Interesting discussion about arming police in England.

[Bog]

Agricola,

If I write of anyone as worthless, then I'm a hypocrit. Any human life is a thing of incredible value.

I don't despise the aforementioned Dolist. I despise the system which failed him, and taught him that it's better never to try, than to work, to strive, and to risk.

[Kaylee]

agric, I don't think Thumper is talking about a person's worth as a human being, but rather their worth in an economic system. (Thumper, please correct me if I'm wrong)

That is a CRITICAL distinction, and IMHO the basic flaw of socialism -- it equates human worth with economic worth, and the two are very VERY different things.

Human worth, you're right.. I don't believe God does play favorites, and my life is worth no more and no less than the highest monarch in Saudi or the lowest dirtscraper in Bangladesh. Heck, as the wisom of my teabag says today "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back into the same box."

That said.. human worth is NOT the same as economic worth. My time is worth more to a potential employer because I studied (largely on my own time) uncommon, technical skills. To someone who has money, and wants a website built, for example -- I AM WORTH MORE than a ditchdigger. And likewise, I am worth less than those more skilled than I am at my craft -- unless I choose to make myself better than THEY are.

The flaw of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is that it ignores economic reality, by trying to equate economic worth with human worth.

-K

[Bog]

The flaw of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is that it ignores economic reality, by trying to equate economic worth with human worth.

With the hellish corollaries that the person capable of being the most economically "worthy" established the datum line for what the least productive member of society should receive.

Agricola, you must agree that if I work harder, longer and smarter than another person, then I am entitled to the fruits of my labour, to distribute as I see fit.

And, given this - why not be honest? Why not state that living in England is a privilege, not a right? It's a costly thing to do, by all accounts. There's a terrible double standard in saying that I'm free to do as I please to succeed, as long as I then give up the thing that made me want to succeed in the first place.

[Don Gwinn]

I know Hank didn't say anything about a person's "worth" as a person, because I read the post. He simply said that a person's value (or worth if you prefer) to his employer determines his earning power. You can choose to be against that, if you wish, but you might as well be against fire being hot and ice being cold.

If you extrapolated from Hank and Bog's posts that they think that "Dolist" is worth less as a human being than they are, you imply that the worth of a human being is measured by how much money he earns (or, in your parlance, how much money he is given by society.)

BTW, we don't HAVE a 40% income tax bracket. I knew you guys had high taxes (can't have Socialism without 'em) before now, but it gives me a slight shock to see it.

[Marko Kloos]

The flaw of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is that it ignores economic reality, by trying to equate economic worth with human worth.

Actually, the real flaw with this philosophy is that it discourages abilities, and encourages needs. Anyone who has had a chance to visit one of the East Bloc countries before the fall of the Iron Curtain knows why an economy based on such a maxim was doomed to failure.

[Thumper]

Thank you, Kaylee, for clarifying.

I certainly wasn't referring to the intrinsic worth of a human life.

[trapshooter]

Folks,

I had this current argument (socialism, human worth, the evil 'bosses', NHS, etc., in a bar in Portugal late one night in 1976 or '77. Me, my partner, and a RN tar. The argument went through several hours and many drinks, ending up, somehow, on the evil sh-t Uncle Sugar did to the poor, downtrodden comrades in the NVA, the VC, etc., etc.

My partner and I, who had shared our time in WESTPAC (albeit with only peripheral involvement in the SE Asian War Games of 1965-1973), did not see things that way, naturally. However, the point is that, lacking logic, our naval cousin resorted to baseless, and pretty much erroneous, accusations, slurs, etc.

Sound familiar?

To the cousins here, a couple of aphorisms, sayings, quotes, or whatever, are in order here:

First, (to paraphrase somebody), it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Second, "Give me liberty, or give me death". That would be Patrick Henry, someone your ancestors and the Crown of HRH King George were very familiar with, circa 1776 or so. Don't be bitter. We won, you lost. Get over it. One of the reasons we chased the most powerful army in the world of that time out of this country was the common man's skill with firearms. We treasure that history, and skill, to this day (at least some of us do). Maybe that's part fantasy, but I don't think Georgie pulled out to go get dinner, either, or that he had a more pressing engagement in India. (BTW, you lost the rematch in 1812, as you'll recall).

Someone has already mentioned the surplus firearms shipments to GB in WWII, from private owners here. Followed shortly by more effective weapons, at the expense of our own armed forces, with checks written in blood all over the Pacific.

