Changing attitudes about firearms

[BigShot]

xylaria
Police to investigate the crime, arrest a suspect and hand them over to the CPS.
Army to defend against foreign threats.

Who protects the individual from attacks by predators?

I'd hate to see anarchy as the rule in the UK (though if a group want to live in an anarchist way - that's fine by me - just don't try and make me be part of it)

I'm not talking about anarchy, but about free citizens, in a free society, taking the steps they deem necessary to defend themselves against the attacks of predators.

Several years ago, the FBI and a "research" university conducted interviews of criminals in prison. They asked a number of questions, including what those criminals feared the most - laws, police, etc. The number one fear mentioned by those criminals was the ... armed citizen! Especially amongst criminals that did home burglery, muggings, rapes, etc. They said that the Laws didn't bother them unless they got caught, and then only if their lawyer couldn't get them off. And the cops were easy to get around - since the cops could not be everywhere at once. Plus the cops had to ...try ... to arrest them. But they most feared running into an armed citizen.

Several years ago, a court case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The decision? The police are not ... legally obligated ... to protect you!!!!! They are only legally obligated to show up eventually, investigate the crime, and then try to solve it and catch the person who committed that crime. Such a comforting decision by the top Court here in the US. It gives new meaning to that joke phrase:

Call 911? Government sponsored ... Dial A Prayer!

Thanks for posting that.
Always insightful I think.

 

[Toddy]

To take a tangent on the view that life ought to mean life; the 19 year old who got roped into armed robbery is not the same man when he is 30, or 40 or 60 or 95.

Is prison *really* an effective tool ? It burdens society, it facilitates no change in behaviour except a cultural reafirmation of criminality, the vast majority re-offend.

cheers,
Toddy.....who can accept with equanimity the necessity for the Scottish 'Not Proven' verdict

 

[BigShot]

Life means life is good. Over 300 italian lifers have patitioned the government for the right to be executed, a real Life sentence may actually be less humane!
death penality, again is subject to national attitude. it is not effective in america where death takes place usually a decade later after countless appeals. it is effective in singapore where there is no if's buts or maybes and the sentence is very swiftly carried out.

A huge problem I have with the death penalty is the complete lack of means to correct any miscarriage of justice.

I saw an interview with an American guy who sat on Death Row for a while as an innocent man. Thankfully he was released after a very long and hard fight (he might have been there after the police or prosecutions falsified evidence, or used the actual perp as a prosecution witness or some such) - in places like Singapore he'd be dead.
I couldn't possibly condone the death penalty as it means the court-sanctioned deaths of innocents - inexcusable.

Think that lad might have been on the Penn and Teller - Bull**** episode about the Death Penalty. See youtube if you want to watch it - it sums up some of my personal objections quite well actually.

 

[Mike Ameling]

In the end, this issue is an ... emotional ... issue.

And "emotional" issues are seldom changed by facts, statistics, logic, discussion --- only by more "emotion". It usually takes a HUGE preponderance of good information to make someone change a view on an "emotional" issue.

It's just the way we think/believe.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[BigShot]

To take a tangent on the view that life ought to mean life; the 19 year old who got roped into armed robbery is not the same man when he is 30, or 40 or 60 or 95.

Is prison *really* an effective tool ? It burdens society, it facilitates no change in behaviour except a cultural reafirmation of criminality, the vast majority re-offend.

cheers,
Toddy.....who can accept with equanimity the necessity for the Scottish 'Not Proven' verdict

A fair and well made point.
Reason number 1 that I'm personally NOT inclined to agree with the sentence "life without parole".

I believe life means life is a better deterrent than death, but the opportunity for parole is, I believe, a key part in rehabilitation.

Prison to remove the threat they pose to society - but that should be coupled with rehabilitation and post-release support. (where they are released that is)


That said, I think the best deterrent is that given by those prisoners questioned in the USA.
The thing criminals fear the most is an armed citizen, not the law, not prison and not the police. Joe average, with his sidearm.

 

[durulz]

This happened in the US, reported today:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090107/twl-boy-of-four-shoots-babysitter-3fd0ae9.html
Legally owned. Non-criminal. Non-defence.
Not one of your 'rights' and 'responsibilities' to own a gun adds up to the value of the loss of this life. Not ONE.
Explain it away without looking a fool... And don't you DARE say how saddened and unfortunate it was - you condone gun ownership!

 

[Toddy]

Joe Average with his sidearm, if he uses it, regardless of the provocation, is still guilty of at least armed assault and at worst murder.
The law holds no differences for crimes of passion or of fear in the UK.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Ahjno]

A reminder to keep it clean people. Don't start to detoriate this thread by using foul language; otherwise this one will be put to bed.

