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.
From my view point, a tough decision.......but given the world today, I am afraid they won't have much of a headache coming to a decision.
It's not about sport, it's not about hunting, it's about that we have seen, over and over, what happens when the government has all the guns (or all the guns that could resist them) and the people do not.
Long story short of it (got to run), when the government has the power and the people don't, the people get exterminated, one way or another.
The Government don't have all the guns in the UK, and you can still apply to own traditional guns such as rifles and shotguns, you just can no longer own semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and handguns.
Even in the US you can not own certain automatic weapons, so it's just a question of where do you draw the line.
As for the UK Police they are generally unarmed, and the Military swears allegiance to the Monarch and not the Government or Parliament.
Many years ago I worked with an Englishman who had joined the RAF in 1939 at the start of WW2. He told me that when he was posted to guard duty, they handed him a wooden pole that was sharpened at one end. What's this? he asked and was told "it is a pike, it is the only weapon that we have to give you. The strict British gun laws had virtually put the gun makers out of business and there was no one to equip the forces.
Be careful what you ask for.
The gun laws in Britain weren't as strict in 1939 as they are now. There was, however, a shortage of military arms as war approached, and military rifles would have been given to troops training for frontline duty as opposed to troops on guard duty. As more rifles were manufactured, and imported from the US, guards were appropriately armed.
Britain never had the same level of gun ownership as the US. The vast majority of bolt action rifles were made by BSA under government contract and by the Royal Ordnance Factories from 1940 forward. Most civilian bolt action rifles were imported, or were modified SMLEs.
The gun laws in Britain weren't as strict in 1939 as they are now. There was, however, a shortage of military arms as war approached, and military rifles would have been given to troops training for frontline duty as opposed to troops on guard duty. As more rifles were manufactured, and imported from the US, guards were appropriately armed.
Britain never had the same level of gun ownership as the US. The vast majority of bolt action rifles were made by BSA under government contract and by the Royal Ordnance Factories from 1940 forward. Most civilian bolt action rifles were imported, or were modified SMLEs.
The gun laws in Britain were not that strict in 1987 when Michael Ryan went on the rampage in Hungerford.
Ryan used a perfectly legal at the time, Chinese Variant AK47 and a US Army M1 Carbine, whilst in 1996, Thomas Hamilton used legally held weapons such as Magnum handguns in the Dunblane School Massacre.
As for BSA, they supplied components to the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield in London, and the main British standard British infantry weapon was the Lee Enfield during WW2.
As for the RAF, the RAF Regiment was formed on 1 February 1942, in order to defend airfield from attack from land or air (anti-aircraft guns). So things quickly progressed from the start of the war in 1939.
The RAF Regiment have the nickname the 'Rock Apes' due to their links to Gibraltar.
Unlike the USAF, which now has a Security Force, the RAF maintains the RAF Regiment in relation to soldering duties, as well as a separate RAF Police, who are known as the 'Snowdrops' due to their white uniform caps.
The Government don't have all the guns in the UK, and you can still apply to own traditional guns such as rifles and shotguns, you just can no longer own semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and handguns.
Even in the US you can not own certain automatic weapons, so it's just a question of where do you draw the line.
As for the UK Police they are generally unarmed, and the Military swears allegiance to the Monarch and not the Government or Parliament.
We draw the line here because......every time they take something, they always come back wanting more. We have learned from there.
As for UK police, it is more than being unarmed......as we discussed several pages back. To quickly refresh, from my American standpoint, if you don't obey my verbal order, in a blink of an eye, you will become one with the pavement........and not nicely, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
.......Unlike the USAF, which now has a Security Force, the RAF maintains the RAF Regiment in relation to soldering duties, as well as a separate RAF Police, who are known as the 'Snowdrops' due to their white uniform caps.
Out of curiosity, are they as "nice" as their civilian counterparts? With my Navy Police, we trained them to put people in the hospital.
We draw the line here because......every time they take something, they always come back wanting more. We have learned from there.
As for UK police, it is more than being unarmed......as we discussed several pages back. To quickly refresh, from my American standpoint, if you don't obey my verbal order, in a blink of an eye, you will become one with the pavement........and not nicely, either.
The rest of the world is perfectly fine, having less guns than the US, and the issue isn't banning guns, it's merely restricting certain types of guns.
The UK and other countries are perfectly fine with their gun laws, it is the US that is having an on-going debate about it's gun laws, and it is the US that has the resulting gun massacres and gun deaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
Out of curiosity, are they as "nice" as their civilian counterparts? With my Navy Police, we trained them to put people in the hospital.
As already explained, the police in the UK police through consent.
If we wanted to be ordered about and pushed to the floor then we would have a para-military police service or Gendarmerie, and would live in fear of the police.
The rest of the world is perfectly fine, having less guns than the US, and the issue isn't banning guns, it's merely restricting certain types of guns.
The UK and other countries are perfectly fine with their gun laws, it is the US that is having an on-going debate about it's gun laws, and it is the US that has the resulting gun massacres and gun deaths.
The rest of the world is not so civilized as one might think, such as with Venezuela, such as with how governments have behaved during this pandemic.
Now it is just opinion and hopefully I won't be around to see it confirmed but I do believe that if guns are outlawed, as in outlawed to the point where their possession is in name only and not as an effective means to keep governments in check, one will finally see clear example of what happens when people can't defend themselves, that the argument of "What about this country? It didn't happen there!" will be a historical moot point.
Quote:
As already explained, the police in the UK police through consent.
If we wanted to be ordered about and pushed to the floor then we would have a para-military police service or Gendarmerie, and would live in fear of the police.
And has been already said, the populations are quite different. As far as ordered and pushed to the floor, well, we are seeing situations where if people don't want to be stopped for their wrong doing, they will disobey the order to stop and just keep on going.
In any event, having been an Enforcer in a non gun situation, HtH is not nice but a rapid application of force to take them out before they are able to overwhelm whatever you have.
We draw the line here because......every time they take something, they always come back wanting more. We have learned from there.
As for UK police, it is more than being unarmed......as we discussed several pages back. To quickly refresh, from my American standpoint, if you don't obey my verbal order, in a blink of an eye, you will become one with the pavement........and not nicely, either.
Out of curiosity, are they as "nice" as their civilian counterparts? With my Navy Police, we trained them to put people in the hospital.
The UK police use minimal force, and adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights, and 1998 Human Rights Act.
They don't generally push people down to the pavement, choke them or shoot them.
As for the RAF Police, they do not generally deal with civilians, that is the remit of the Ministry of Defence Police, and both are very professional and they also operate within the remit of the European Convention on Human Rights, and 1998 Human Rights Act.
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.
Where Great Britain used to be. 
