is reasonable. Obviously thats an absolute minefield of an argument. The right can extend as far as lethal force, if the circumstances warranted it. Brit #3 the availability of "adequate self-protection" (to paraphrase Blackjack) does not appear to have resulted in low homicide rates in the US. And few people use guns to slice their Thanksgiving turkeys. Blackjack Actually, in areas that allow concealed carry of handguns, not only the murder rate, but all violent crime, including rape, and property crime drops. I'm not sure why people have trouble understanding that criminals prefer unarmed victims. Nearly all of the "mass shootings" we have are in "gun-free zones". And as far as people not being able to "plan" on using a defense weapon..... what about people unable to defend themselves physically? There are many millions of disabled, elderly, and physicaly feeble. Brit #4 As usual, the gun nuts are missing the point. 1. The UK's gun laws (as those in many other countries) were introduced to make mass killings harder following our own tragedies. The US still has those, does it not? It was never intended to prevent people owning legally licensed and legally available firearms (my stepdaughter's uncle went shooting rabbits today, for instance). 2. The reason that the UK Government has, as yet, decided not to allow people to shoot burglars unless the homeowner believes himself to be at imminent risk is that it could lead to more burglars being armed to protect themselves when they enter someone's house. At the moment, 99.999% of burglars enter a house or business premises unarmed. Over here, you can adequately protect your home with two simple things ... an alarm and a loud dog or two. It's bizarre, I know ... alarms are not as macho as guns, and dogs need a bit more maintenance. You'd be surprised at just how few burglaries there are on a street with a load of big shouty dogs, even in an area reminiscent of Beirut in the 80's - like our street! I'd like to see someone try and break in to next door's house without losing a leg to a couple of Rottweillers. Anyway, a case in point is that of Tony Martin. The burglars were indeed unarmed. In the US, you might justifiably feel that you were at risk because of how much easier it is to get a gun over there. Over here, Tony Martin should have known that the risk of being shot by a burglar was negligible and that a warning shot from him would have sufficed. There is a fine line between defending yourself and murder. You can only claim to have defended yourself if you can show that you had reasonable cause to believe that you were at serious risk of injury or death if you had not acted as you did. 3. You are correct. You can't stop criminals from getting hold of guns. But what's interesting is that they tend to use them in their own form of natural selection - they use them on each other and by and large leave the rest of us alone. A burglar in the UK is more interested in getting someone's property and selling it on for money with the least fuss and the least hassle. Even the dumbest of burglars knows that taking a handgun with him is more trouble than it's worth in the long run. Floridian How does a topic about a stabbing devolve into a gun gontrol debate? Because people who lean a certain way politically can't think rationally and try (ineffectively) to compare gun violence to knife violence. What they conveniently forget is that knives have a purpose other than murder. Guns do not. If people would get their political heads out of their asses they'd see that. You have to be a complete idiot to compare knife violence to gun violence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Blackjack It was about allowing citizenry to arm themselves for defense. My head is out of my ass, but a statement like "Guns have no purpose other than murder" is about as far out of touch with reality as can be. I've been a gun owner for over 30 years, used them regularly, and never murdered anyone. Hey, I guess I'm just that whacko that values liberty. I must be crazy, eh? Floridian Whacko? Possible. Values liberty? if you base liberty on being a gun owner then no, absolutely not. There's nothing in our laws that allow you to own a gun, unless... 1) You are part of a well-regulated militia or, 2) Agree with the manipulators of the 2nd amendment. If people didn't piss, whine, complain and molest the meaning of the 2nd amendment to their liking totally contrary to the true purpose, people would not need guns for self defense. But yeah I would agree you are crazy if you think having to own a gun is "liberty". Blackjack Webster's Online: Liberty: 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice That's owning a gun, speaking your mind, writing what you wish, whatever...... yes liberty. Our Founding Fathers: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What part of "the people" don't you get? A militia is "the people", who, by the way, just got done overthrowing an opressive government. Why do you think they thought it was so important? "Well Regulated" isn't commonly used today as it was then, but in writings from G. Washington, T. Jefferson, A. Hamilton, all used it to mean a "well practiced, disciplined, effective" force. I should just bow out of this debate as it's obviously going nowhere, you've already called me crazy and an idiot for speaking up for our constitutional, legal, and moral right to bear arms. If you're interested in the truth on the second amendment, and not just regurgitating the stuff you've been fed, check out http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html for the meaning of the words.