Whoda thunk it? BBC News is running an opinion poll (Americans can chime in, LOL) and people are actually peeved about their lack of rights!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm

Selected quotes:

The target here is to stop illegal guns being used. The problem with the government is that they take the 'easy' option of targeting legal gun owners as that is the most simple way of saying 'look what we've done to curb crime'. This does not stop a criminal but encumbers many law abiding citizens with more rules to follow. If you want to stop guns being used in crime it needs tough penalties -- not placing further legislation on somebody who goes clay pigeon shooting. Mark, UK

In the Southern parts of the USA, namely Alabama, the majority of women and men carry guns. The number of attacks on women - primarily rape - are very little, as it is known by men concerned that the vast majority of women carry guns on their person, thus guns are a deterrent. Food for thought in crime-stricken UK? Tony, UK

When the "public" were banned from holding (hand)guns it was supposed to have some effect on the number of crimes. As was explained at the time - the criminals don't give a toss about the gun laws, so all that was predicted has indeed come true: the law-abiding public who wanted to fire guns for sport are disenfranchised, whereas the criminals just carry on business as usual. Additional penalties for those in possession will make no difference - the government don't get it: the criminals don't care about the laws/penalties. Mike, UK

The ban on legitimate handguns didn't make any difference after Dunblane, and "tougher" laws won't make any difference now. If criminals want to obtain and use firearms, they'll get them and use them.
David, UK

More legislation won't make the slightest difference. Those of us who legally possess firearms and shotguns find that the rules we abide to are becoming stricter but from the Home Office figures gun crime is still increasing (and virtually 100% of gun crime is from illegally held weapons). Speaking to police representatives at various shooting events over the past few years I've heard that the number of illegally held weapons is increasing dramatically. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how tough the laws are - those that want an illegal weapon will find a way of getting one.
Chris Brown, England

do all vets get this batty in thier old age sixgun? do you also try to have sex with your guns?

Typical marxist vomit spewing from Billy.


I recommend that others here read some of Solzhenitsyn's books about the kind of system that Billy would impose on all of us.

For a staunch American, someone takes a lot of interest in England.

Wow, all comedians (or wannabe comedians) are Marxists. Damn, and I so enjoy Carlin.

Britain is the grandfather of all modern rifles (bolt action now not automatic), Vicars has done a hell of a lot for the arms industry although lately the americans and the swiss have taken over and britain's arms industry fell in quality after WW2. although i think there is no excuse to the SA-80... that is just a bad rifle.

There is a big gun culture over here, i myself have 4 rifles which i use for hunting although i use them more for pest control for hunting foxes and things than i did in finland where i killed for dinner.

It is becuase of the few that pistol ownership was deemed illegal but if you look at it there are still hundreds of thousands of guns out there and most are conversions of airpistols, its not hard for a criminal to have a gun but if you have a gun for protetcion your breaking the law and that isn't right, people who want to commit gun crimes will do so and they always will.

I myself am a big supporter of having armed police officers, i mean look what happened in Birmingham on new years those girls got mowed down, if the police were armed they could cut the crime rate not significatly but it would help.

I doubt Birmingham could have been prevented by armed police. The only thing that could of helped wa sismply not having such a free and easy access to guns in the first plac.e The only thing it is that this sort of thing is an abject rarity in the United kingdom and makes the news in the US it is an almost daily occurance. The simple fact is guns kill, a preponant of easy firearms access.

As for the SA-80...yep one pants rifle. A nice old bren gun would be more effective. It wasn't until HK got their hands on it that it started to work, but it is the ultimate lemon.

It is not such a rarity in the UK anymore, the drug gangs have an arms race as they protect their shipments from each other. They also fight over lucritive areas of narcotics distribution. It has also become fashionable for gangsters to carry a 7.65mm Walther PPK, the pistol used by the "James Bond".

It's only the law abiding people that had their guns taken away from them. Outlaws have guns though everyone else has been disarmed.

A good analogy is narcotics. Narcotics are illegal and yet anyone that wants them can buy them.

this is a good lesson, let a gun be designed by soldiers and men of war not by scientists and engineers.

I don't know why the UK military gave up the FN-FAL (L1A1) 7.62mm rifle to adopt a system like the SA-80.

The FAL rifle was a fine battle rifle.

Simple the government wanted to create more jobs from the dying arms industry... its very sad the average british soldiers would be better with a stick than that peice of crap.

Criminals can unfortunately get weapons and as from next year I think what you'll see is insanely complex import proceedures, not to stop imports, but to actually make sure that things aren't being smuggled in. Guns, drugs and people mainly

I saw a report and no longer is the U.S. the main source of illeagal firearms in the U.K. for the past 18 months most illeagal firearms have been comming in from the crumbling Balkans.

The thought is that if people can be smuggled thorugh, how easy is it to smuggle guns through.

I have mised thoughts if the police should be armed.

For:

Allowing them to shoot dead and rotuinely 'purge' trouble spots will allow areas to be reclaimed and criminals to be somewhat disuaded.This may sound ill of mind, but police-states do have lower violent crime.

Against:

Arming police means crims will arm themselves to match and in shoot-outs its civilians who get harmed. Look at the mess the ATF (albeit because they were ill informed) made of wako.

Neon

'Lower violent crime'??? by whom?, not by the police!! I do hope you think this the only possible positive aspect of such a society albeit a extremely poor one? What about arming them with tazers and rubber bullets?, really, haven't we found something more effective then dead?

No offence Neon, I do agree with your 'ill of mind' statement tho'.

I'd perfer an FN-FAL over a pitchfork if we go to war though.

Last year 68 people died from gun wounds in the UK, in the US it was over 11,000. your 2200 times more likely to be killed with a gun in America than in Britain. I know where I'd rather live.

The American Constitution upholds the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all but all of these rights are lost by those who are gunned down.

Americans will have to decide whether their 'right' to bear arms is worth this and if they do they do, they will pay for that right with the blood of there children as they have for so many years.