Changing attitudes about firearms
- Thread starter Oblio13
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
You live in a bigish city - I live in a much bigger one.
I'm in Manchester.
I've been out and about in Leeds and, depending on where I am, have felt relatively safe, to relatively unsafe.
The simple fact is, that while Leeds isn't a small town, it's actually (on the whole) much safer than other smaller places.
It is massively safer than Manchester.
I've been jumped, mugged, beaten up and had narrow escapes more times that I can count. The only time anything was evr done about it by the autorities was a "narrow escape" one. In the case I said I could - once my eyes opened up again - lead the police to the front doors of my attackers and point them out among their families (and one of them has siblings that look a lot like him) they said "there's not much we can do".
Why should the fact YOU have not been in situations which might have been prevented by the presence of firearms mean that nobody else should be able to carry them for their own safety? That's quite apart from the argument of whether guns would have prevented the situation arising, escalating or having a better outcome or not.
We already HAVE the potential for disaster - but that potential is one with armed criminals and unarmed victims. In what universe is that more desirable than a level playing field where the victims of violent crime at least have a chance to fight back instead of just rolling over and being preyed on?
In what universe does the existance of laws allowing self defence and concealed carry INCREASE violent crime rates?
Your fears and discomfort are valid in so far as they are real to you - but they have absolutely no grounding in the real world whatsoever.
Fine - be mugged - be raped - don't take a life - but that you'd deny that choice to everyone else is nothing short of sickening.
No - concealed weapons are not illegal in the US - some areas don't allow them, but many do - and all of those that do allow it enjoy a drop in violent crime - not an increase as found in other areas.
Finally - for LA - is that caused by legal firearm ownership (considering almost all [if not all] of those guns are illegally owned to begin with) or by a lack of effective policing, sentencing and community work to remove the cause of the violence in the first place?
The old expression "Blaming guns for LA ghetto violence (Coumbine in the original) is like blaming spoons and ice cream for Rosie O'Donnel's wieght problem" (or words to that effect) are very appropriate here.
Dogwood - it's a fallacy to argue the gun rights issue (pro or con) using just crime as there's far more to it than that.
However, it can be argued that legal availability or otherwise guns for self defence plays a part in crime trends and so it is a valid argument for shall-issue legislation.
That said - you're right, there is more to it than crime stats.
I'm in Manchester.
I've been out and about in Leeds and, depending on where I am, have felt relatively safe, to relatively unsafe.
The simple fact is, that while Leeds isn't a small town, it's actually (on the whole) much safer than other smaller places.
It is massively safer than Manchester.
I've been jumped, mugged, beaten up and had narrow escapes more times that I can count. The only time anything was evr done about it by the autorities was a "narrow escape" one. In the case I said I could - once my eyes opened up again - lead the police to the front doors of my attackers and point them out among their families (and one of them has siblings that look a lot like him) they said "there's not much we can do".
Why should the fact YOU have not been in situations which might have been prevented by the presence of firearms mean that nobody else should be able to carry them for their own safety? That's quite apart from the argument of whether guns would have prevented the situation arising, escalating or having a better outcome or not.
We already HAVE the potential for disaster - but that potential is one with armed criminals and unarmed victims. In what universe is that more desirable than a level playing field where the victims of violent crime at least have a chance to fight back instead of just rolling over and being preyed on?
In what universe does the existance of laws allowing self defence and concealed carry INCREASE violent crime rates?
Your fears and discomfort are valid in so far as they are real to you - but they have absolutely no grounding in the real world whatsoever.
Fine - be mugged - be raped - don't take a life - but that you'd deny that choice to everyone else is nothing short of sickening.
No - concealed weapons are not illegal in the US - some areas don't allow them, but many do - and all of those that do allow it enjoy a drop in violent crime - not an increase as found in other areas.
Finally - for LA - is that caused by legal firearm ownership (considering almost all [if not all] of those guns are illegally owned to begin with) or by a lack of effective policing, sentencing and community work to remove the cause of the violence in the first place?
