NCA raid suspected gun factory in south London

So? They are a pretty despicable organisation run by some pretty amoral idiots

 

some of the leadership are pigs but they aren't trying to strip honest people of their rights or make things safer for violent felons as you gun banners do

 

A lot of research is pointing to gun locks as being effective in reducing murder and suicide rates due to reduction in “spur of the moment” actions. I really do not understand why the ardent hoplophiles cannot come on board with this simple measure. It puke not be as if anyone is going to go door to door checking.

 

In all the years you have been debating me when have I advocated for “banning” all guns ?

 

A lot of gun owners own guns for home defense. Nothing is more useless for home defense than unloaded and or locked up gun

 

Firstly to be effective firearms laws have to be more or less consistent across all relevant jurisdictions. Having a jurisdiction with what are supposedly 'tight' firearms regulations that is in turn surrounded by other jurisdictions with 'lax' (in comparison) firearms laws is a recipe for failure. This is the same for any set of laws targeting a particular aspect of human behavior. Again using driving laws as an example while they these may vary in certain specifics from State to State in the US in general all States driving laws are largely consistent with one another. For it to be otherwise would only ensure chaos on the streets. Same for firearms . Do it consistently or don't bother doing it at all because down any other path lies failure - which in the US in case of firearms legislation is what you have.

Secondly in claiming that the US is not 'like' other countries you are (in this at least) correct. But that difference is a matter of choice not destiny and certainly not necessity. This is because legal/constitution remedies exist that could be used to tackle the problem. What is lacking is the will to do so. And since it is a matter choice you have in effect reaped what you have sown. The sad truth is this -

As it stands any effective gun legislation in the US will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional. And any constitutional gun laws in the US will almost certainly be found to be ineffective. Ergo the US is doomed to a cycle of gun violence it can never escape . Without popular constitutional reform nothing will change.

But that said since I am not a US citizen it's not my problem, its yours. Stay safe. Many of your fellow citizens won't.

 

Unfortunately any attempt to enforce any kind of mandatory security measures for firearms in the home such as gun safes or firearm locks has been found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. For that matter even mandatory basic safety training for new shooters has been judged unconstitutional. Many US firearm owners privately agree with both measures BTW, they secure their firearms at home and encourage new shooters to undertake safety training. But legally without a Constitutional amendment both are none starters in terms of legislation! (Hence my post above.)

 

They're not citizens. They're subjects.

 

Carrying a weapon for self-defense is a tactic, not a strategy.

 

That's why the government should fund voluntary training and securement.

There should be PSAs promoting safety and securement.

 

All new guns sold in the United States are sold with a lock.

 

And the average UK citizen doesn't understand why the average American if fine with the fact that pretty much any random crazy person can just buy as many guns as they want and carry them around. We have vastly different underlying cultures around firearms (largely due to historical and geographic reasons). Your inability to understand doesn't change the fact that most British people are perfectly content with the general scope of our gun laws, and for the vast majority it doesn't even factor on the general list of socio-political priorities.

You don't think the "wealthy and politically connected" in the US don't have access to higher levels of defence and protection, often even at the expense of the state? And do you recognise that one of the reasons they need high levels of protection is because of the easy access to firearms Americans have?

You are perfectly entitled to have a different culture, attitude and thus laws, but you need to be open and honest about the positives and negatives of any system.

 

That's because you all don't understand that that won't be prevented by banning guns. Criminals will still have guns. The only difference will be that law abiding citizens won't have guns and won't have the ability to defend themselves.

Does England's PM have a high level of armed security?

 

It's a strange thing coming from the leftists, and no I am not accusing you of being leftist. But at the core of the leftist's followers beliefs is that people are inherently good. That how come more laws are good. After all good people couldn't make bad laws. So those that follow leftists know every one is good to start.

Except for gun owners-leftists beleive gun owners (except the government) are inherently bad people. Which is of course the truth, but the reality is all people are bad people. Just some more so than others.

 

There's that old saying, "if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns"

But nobody is talking about government guns and government criminals. Heck, some people wanted to give a medal to a Capitol Police officer who shot an unarmed woman killing her. The guy is a murder.

 

What do you mean we don't understand that - we're literally living it? In the UK, the vast, vast majority of criminals don't have firearms and don't want or need firearms, which is a function of our (lack of) gun culture and related gun laws. That wouldn't necessarily work in the US (certainly not in the foreseeable future) but it works for the UK.

Incidentally, I wasn't entirely including myself in the average British people who don't understand the Americans attitudes towards guns. I do understand the history and the principles behind it, and I can understand the argument for allowing (almost) everyone to be armed for self-defence. I'm not convinced it's working anything like as well as you'd like it to (though banning guns isn't a solution there either). It certainly wouldn't work in the UK.

High in the context of the UK, not high compared to the protection the US President requires (make of that as you will). That is a function of the threat due to his role rather than wealth or power though. He doesn't get to have security, he is required to have security. Even if guns were somehow banned for literally everyone in the country, police included, the Prime Minister would still have a security detail, they just wouldn't have guns.

 

LOL. So why do so many people apply for and get licenses for firearms for sport, hunting, and agriculture?

 

Disarm the police! Disarm the ATF. Disarm the government at large. Good argument.

SMH.

 

1, it's not a sport. 2, hunting is for thugs. 3, why exactly does a farmer need guns in the UK?

 

The police don't carry guns. Try again.

 

What isn’t a sport?

Eating meat is for thugs?

Ask a farmer in the UK. There is one on PF. Same reason farmers EVERYWHERE need guns. To feed your ungrateful mug!

 

What police? Many even in the UK do. Try again.

 

It's not legal to shoot animals to eat in UK unless you own a countryside the size of a small nation.

 

Regular cops don't carry guns in UK.

 

By now, given the abject failure of all gun control schemes it should be obvious to everyone that laws enacted to prevent the public from carrying concealed handguns are unconstitutional, irrational, and very dangerous.

Professional police are not able to protect the public from violent criminals.