Northern Ireland is the only place where they’re ALLOWED to have guns? That’s kind of stupid. Although I’ve read that Scotland’s actually worse.

That is very interesting about the loophole in gun law allowing for historical guns… makes the entire thing just for show (as we know it is in the first place.)

Actually in Great Britain only special police have arms and possibly the Metropolitan Police of London (though I am guessing here at the met).

Police stationed at the Houses of Parliament, airports and other such important places DO carry guns, generally of the semi-automatic type.

On the whole though, the police DO NOT carry weapons other than their “nightstick” or baton and in more cases now stun guns.

Generally “SWAT” or armed response units are called in to deal with situations which require fire power.

In Northern Ireland, at least 7/8 years ago when I lived there, it was different. The everyday street police carried hand guns on an expandable wire, much like on a telephone, connected to their belt.

““We’d have a different mess now. In countries with little access to guns, people who want to kill use knives and bombs instead.”

Not true. Lived in Malaysia where guns are completely prohibited and it’s very SAFE to walk there at night. There is almost no violence. In fact I have been in a few fights with people armed with sticks, and not only survived them but beat them up, it would have been different had they been armed with guns.
Knives and beer bottles are not RANGED weapons.
It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.”

Actually, just so you know, it is true. In the UK knife crime has taken a MASSIVE increase over previous yearly figures. We have had about 20 killings since January just in London thanks to knife crime. Remember, there is a difference between indiscriminately killing people and a fight / mugging / retaliation attack where more often than not sticks knives and other things besides guns are used.

Let’s take the example of the guy in Japan. If he had been using a gun and shooting from long range the sound would have been a giveaway of his position and people could run into buildings for protection. If he had been in close range the gun would have been less effective because people would be able to move it easily without fear of being cut.

However, a knife is a silent and deadly weapon attached to a mobile unit. If people decide to run and hide it doesn’t take long for the knife man to run after them and stab them.

Someone with a gun shooting from long range does not have this mobility. If the gun man is close to the targets, much like a knife man needs to be the ranged weapon becomes less effective than knives.

Police and military personnel in the Philippines do not use guns as their primary weapon for close combat situations.

They use something known as Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, or offensive-defence knife fighting. The police and military forces of the Philippines use this style of fighting to bring down criminals and wrongdoers because it is more effective than a gun in close quarters.

Just as a side note I feel compelled to add this.

Following the Dunblane massacre the UK government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership.

That was the law that passed control of guns to criminals and as such only criminals can have them.

There are exceptions to this law though, such as muzzle-loading “blackpowder” guns and pistols produced before 1917.

My favourite exception is this one “pistols of historical interest such as pistols used in notable crimes are exempt”.

This means that the gun used in the Dunblane massacre is of historical interest and as such, even though it was the gun that caused the change in the law, it is legal because it is exempt due to the historical nature of it. lol

This exception, “pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns)” means I am going to buy a Glock 19, encrust it with diamonds and then go around shooting people because it is legal. /sarcasm.

Even Britain’s Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, or abroad.

That goes to qualify my statement that, police in NI carry guns but the police in Great Britain don’t.

(Remember that the official title of where I live is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. Unfortunately only the 3rd longest country name in the world!

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul01/0,4670,ChinaPoliceKilled,00.html

Malaysia may in fact be very safe at night, but I know that it operates under different legal systems and cultures than the US does– what are the punishments for rape or robbery there? Were there ever that many guns in the first place? If we could get rid of all guns, sure, things might be a bit safer, but my point is that that will never happen. The cat is out of the bag and the gun is out of the range, so to speak, in the US already.

“It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.”

That’s what makes them great for personal protection– when a killer or robber takes you by surprise, you can easily retaliate. In addition, the man who just killed eight people in Japan with a knife didn’t seem to have that hard a time, even though it seems like it would be difficult.

“Trigger happy people will use any excuse to kill.”

That is quite true. If they’re so trigger happy, they’ll use a knife or a bomb. What I propose is that law-abiding citizens take classes to learn how to protect themselves. That does not mean they’re trigger-happy; in fact, I’d say they’re the opposite. They’re willing to give up a weekend of their time to learn how to conduct themselves in a safe manner.

Your generalizations about the US are not really even worth addressing. I’m American, but my ancestors are from Switzerland– did that make them uncivilized automatically once they came here? Most people in the US are completely unrelated to the people in the “Wild West,” and what you’re referring to mostly has to do with movies anyway.

Please give a reference for the Madison assertion– I have in fact seen writings by Madison and other attendees at the Constitutional Conventions who specifically referred to language similar to that of the militia, meaning self-defense against oppressive governments as they themselves experienced.

Civilians who want to protect themselves are not trigger-happy police. In fact, give me ONE instance of someone becoming “trigger-happy” while they were carrying a gun for protection (and not for criminal activity). I have never heard of even one incident.

“A better idea would be to disarm the police the way the English did.”

What? Have you been to England? I’ve lived there, and the bobbies carry around guns– large guns. Machine guns, actually. They’re the only ones with machine guns there, and they do have to use them– against people using knives to attack people. The police there are certainly not disarmed.

“Only obtuse cowards who are AFRAID to fight and would kill an animal or a man in cold blood are in favour of guns.”

I’m a vegetarian, so I wouldn’t kill anyone in cold blood– unless they were trying to kill me.

“Guns create a stiff society where respect is forced out of people by the undeserving under the barrel of a gun.”

That’s how it should be– only with the people under the barrel of the gun being criminals who are trying to kill, steal, or harm law-abiding individuals. It’s too bad that it takes that to get rid of crime, but it does. States that have concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than do states that don’t have concealed carry. That speaks for itself.

It doesn’t matter whether someone is smart or right or worthy of respect. If someone is trying to kill them and they have a concealed carry license, they at least have a chance at being alive, and that’s the only thing that counts.

Not true. Lived in Malaysia where guns are completely prohibited and it’s very SAFE to walk there at night. There is almost no violence. In fact I have been in a few fights with people armed with sticks, and not only survived them but beat them up, it would have been different had they been armed with guns.

Knives and beer bottles are not RANGED weapons.

It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.

There are many instances when less than deadly force can be used for self defense. Trigger happy people will use any excuse to kill.

USA is not the same as some country like Switzerland where people are highly civilized. America is a semi civilized country and most people don’t have self control or maturity to be trusted with firearms. In the wild west people killed eachother over petty insults.

James Madison who wrote the second amendment (and all the amendments) has explicitly stated that the they are time specific and should not be taken out of historical context.

The hard truth is that, gun advocates are just trigger happy gun fetishists who are too cowardly and want to have lethal force at their disposal.

Too many incidents of police shooting people by mistake thinking that person is going to pull out a gun, when he was pulling out his key chain or reaching for his vallet.

The main argument Libertarians use in favour of guns is that it gives the Government too much power. A better idea would be to disarm the police the way the English did. Individualism values human life, guns make it too easy to take life. A knife attack can be warded off with a pepper spray or an improvised weapon. Only obtuse cowards who are AFRAID to fight and would kill an animal or a man in cold blood are in favour of guns. Guns create a stiff society where respect is forced out of people by the undeserving under the barrel of a gun. Just because someone has good eyesight and can shoot well doesn’t mean he is smart, or right, or worthy of respect. Like those puffed up cops.

The people who think getting “rid of guns” is a good idea aren’t giving too much though to how well the bad guys follow laws, including gun bans.