The old expression "Blaming guns for LA ghetto violence (Coumbine in the original) is like blaming spoons and ice cream for Rosie O'Donnel's wieght problem" (or words to that effect) are very appropriate here.
Dogwood - it's a fallacy to argue the gun rights issue (pro or con) using just crime as there's far more to it than that.
However, it can be argued that legal availability or otherwise guns for self defence plays a part in crime trends and so it is a valid argument for shall-issue legislation.
That said - you're right, there is more to it than crime stats.
I have said that I would stay out of this one. But people comparing my country to be the Wild west. I have to have my say. To the people that say if you threaten some one with a gun they will just threaten you with one. Wrong If you make me pull my gun I will shoot and shoot to stop
you. You do not threaten with a gun If you have to shoot Shoot don,t talk Shoot. Am I as likely as you to be robed or beaten by some crack
head No If this means I live in the wild west so be it.:swordfigh
Ah...it's all making sense now. Just because you've had some regrettable experiences does not make it a mandate for everyone else. Don't project your experiences on to everyone else and assume it's a self-evident truth.
I'm sure whatever stats we want to use, we would all agree that fewer people have experienced violent behaviour than those who haven't. Why should we legislate for the minority? You seem to want to stick a plaster over the problem. Maybe we'd be better off getting at the cause.
And the 'I live in a REAL tough area, me' argument is particularly weak.
I'm starting to understand you now. It's becoming clearer...
PS As far as criminals right,s they gave up all right,s when they became criminals
Sorry to start another "argument" But Leeds is far bigger than manchester (not greater manchester, which takes in towns all over Lancashire) but the city itself!! FACT.. Leeds is the 3rd largest city in England.
http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html
http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/
http://www.uksuperweb.co.uk/cities/city-populations.html
Just three sites off a very quick Google search.. Sorry to burst your manc bubble mate.
I'll bow out of this now as we will never agree on this issue. I asked early on if you have ever used a gun, you claim no. I have. I have to live with my actions for the rest of my life, both in a dream and waking state. I will never say that guns are a good thing, especially on the street.
Guns on Moss side or chapeltown, no one wins believe me, not the criminal, nor the "legal" owner. I see no real reason in your argument, cept to say, "well I should be allowed". Should you be allowed, hell why not, thats the way of a democracy. Will it server a purpose, most deffinately not, imho of course.
All the best to ya..
http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html
http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/
http://www.uksuperweb.co.uk/cities/city-populations.html
Just three sites off a very quick Google search.. Sorry to burst your manc bubble mate.
I'll bow out of this now as we will never agree on this issue. I asked early on if you have ever used a gun, you claim no. I have. I have to live with my actions for the rest of my life, both in a dream and waking state. I will never say that guns are a good thing, especially on the street.
Guns on Moss side or chapeltown, no one wins believe me, not the criminal, nor the "legal" owner. I see no real reason in your argument, cept to say, "well I should be allowed". Should you be allowed, hell why not, thats the way of a democracy. Will it server a purpose, most deffinately not, imho of course.
All the best to ya..
No one is disputing your right to be either a pacifist or a victim, if that's what you choose for yourself.
In some states and cities concealed weapons are illegal. Ironically, those places tend to have the highest crime rates - NY city, New Jersey, Washington DC, Chicago.
In most states, concealed carry is legal for citizens with no criminal record. Ironically again, those places with the most liberal concealed carry laws - Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming and New Hampshire - have the lowest crime rates.
So you're saying that criminals don't, for example, have the right to due process and a fair trial?
Never been a victim (fingers crossed it stays that way) and most certainly no pacifist! Will fight for what I feel to be right, wether that be legally or physically!!!!!!!
Seems to disprove anothers argument that carrying a concealed weapon would lower the crime rate. thanks for that.
What are you going to do, hit them with your purse?
???
Read it again, more carefully.
durulz...
...I made it clear I'd been attacked WAY back in the thread. that you've only now bothered to bring it up shows desparation.
So let me get it straight, it's perfectly ok for others to say "I've never been in a situation where I'd need one..." - but when someone says "I have" it weakens their argument?
