1 minute ago, Ben said:

I am fully aware of the thing you mention, there is a difference however. In America you can get access to long-ranged and deadily weaponary like that, here in the United Kingdom you can't, we use tasers on people wielding knives all the time in this country, I personally am hoping that the government expand the usage of tasers so that all police officers in the United Kingdom are trained and carry tasers, that would begin to address an issue within the United Kingdom.

That being said, it still doesn't mean that all cops need to be armed. It would be a vast overreaction and in an attempt to limit rare terrorist attacks, you'd end up making more problems.

Not sure if I agree but tasers work 50% of the time, its useless during the winter, Law Enforcement here use tasers with knives but only when an additional unit is there because if hey I either miss or taser doesnt work then the back up officer will put down the guy. But an armed presence for regular patrol officers would actually provide safety to those around him because when a criminal sees a gun it will deter the crime and that is a fact. In Texas a city hugely encouraged the populace to open carry (visible holstered weapons) for a whole month and in that month police reported a 60-80% in violent crime drop. (FACT)

3 minutes ago, S.Bekowski said:

Not sure if I agree but tasers work 50% of the time, its useless during the winter, Law Enforcement here use tasers with knives but only when an additional unit is there because if hey I either miss or taser doesnt work then the back up officer will put down the guy. But an armed presence for regular patrol officers would actually provide safety to those around him because when a criminal sees a gun it will deter the crime and that is a fact. In Texas a city hugely encouraged the populace to open carry (visible holstered weapons) for a whole month and in that month police reported a 60-80% in violent crime drop. (FACT)

Again, you are comparing a country with more guns than people to a country with barely any firearms ownership. There simply isn't enough gun crime in the United Kingdom to warrant such wide distribution of firearms to police officers, police here go through 2 years of regular police work before they can even attend firearms training, this two year period gives the chance for officers who eventually want to apply to become an Authorised Firarms Officer to learn how to handle situations without the need for firearms.

I checked around for the open-carry thing in Texas, and I could only find stuff regarding how it wasn't working, which of course is the complete opposite of what you said, would you be able to find the article that mentions that.

5 minutes ago, Ben said:

Again, you are comparing a country with more guns than people to a country with barely any firearms ownership. There simply isn't enough gun crime in the United Kingdom to warrant such wide distribution of firearms to police officers, police here go through 2 years of regular police work before they can even attend firearms training, this two year period gives the chance for officers who eventually want to apply to become an Authorised Firarms Officer to learn how to handle situations without the need for firearms.

I checked around for the open-carry thing in Texas, and I could only find stuff regarding how it wasn't working, which of course is the complete opposite of what you said, would you be able to find the article that mentions that.

Unfortunately I cannot locate it myself atm but I'll be on the lookout for it. Look up LT Gov of texas and conceal carry shows 25% drop in crime such as murder, etc. also the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, USA has a requirement to legally own a firearm to live there and the crime rate is pretty much 0 
https://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/crime-statistics/

Shows gun ownership prevents crime.

13 minutes ago, S.Bekowski said:

Unfortunately I cannot locate it myself atm but I'll be on the lookout for it. Look up LT Gov of texas and conceal carry shows 25% drop in crime such as murder, etc. also the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, USA has a requirement to legally own a firearm to live there and the crime rate is pretty much 0 
https://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/crime-statistics/

Shows gun ownership prevents crime.

It's interesting to see such a low crime rate overall, especially with a population of 30k+ that being said, this really doesn't prove anything, there could be numerous variables which play into such a low crime rate and there is no evidence at all to prove that simply owning a firearm makes an area safe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

13 minutes ago, Ben said:

It's interesting to see such a low crime rate overall, especially with a population of 30k+ that being said, this really doesn't prove anything, there could be numerous variables which play into such a low crime rate and there is no evidence at all to prove that simply owning a firearm makes an area safe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

I gave you a stat and its accurate. this link you sent is using FBI and CDC stats incorrectly. It doesn't specify reasons behind the shooting. 
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/?s=concealed+carry
these are cases of civilian lawful gun ownership has saved lives (Including saving LEOs) 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
 

Edited July 19, 20187 yr by S.Bekowski

1 minute ago, S.Bekowski said:

I gave you a stat and its accurate. this link you sent is using FBI and CDC stats incorrectly. It doesn't specify reasons behind the shooting. 
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/?s=concealed+carry
these are cases of civilian lawful gun ownership has saved lives (Including saving LEOs) 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
 

I don't want to get into a gun control debate on this matter saying as there is about eighty topics over the past four years which have covered both sides of the arguement, I was merely pointing out that the statistics you presented does not prove anything, there could be numerous variables in place which would result in such a low murder rate.