I have served with several members, in different branches, of your armed forces, over the years. Despite some slavish devotion to socialism by some, they were an enjoyable group, and didn't seem fearful of small arms. I will ask again, what happened? Are they drugging your beer, or something?

[Thumper]

Uh oh, Ag, Now you've done it...I sent this thread to my mom so she could come down to the zoo and have a look (Look, mom, a real live socialist!).

I'll quote her reply here, I'm biased, obviously, but I think it's pretty apt:

Lord! You have GOT to get a life--the difference here is all historical. The Brits have a history of being the subjects of a monarchy--serfs, commoners, royalty, etc.--that's a history of subjugation. We Americans are all directly descended from people who made a very gutsy decision (I know, all didn't make that decision, but they did survive) to come to a new world, usually with very little, and survive. In the late 1700's when we felt the subjugation too strongly, we revolted. We could not have done so had we not been an armed society.

We are a different culture and we have different values.

I don't want to depend on anyone else --ultimately--for protection. Those who have that responsibility can also tell me what to do--or not do. Don't like that.

My mom's cool.

[Don Gwinn]

That reminds me--grandpa wants his gun back. It was a Springfield 1903 in 30.06. He didn't write down the serial number, but there was an X carved in the buttstock by a previous owner. Any of you chaps know where that's gotten to?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

[trapshooter]

Ah, Mr. Gwinn, that's a good one. It's probably a Concorde wheel or something, by now.

In another direction, I'm sure some will feel my comments harsher than the situation requires, or irrelevant, or something. Just a reminder that this is a very old discussion, in my mind. (Roughly 35 years, in fact). In any case, if so, then I freely apologize, but do feel that history is relevant. Thumper's mother made my point better, however, so I'll refer you to his post following mine.

[Calamity Jane]

Thumper - indeed, your mom is very cool!

Just wanted to add my kudos to the participants of this thread (I've perused every page, just got done ). Some excellent discussion here, and no one has flown off the handle and gotten his/her drawers in a wad. Fantastic job!

[Salt]

I hope that others will take a look over there at that other web board. I started out nice and they got nasty. So I got nasty right back at them.

Somehow I am supposed to be the bad guy for having thrown back at them exactly what they were throwing at me.

[Oakleaf]

Completely out of character for me- I'll keep it short!

Read carefully through Agricola's comments - recognise many traits of the 'new Britain' - and find it very hard to agree with any of them.

The perception of society and the role of the state, the attachment of guilt upon inanimate objects and the mis- quotation of facts are standard fare of our spin Britannia.

Earlier quoted that the state had a role to protect the weaker from damage inflicted by the strong. His mind set is in the ascendance and certainly in Government ( by vote ) - I perceive it as damaging - where do we go from here?

However, it is an interestering debate and I thank all contributors for their views.

Whilst firearms are becoming collateral to the thread, I think it a useful exercise within the wider context that firearms ownership will find itself in the next century. With that link, I would ask that we keep it here.

[agricola]

Ok, I am awake now:

i) but in the system as we have it now, certainly over here (and I suspect with you over there) a person is "worth" only so much as they are "worth" economically. If that wasnt the case then people would be treated equally before the courts, socially etc and those who have the misfortune to live in the developing world (eg Bhopal - an Indian life, btw, according to Union Carbide is worth $300) would be treated with more respect than they are now. Ask yourself why companies set up factories in places like Burma, China etc....its because out their human life is percieved as "cheap" and there are less legal constraints as to how they can treat their workers and the environment.

ii) I agree with Thumper's mum, we are different, but that works two ways as well - your model would not work over here because of those factors

iii) without wishing to abuse anyone but could someone find evidence of UK troops being armed with these civilian weapons? I know that the lend-lease destroyers (for which you recieved bases throughout the world) were for the most part not up to the task of U Boat hunting in the Atlantic. I would also suggest that the percieved idea that your army "donating" arms to us cost you lives in the pacific......if anything cost you lives over there it was the chronic mismanagement of the military (the torpedo crisis, the racist stereotyping of the japanese (esp pilots and aircraft)) as well as the skill with which the Japanese carried out the first months of their campaign. Also the tanks that we recieved (this is an opinion that the Russians and Germans held as well) were not as good as the native models, except briefly in 1942 when the Sherman appeared in North Africa (and the Sherman only became effective after the Firefly-conversion). Basically please dont blame us for your own failings, for every Bastogne there is a Kasserine or Omaha Beach.

iv) i have never misquoted facts, you have far more gun murders than we do, both in the actual number of incidents and when viewed against the population size

v) i would also challenge the notion that the Eastern Bloc countries were "socialist" in any way other than name only. "Oligarchic / Fascist" would be a better term.