Thank you very muchly

 

[BigShot]

Bloody hell - how can an unsupervised 4 year old get his hands on a gun, load and fire it?
durulz - I condone RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Leaving guns lying around in such a manner is nothing of the sort.
End of story.

I'll say how saddened I am (and how dare you say I can't be saddened by it purely because I argue for and see the benefits of private gun ownership) - but while it's a waste of a life - it was preventable WITHOUT needing to prohibit the private ownership of guns - it was preventable just by locking the guns away while out of the home and bringing the key with you - simple enough really.

Show me a case where a kid picked the lock of a proper gun cabinet and shot a babysitter and we'll have an intelligent discussion about that one.



Toddy - under current UK law, you're right - but I don't for a minute think the only thing that needs changing is gun law. I think the entire legal status of self defence, including lethal force, needs throwing out and re-writing.
In the US there's nothing that allows people to shoot whenever someone looks at them funny - their law, for the most part, is entirely sensible and makes a distinction between someone trigger happy eejit and someone who shot an attacker in self defence.

I'm not saying everyone should carry a gun and that everyone carrying one should use it at every opportunity, just that people should be allowed to carry one if they desire (and meet the criteria in safety, marksmanship, criminal history and mental health) and that if it were the case that people could be legally armed and backed by law if they did use that weapon for legitimate reasons - society would be much safer than it is today.

I for one WOULD carry a sidearm, however I'd be very much disinclined to use it unless I was in a pretty dire situation - and I don't think some junkie after the cash in my wallet is dire enough to warrant a hole in his chest.

 

[Oblio13]

Joe Average with his sidearm, if he uses it, regardless of the provocation, is still guilty of at least armed assault and at worst murder.
The law holds no differences for crimes of passion or of fear in the UK...

In the US, we still have the right of self defense. In a nutshell, we are required to retreat if able, except in our own homes.

I've drawn a pistol once as a Marine officer-of-the-day to capture a burglar, and once as a civilian when three "minority youths" confronted me in a parking garage late at night. No shots fired either time, so I'm not part of any statistics, but I'm a believer. At the very least, I would have been robbed if I had not had the means to defend myself.

 

[durulz]

I for one WOULD carry a sidearm, however I'd be very much disinclined to use it unless I was in a pretty dire situation - and I don't think some junkie after the cash in my wallet is dire enough to warrant a hole in his chest.

I'll ignore the sub-Hollywood 'hole in his chest' dialogue, but tell me - what situation would provoke you to shoot at someone?
I suppose I should come clean and add that my point in asking this is that I find it interesting that your first thought is to kill - why not shoot to wound or disable? Don't you see the dilemma? Come on - they were your words - doesn't this make sense? Doesn't some light start shining and you can see the issue here? Really?

 

[BigShot]

I'll ignore your apparently elitist view of language and the condescending manner in which you brushed aside what I had to say, but I'll take one of the situations I've actually been in and insert a firearm into it.

I got off the bus and started walking home, I heard "hey!", ignored it and kept walking. I heard "hey - come here!", ignored it and kept walking.
After turning a corner and walking about 50 yards more I heard one final "hey - I want to talk to you", looked over my shoulder and saw two men following me.
Having seen both of them around the neighbourhood since childhood I didn't think anything of it and said "what's up?"
There followed a brief accusation that I'd been giving them "dirty looks" on the bus - which I denied and at this point realised what was coming. Being unarmed, outnumbered, and not exactly a big guy or a capable fighter (thanks in part to my injured wrist and in part to the lack of training or fighter's instinct) I tried to walk away - for which I recieved a pretty savage beating.

That's what really happened - now the same again with a gun...
....which I denied and at this point realised what was coming. Knowing I was ounumbered, unlikely to get away and seriously unlikely to win a fist fight with two men both of whom were larger than I and up for a fight I wasn't expecting - I drew my gun and shouted at them to go away.

Here's where it goes a bit "choose your own adventure".
If they run away (which is far more likely) I make safe and holster the gun, walk the rest of the way home and inform the police that two guys tried to attack me and were scared off - leaving it up to them to see if they find anyone in the area.
If they advance on me I now know their intentions towards are really quite bad - they MUST be if they advance on someone pointing a gun at their chest - and I pull the trigger - immediately I start first aid while phoning for police and an ambulance.
I wouldn't be happy about it, but at least I wouldn't have had a beating at the hands of 2 people I didn't even take as a threat at first.

HOWEVER (and this is an important point)
If we lived in a society where handguns could legally be carried for self defence and had laws that defended victims rather than criminals I don't believe the attack would have happened in the first place.