7 minutes ago, Ben said:

I don't want to get into a gun control debate on this matter saying as there is about eighty topics over the past four years which have covered both sides of the arguement, I was merely pointing out that the statistics you presented does not prove anything, there could be numerous variables in place which would result in such a low murder rate.

Well the topic me and you were discussing is that guns prevent bad situations, deter crime, and save lives and why the UK Police need to train and arm their officers. Its not about gun control I can agree but in those links show that private citizens with guns can save lives and Law Enforcement the same. 

Just now, S.Bekowski said:

Well the topic me and you were discussing is that guns prevent bad situations, deter crime, and save lives and why the UK Police need to train and arm their officers. Its not about gun control I can agree but in those links show that private citizens with guns can save lives and Law Enforcement the same. 

Working what you just said back into what we was discussing, giving private citizens in the UK a wider access to weapons will only result in a more increased chance of criminals getting access to said firearms, this may work all well and good in America, but when you have so little firearms in your country, introducing more is counterproductive to a situation.

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Working what you just said back into what we was discussing, giving private citizens in the UK a wider access to weapons will only result in a more increased chance of criminals getting access to said firearms, this may work all well and good in America, but when you have so little firearms in your country, introducing more is counterproductive to a situation.

Not if you implement it correctly. Another statistical fact is that Lawful gun owners in the US are even more less likely to be involved in criminal behavior than Law Enforcement. people with felonies, or have been involved in a domestic situation you caused, you aren't allowed to own a firearm. you have to be cleared in an FBI background check before you can purchase any kind of firearm. 

Just now, S.Bekowski said:

Not if you implement it correctly. Another statistical fact is that Lawful gun owners in the US are even more less likely to be involved in criminal behavior than Law Enforcement. people with felonies, or have been involved in a domestic situation you caused, you aren't allowed to own a firearm. you have to be cleared in an FBI background check before you can purchase any kind of firearm. 

Why would you need to implement it at all, it's harder to get access to weapons if you need a license to own them, and the types are heavily limited, which is how it works in the United Kingdom, we have low rates of firearms related crime, I don't see any logical reason for giving more people access to firearms. If you don't want people to have firearms (like we don't in the United Kingdom) we simply do not let people have them.

Just now, Ben said:

Why would you need to implement it at all, it's harder to get access to weapons if you need a license to own them, and the types are heavily limited, which is how it works in the United Kingdom, we have low rates of firearms related crime, I don't see any logical reason for giving more people access to firearms. If you don't want people to have firearms (like we don't in the United Kingdom) we simply do not let people have them.

Sure if you restrict guns, gun crime may go down a bit because it only affects legal gun owners not ones that illegally get them. but I've looked at your stats and when your country banned weapons for alot of folks your violent crime went up higher like rape and murder went up.

4 minutes ago, S.Bekowski said:

Sure if you restrict guns, gun crime may go down a bit because it only affects legal gun owners not ones that illegally get them. but I've looked at your stats and when your country banned weapons for alot of folks your violent crime went up higher like rape and murder went up.

We banned guns because of two mass-shootings in schools here, the people decided that guns weren't needed and so they where banned. There hasn't been a mass-shooting at a school since, that in itself is reason enough for keeping gun ownership limited to the 0.2% who own shotguns in the UK.

It doesn't just affect legal gun owners, if there are more guns on the street it is easier to get access to a gun, you can talk about correct implementation and so onwards, but I have not seen one person provide a sensible format which would keep guns in the hands of 'legal gun owners' and ensure that criminals could not get their hands on them and use them. Until someone provides a plan which shows that criminals will not gain access, there is no need to change them as our currently our gun control whilst not being perfect are still enough to keep people safe.

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

We banned guns because of two mass-shootings in schools here, the people decided that guns weren't needed and so they where banned. There hasn't been a mass-shooting at a school since, that in itself is reason enough for keeping gun ownership limited to the 0.2% who own shotguns in the UK.

It doesn't just affect legal gun owners, if there are more guns on the street it is easier to get access to a gun, you can talk about correct implementation and so onwards, but I have not seen one person provide a sensible format which would keep guns in the hands of 'legal gun owners' and ensure that criminals could not get their hands on them and use them. Until someone provides a plan which shows that criminals will not gain access, there is no need to change them as our currently our gun control whilst not being perfect are still enough to keep people safe.