[Bog]

Agricola,

Your comment about Union Carbide coughing up $300 per Bhopali life is specious: that's the act of a private company, not of a state. And, if you want to get ultra-picky, that $300 in Bhopal is probably equivalent to you or I getting a major Lottery win.

Having spent some time noodling over the numbers, I think it's innaccurate to say that the US has more gun murders proportionately than the UK. It has more gun killings .

Casting my beady gaze back over the thread to Tamara's story, if she had pulled the trigger, that would not have been a murder as far as anyone with half a brain was concerned. Also, I think that any Brit caught in the same circumstance would have lacked the self-discipline to have refrained from pulled the trigger. Being unused to the power of a gun as a symbol of self-protection, and subscribing to your self-stated purpose of pulling a gun (to whit, killing someone), the only recourse they would have seen was to fire, not to threaten.

Got some number to check here, but I'll get back to you

[agricola]

Bog,

The stats from the start of the post, courtesy of free spirit:

"UK: 42 gun murders in 1999 (pop 56,000,000)

US: 30,708 gun deaths in 1998 (pop 286,743,739)

spot the difference?

Nightcrawler, yes there is still a very tiny amount of gun crime in the UK, but look at the difference."

When (and this is based on other posts here) the amount of "justifiable homicides", accidents and suicides is taken out of the figure, that leaves 9000 murders committed with a gun
per year , which works out as (and me maths is poor) about 1800 per year comparitively in the UK (and 5000 "gun deaths") pa. My maths is not that bad to realise that approximately 1800 is more than 42.

With regards to Union Carbide, that was a lawsuit brought by the victims in the States, the court appointed figure worked out to $300; thats a state decision.

[Bog]

Agricola,

I've maintained all along that the UK is not ready for personal possession of firearms. My god! We agree on something!

It's the moratorium on defense as a whole I worry about.

[ChrisR246]

On the other hand...

Crimes stopped or prevented by Private Firearm Ownership

U.S. ~ 1.5 Million (taken as the rough average from several studies) (Do a quick search of this site for references)

U.K. ~ 0 (Given the almost complete absence of private fireams ownership and the attitude (both legal and social) towards self defense.

My maths is not that bad to realise that approximately 1800 is more than 42.

Then you should also be able to realize that approxiamtely 1,500,000 is more than approximately 0.

[Apple a Day]

1)No one has yet answered Oleg's question- his premise that before WWII the British apparently managed to own personal firearms but they seem to have vanished afterwards. When/why the change? Was it the Dublain shooting? In my skewed perception it seems to have started before then. Anyone want to address this?

2)As Thumper's mom said so well [much respect to your mom, Thumper!] England was invented before firearms while America was invented USING firearms. Don't even mention Bellisiles . That seems to say a lot about the perspectives from opposing sides of the pond.

[HankB]

Don Gwinn: Thank you for actually reading my post and pointing out that I wasn't talking about an individual's worth as a person, but his value as an employee. A person whose skills are in demand WILL command a higher "price" for his labor than one whose skills are not in demand.

On murders and murder rates: A 20-year study of murders in Chicago indicated that slightly more than two thirds of murder "victims" are themselves criminals, putting their deaths into the "good riddance" category. IF this is representative of the nation as a whole, extrapolating this would indicate that total number of "bad" murders is probably closer to 3000 than it is to the 9000 cited.

Another study compared murders in Seattle (less restrictive gun laws) with Vancouver (Canada - stricter gun laws) and initially concluded that Seattle's higher murder rate was due to it's less restricive gun laws. HOWEVER - and this is a MAJOR point - when demographics were examined, it turned out that the murder rate among non-Hispanic Caucasions was actually a bit lower in Seattle than it was in Vancouver! In fact, ALL of the difference - I repeat, ALL of the difference was accounted for by murders in the minority community, which is somewhat different (in many ways) in the two cities. When this politically unpalatable reality came to light, it caused even gun control proponents to drop the study like the proverbial hot potato. The point being, factors OTHER than guns are at work here.

agricola wrote:

I know that the lend-lease destroyers (for which you recieved bases throughout the world) were for the most part not up to the task of U Boat hunting in the Atlantic.

