84% of Brits Want UK Handgun Ban to End According to Poll

[SabbathWolf]

Thinking we shouldn't lie, look stupid and damage our credibility is idealistic? So you're saying you know it's wrong but you're gona do it anyways?



I didn't say the polarization is new. Only that the levels of today are atrocious. Yes, the degree of polarization has varied throughout our history and now is the worst since probably the 60's. The difference today is that the placing winning above the good of the country is rampant.



First, i believe it a great disservice to soldiers when we equate political strife with war. They're not in the same ball park. And part of our problem problem comes from the fact that we mistake political fights for wars and view our opponents as enemies in a general sense.

Second, since when is blatant lying a "gray area"? Sorry, but you are doing nothing but rationalizing. If you believe it's okay to sacrifice your principles when they aren't convenient then you never actually had them to begin with. Morality aside, lying and distortions may net short term gains but always backfire in the long run. Credibility is easily spent up and hard to rebuild.

My principles?
We don't have the luxury of principles all the time.
Unless we want to end up like the UK and Australia or the Jews in WW2 Germany, we had better be willing to do whatever it takes to win.
Even if that means fighting dirty too. Losing is not an option. Personal principles be damned.

Nothing I've said is a disservice to soldiers. Quite the opposite. Every single war on the planet started from political strife. War "is" political. And anybody who is trying to strip us of our Constitutional Rights "IS" the "enemy"... and a traitor too.

Every one of our soldiers swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against "ALL" enemies, both foreign and "Domestic" as well. "THIS" is where my highest principles and duty reside. Any fellow American, including people just like Dianne Feinstein, and all the others who support dismantling the Constitution and wiping their butts with it, instead of supporting and "defending" it, ARE the exact definition of a "Domestic Enemy."
You don't have to be happy about that, but it doesn't change the fact.

You bringing up the 60's is pretty ironic. Jane Fonda would be proud of you. High moral principles don't win wars any more than they win street fights. No holds barred aggressive action does.

Most of the guys in Vietnam complained because they were trying to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs. Trying to fight that way now on this issue will have similar results. We either have to fight to win, or just quit and give up. I'm not sure which side you're on.

 

[ICE1210]

Sadly, I think the Brits will get their handguns back when Rhodesia joins the UN.

 

[Blackstone]

Yes indeed, there was no chance of having anyone defend the beheaded soldier for fear of prosecution as well as lacking the means (gun and knives). The U.K.’s population has not being able to defend themselves for over a generation, and frankly the government does not care to change that.

Chuck

Self defence was formally removed as a reason to possess a gun in 1937, which I would argue is about 3 generations ago.

I voted in this, and forwarded the link to all of my shooting associates.

 

[Kiln]

They're fighting to take away knives and anything sharp that might be used as a stabbing weapon as we speak. They've also nearly outlawed blank guns as well.

I think it is safe to say that the people of the UK aren't getting their weapons back regardless of what they want. When the government taketh, they don't often giveth back.

 

[Cee Zee]

He was asking specifically for instances in which an online poll was cited.

I know what he said. I was explaining the situation that actually happened regarding the poll they were referencing. I don't think I said it was an online poll.

 

[lykoris]

You guys are hilarious, the UK police do not carry any firearm and you think the UK Govt is going to allow civilians to carry before their own police force.

They will never allow handguns and never allow any semi auto except 22lr.

There is a greater probability of finding a unicorn ranch than of the British public being allowed the right to self defence.

 

[JustinJ]

My principles?
We don't have the luxury of principles all the time.
Unless we want to end up like the UK and Australia or the Jews in WW2 Germany, we had better be willing to do whatever it takes to win.
Even if that means fighting dirty too. Losing is not an option. Personal principles be damned.

How exactly did abandoning principles result in what happened to the UK, Australia or the Jews in WWII? In fact, if anything, your examples were caused by a failure to abide by them.

Nothing I've said is a disservice to soldiers. Quite the opposite. Every single war on the planet started from political strife. War "is" political. And anybody who is trying to strip us of our Constitutional Rights "IS" the "enemy"... and a traitor too.

Comparing war and all it's horrors to politics, business or a popularity contest trivializes it.

Most of the guys in Vietnam complained because they were trying to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs. Trying to fight that way now on this issue will have similar results. We either have to fight to win, or just quit and give up. I'm not sure which side you're on.

That's a very uninformed, over simplification of a very complex situation.

If one truly believes they are going to help preserve gun rights with a blatantly nonsensical internet poll then i guess we are are in trouble.

 

[silicosys4]

Does anybody here remember the multiple threads in here over the last six months that was encouraging the population of THR to jump onto this poll or that poll, and "show the anti's",
Thus purposefully skewing the output of the poll to reflect an artificially pro-gun sentiment among whatever readership that poll might have naturally had?
Heck, there were people on those threads describing exactly how to cheat the system by erasing your browsing history so one pro gun person could vote multiple, often unlimited times, on these polls.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=718136&highlight=poll

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=718272&highlight=poll

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=712682&highlight=poll

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=712515&highlight=poll

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=708555&highlight=poll

I don't put ANY weight behind any internet poll for precisely those reasons. Very rarely are politically motivated polls done in an unbiased and correct manner anymore anyways.

