Changing attitudes about firearms

[traderran]

However, they don't involve giving you the right to carry a gun. So, which is your real concern?[/QUOTE]

OK just can not seem to stay out of this.
What is this about GIVING ME THE RIGHT. Being born in the USA
I have the inherent right to own an carry a firearm the only permit
I need is to carry a handgun CONCILED I can carry a shot gun or
rifle anywhere I so choose I can also carry a handgun in my car with
no permit required. so what is this give me right. Over hear we are born with the right. And in my part of Texas if you ask 100 people
if they carry about 99 would tell you yes the other 1% would say they had one at home or in there car. We are not a nation of sheep.
At lest in the south. We take care of ourselves and each other

 

[BigShot]

I see your point in the training times. I have been practicing MA for over 30 Years. My 12 year old son isn't very keen on going, but I force him and he does enjoy it when he gets there. By the time he's 20 he will be very proficient and able t olook after most situations. I still feel that your overlooking the psychological aspect of "pulling a gun"!

Thats me out again..

This is a cracking thread though!!!

I don't believe I am overlooking it.
Glad we can agree on the MA training times.

Agreed on a cracking thread too

 

[gregorach]

I thought we were talking about firearms and self-defence in the UK? What you get up to over there is entirely your own business. Arm bears if you like.

EDIT: that was directed at traderran.

 

[BigShot]

Finally! Something we can completely agree on. So perhaps you should stop trying to, and start actually listening to the ones we've got right here.

There are, so far as I know, no calls from women's groups in the UK for the right to arm themselves with concealed firearms in self-defence. As far as I am aware, they universally support the status quo as regards self-defence, and several are currently pressing for tighter restrictions on air guns.

I can't speak for those in the UK, not because I don't know their views - but because they don't live in a society with armed men walking around.

For the record I know a number of women over here who'd like to be allowed to make that choice for themselves too rather than have it made for them by people who think they know best for them.

I'm after a system that allows people to choose for themselves.
You're after a system that denies them that freedom.


Calls for tighter restrictions on airguns - wow - because all the restrictions we have so far are so unbelievably effective.
I despair.

It's interest groups like that who want to remove the liberty of other people in exchange for the illusion of safety that make things as bad as they are.

 

[Tadpole]

How does that make it ok to deny either group (would-be firearm assault or rape victims) the option to defend themselves with a firearm?
You can not demonstrate that gun control has any positive effect on these crimes, and in fact the opposite argument carries more weight, and yet you still prefer to deny them their right to an effective deffence against such assaults.

Arming women, and the rest of society - because of the actions of a minority who will carry on regardless is - and always has been - a really stupid idea

 

[xylaria]

I
It is also the case that for those 4100 women who are raped by strangers a firarm may have helped - and it still isn't right to deny them that option.
.

What about the women that are regulary violent towards men. Domestic violence happens to men too. For every man here that has had a iron or frypan thrown at them would you prefer that woman to have gun?

What about the men that get raped. Break-away is far hard in the case of male rape.

 

[gregorach]

I'm after a system that allows people to choose for themselves.
You're after a system that denies them that freedom.

I've told you time and time again that I don't have a dog in this fight. I am neither pro- nor anti- gun. Do I have to spell it out in 10 foot letters of fire?

What I'm after is a democratically-reached consensus. You seem to be the one with the problem with that, if it doesn't agree with the position you personally hold. Welcome to democracy.

 

[durulz]

I'm after a system that allows people to choose for themselves.

You constantly talk about yourself.
What you don't seem to realise, or acknowledge, is those same rights you cherish could easily be abused by someone else to bring someone else's life to an end.
Think about other people. They're not all as pious as you.
There are MANY others out there who would use relaxed firearm laws to arm themselves for illegal means. YOU may not. But what right do YOU have to impose YOUR sentiments (relax gun laws) on to someone else (the poor sod who is shot because it became easier to get a gun).
Come now, you must admit that there are plenty of people out there who would abuse the system. And we're not talking about social benefit fraud here - WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE BEING KILLED.
THAT is what I and, perhaps, others have against relaxed gun laws.

 

[BigShot]

Yes, because those means of defence could also be turned to attack by someone.
Attack by someone who has taken the weapon off someone. Attack by someone legitimately possessing a firearm and in a fit of pique drawing it as a weapon.

And yet - despite how strongly you feel that would be the case.
That just isn't the rule here on planet earth.

I refer you AGAIN to Pict's comments...

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."

See? That's the difference between your personal (and real and valid) fears about what would happen - and the reality of what DOES happen.

You have a very dewy-eyed sentimentality about the benefits of legalising firearms. You're right, of course, if someone REALLY wants a handgun, legal or not, then they will get one.

