Not so surprising when you remember who is head of the armed forces 
Our POTUS is CinC of our armed services, but has Secret Service bodyguards.
I’m sure you meant to put a smilie somewhere in that post 
70’s/80’s rebel songs and Loyalist/Nationalist murals in Northern Ireland are not what we base national policy on. I’m sure you would agree that the guns referenced in those pictures and song brought nothing but pain and anguish to my Island.
Or are you some kind of terrorist sympathiser
Yeah, it’s just like that. :rolleyes:
To make your metaphor work, imagine that you are a cat person. You love cute little kittens, but everyone else assumes that because you own kittens, you’re some kind of pervert who wants to eat them or kick their heads in or something. So you have to make an excuse, like you’re a ‘biologist who is studying feline anatomy’ or something, just to be able to practice your hobby in peace.
That’s kind of what (I’m assuming) it’s like. I’ve never lived in the UK, but reading this and other message boards makes me think Brits are superstitious paranoids who believe guns are a volatile piece of metal that will explode and kill random people if you look at them wrong. If you own one, you must enthusiastically accept and support the death of anyone harmed by any firearm anywhere.
I would think that a person that recognises the ease with which a group can be generalised and hyperbolised would be more wary of doing the same thing themselves.
IOW, you shouldn’t castigate anti-gun prejudice on one hand, whilst supporting pro-gun prejudice with the other. Those who own guns aren’t all redneck, wild-shooting fetishists, and those who don’t aren’t all wussy, paranoid idiots.
That’s just silly on so many levels.
True, but I suppose that’s not quite the same as what I meant. It’s not just that she’s commander-in-chief, but that symbolically they are actually her army. The president doesn’t get to have his emblem incorporated into the equivalent of the British Army badge and into insignia, for example.
It’s more like: “the British believe that more guns around, in general, will result in more people getting shot.” Now of course, reasonable people can disagree on that perception, but there’s nothing inherently paranoid or superstitious about it.
I suppose a link to wherever you got that from would have been out of the question - instead of cutting and pasting the whole durn thing? :dubious:
Anyway, some people in the world appreciate suicide bombs and flying hijacked planes into office blocks, but that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
I gave a list of gun incidents.
We’ve never had a Waco (74 dead), nor a Philadelphia (A state police helicopter this evening dropped a bomb on a house occupied by an armed group after a 24-hour siege) in this country, for example.
Maybe you’re de-sensitised to gun crime.
‘Armed teenage gangs’, ‘drive-by shootings’ and ‘school shootings’ are regular occurences in the US?
If the criminals are using guns, then it may well have something to do with gun culture.
You don’t know much about guns, do you? :rolleyes:
They don’t explode, they fire bullets.
Clearly you are an exception to the vast majority of US citizens.
Apparently you think having regular US school shootings makes gun ownership worthwhile.
I’m personally not offended, just bemused really, that you can read so much politics into something that’s largely irrelevant to what you’re talking about, which is the desire amongst the general populus NOT to own and use guns.
You are also talking about dozens of different nations, with the word “European”, with varied and various histories and cultural mores. The French, for example, overthrew that elite just after you guys overthrew yours. And the French attitude towards personal gun ownership is largely the same as ours in the UK.
If you want to take the UK as an example, we are happy to have the defense services have guns to protect those things we hold dear. If that is an armed response unit dealing with a domestic incident, fair enough; if it’s Heathrow airport, fair enough; if it’s the royal family - well, I’m not a monarchist, but - fair enough.
Hunting in England generally means riding with horses and hounds to catch a fox. As has been said, shooting to hunt, outside of the grouse moors, stag hunts, and pheasant shoots in unpopulated areas, would endanger too many people - we’re rather crowded here.
Guns aren’t banned, by the way. Anyone can apply for one. They just have to indicate they are of good character, and have a necessity for one.
As here. It’s just a bit expensive, and requires a serious intent to get into it.
See here in Britain we recognise that when some nutter invades a school it’s better if he doesn’t have a gun.
We also know that a knife can cut vegetables, but that a gun is for killing only.
