A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's what we call 000 over here. Do you have to turn in the spent shells before buying five more? If not, he could have stockpiled quite a few of them.
Click to expand...

Whaat?? I have at least 1000 shells here in this room I'm sitting in. Damn I must be in trouble :p

I was just watching a TV debating programe, and a prominant Left Wing politician, Diane Abbot, who is basically anti-everything, even she said the laws are ok as they are.

So maybe things will stay as they are. Not ideal by a long shot, but better than me having to bloody emigrate :)
 
Someone said before that you can't argue sport/recreation.

You actually can.

You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.

Anyway, the evil handguns and scary looking rifles aren't allowed in the UK, so that's enough for even the most irrational, though probably still smart enough, politician.

The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.

You can then go on and show that the evil handguns and scary looking rifles won't allow someone to kill unarmed people anymore effectively than a single shot 12 gauge; the scary looking rifles are only good when fighting people who're also armed.

This is of course in countries that love licensing everything.

Sadly, people "feel" more than "think", as emotions are very hard for people to look past.
 
So Europe's toughest gun-laws couldn't prevent a massacre from a guy with a .22 and a shotgun??? This is the same country that wants to ban knives with pointed ends and gives serious consideration to banning violent video games. They want to do all of that, despite the fact that this incident proves it's not working???

Something doesn't sound right when a pump action shotgun and a .22 bolt-rifle are referred to as an "arsenal" as the one lib MP put it. It really sounds strange when they say MORE legislation will prevent this, even though that's exactly what they said last time they restricted gun ownership and yet still this happens.
 
You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.
Click to expand...

The problem with that one is that sports like football only kill participants. Plenty of people who have never touched a firearm in their life have been accidentally shot, or intentionally shot as in this case.

Here in the states, the anti-gun groups are always trying to make as many laws to prevent you being [legally] able to have a firearm available for self defense as they can. Why? Because once someone gets a carry permit, they pretty much automatically became pro-gun and pro-self defense. The exact number of defensive gun uses is debatable, but it's undeniable that they're much, much higher than the number of murders committed with firearms in the states. Stories about granny shooting a young punk or group of punks who forcefully broke into her home to steal her retirement money certainly don't help the anti cause. Hence why they're always trying to legally prevent you from having the means of self defense handy.
 
You folks over there are in my prayers. And for the military member who is responding to this thread, tell them you're a Hispanic, and the paperwork will fly through the system, you'll be an American almost before you can sign your name.

All I know is, the good men and women from Britain who perished in WW-II are spinning in their grave knowing how the country they died for have lost their rights by the actions of misguided politicians.
 
I'm reminded of the time some kid went on a murderous rampage at a school. The principal literally ran to his car, which was parked just outside of the 1000 ft from the school rule, to get his pistol, then ran back to the school to stop the killer. I think 5 people were killed in that incident. Maybe if the principle had been legally allowed to carry at school only 1 or 2 people would have died.
 
The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.
Click to expand...

There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.
 
That is sad if this guy was mentally ill, tried to get medical help, and was turned away by the doctor's office before seeing a doctor. That part looks like one of the larger flaws as to why the guy got wacked out enough that he didn't get counseling and medication that he needed to help him through his problems. He did choose to do his violent act, but medical attention might have greatly cut the chance of that killing others and himself down.

UK Armorer, I would welcome you to the USA as a productive resident and eventually a citizen. It sounds like you share many of the same values that we have here. It is a shame that those in the US Govt like to let illegals from south of the border and other people who can't even speak English into our country legally...while folks like you don't have a chance to get in.

A shotgun and a 22 rifle can kill people with the right shot placement and this nut proved it. This kind of disproved that one sort of firearm is more dangerous than the other....all firearms can take life and should be respected...whether it is an AR-15 or a Marlin 22 rifle...and at the same time they should all be legal...b/c again a 22 can kill just like a machine gun.
 
Someone said before that you can't argue sport/recreation.

You actually can.

You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.
Click to expand...


Well for their own good maybe, in a nanny state sure.

However the primary difference in the statistics is that most sports injuries only happen to willing participants in them.
While the injuries from firearms primarily happen to people who never signed up for them.

The only equally valid comparison would be injuries at the range from firearms, or perhaps people who volunteer for law enforcement or the armed forces.
(Or perhaps even choose to emigrate to a nation where firearms are a right of all citizens.)



Without the self defense argument you can only get so far, and it is often not going to be far enough to defeat the antis. It is unfortunate that self defense is no longer politically correct in such places. Of course not addressing it will keep it that way.
 
Last edited:
Mk VIII said:
The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.
Click to expand...

There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.
Click to expand...
Because, of course, someone is less dead if they are murdered with a knife or club rather than a gun.
 
Cumbria is a very big area not very well populated, bit like alaska
Click to expand...

Just as an aside, Cumbria is listed as having a density of 73 people per square kilometer. We have less than 1 person per square kilometer. I also have to wonder if they were even trying to find the guy before the shooting.
 
You're running into British ideas of 'very big' and 'sparsely populated' here. This is a National Park which is a considerable tourist destination. Riven by ridges and valleys with numerous rivers which impede road travel. Some tourist spots are heavily populated, in the season. Mountaineering and walking are popular, habitation clings to economically viable spots. Upland hill farming, mostly sheep and marginally profitable, occupies much of the economy.
 
Self defense has to become a politically correct notion in the UK if the tide of incorrect political decisions is to be reversed.
 
