Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously."
The law abiding civilians were frightened enough to disarm themselves. The criminals weren't so stupid.
The real, if uncomfortable, answer to violent crime is a well armed and trained population of law abiding civilians willing to be responsible for their own personal protection and the protection of their families from the violent thugs. We need to train our children not to be bullies but how to defend themselves from the earliest grades. The willingness and ability to effectively fight back has always stopped the schoolyard bullies. Expecting the teachers to do anything to protect you from the initial assault or the retribution following your complaining is wishful thinking at its very worst.
Last edited by GregW; 02-04-2008 at 07:08 AM..
Reason: font
"Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously."
I have started a form on the UK's violence before and touched on this subject. Gun crime in the UK is still significantly lower when compared to the US, however all other crimes are much higher.
I think Gun Laws are basically useless. They're similiar to Drug laws here in the US. They just make getting a gun more risky, thus raising its street price, because its is illegal. However, no matter what you do or what laws you prevent criminals will always have access to guns and other weapons to arm law abiding citizens. It is just the nature of the beast.
Look at Mexico they have some of the strictest gun laws in the world and they have twice the Gun related homicide rate we do in the US. Taking guns off the streest via legislation does not make the average citizens safer. It just makes them 400x time more vulnerable to criminal attack.
However, like the US gun related homcides are very localized to distinct areas, that are usually high in gang activity/criminal activity. Like "Gunchester" also known to most folks as Manchester. There's a small 4 block area in Gunchester that would rivial and exceed the gun murder rate of Washginton DC in the 1980's.
Without the government to enforce contracts the illegal businessman must use violence to protect his business interests. Hired thugs armed with guns are the usual means. Sometimes the thugs expand their activities to the non-criminal population. Most of us are the latter. Personally I do not care if the thugs kill each other. I do care if they try to rob or kill me.
Personally do not trust the government to protect me and my family from somebody else's turf war or from freelance criminals because law enforcement responds to crime and is not protective. As I am responsible for my own protection I do not want the government restricting what tools I use to protect my family, my home and myself.
I believe that it is a right and duty for a law-abiding citizen to protect his society and to be, at all times, armed and be willing to use force while exercising this duty. It is an armed citizenry that protects society from criminals. Unarmed citizens cannot protect themselves from either the criminals or the government. Britain, along with most of the world, has amply illustrated that observation. Armed criminals or tyrants rule a citizenry without guns.
Without the government to enforce contracts the illegal businessman must use violence to protect his business interests. Hired thugs armed with guns are the usual means. Sometimes the thugs expand their activities to the non-criminal population. Most of us are the latter. Personally I do not care if the thugs kill each other. I do care if they try to rob or kill me.
Personally do not trust the government to protect me and my family from somebody else's turf war or from freelance criminals because law enforcement responds to crime and is not protective. As I am responsible for my own protection I do not want the government restricting what tools I use to protect my family, my home and myself.
I believe that it is a right and duty for a law-abiding citizen to protect his society and to be, at all times, armed and be willing to use force while exercising this duty. It is an armed citizenry that protects society from criminals. Unarmed citizens cannot protect themselves from either the criminals or the government. Britain, along with most of the world, has amply illustrated that observation. Armed criminals or tyrants rule a citizenry without guns.
Holy crap, I actually agree 100% with you GregW! Where did this boost of conservatism come from such a liberal person
"Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously."
Knife crime is the big problem in the UK. Villians have always been able to get guns but they are used on bank jobs or intergang violence. Kids are now knifing each other at an alarming rate in the UK. Guns can and will always be available if you know where to go. The killings are not from guns but knives.
Knife crime is the big problem in the UK. Villians have always been able to get guns but they are used on bank jobs or intergang violence. Kids are now knifing each other at an alarming rate in the UK. Guns can and will always be available if you know where to go. The killings are not from guns but knives.
Someone posted in the UK forum that some politicans were working on a "knife ban".
Was that some kind of UK joke or is that for real?
Without the government to enforce contracts the illegal businessman must use violence to protect his business interests. Hired thugs armed with guns are the usual means. Sometimes the thugs expand their activities to the non-criminal population. Most of us are the latter. Personally I do not care if the thugs kill each other. I do care if they try to rob or kill me.
Personally do not trust the government to protect me and my family from somebody else's turf war or from freelance criminals because law enforcement responds to crime and is not protective. As I am responsible for my own protection I do not want the government restricting what tools I use to protect my family, my home and myself.
I believe that it is a right and duty for a law-abiding citizen to protect his society and to be, at all times, armed and be willing to use force while exercising this duty. It is an armed citizenry that protects society from criminals. Unarmed citizens cannot protect themselves from either the criminals or the government. Britain, along with most of the world, has amply illustrated that observation. Armed criminals or tyrants rule a citizenry without guns.
+1 Good post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