I believe a similar situation would have unfolded (again - IF it would have unfolded at all) the time I was attacked, beaten, robbed and left with a back injury by a gang of 8.

 

[durulz]

Yes, and in a similar situation 'where handguns could legally be carried' they may also have had one?
OK, I'll leave it at that.
I've read nothing that changes my mind. I'll bow out of this discussion.

 

[Oblio13]

Okay, I have to tell a couple stories, too. Once as a young Marine officer-of-the-day, I used my duty sidearm to catch and hold a burglar in one of our barracks. A couple decades afterwards, carrying as a civilian, I was confronted late at night in a parking garage by three 'minority youths'. They backed me up against my car, and I drew my legally carried, concealed pistol. They ran away.

No shots fired either time, so I'm not part of any statistics. But I'm sure a believer.

 

[BigShot]

They may also have had one if handguns were legal... but that is still the case now that they aren't - so what exactly is the benefit of them being illegal?
The only difference I see it making is that now I'm an unarmed victim completely incapable of defending myself against most attacks (and probably acting against the law if I do)

But the simple fact that the possibility of me being armed would have made it far less likely that the attack would have happened at all is an important point.

These guys weren't out to rob me - they had nothing to gain - they made no attempt to deprive me of any property.
They didn't want to kill me as is evident by the fact I wasn't stabbed, shot or beaten to death (or anywhere close).
They just wanted to hurt me, to attack and beat me up - nothing more, nothing less.

How do you hold the view that if I was carrying a gun an attack like that would have happened as it did - or even that the possibility of me being armed wouldn't have gone a long way to deterring the attack?
It just doesn't stand up under logic - it makes no sense at all.

 

[BigShot]

Oblio - always good to ear other positive non-lethal accounts of the very presence of firearms stopping a crime from happening.
Good on you for being level headed with it and not just seeing it as an excuse to kill someone.

Course - it'd be better if these situations never happened at all - but the day that happens is the day after judgement day and trumpet sound.

 

[Oblio13]

Yes, and in a similar situation 'where handguns could legally be carried' they may also have had one?
OK, I'll leave it at that.
I've read nothing that changes my mind. I'll bow out of this discussion.

Criminals by definition don't worry too much about the legalities of gun ownership. Handguns are banned in our most violent cities - Washington, NY, Chicago - but all the bans seem to have done is to make law abiding citizens helpless.

One thing I've noticed about all the movers and shakers in the anti-gun movement here - Rosie Odonnel, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, George Soros, etc.: They all have 24/7 armed security.

 

[Toddy]

There was a case not so long ago of a black American gang member who came over here and behaved as he would have done at home. I believe our police described him as mentally ill
Different culture, different responses.

My brother has never let me forget that I am the reason he never got our Father's .22 rifle.
I was a quick learner and observant. I watched my Dad clean his rifle and put it away. I also watched where he stashed the key.
I dragged a stool over to the bookcase, climbed the stool and unlocked the door, unlocked the box the key was in and took the key to the gun chest.
I unlocked the chest and my shocked and horrified Father and older brother found a two year old me sitting playing with the shiny bullets.

Children are just that, but they are by no means stupid. ( can't programme the video ? find a three year old )
If the society in which they are reared considers guns to be a normal part of daily life, and an acceptance of the use of the gun as a suitable social response to an offensive situation then the child is simply behaving as society advocates.

I personally think the gun owning fraternity got it wrong in this country.
Instead of responding with the rhetoric of the NRA they ought to have gone down the educational route.
Even if they had provided secure storage for all handguns until the situation had been long considered it would have given a breathing space for a perhaps more balanced legislation.

A much more intense training and accreditation before one might apply to acquire a FAC, a more pro-active attitude instead of a purely defensive one might have swayed more opinion.
Instead the angry and argumentative 'marching' was exactly the image of the people most would not like to see armed.
Now they have real problems even trying to establish a new shooting club or range.
O Tempora! O Mores !

cheers,
Toddy

 

[BigShot]

Good post there Toddy.
That's actually exactly the kind of situation I had in mind when I said the owner of the shotgun used to shoot the babysitter in the US should have locked the gun away and taken the key with them.

I must say, I think I agree with you on the angry marching and education points.

 

[Oblio13]

My daughters each received a .22 at a young age. They were very proud of the responsibility, and it was an excellent way to teach it. We enjoyed many days afield together with them. And one of the most priceless moments of my life: A visitor realized that I had firearms in the house, and asked if I was afraid of my kids getting into them. My little blonde girl piped up and said "We don't mess with his. We have our own."