Put the logical fallacies away and try arguing on a level playing field - that said, I don't expect the anti-gun or anti-self-defence brigare to argue on a level playing field when they are actually trying to gain or maintain a distinctly unequal one.
The fact of the matter remains that in violent cities (such as Orlando, Florida - I'll keep mentioning this as long as the antis keep ignoring the validity of the argument and the compelling case it makes for concealled carry) which introduce "shall issue" concealed carry permits combined with effective laws relating to self defence experience a significant drop in violent crime - not the increase you and others are arguing is the case.
Your arguments remain firlmly rooted in the realms of fantasy and your own mistrust of people who want to take responsibility for their own safety and protect themselves from violent attack. Your arguments have no basis in the real world any further than the percieved reality of your own fears.
"Leeds" may be bigger than "Manchester" - but "Greater Manchester" which sits mostly inside and a bit outside the M60 (not all over lancashire) is one connected area under fidderent councils. The fact it is in all other practical senses one single area makes it far larger though.
As for your use of guns - I take it from earlier comments that you mean in combat (I recall you said you were a squaddie) - a situation I hope never to have to face.
I'm sorry that your experiences disturb you.
May I draw a loose analogy (with all the inherent flaws of analogy) that may make my views on this a bit clearer.
If we didn't have an army we wouldn't have to face the decision to go to war and kill people. Fewer of our citizens would die in war.
The fact remains that we need an army to protect against invasions (and indeed to protect other countries) and that to disband it would not only leave us vulnerable - but also increase disorder around the world. It is the very existance of armies that keeps some degree of peace.
Swap armies for guns, and countries for people and you have part of my argument.
You wouldn't (I assume) agree that because some anti-war campaigners and pacifists say there should be no war and no armies that we should disband all armies in non-agressive countries. You wouldn't agree (again, I assume) because you acknowledge that while things might be bad when an army goes to war, things would be far worse if there was no army to go to war when it was needed. I also assume you'd agree that the presence of armies makes the world more peaceful than it would be.
I'm glad we've been able to keep this civil (well, apart from our few back-handed ones, but that's nothing unusual in a cross-pennine discussion anyway! haha)
...I made it clear I'd been attacked WAY back in the thread. that you've only now bothered to bring it up shows desparation.
So let me get it straight, it's perfectly ok for others to say "I've never been in a situation where I'd need one..." - but when someone says "I have" it weakens their argument?
Put the logical fallacies away and try arguing on a level playing field - that said, I don't expect the anti-gun or anti-self-defence brigare to argue on a level playing field when they are actually trying to gain or maintain a distinctly unequal one.
The fact of the matter remains that in violent cities (such as Orlando, Florida - I'll keep mentioning this as long as the antis keep ignoring the validity of the argument and the compelling case it makes for concealled carry) which introduce "shall issue" concealed carry permits combined with effective laws relating to self defence experience a significant drop in violent crime - not the increase you and others are arguing is the case.
Your arguments remain firlmly rooted in the realms of fantasy and your own mistrust of people who want to take responsibility for their own safety and protect themselves from violent attack. Your arguments have no basis in the real world any further than the percieved reality of your own fears.
"Leeds" may be bigger than "Manchester" - but "Greater Manchester" which sits mostly inside and a bit outside the M60 (not all over lancashire) is one connected area under fidderent councils. The fact it is in all other practical senses one single area makes it far larger though.
As for your use of guns - I take it from earlier comments that you mean in combat (I recall you said you were a squaddie) - a situation I hope never to have to face.
I'm sorry that your experiences disturb you.
May I draw a loose analogy (with all the inherent flaws of analogy) that may make my views on this a bit clearer.
If we didn't have an army we wouldn't have to face the decision to go to war and kill people. Fewer of our citizens would die in war.
The fact remains that we need an army to protect against invasions (and indeed to protect other countries) and that to disband it would not only leave us vulnerable - but also increase disorder around the world. It is the very existance of armies that keeps some degree of peace.
Swap armies for guns, and countries for people and you have part of my argument.