Perhaps. In that era, destroyers were known as torpedo boat destroyers, an indication of their mission. It's not commonly known, but those 50 destroyers weren't pressed into service immediately anyway - they went in for refitting. A MAJOR part of the refitting consisted of making the officer's quarters larger and the enlisted quarters smaller. British navy traditions, you know - can't have those cheeky sailors getting above themselves now, can we? (When the best Brit of the 20th century was asked about RN traditions, he described them as "...rum, buggery, and the lash.")

salt: I popped in to see what the fuss was all about at that Brit board. I've never seen as little rational debate or as many "F-words" or "S-words" thrown at you as on that board. Rationality went out the window, and name-calling took over. And rather than engage in civilized discourse, they appear to have "banned" the one they were cussing out! (And they're still continuing in your absence!) Guess this teaches you a lesson - when you wrestle with a pig, all you get is dirty . . . and the pig, well, he enjoys it!

[Ben Swenson]

Agricola:
You know no other way to measure human worth other than with a dollar (or pound) sign. Since - to your way of thinking - human life has a 'market value', and that a given person's wages are a direct representation of this market value, the idea that someone would get higher wages implies that they are a better person than you. Therefore, jealousy is a completely understood condition. It is not too much of a stretch to take this to the next level and state that because my very existence is worth only what I pull down per year, if someone works out approximately how much I would make in a lifetime then they could buy me outright for whatever purposes they desired and that is silly.

Many - dare I say, most - others on this board feel that a human has worth beyond money. Some might even take offense at your concept that a human life is worth no more than their income - because not all of us have large incomes. We reconcile this by telling ourselves that human existence is something important and something worthwhile - beyond a market price.

You might ask: "But how can you justify self defense and carrying a *gasp* handgun?"

Very simple, because I value my life and the life of those I love over the life of an attacker who has already shown himself to have no regard for others and have no concept of self-responsibility.

There seems to be an issue with the British locus of control (in general - there are exceptions). It seems that many of you feel that you are incapable of controlling anything yourself and must entrust your well-being to a faceless, omniscient, omnipotent and beneficient State that you don't trace back to stemming from yourself and your fellow citizens. This goes a long way towards seeing why you feel a firearm is such an evil thing. Because you don't feel that an individual is capable of being responsible with power, they should not have access to something that might be used for ill. Why, certainly a specially trained, faceless armed response unit or the military is capable of holding back the evil inheirent in a gun, but only as an organization - not as individuals.

This "reasoning" is utterly alien to me.

"Mommie, I don't make any money and Agricola says I'm not worth anything as a human being ... am I?"
"Of course you're worth something, dear. Human flesh goes for upwards of $120 per pound on the black market. And think of the money you've got in your organs alone!"

[Oakleaf]

Agricola

I raised your mis-quotation of facts.

In no particular order and by no means a definative list -

1. No UK history of an armed populace - Please note the number of pubs called the Volunteer or Volunteer Rifleman. These stem from a time - within the twentieth century when 'ordinary citizens' performed military rifle practise - often with their own purchased rifles - which they retained. These individual numbered tens of thousands plus.

There is no ready comparison between the US and UK - they, as you highlight, are different nations with different outlooks ( certainly now ) . I shoot, but would support your apparent contention that the application of US style firearm laws here would be a problem ( massive understatement ).


2. Shooting is for the rich - very Marxist! My salary is roughly the same as yours. Regardless, I shot when I had to collect and return bottles for the deposit to buy cartridges and as a student etc etc. I shoot with Doctors, Lawyers, Policemen, Window Cleaners, a septic tank emptier ( though not too close ) - it's a broad pew. Please don't paste us with a global stereo-type. Do chinless wonders shoot - sure - some do. Of those I have met, they are a selection of the good, bad and indifferent - like the rest of society.