I'm in favour of the right of an adult to choose for themself what they want to do in regards their own safety - you would remove that choice despite all the evidence that the fears you have don't tend to happen in the real world.

By making firearms legal then they become EASIER to get. Yes yes yes - criminals can get guns already. But they're not that prolific (in the UK) yet (anyone reading this who has experience of gun crime - real or imitation - please speak up. Unlike our American friends - who have already illustrated how they have experienced gun crime in their gun-rich country).

I've been speaking up all along.
I've had friends shot in drivebys. I've driven past a police cordon of three dead guys (still under sheets) who had been shot.
I've even had a gun pulled on me.
Oh wow - really?
Yep - really.

Criminals can get guns like you and I can get beer. It's a piece of cake.

Here's another one. You don't have to be a hard nosed criminal either. If I was so inclined I could personally have a firearm before midnight.

Disarming me, and people like me, does nothing to reduce gun crime. Nothing. They'll get their guns anway.

Guns not a big issue in the UK?
Ever heard the word "Gunchester?" - I live there. I see it.

Gun crimes DO happen. Some of the crimes are by people wielding imitation firearms. Which carries as stiff a sentence as a real firearm offence. So presumably they could not get their hands on real firearms.

Or an imitation one was cheaper - and knowing their victim is unarmed - why bother spending the extra - right?

If made legal that would by necessity change - after all, they are easier to obtain. That is a self-evident truth: guns are legal, therefore easier to obtain.

Guns are easy to obtain - that's the self evident truth.
The only thing their legal status changes is how easy they are to obtain legally and how many law abiding citizens who never commit a crime (let alone with a gun) can get one for their own protection against those who would prey on them.

So much so, that US residents feel the need to carry firearms on a regular basis (if there was no threat, after all, there would be no need to defend against it)[/.quote]
Either you can't see, or choose not to see, that even areas with vastly lower per capita crime rates than even some of the safest places in the UK still carry their guns. Not because they "need" to as such - but because carrying them deters those predators who might see them as a weak (read: unarmed) target.

It's simple to see why.
Imagine for a moment you are a criminal.
There's a person in front of you - you want to mug them.
Regardless of your weapon status - are you more likely to attack if they might have a gun? or if the chances are that they aren't?

Equally so, the US has capital punishment - supposedly a deterent against serious crime. And yet those same serious crimes continue. Not much of a deterent. And neither, therefore, are armed civilians.

Strange that the usefulness of the death penalty as a deterrent is pretty much a foregone conclusion - it isn't...
...and yet convicted felons in the USA have stated categorically that the thing they fear the most is not the law, court, prison or police - but the armed citizen. Straight from the horse's mouth.

If your cause is to stop crime, then you seem to be coming at it from the wrong direction. Rather than put a plaster on the wound, why not try to heal the infection?

I'm all for healing the infection - but even then there will be criminals, predators and the likes who will prey on the weak. It is against those people that the firearm is of use.

 

[BigShot]

Arming women, and the rest of society - because of the actions of a minority who will carry on regardless is - and always has been - a really stupid idea

And yet strangely - it works.

Funny that.

 

[korvin karbon]

I am glad someone mentioned Brazil, i am going to regale your goodselves of my little adventure.

last year, sao paulo i was walking back to the hotel (5-6 Pm still light) and when i was going up the steps of an alleyway, 3 youths jumped out of a doorway and one was armed, my immediate reaction and i mean immediate reaction was right arm grabbed the wrist pushed gun upwards and left hand round the little scrotes scrotum and a headbutt, shoved gun carrier to the side using him as a battering ram to smash the other scrote against the wall, other scrote legged it. The two i had dealt with were then persuaded to stay on the ground with some assistance. Revolver was scooped up of ground, rounds emptied onto ground and i then legged it dumping gun into a pile rubbish.


Told story to the girlfriend and she knew who the kids were as they were her pupils and had no history of violence, anyway few days later the kid who was armed shows up at school with more injuries due to his father leathering him for loosing the brand new gun, which was legally owned and supposedly kept in a gun safe.

Kids were 12-14 years old, i would have done the exact same thing to 25 or 85 year old.

Guns may level the playing field, but turn the game on the field to something much more competitive.

Take my experience as you like, but i know that if i was armed i would probably have had 3 dead kids at my feet ( the idea of a standoff is a mute point, they are the agressor with a clear intent to cause harm, its a no brainer) how that would have rested with me, is somehting i do not know and hope to never know.

 

[BigShot]

What about the women that are regulary violent towards men. Domestic violence happens to men too. For every man here that has had a iron or frypan thrown at them would you prefer that woman to have gun?

What about the men that get raped. Break-away is far hard in the case of male rape.

