Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Mr.Bond, Jan 12, 2013.
Mission accomplished- Another lively thread created!!!
I think all violent crimes are included in the stats not just serious ones.
I agree, there are much more violent crimes in the less affluent areas of London, there is also less of a police presence as well, pretty sure that adds to the likelihood of crimes being committed, violent or otherwise.
I really do see where you are coming from regarding this and to be honest I don't want to offend anyone as the cultural differences between the US and UK are not the same.
My question is simply this, why does a civilian need to own an assault rifle?
My reason for asking this question is, generally they are intended for the military or police force, from my point of view I can't see a reason for owning one.
It's only a question in no way am I trying to throw a red rag to a bull so to speak (if you'll pardon the expression).
And your right there are a lot of other weapons that get used to kill people other than guns. But to be fair I've never heard of anyone going on a killing spree armed with a hammer at least not that I've ever heard of. (Serial killers not included in this comment).
It's self defence, the laws on self defence in the UK are quite complex. But a general rule of thumb is if you have to strike someone use an open hand, then you mean claim it was a push.
Exactly that Judah, if they fall or get hurt you were trying to maintain your distance.
As long as you don't break anything and there is no blood/witnesses it is for them to prove otherwise.
This is where Aikido comes in handy. They invaded your personal space so you simply moved them out of it, quickly and so what if they hit the ground, hard, five meters away. There is no way you could use Aikido if they don't invade your personal space.
It isn't an assault rifle unless it has a select fire capability and can fire fully automatic or burst fire. A civilian AR 15 can't, it's limited to semi auto or "repetition" as it was called in the British army. As to why a civilian would want a military looking rifle.. Why buy a car that has a top speed in excess of 100mph in a country where the national speed limit is 70mph? They look cool.
I agree but that would be classed as excessive force.
Don't forget the CCTV cameras they're all over the place in the UK.
Interestingly enough if someone makes a move which you believe is an attack aimed at you and you intercept their attack with a strike of your own its acceptable. My solicitor once told me about pre emptive strikes they're acceptable as self defence as long as you can prove the other guy made an attack. This is something which blows a certain urban myth right out've the water, many MA instructors tell students they must warn a potential assailant 3 times that they are a martial artist and what belt they have before they can defend themselves and that this is a legal requirement. It's bullshit and could even be seen as provoking an attacker.
I understand your sentiment Judah and I agree the sports car and the assault rifle look cool. Status symbol you could say, but the average sports car would cost you around £40,000 upwards give or take a few thousand. An assault rifle is a hell of a lot cheaper so I don't see the correlation to your point (and I guess this is where our cultural differences come into play). However I also understand it is down to the person driving or using said equipment to behave (use) responsibly.
And we also know for both examples here that is not always the case. I agree that the answer here isn't ban all firearms, I am not as naive to think that Judah. The actions of the few spoil it for the many. All I can say here is, as a parent myself (as many of us are on this forum) I hope they find a resolution to this issue that benefits all parties.
Let me just say thanks for not biting my head off in relation to my question as I know first hand how much of a sensitive subject this is. Much respect to yourself for that.
Oh yeah I forgot about BIG brother watching.
Where are you from? In the UK most people are ignorant of firearms, they know only what they've seen on TV and therefore think if it looks like a "machine gun" it is and can fire fully automatic. They also think they'll "go off" accidentally if dropped etc.
I don't think the cost of the items is relevant. I have a friend who has a holland & holland rifle which is much more expensive than an AR 15 it fires a much more powerful round and has a greater range. The AR 15 just looks like a military rifle but it isn't.
However I also understand it is down to the person driving or using said equipment to behave (use) responsibly.
Charley, look at what you wrote- It is the individual, always the individual.
Like Judah says, the AR is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles have been banned in the US since 1934. The AR is a semi auto rifle. You can use it for hunting, target practice and self defense, another thing, the 223 round is NOT a highly effective round. It looks menacing, just look at the tactical walker! A semi auto .308 bolt action hunting rifle (British and Germans used bolt rifles in WWII) has much more destructive power and so does a shotgun with slugs.
ARs were already banned for ten years and nothing significant came out of the ban.
Another thing, if fewer people were killed with rifles than hammers and an AR is a subset of that total number, should we not ban really big hammers? Specially if they are painted black?
That's because most people watch too many movies Judah. I used to live in the UK but now live in the south of France where it is warmer. What you probably won't of heard of is the Russian Mafia in Marseilles trying to take over certain areas last year. There were several deaths all gun related. All I can say is I have some experience with firearms enough to know that things aren't as black and white as a majority of people would like to think they are and I am not casting any dispersions to any one on this forum or anywhere else for that matter in relation to this statement.
In answer to your question Judah I am British.
Ah an ex pat like myself.
Yes too many people believe everything they see on TV, I remember one guy insisting Glock pistols were made of porcelain because Bruce Willis said it in Die Hard 2
Military hammers should not be available to civilians. Or military vehicles such as jeeps and hum vees, I mean what reason would a civilian have for wanting a jeep? Or a military hammer? Or any hammer, you need something fixed? Call a carpenter. Transportation? Take a bus or call a taxi.
While we're on the subject why would a civilian want to defend him or herself when the police are there to do that job? In fact I don't see why civilians should want to do anything for themselves, that's what nanny state governments are for.
Did I come across as sarcastic? That's what I was going for....
Judah....You almost got me going! Good job, and I am glad that you made a point to "point" out the sarcasm....
Listen to this:
Hi Mr Bond, can you please point out what exactly with regards to what I wrote you want me to look at?
Is there something you are specifically trying to get at?
Not having a go bud but me crystal ball is fecked.
Separate names with a comma.