  Criminal activity with guns may have gone down but that does not mean that anyone is safe(r).

 

   Plus, why is there a gun debate right now? You all know my stance on this subject but still, wtf?

3 minutes ago, Ben said:

We banned guns because of two mass-shootings in schools here, the people decided that guns weren't needed and so they where banned. There hasn't been a mass-shooting at a school since, that in itself is reason enough for keeping gun ownership limited to the 0.2% who own shotguns in the UK.

It doesn't just affect legal gun owners, if there are more guns on the street it is easier to get access to a gun, you can talk about correct implementation and so onwards, but I have not seen one person provide a sensible format which would keep guns in the hands of 'legal gun owners' and ensure that criminals could not get their hands on them and use them. Until someone provides a plan which shows that criminals will not gain access, there is no need to change them as our currently our gun control whilst not being perfect are still enough to keep people safe.

Honestly the biggest deterrent is a gun. if your country did background checks on people and had the same system as the States they would only get into the hand of legal citizens, illegal guns are smuggled into the US from Mexico or Canada and guns are stolen because some governments in the states think its a good idea to make a public registry to see who ones guns available to the public. Sure you might see a sliver of gun related crime go up but violent crime will drop significantly. This man I read up on his wife's life was saved from being raped and possibly murdered because he talked her into buying a small revolver and a month later this happened,, she might not have survived without it. a child left to babysit his younger sister and a very safe neighborhood house was being broken into by three people and that kid got into his fathers gunsafe and shot at those people and saved his younger sister. an man with an AR-15 (that spooky rifle) stopped a mass shooter before he could continue to kill. I've gave you more than reasons to show that this would work and you say "no, no but this" and no proper stats. 

3 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  Criminal activity with guns may have gone down but that does not mean that anyone is safe(r).

 

   Plus, why is there a gun debate right now? You all know my stance on this subject but still, wtf?

You're right, people are wanting guns back in the UK because they relied on the Government to protect them but they are failing and taking away more freedoms

7 minutes ago, S.Bekowski said:

Honestly the biggest deterrent is a gun. if your country did background checks on people and had the same system as the States they would only get into the hand of legal citizens, illegal guns are smuggled into the US from Mexico or Canada and guns are stolen because some governments in the states think its a good idea to make a public registry to see who ones guns available to the public. Sure you might see a sliver of gun related crime go up but violent crime will drop significantly. This man I read up on his wife's life was saved from being raped and possibly murdered because he talked her into buying a small revolver and a month later this happened,, she might not have survived without it. a child left to babysit his younger sister and a very safe neighborhood house was being broken into by three people and that kid got into his fathers gunsafe and shot at those people and saved his younger sister. an man with an AR-15 (that spooky rifle) stopped a mass shooter before he could continue to kill. I've gave you more than reasons to show that this would work and you say "no, no but this" and no proper stats. 

It's worth noting that you are still comparing a country with minimal gun crime to the United States, it's a completely different culture and you first need to acknowledge that. The police here have shown them more than capable of dealing with the gun crime, so why you'd think there is any reason to try and alter the national opinion on gun control with statistics relating to the United States is concerning.

Also, no, just no. The people in the UK don't want their guns back, there are few, but no, not a majority of people. Nobody thinks the Government has failed in protecting them and nobody thinks that they are taking away our freedom. It's funny that in a post where you tried to complain about me pointing out issues with the statistics you are quoting, you continue your post by making something up, that's mildly amusing.

1 minute ago, Ben said:

It's worth noting that you are still comparing a country with minimal gun crime to the United States, it's a completely different culture and you first need to acknowledge that. The police here have shown them more than capable of dealing with the gun crime, so why you'd think there is any reason to try and alter the national opinion on gun control with statistics relating to the United States is concerning.

Also, no, just no. The people in the UK don't want their guns back, there are few, but no, not a majority of people. Nobody thinks the Government has failed in protecting them and noody thinks that they are taking away our freedom. It's funny that in a post where you tried to complain about me pointing out issues with the statistics you are quoting, you continue your post by making something up, that's mildly amusing.

