I thought guns were banned in England??

[Highlander]

So how much is 140 pounds then?

$220

 

[redhen]

$220

Not bad!.... thats close to the US price for a un-insured office visit....

 

[bakerjw]

Newfoundland, you offer interesting insights being from the UK. Ideally a polite society has no need of weapons whatsoever. But since we live in a less than ideal world, we have law enforcement that does need to be armed in some manner. But the roots of our second amendment, the right to bear arms, comes from our founding fathers who led our revolution against tyranny, be it real or perceived. With any form of government it is well with reason to assume that eventually the head will start to repress the citizenry. How would any of the kings of England fared if the peons would have had access to the same level of arms as the kings army? Our form of government over here has checks and balances in place between the 3 branches however the final check and balance are our first amendment rights, the right to say what needs to be said, and the second, the right to take action in the event that the government becomes oppressive.

You mentioned welfare in an earlier post. Over here we have a segment of society that lives on entitlements. Most everyone that I know supports helping people when they need assistance, especially in these hard times, and I am one of them. I prefer giving a hand up over a handout. But there are people who know how to use the system to their advantage and never plan on getting off of the gravy train. There is no incentive for them to educate themselves or find work because they make enough to get by on the aid that they receive.

I am a moderator on a forum that deals specifically with silencers and we have many European members that do shoot rifles with silencers. Some from the UK.

Anyway thanks for the interesting perspective.

 

[PaulaSB12]

What?? The cops cant carry them? Wow...

After the Jean Charles de Menezes case I wouldn't trust most police officers with a gun.

 

[chickened]

Do the Irish feel that way? No place is perfect. Our welfare system is 20 or 30 times what yours is and has significant more temptation to abuse it. 48% of the working class here pay no taxes. Your countrymen that immigrate here paint the UK in a different light. My banker is from South Wales and says those people are looked down upon. Those that come here stay as a rule. Welfare has a price and some will give up things to get it. You should help the needy but not enable them, put a limit on welfare but stop the generational trend. Welfare only works in a controlled society and our liberties do not allow us to tell someone to work if you are able or so it seems. In a small country you have small problems and are easy to control and hide, here we have whole cities dying from the welfare state like Detroit, Michigan.

As for Chamberlain he had an opportunity long before the war to arm and did not and yes he did do some good but he is most remembered as an appeaser. I have read some of the papers and he should have taken a more firm stance as he admitted it later. During the battle for britain about 30% of the pilots were Americans and some Australians. Britain did do the right thing to rearm but it was too late and your allies are what saved you from the Germans. Churchill, now that is someone to brag about.

Chickened, if you say that people living on welfare in US are in hardship, why is it wrong for society to support them during these tough times. Isn't that what a community does. If you refer to Neville Chamberlain as an appeaser, you may be wrong. Government papers realeased after the 50 year rule, now suggest that having met with Hitler, he released that UK was in no fit state to oppose Germany. He therefore appeased him and bought some precious months during which time UK rearmed like mad. Everyone knew a war was coming. The Third Reich seemed unstoppable then. Rather a Socialist state than a Fascist one! Finally, you seem to harbour the notion that our society is a free one. The thousands of immigrants that come here from all over the world would not agree with you. Ours is largely a tolerant society where people just go about their own business and do not interfere with others. No need for guns in such a society.

 

[newfoundland]

I am glad that you concede that no place is perfect. It is sad that some people believe our society to be a downtrodden and repressed one, tightly controlled by a suspect government. It is not at all like that. This is one of the freest societies in the world, but we have freedom under the law, like any democracy. If we had a gun culture here, I do not believe that it would improve our society. In any welfare system, there is the risk that some people will abuse the system. That happens here and people are rightly angry about that. Never the less, most people believe that it is necessary and desirable that we have this safety net, because none of us are immune from falling into hardship. I'm sure people in the US think the same, particularly in these uncertain times.

I don't think we could ever agree about World War 2 and Neville Chamberlain's part in it. Truth is very subjective and most people see things only from their own perspective. Have you ever heard the expression that, 'Truth is the first casualty of war.' I would never underestimate the sacrifice and loss suffered by families on your side of the Atlantic. I hope we can agree though that war, whoever is involved, is a terrible thing and if it can be avoided, it should be by all governments.