 

[nathan]

I doubt the elitist BRitish Gentlemen of the Courts will allow it. Britishers are doomed to be at the mercy of criminal killers, crazies , terrorists and their govt

 

[JERRY]

they already let the genie of no gun rights out of the lamp. far too late for them now.

 

[nathan]

Pierce Morgan can lecture his own people for hours on end , and extol the virtues of a gunless society.

 

[tyeo098]

Heck, there were people on those threads describing exactly how to cheat the system by erasing your browsing history so one pro gun person could vote multiple, often unlimited times, on these polls.

Guilty

But do you not think that politicians see those polls? Scientific or not, people see them, and it influences them.

 

[silicosys4]

Guilty

But do you not think that politicians see those polls? Scientific or not, people see them, and it influences them.

IMO...

The people that are influenced by those polls are not the people who can actually make changes. The politicians aren't looking at polls, because for the most part I feel politicians are not in the business of actually serving their constituents anymore. They and their propaganda machines are CONDUCTING those polls...fabricating them in a biased manner so as to reflect desired results, so their agenda's can be received with open arms by the public. The only people being influenced by internet polls are people that aren't in a position to change anything, and who's advocacy of any conclusion derived from internet polls will only serve to weaken the overall argument of their side because of the loss of credibility associated with internet polls.

I agree that its frustrating to watch the B.S. "90% of people want background checks" and "40% of gun sales are conducted with no background checks" are both very frustrating numbers, but they get TORN APART when they are subject to the same sort of fact checking for bias and truth that they SHOULD have gone through before being publicized.
But I fear that our side is responding with the same sort of thing.
When both sides start slinging the B.S., all you end up with is B.S. everywhere and no sanity. When you have that atmosphere, anything goes, he with the loudest voice and biggest handfull of B.S. wins, and facts will go by the wayside.
Right now we need to stand firm on facts, facts, and more facts. Not skewed polls. I don't want to live in a world where the most interesting lie wins.

 

[Zoogster]

Self defence was formally removed as a reason to possess a gun in 1937, which I would argue is about 3 generations ago.

Officially, but self-defense by those who had a gun for other reasons still given widespread recognition until much more recent times.

Self-defense would become much more scrutinized far later.
Getting to the point of not allowing home owners to even use what could possibly be seen as more force than a home intruder for example. Requiring them to match levels of force.
So if for example home intruders break in unarmed the individual using a weapon to fend them off being seen as unlawful excessive force.
Nevermind having someting like a gun even ready to be used as a weapon would itself require violating storage laws, and someone following the law should be unable to deploy one in time, and if they do have enough time could be argued to have had enough time to take another course of action like escaping from thier home.
This means young healthy unarmed intruders that break into a home should legally be nearly unstoppable by a home owner following the law, who should be easily overpowered by the intruders when they try to match thier level of force without exceeding it.
It also means the home owner has the burden of needing to see if they are armed prior to arming themselves and then being forced to deploy a weapon if they confront the bad guys, which may be excessive force.
The whole sitaution is idiotic.
Having to match levels of force with people breaking into a home shows how unreasonable the law is and how far it has gone from a man's home being his castle.





Personally from my own discussions with Englishmen, excluding the minority specifically gravitating to a firearm forum, most are supportive of very restrictive weapon laws.
They have been trained to see such laws as protecting them from those weapons, and further trained to see continued use of such weapons by criminals as evidence they need even harsher and more restrictive weapon control laws.
It results in a circular logic which is hard to argue with someone so convinced.
As they are less and less armed and become easier prey they fear the weapons possessed by those who don't follow the law even more and want even more restrictions.
They feel even more dependent on government to protect them, which increases thier percieved dependence on government, while not actually providing them with much protection as we all know police are only minutes away when seconds count. But they will not realize that until they have a situation themselves and the police are there to take a report and try to bring the individual to justice after the fact, but provide no protection during the actual criminal act.

 

[nathan]

THe British Empire of the past always wanted their subjects to be defenseless and to rely solely on the sole protection and benevolence of their lords and princelings. THe royal elites would rather see them helpless and dead from murderers, rioters, crazies, criminals, and the like . NO way they will ever allow the means for their subjects to defend themselves.

 

[HKGuns]

THe British Empire of the past always wanted their subjects to be defenseless and to rely solely on the sole protection and benevolence of their lords and princelings. THe royal elites would rather see them helpless and dead from murderers, rioters, crazies, criminals, and the like . NO way they will ever allow the means for their subjects to defend themselves.

That isn't even close to an accurate account of the History of England.

In point of fact, it is widely recognized that this Country inherited much of its right to bear arms from England.

Throughout history Brits were actually required to bear the fighting arms of the day in order to defend their lords and Monarchy in battle. Much has changed and their current laws bear nothing in resemblance to their history.