Who said I was only arguing for armed women?
I'm arguing for arms for anyone who passes the background checks and can demonstrate competence with the weapon.

The post you quote was in direct response to numbers given on a specific issue.

 

[BigShot]

I've told you time and time again that I don't have a dog in this fight. I am neither pro- nor anti- gun. Do I have to spell it out in 10 foot letters of fire?

What I'm after is a democratically-reached consensus. You seem to be the one with the problem with that, if it doesn't agree with the position you personally hold. Welcome to democracy.

I'm after a liberal democracy that allows adults to act people as they see fit so long as those actions don't directly harm another person.

That includes defending themselves.

Democracy as you describe there the problem with consensus like that - is that it is NOT freedom.

If someone doesn't want to be armed, fine.
But that right to choose should be everyone's.



EDIT
I make a rather obvious exception for harming an attacker.
I'm sure that goes without saying but I want to be sure.
When someone attacks another they relinquish all expectations of personal safety - ditto with home invasions.

 

[BigShot]

You constantly talk about yourself.
What you don't seem to realise, or acknowledge, is those same rights you cherish could easily be abused by someone else to bring someone else's life to an end.
Think about other people. They're not all as pious as you.
There are MANY others out there who would use relaxed firearm laws to arm themselves for illegal means. YOU may not. But what right do YOU have to impose YOUR sentiments (relax gun laws) on to someone else (the poor sod who is shot because it became easier to get a gun).
Come now, you must admit that there are plenty of people out there who would abuse the system. And we're not talking about social benefit fraud here - WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE BEING KILLED.
THAT is what I and, perhaps, others have against relaxed gun laws.

And yet again....
Read the comments from people like Pict.

Your very valid and real fears about what people who carry legally owned and carried concealed firearms would do simply isn't the case in the real world.

The fact is that in the USA far more crimes are comitted by non-CCW holders than CCW holders.
CCW holders are less likely to commit felony crimes THAN THE POLICE!


One more time.
In the USA - areas with legally owned and carried CCWs enjoy much lower rates of violent crime than equivalent areas which have no such freedom.
The highest crime areas in the USA are all under effective gun prohibition.
It's just that simple.

 

[gregorach]

So, democracy is good when it reaches the conclusions you want, and bad when it doesn't?

 

[durulz]

*Heavy sigh*
Well, my friend, I don't see what more to say to you. You have it your way. All I can say is that, at the very least, you should move out of Man(Gun)chester and live somewhere else. Maybe you should emigrate to America - I think you'd be better off there. Seriously.
This discussion is now spinning in circles. It's been fun, frequently infuriating, necessary, but ultimately futile. Though still fun. I'm now dropping out. No, seriously, I am...
I mean it though - leave Manchester. It's not doing you any good. If it's that bad let them fight, shoot, kill and ruin each other. Don't let it poison you if it's that bad. If.

 

[traderran]

I thought we were talking about firearms and self-defence in the UK? What you get up to over there is entirely your own business. Arm bears if you like.

EDIT: that was directed at traderran.

OK This is your country. I may be a little off You can live like that if you want to. It is your right as you say.
But I will never come to a country where I don,t have the right to
defend my self or my loved ones. As I understand you can not use anything as a defence weapon. Correct me if I am wrong.
By the way I am not a weak need milksop I stand 6ft4in and 280 lb. Most men would leve me alone but my wife is 5ft0in and she needs a little help. Yes she also carrys
and is a great shot.

 

[BigShot]

So, democracy is good when it reaches the conclusions you want, and bad when it doesn't?

Nope.
Democracy is bad when it forces its will onto people who have comitted no crime.

If I harm someone, take their property, poison a waterway or whatever I should be punished - and punished hard. Throw the book at me - really.

Until that point though I've done nothing to deserve someone else (no matter how numerous they are) from forcing their will upon me.
The same is true for you and everyone else.

It's called liberty.

 

[BigShot]

OK This is your country. I may be a little off You can live like that if you want to. It is your right as you say.
But I will never come to a country where I don,t have the right to
defend my self or my loved ones. As I understand you can not use anything as a defence weapon. Correct me if I am wrong.

Small correction.
You can use something as a weapon if it is "reasonable force" to do so. It depends very much on the circumstances.
That weapon must be taken from your attacker, or the environment around you (so a loose brick maybe, or a bit of wood)

You can't prepare to use a weapon by carrying it though as that's seen as presupposing violence.

 

[Tadpole]

And yet strangely - it works.

Funny that.

You think so?
Even with the chance of being shot millions of americans attack and assult their fellows (2.4 million). Half a million end up being treated by emergency department or hospitals 40% put there by family members.
Even with the risk of gun play, people don't stop. It's Not working really is it? if you are honest, you have to say it's not working.