3. Firearms law was tightened in the 1960's following the terrible shooting of several officers - Correct. However, the 1966 Act actually tightened firearms more than shotguns - the latter having been used in that particular crime. Further legislation followed Hungerford and Dunblane - terrible tragedies both.
Hungerford - a man used an AK47 and a Berretta 92F - both on FAC. However, he held numerous firearms 'off ticket ' - ie illegally. Nothing at law could have prevented that rampage. The resultant legislation did not cover handguns nor seek to discover why.
All experience from the US and Europe suggested that such 'antisocial' actions would increase. Instead of trying to find a solution, the Government ( s ) copped out each and every time.
Aside from being a shooter, I am a member of society. The next person to blow out could just as easily take me or one of my loved ones - I want a genuine answer/ solution.
Dunblane - handguns were used. There is clear evidence that local police had sufficient grounds to consider the shooter an unacceptable person to hold a FAC - but no action was taken. Again the mindset appears to have been such that some other weapon or illegal guns may have been used. A detailed enquiry was held and further restrictions imposed. All the controlling measures recommended in the report were applied - even though some were intended only if certain handguns remained. The law has created several years of confusion on both the part of the police and legitimate shooters - because it was ill considered law.

It has not and does not address the problem - it was never identified. We all remain at risk.

3. Fewer and fewer firearms make for a better society.

Each successive piece of legislation has seen a further tragedy occur. This argues for all types of firearm to be banned? Or does it suggest there is some fundamental flaw in that approach?
The first real legislation followed WW1 when there was fear of communist revolution. That marked the turn away from a government of the people to one in fear of them. With reduced responsibility, individuals within society have adapted to lower standards of self responsibility for their conduct and actions.

Current firearms crime levels are increasing - most employing types of firearm that have been subject to strict control or prohibition going back at least 30 years. You mention importation - leading to the 'obvious' solution - if all guns were banned etc. Chicago Police / Politictians were in uproar a few years back regards their baseball bat problem - do you catch my drift.

Criminals are not bothered by the Firearms Act. Legitimate shooters in the UK are - by definition - not criminals. The only shooter that springs to mind as a criminal was Douglas Hurd - the Home Secretary in 1987 - he had a previous arrest for illegal possession of a shotgun! Perhaps that fuels Agri's point on UK class!

The most recent police statistics show only one force with ZERO firearms offences in the reporting period - 2000-2001 ( I think ). That was Northern Constabulary. Thats a rural area - though with some towns etc. Interestingly, it has the highest rate of firearms ownership.

Not extensive - I have to sign off at the moment. I look forward to reading your response.

[dischord]

I've been following this thread with interest, and I'll make these contributions, none of which answer whether UK LEOs should be armed, but do address some points brought up.

1) Looking at merely two data points -- UK and US -- is insufficient to draw a correlation. Without a correlation, you cannot make conclusions about the effectiveness of gun control.

2) Looking at many nations, you can find all four possibilities: a) gun control : low violence; b) gun control : high violence; c) gun freedom : high violence; d) gun freedom : low violence. The alleged correlation does not appear -- thus you cannot assert a conclusion.

3) Looking at the US, the same pattern emerges among the states. High violence and low violence do not cluster around the availability of firearms, but around regions. For example, New England and the Midwest are low violence, but within those regions are states with both high gun and low gun availability.

4) UK's historically low murder cannot be attributed to gun control. It not only existed prior to gun control (the alleged classist nature of gun ownership notwithstanding), but violence went up after it occured. I'm not asserting that gun control caused the rise; I'm simply pointing out that if your goal was to empty the bucket, your bucket has filled -- no correlation; no conclusion.

5) We Americans are murderous. That has little to do with guns. Our non-gun murder rate is higher than the UK murder rate by all means, guns included. Get rid of all our guns, and we'd still be more murderous -- and remember the theory of weapon substitution; many of the current gun murders would be by other means.

6) Nonetheless, the US gun murder rate has been falling for the past 9 or so years. While the non-gun murder rate is falling too, it is not falling nearly as fast. If the trend continues for another decade or more, non-gun murders will outpace gun murders (I'm not saying this will happen; predictions 10+ years into the future are notoriously shakey. I'm just making a point about the independence of rising and falling murders to the level of gun availability.)

7) I don't think the British would go on a killing spree with greater access to guns. While the British seem equally or more willing to commit other crimes of violence, they don't murder like we Americans. The English have at least equal access to all non-gun methods of murder; yet they kill one and other with those non-gun means at much lower rates than we kill with non-gun means.

8) Someone keeps bringing up the 30,000 gun deaths per year (actually, by latest figures, it's about 28,000 in 1999; down from nearly 40,000 in about 1993 -- a bigger drop when you look at rates in a growing population.) In any event, that 30,000 includes suicides. Suicides are clearly independent of means. The UK and the US, for example have comparable levels of suicide even though the US level is weighted heavily with guns, while the UK's is not. (And if you want to see the theory of weapon substitution at work, research the breathtaking rise in hanging suicide among male Australian youth in recent years.)