A nuclear bomb is just a tool. It takes a person to carry one in a suitcase. Don’t ban nuclear bombs!
Charming. ‘Guns prevent STDs’ do they?
Could you explain how there is any crime in the US when there are so many guns available for self-defence?
Do you think that criminals are more ready to act if they have a gun?
Then why are your police armed?
Interesting. I post that the US is ‘is packed full of decent hard-working honest peaceful people’ and you imply we called you barbaric.
Well you are. Not in the completely over-the-top way of DrCube, but he supports your views.
Are you saying that the US police don’t go after criminals?
Are you saying that the UK police don’t go after criminals?
Do you object to police going after criminals’ bank accounts? Tracking the cars they use? Looking up the phone numbers they call?
Why should going after the weapons they use be any different?
Demonstrably untrue.
I think I’m right in saying that the number of shotgun licences is in the millions. Anyway, there’s a reason I can go to my local butcher and buy a wild rabbit or woodpigeon for less than the cost of a supermarket broiler chicken.
Yes, yes - that is a bit patronizing. And wrong. For one thing, from what I’ve observed, the stratification of US society is way beyond what I’ve ever seen in Europe. Royals (where such exist, which certainly isn’t all of Europe) should be thought of as an embodiment of a nation and they get to enjoy privileges not because of their persons, but because they’re ripe targets for symbol-minded people who have a beef with the nation. They’re exceptionally well-guarded for the same reason that the original US constitution is: Because an attack on them is an attack on the nation. Allegiance is owed to the Crown, not the one wearing it.
(Also, of course, it’s tradition - goes back to King Canute’s housecarls, if not further. Armed forces lean on tradition as well as outmoded concepts like honor and courage. Guarding royalty is an honor. (I’ve done so myself)).
What freedoms are those? The freedom of walking around like a human target? Salman Rushdie is also surrounded by armed guards, do you consider his situation privileged? Having the need to be protected by armed response is not considered an enviable situation.
You seem to be assuming that everyone would or should be wanting a society with widespread ownership of firearms, given the choice. It’s just not so. Someone else pointed out that firearms are just tools, and it’s not a bad point - it;s just that some tools are better left in the hands of professionals. I like to compare firearms to 18-wheelers - needed and useful at times, but if they’re going to be rolling around on city streets, I think there has to be a bona fide need and I’m much happier if I know that they’re operated by trained people.
We know of guns. A lot of us have been in the armed forces, what with National Service being widespread. We’re just not that interested.
As is the case in most of Europe. Population density is higher, so land for hunting gets more expensive - but it’s not out of reach and there’s certainly no class barriers to cross. My decidedly blue-collar BIL in Denmark hunts deer. Licensing requirements are a bit tougher, because a bullet that flies wild has a bigger chance of hitting something or someone it shouldn’t - but it’s not at all impossible, nor is it outrageously expensive, nor are working-class people ostracized.
I suspect the thread has degenerated (as this topic often does) beyond repair.
Just to clear up my experience - I teach in an English school which has a shooting range (.22 rifles; 50 and 75 yard ranges) and enters school teams in National shooting competitions.
My best score at 50 yards was an average of 8.8, which I attribute to the School Instructor being ex-SAS. 
(The pupils usually ask him “How many people have you killed?!”, to which he replies “It’ll be one more if you don’t shut up and listen to my safety lecture.” 
)
I know about ear defenders, gun safety, loading and unloading .22 rifles, prone firing position, sighting and breathing control.
One of my best mates was in Special Branch and was armed for protection duties (including two Prime Ministers). He trained for years to first qualify and then keep his status to carry.
One thing all the people mentioned in this post have in common is that despite being well-trained, they don’t want guns for self-defence. That’s the way it is here.
I tell people I’m an animal trainer.
Well, I suppose you could use the butt for knocking in nails. Go on, what else have you got?
I have five guns and I have never used any of them to kill anyone.
You can target-shoot with a gun. Marksmanship. It’s a great form of meditation.
You can hunt animals with a gun.