 

[Clay Mudd]

TO add an interesting fact.

Here in the US silencers are strictly regulated under the NFA. To purchase or build a silencer requires fingerprint cards, a completed Form 1 or 4, a check in the amount of $200.00, and a 6 month wait. In the UK and many places in Europe you can go into a hardware store and buy a silencer off of the shelf. Many places over there shooting without a silencer is considered bad manners.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a noisy murder.

 

[newfoundland]

Your knowledge of gun culture is interesting bakerjw. I believe you might be referring to rifles, or shotguns which are sporting guns. I did not know, and have certainly never seen any silencers for sale. Of course I can understand that it might be important to silence a gun when stalking prey. Where I live, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, hares etc. are shot, but the shot guns are not silenced.

Reading so many of these posts, I find there seems to be a common belief in the US that the government, which ever one it is, might try to oppress the people. I wonder where this fear comes from? You imply in your post that if the ordinary people in Britain had access to weapons, the King could be in danger of being overthrown. Of course this has happened in the past. When Charles 1st was beheaded, because he would not accept the power of Parliament and Britain was ruled by Oliver Cromwell as a sort of Governor and leader of Parliament. What happened? He became drunk with his own importance and more repressive than any king had been. He was executed and Charles's son, Charles 2nd was restored to the throne and it was business as usual. Britain has always been ruled by the consent of the people, once, maybe by a show of arms, but latterly, by the ballot box. I believe you can always rely on the good sense of the people.

 

[KristyHall]

I am glad that you concede that no place is perfect. It is sad that some people believe our society to be a downtrodden and repressed one, tightly controlled by a suspect government. It is not at all like that. This is one of the freest societies in the world, but we have freedom under the law, like any democracy. If we had a gun culture here, I do not believe that it would improve our society. In any welfare system, there is the risk that some people will abuse the system. That happens here and people are rightly angry about that. Never the less, most people believe that it is necessary and desirable that we have this safety net, because none of us are immune from falling into hardship. I'm sure people in the US think the same, particularly in these uncertain times.

I don't think we could ever agree about World War 2 and Neville Chamberlain's part in it. Truth is very subjective and most people see things only from their own perspective. Have you ever heard the expression that, 'Truth is the first casualty of war.' I would never underestimate the sacrifice and loss suffered by families on your side of the Atlantic. I hope we can agree though that war, whoever is involved, is a terrible thing and if it can be avoided, it should be by all governments.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Well said. Thank you for patiently explaining this to us. Feel free to share more.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Redhen, there you go again. Actually believing what you see on TV. I thought you knew better. TV is done for dramatic effect. If reality shows actually showed reality, you'd be bored stiff.

I lived in London for about a year many decades ago. I can't say I am up on current affairs there, but I do have my own perspective. I've also travelled a bit in different parts of the United Kingdom. Red, if you ever get a chance to travel there, I recommend you look at McDonald Castle in Scotland. If you see the same McDonald's Castle I saw, it will really help clear up some of your romantic notions about what it was really like to live in those stone castles.

I've also lived and worked in Africa and Asia. I probably should not admit this, but when I see an American talking about how oppressed we are here, I laugh. They have just proved to me they don't have a clue what they are talking about. That's just my opinion, but I think I have some reality to base that on.

The British government is set up quite a bit differently form ours in the details, but it is basically also a representative democracy. A big difference is that theirs is basically a three party system. There are other parties, but they generally don't count or they are aligned with one of the major parties. When was there, the Scottish Nationals could be counted on to join the Conservatives. The Conservatives (Right Wing) and Labor (Left Wing) usually win and "control" the government. But if they don't get an oputright majority of the legislators, the Liberal (Moderate) Party will negotiate with the "winners" and form a coalition government. That coalition government can fall at any time through losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In my opinion, that system helps avoid he extremes of our two party system. Margaret Thatcher showed that you can live by your principles and stay in power in that system.

Newfoundland, you are living there and my experiences are decades old. I'd appreciate any corrections and updates of my comments. I know I'm out of touch.

My thought on why the law enforcement officers generally don't want to carry guns. Traditions are part of it. But if the criminals are interrupted in their activities and they know the cop does not have a gun, they are less likely to resort to deadly force in trying to get away. We have our tradition of guns here so that would not work for us, but it seems ot work fairly well over there.