You wouldn't (I assume) agree that because some anti-war campaigners and pacifists say there should be no war and no armies that we should disband all armies in non-agressive countries. You wouldn't agree (again, I assume) because you acknowledge that while things might be bad when an army goes to war, things would be far worse if there was no army to go to war when it was needed. I also assume you'd agree that the presence of armies makes the world more peaceful than it would be.
I'm glad we've been able to keep this civil (well, apart from our few back-handed ones, but that's nothing unusual in a cross-pennine discussion anyway! haha)
How rude!
Another poster seesm to think that if he has the right to carry a concealed weapon then the chance of the crime rate affecting him isn't as prevelant!! tyour saying that carrying a concealed weapon raises the crime rate!!!!! Proves the point that concealing it has the adverse efect another poster is after!!
You'd fight physically?
So what about those of us who aren't built, trained or able to fight physically?
Are we now down to the strong and agressive dominating the weak? Is that ok?
It must be nice to think you'd have a chance in a physical fight, but what chance does a 9 stone woman have against a 14 stone rapist who's been in fights his whole life?
Unarmed she has no chance other than to either scream or "go limp" and hope he doesn't kill her when he's finished.
Armed she has the loudest "Leave me alone!" in the world - and one that has been proven to be remarkable effective.
Seems some are a bit ready to make a bolder "back hander" than others!! Just to twist the knife.. Greater manchester is ony an administrative area, NOT A CITY!!
Lets agree to disagree if we may? Were not going to convince each other are we?
Just to add, yesa I was a squaddie, 29rgmt RA during the Sout hAtlantic. Since then I have gone back and paid respect, stood shoulder to shoulder with some Argentinian chaps who, luckily were a worse shot than I. I hope no one faces the prospect of ever using weapons, wether civilain or military
All the best
Lets agree to disagree if we may? Were not going to convince each other are we?
Just to add, yesa I was a squaddie, 29rgmt RA during the Sout hAtlantic. Since then I have gone back and paid respect, stood shoulder to shoulder with some Argentinian chaps who, luckily were a worse shot than I. I hope no one faces the prospect of ever using weapons, wether civilain or military
All the best
Unfortunately, that's the world as we would like it, not the world as it is.
(Retired Marine infantry officer and fighter pilot here.)
I've met a good few soldiers who were over there. A good job you all did.
I had the pleasure of listening to many stories from a former Bombadier (Burma Star) before he passed away - the thing I liked was that the stories he enjoyed telling were all to do with travel, not combat. A decent fellow.
I know GM is just an admin area, but if you ask anyone here where they live, no matter what part of GM they are in - most say "Manchester".
A few say "Bury" or "Stockport" but they tend to be from the outskirts and rural areas on the far side of those areas.
As far as most are concerned it's Manchester - and as there's no break whatsoever in the urban sprawl it is effectively one city (even though it includes Salford which is a separate and actually older city)
I don't believe I'm ever going to persuade you to carry a concealed gun, I'd not be so foolish to try.
However, I do believe there's argument to be made about the merits and demerits of prohibition and legal concealed carry - and I (obviously) believe the facts are firmly in favour of concealed carry when it comes to number of violent crimes and number of innocent deaths.
I had the pleasure of listening to many stories from a former Bombadier (Burma Star) before he passed away - the thing I liked was that the stories he enjoyed telling were all to do with travel, not combat. A decent fellow.
I know GM is just an admin area, but if you ask anyone here where they live, no matter what part of GM they are in - most say "Manchester".
A few say "Bury" or "Stockport" but they tend to be from the outskirts and rural areas on the far side of those areas.
As far as most are concerned it's Manchester - and as there's no break whatsoever in the urban sprawl it is effectively one city (even though it includes Salford which is a separate and actually older city)
I don't believe I'm ever going to persuade you to carry a concealed gun, I'd not be so foolish to try.
However, I do believe there's argument to be made about the merits and demerits of prohibition and legal concealed carry - and I (obviously) believe the facts are firmly in favour of concealed carry when it comes to number of violent crimes and number of innocent deaths.
- Status