To those of you saying we should come to the US, HAHA
I wish, I am aserving member of the armed forces, have deployed 4 times alongside our 'partners on the war on terror', I emailed the immigration people a couple of years back.
I have 2 seperate technical roles, have no disciplinary record, a wife who is medically trained.
I would be willing to serve in your armed forces.
big fat no.- unless I have enough cash to be an economic immigrant or start a business.
and we cant enter the green card lottery either- too many brits have emigrated in the past 5 years (the ones with money I guess)
Click to expand...

HA - the irony is that you could buy a plane ticket to Mexico, spend a couple hundred dollars to sneak across the Texas/Arizona border, and probably get a warm welcome and amnesty from our current administration!
 
No matter how much restrictions, control, licenses, or permits a government has these nuts will always get through and no one is the wiser until it is too late.
Click to expand...

Someone pointed out earlier that people will resort to knives and then clubs to work harm on others.

Someone else mentioned that the goal of social policy was to eliminate all weapons.

That will leave humans to strangle each other by brute force or kick the life out of each other. That's pandemonium, not civilization.

I stand 6'1" and tip in at 200 lbs. I can hold my own or better in most fights and I don't like the odds when I go unarmed.

Like Brother Colt's oft cited wisdom says:

"Be not afraid of any man
no matter what his size
if danger threatens call on me
and i will equalize"

KR
 
I'm still amazed that a country like England that came very close to being overran by Germany in WWII would ban handguns and would consider banning rifles and shotguns.
 
Stupid question: are UK police outfitted with firearms? Anymore info would be appreciated too (armament, protocals, et cetera).
 
They are not routinely armed, but there are special armed units. It's been a while since I spoke to one of the armed response vehicle guys in London, but some years ago they were armed with Glock 17s and MP5s in semi-only configuration.
In a talk given to us by members of C019, they also displayed the Glock and MP5 but had a G36 (also semi-only), a pump 12 gauge (I can't remember the make) and an Accuracy International .338 Lapua rifle.
They didn't bring it to the talk, but showed a video of a Barrett .50 being used to shoot water containers.
 
To Zoogster et al:

My suggestion is fully training and arming the Police. Remember Robin Williams's saying:
The British Police, on seeing a fleeing criminal would shout: "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

If this had happened on the streets in the US, Europe (France, Greece etc...) where the cops on street beats/ patrols carry at least a holstered .38 revolver, hell; even in my country Nigeria: the cops carry (mainly rusty) Chinese AK 47 clones: the guy would have been brought down earlier with minimal loss to the public. I read somewhere that a Police station near where the Taxi rank shootings happened could only rush out to usher in the wounded and passersby into the station.

Some years ago, I witnessed an old grizzled Nigerian policeman swing his rifle (An old Mark 4, Lee Enfield?) up and take down a crazed drug addict who was rampaging on the street with a machete: he had already decapitated one person, and was hacking at the second victim (Who later died, sadly...) The madman took a round in his ear, was flung a few meters away, and didnt get the chance to kill more people! What is the message here: any gun in the hands of the police, is better than no gun at all...

@Zoogster:
Many people are doing a lot of "re-casting" of Birdshot: so restricting all to only birdshot would not stop a determined person: for good or bad.
My country has restrictions, very tight restrictions on firearms. We are (Barely) permitted to own shotguns for "hunting", and the only ammo available (Black market!) is Birdshot. So many of us did not settle for that.

Check out these:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/24/turning-birdshot-into-slugs-for-self-defense/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44877118@N04/sets/72157622941618467/

I strongly suggest the police are armed.
 
It won't happen. Some would have to be discharged as psychologically unsuitable, many others would resign rather than agree to it.
 
Just because things are illegal doesn't mean you cannot buy them. I wonder if he smoked crack before his rampage?
 
the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.
There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.
Click to expand...

Ann Pearston of the Snowdrop campaign admitted that her goal was to get rid of legal guns and did not expect the 1996 Amendment to affect illegal guns or illegal use of guns, after a Kings College study suggested that illegal guns and illegal use of guns became a bigger problem than before the amendment.

For sake of argument I'll say that the overall murder rate could go up. For example, the typical wife-beater is taller, heavier and stronger than his victim, like most thugs who prey on the weak. Strong arm robbery is usually the strong against the weak or the old. A gun is more of an advantage to a victim for defense than it is to the violent criminal for offense, especial if the intended victim if old or female. Assuring that no victim will be legally armed emboldens the thug to attack with impunity, resulting in more violence not less, and more possibility of lethal violence. I wonder if this killer was emboldened to act as he did because he may have believed no one could defend against him?

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang (who personally hated guns) pointed out in a 1959 study of 588 homicides that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if the firearm were not present: his analysis of the background and relationship of the murderer and victim and circumstances of the crime led him to believe the murders would be attempted and could accomplished without a gun. In a 1968 study, he pointed out that in US jurisdictions that followed homicides through the legal system, 20 to 30 percent of voluntary manslaughters were eventually found to be self-defense. Self defense with a gun happens more often than the gun control crowd likes to acknowledge. Gun control does not affect the criminal, but it does either disarm the lawabiding or discourage self-defense.
 
Last year I read in gun-magazine about the british handgunban, & I read that guncrime has doubled since it, as also violent crime's having tripled. if that is correct this would be THAT demonstrative agument against guncontrol ror allover the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top