9) If you are going to lump murder and suicide together in the US figures, then you need to lump them together in UK figures. Not only that, you need to compare all murder/suicides, not just those by guns. The point is to lower death, not just death by gun. ("Gee, Mrs. Jones, you're the luckiest woman in the world -- your son didn't shoot himself, he slit his wrists!"). A certain segment of any society lives self-destructively -- this leads to murders and suicides in some (a large portion of US murders are not random; they occur to people in criminal circles). If you compare US and UK murder/suicides by all means, you start to see more similar rates. If you add in other deaths due to self-destructive lifestyles (overdoses, reckless driving, etc.) it really equals. How much does means-substitution play a part? (I'm not suggesting that people are necessarily "to blame" for their deaths; just that certain lifestyles are risky.)

10) I'd like to see more information about the conversion of fake guns to real guns in the UK. My understanding was that the problem was that they were used to bluff people ("stick 'em up; I got a gun"), not that they were converted -- but I'm not up to speed on that particular issue. Incidentally, if true, it does not prove that gun control lowers access to guns; at best, it proves that gun control lowers access to comercially made guns. (And don't the IRA, UDF et al. use gunsmiths as well as smuggling?)

[Thumper]

Mornin' Ag,

without wishing to abuse anyone but could someone find evidence of UK troops being armed with these civilian weapons? I know that the lend-lease destroyers (for which you recieved bases throughout the world) were for the most part not up to the task of U Boat hunting in the Atlantic. I would also suggest that the percieved idea that your army "donating" arms to us cost you lives in the pacific......if anything cost you lives over there it was the chronic mismanagement of the military (the torpedo crisis, the racist stereotyping of the japanese (esp pilots and aircraft)) as well as the skill with which the Japanese carried out the first months of their campaign. Also the tanks that we recieved (this is an opinion that the Russians and Germans held as well) were not as good as the native models, except briefly in 1942 when the Sherman appeared in North Africa (and the Sherman only became effective after the Firefly-conversion). Basically please dont blame us for your own failings, for every Bastogne there is a Kasserine or Omaha Beach.

Didn't the irony of typing all that in English instead Auf Deutche almost cramp your hands up?

[agricola]

Many many responses,

Oakleaf: how many people that live in a truly urban setting, ie: manchester, liverpool, birmingham etc go shooting? Is the average income of the average shooter higher than the non-shooter? I think you will find that it is. Also there is no comparable history of an "armed populace" vis a vis the US; pre-military training in the era of conscription is something quite different. With regard to the specifics of the Firearms Act, a "sawnoff" shotgun is regarded as a section-5 firearm, for which one needs the licence of a secretary of state....this would never be forthcoming so it is de facto an illegally held Section 1 Firearm. Fewer and fewer firearms does not make for a better society, it only makes for a more armed one. The only difference that mass firearms ownership would make is that robbers / murderers etc would now commit their crimes with guns instead of knives.

Cordex: Please read the post next time. The system of capital values man based on his or her earning-power, read Bog's views on the victims of Bhopal or read the history of any multinational company that plies its trade in the developed world; or look at your Nike trainers or Gap sweatshirt. I agree that man is worth more than money but there is no evidence that anyone in the higher echelons of the International Business World feels the same way, or acts upon it if they do feel it . Also, is having "no respect for others" a sufficent reason for which you can end someones life? Is them being a criminal? Plus why do you equate having a social support system as a bad thing? Or a democratic state?

HankB: i appreciate this probably isnt what you meant but does that mean that guns are alright as long as criminals dont use them? or only use them on themselves? Also, torpedo boat destroyer is the correct term for those ships. Most were of WW1 vintage and lacked the range and compatability with ASDIC that made them useless for the purpose for which they were required, ie: the ocean escort of the Atlantic Convoys, which British destroyers and corvettes were doing since the start of the war, very successfully (HMS Starling et al).

You all seem to demand the rights of the citizen, then ignore the reason that the overwhelming majority of the UK population dont want armed Police is because that they dont want them , like it or not there is no need for us to have armed Police because we do not have a problem with violent gun crime. We have a problem with violent crime, especially robbery at the moment but that can be dealt with by better education, more police, a more robust court system and the redesign of the main problem, which sadly is something as idiotic as mobile telephones.