It's mildly amusing you only give me links to articles that aren't neutral but voice their own opinion and I send you stats, situations and stories and you just say "well that wouldn't work" dude...I'ts like talking to a wall...guns prevent crimes, statistically guns lower violent crimes... VIOLENT CRIMES...you keep saying they handle gun crimes fine boy! im tlaking about violent crimes, I've been to the UK and I ask officers there that they wished they had a better method of defense against multiple people with weapons. People there want their guns back, clearly shows you are out of touch, since you dont seem to care about the "average citizens" value or safety that an armed response takes longer but imagine when out in the country and people are roaming around your farm with weapons, when will an armed response show? Its honestly a shame that you seem to be die hard against guns for your police and seem to be against trying new things for them. I've gave you multiple cases why they should and you say "well police dont want to use them" (which by what I wrote above proves you false) 
So what I'm gathering is that you stand on: The Average citizen is treated as second class and only get proper police response to a dire situation in this period of time. They can wait because they are just average citizens. BUT THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE CONSTANT ARMED SECURITY WITHOUT QUESTION BECAUSE THEY COULD BE IN DANGER (Not against your government having them but shows how much you care about the average citizens saftey.

25 minutes ago, S.Bekowski said:

You're right, people are wanting guns back in the UK because they relied on the Government to protect them but they are failing and taking away more freedoms

 

That's the most random and inacurrate assumption I've read on this topic so far.

Just now, S.Bekowski said:

It's mildly amusing you only give me links to articles that aren't neutral but voice their own opinion and I send you stats, situations and stories and you just say "well that wouldn't work" dude...I'ts like talking to a wall...guns prevent crimes, statistically guns lower violent crimes... VIOLENT CRIMES...you keep saying they handle gun crimes fine boy! im tlaking about violent crimes, I've been to the UK and I ask officers there that they wished they had a better method of defense against multiple people with weapons. People there want their guns back, clearly shows you are out of touch, since you dont seem to care about the "average citizens" value or safety that an armed response takes longer but imagine when out in the country and people are roaming around your farm with weapons, when will an armed response show? Its honestly a shame that you seem to be die hard against guns for your police and seem to be against trying new things for them. I've gave you multiple cases why they should and you say "well police dont want to use them" (which by what I wrote above proves you false) 
So what I'm gathering is that you stand on: The Average citizen is treated as second class and only get proper police response to a dire situation in this period of time. They can wait because they are just average citizens. BUT THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE CONSTANT ARMED SECURITY WITHOUT QUESTION BECAUSE THEY COULD BE IN DANGER (Not against your government having them but shows how much you care about the average citizens saftey.

 

Now let's break down what you just said.

You quoted statistics of gun crime in America, you presented one city with no murder and 100% gun ownership, I acknowledged that, yet there are many variables that contribute to that. You continously compare America to the United Kingdom, and you can bring up as many statistics from America as you want, but we banned guns because of mass-shootings in schools, there hasn't been one since, that within itself is proof that gun control saves lives.

Now onto police wanting guns - through surveys within the police and the public, it is known that on the large part they do not want to be armed, and of those that do, the majority only want to be armed when necessary and are opposed to routinely being armed on patrol.

People here don't want their guns back, and the public still majorly backs the banning and limiting of firearms, so no, they really don't want their guns back, so please stop making it up.

I don't care about the average citizen? I am an average citizen and shown by the fact that the majority of this country democratically chose that we do not want to own or have the ability to own weapons, you are once again wrong.

 

You cannot force police officers to carry guns, and you cannot overrule the democratic decision of the people, that is how it works, this isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of the majority, so stop trying to make out as if I am the Prime Minister and I am trying to get people killed, it just detracts from any of the points you do have.

Back onto it, I am an average citizen once again and I agree with the other majority of 'average citizens' who still believe that gun ownership should be limited if not banned.  The government has constant security because political figures are more likely to be attacked, that is just simple logic, nothing to do with treating people as second-class citizens, because under that logic unless there was a cop providing personal security for every citizen in the UK, someone would be a second-class citizen.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

That's the most random and inacurrate assumption I've read on this topic so far.

Yes, I've studied UK Law Enforcement and visited the country and talked to several people around London (Including LEOs), and outside London and alot of them agreed, I've met alot of people from the UK on Fivem servers or Law Enforcement Discord channels and they said what you said im wrong in saying. Should also mention the RAF history museum falsified the fall of the 3rd Reich. 

Just now, S.Bekowski said:

Yes, I've studied UK Law Enforcement and visited the country and talked to several people around London (Including LEOs), and outside London and alot of them agreed, I've met alot of people from the UK on Fivem servers or Law Enforcement Discord channels and they said what you said im wrong in saying. Should also mention the RAF history museum falsified the fall of the 3rd Reich. 

 

And I've seen 3 red cars on the road today, therefore all cars must be red.

 

But now that you're starting to throw some random 3rd Reich stuff that's completely unrelated I'll assume you're just a troll and move on. Ben's already having a handful.