Quotes Courtesy of "Origins of the Bill of Rights" Written by Leonard W. Levy

In 1689, when England adopted its Bill of Rights, which endorsed the right to bear arms, that right was already centuries old. In the 12th Century Henry II had obligated all freemen to possess certain arms, and in the next century Henry III required every subject aged 15 - 50, including even landless farmers, to own a weapon other than a knife. Crown officers periodically inspected subjects to be certain that they were properly armed. The reason for this requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and a police force, which was not established until 1829, every man had to do his duty at watch and ward, standing guard by day and night in order to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.

Blackstone's Commentaries, the work most frequently cited by American's, stated that the right "to have" arms was indispensable "to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property."

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject.

 

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".

Not exactly a universal right there nor does it give the right to bear them. Nor does it even hint the arms are the same as the militia.

Deaf

 

[Tim the student]

That poll doesn't mean much honestly.

 

[Zoogster]

Actually the early english rights stem from a few things. One of the earlier successes being the Magna Carta. Rather than just taking what it says you must understand the context, and then understand how it was later adapted to all men in the US.

Essentially barons fought the king and won. They imposed requirements on him, and one was to insure they had a right to be armed well enough to be able to fight him again if necessary.
So they protected thier ability to have arms to fight the king in the future.

The English Bill of Rights hundreds of years later was watered down, but applied to more people.


Such past things were combined with ideals about things like Natural Law and views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to arrive at the common man having the rights the founders of the US believed in.

However well into the late 1800s it was quite common for an English gentleman to walk the streets with a loaded concealed pistol, and was legal as well.
This was beyond what was even normal in much of the United States, where open carry was seen as the honest way to carry a firearm in much of the nation and concealed carry more dishonest.
This was when England was the center of the civilized world and the British Empire at its height, and those seeking to visit or be educated in the most advanced modern place in the world traveled to England.

 

[HKGuns]

Thanks for the, valuable and correct, addition to the History of English firearms Zoogster.

 

[Blackstone]

Indeed during the "Tottenham Outrage" in 1909, the police borrowed weapons from civilians and were even joined by armed civilians in their pursuit of the anarchists.

 

[Pilot]

Blackstone,

If firearms are not an option in which to defend oneself from an attacker or multiple attackers in one's home, what is a legal means of self defense? Hands, bats, clubs, etc? Is self defense not even an option in the UK anymore?

 

[Dnaltrop]

A fellow I know moved here to Oregon from London (permanently) fairly left leaning, very "British".

2 of the first things he did once his citizenship work was done.

1) Buy the largest car he could afford and drive it downtown for no reasons other than the lack of a congestion charge and streets wide enough to fit the car in.

2) Handgun.

I'd say he's fairly average for the British folks I've met, he certainly jumped into US life with both feet though.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

wasn't the soldier that got killed with an axe or knife in the UK? ...that ought to be a message to them that everyone needs to have the right to own & carry

Keep in mind that knives, and other edged impliments, are also heavily regulated in the UK. Buying and carrying them is a pain.

Hopefully the People of the UK will stand up and demand action, I would think even in a monarchy with enough pressure something like could be changed. If not, time for a revolution.

Huh? And what would "the People of the UK" be revolting against (for)? And how, exactly, does this fit into the everyday life of the average UK citizen, that you think should be doing the revolting? A revolt by the population doesn't happen over a single event or issue. It happens over an accumulation of many social issues in which a significant portion of the population is affected enough to actually do something violent about it.

The average UK citizen, much like citizens everywhere, are more concerned about the things which directly impact their lives and the lives of their families. So long as they are able to do things like work, feed and raise their families, educate their children, retire, and so forth they're NOT going to be concerned about whether or not they can own or carry any particular gun or knife.

It's not as if they're fighting for a lost right...they've never had an explicit right to keep and bear arms in their entire history, which spans some centuries more than ours. They don't have the same perception for the need to this right like we do.

The closest they ever came to an actual codified right was in the 1689 Bill of Rights...and that only extended this to PROTESTANTS for their defense within the rule of law.

Two items of note here:

1. A right isn't really a right unless it applies equally to everybody under the law. Limiting it to protestants actually makes it a privilege, not a right.

2. "within the rule of law" means that laws can be written however the ruling body wishes with respect to owning arms. There isn't, therefore, an absolute guarantee with respect to owning arms of any kind. Only what the LAW says they can own. Which pretty much waters down the title of "right", if you ask me.

At best, gun ownership for defense in the UK is recognized under common law...and we all know how much THAT means when compared to written law.


You can't compare legal gun ownership between the UK and the USA on an equal basis because there is no equal basis under the laws between these two countries.

 

[Blackstone]

You can defend yourself with whatever your have at hand. However, you must be able to carry it legally, such as an umbrella or a rolled up magazine. Anything designed or adapted to be a weapon is illegal. This incudes if you carry a fluffy toy and SAY it's intended for self defence. So yeah, you can't carry anything for the purpose of self defence as it becomes an offensive weapon.

In addition, you must use reasonable and proportionate force, which will be assessed by a court in the cold light of day after the event. The law really isn't on our side. Again, and this applies to the US, the best way is to be aware and avoid incidents in the first place.