Changing attitudes about firearms
- Thread starter Oblio13
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
- Status
To be honest I don't really have an "us and them" attitude - well, not in the way it might seem in this thred.
I do have an "us and them" when it comes to the ruling class and peeons (of which I'm one of the latter - I'm glad to say - I'd hate to be a member of the other lot).
I suppose my main "us and them" view though, is predators and prey - I'd like to see those prey who want to, be allowed to protect themselves (and of course, those who don't want to would get a free ride in the safer society I believe it would lead to as well)
When it comes to gun control it is an issue that effects everyone directly, whether they would own and carry a gun or not so it can't really be us and them.
I do have an "us and them" when it comes to the ruling class and peeons (of which I'm one of the latter - I'm glad to say - I'd hate to be a member of the other lot).
I suppose my main "us and them" view though, is predators and prey - I'd like to see those prey who want to, be allowed to protect themselves (and of course, those who don't want to would get a free ride in the safer society I believe it would lead to as well)
When it comes to gun control it is an issue that effects everyone directly, whether they would own and carry a gun or not so it can't really be us and them.
I just looked up both of those, plus their sources of funding. I don't see any pro-gun agenda or connections. Am I missing something?
When I referred to your "us and them" attitude, I was meaning your assumption that merely because I don't immediately accept Don Kates as a completely impartial unbiased source, you immediately assumed that I was "anti-gun", whatever that means.
Yes - their basic ideological frameworks. I'm not saying they're part of some shadowy conspiracy, I'm saying they have certain ideological commitments which predispose (aka "bias") them towards certain conclusions. As does everybody else, including me and you.
Greg - apologies if I came across as suggesting you were anti-gun.
My questions to you about Don Kates were meant to be taken at face value - there was no suggestion, implication or otherwise in there - I was just asking a general question.
Again - apologies if it came across otherwise (and apparently it did).
My questions to you about Don Kates were meant to be taken at face value - there was no suggestion, implication or otherwise in there - I was just asking a general question.
Again - apologies if it came across otherwise (and apparently it did).
Didn't you say yourself earlier that you had a permit to carry for your work and another for outside of work? A permit's a permit.
There are regulations about which weapons can be used for which prey and I don't recall ever hearing anyone disagreeing with them. The property checks are much the same, no-one I know has ever been too bothered by a five to ten minute police check every once in a whenever.
The HUGE difference is sheer acreage. We live on a pokey wee island where land ownership has been competitively guarded for - I dunno really - a thousand years? Two? Ten?
However long its been, we have no public hunting areas....
....and as you mentioned to Toddy, hunting can be a very expensive hobby. There are a lot of places that'll relieve you of a lot of cash for the privilage. There are whole communities that rely on tourist hunting and large(by our standards
) areas of the highlands known as deer forests where there's nothing bar deer(and heather) for as far as you can seen.That's the commercial side of hunting though, you must surely have the same thing in the US? They make life easy, bunk house, guide, pack it out, butcher, etc and you pay by the pound for the meat you take away with you.
At the other end you have free hunts on any land where you have permission. The house I grew up in came with permission for the glen it was in. The other farm cottages had it also. The woodcutting rights were more important on a day-to-day basis but my uncle(the shooter in the family) used to come over and fill the larder regularly. If there was an organised bird shoot coming up we'd hear about it a few weeks beforehand and lay off them for the duration.
When I was at university(three pretty skint years) the last tenner in the house was always to stick one of the guys I lived with onto a train home for the weekend. A rucksack full of venison goes a long way in a student household and makes a hell of a difference to the finances. He had shooting rights to not only his own farm but also two neighbouring ones. Not all farmers shoot, farming's tough going and some don't have the time, others don't have the inclination, some are happy to give permission for a haunch a kill.
The free approach all depends on who you know of course. If you're in the country yourself it's those roundabout you, chance encounters and bethering in the pub that gets you permission. It's a fair while since I lived in the country now though.
I could likely still go and join the old flatmate in a hunt on the island, or could ask permission of a pal for some other land, or could join my uncle(or a workmate, or either of maybe three localish forum members here or on SotP).
There sure does tend to be a lot of venison at meets and I don't recall anyone ever saying it was a £500 stew so I'm only guessing that other folk have their sources too.
I don't own a gun. Have never felt any desire to carry one in everyday life. Have had a couple of random kickings from headcases who took me completely by surprise. Neither had a gun(one had knife).
Had I been carrying one I reckon it'd have belonged to the headcase by the time I'd picked myself up. If that's the sort of pathetic pacifistic "victimise me!"approach that has you disappointed then I'm sorry but if it all changed tommorrow and five million brits started carrying there'd be another hundred tooled-up headcases by Burns Night just through stolen guns.
I do feel that folk who've already proven themselves to be capable of owning a firearm without flipping out and taking out half the hockey team should be allowed to own pistols. The knee-jerk thing was out of order. One of my dad's pals had to decommission a lovely old flintlock pistol which made a fabulous noise and was never likely to be used in anger again.
Baaaaaa.
I'm glad to hear he's okay. Were the tablets under direct, personal control of a responsible adult? Or perhaps secured in a locked steel cabinet with the key in a suitable place? If not then this is not applicable.
Isn't this basically what the police and armed services do for a job of work? I do not necessarily condone the use of deadly force to deter a theft, but a robbery contains a threat of physical harm, including that of death. I'd rather have PTSD than be dead before my time, or spend the rest of my life on a ventilator.
New York City has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the whole of the union, and has done since 1911. In some ways they're even more restrictive than the UK. That's like saying getting stabbed in a US prison is no shocker since there are fewer laws against carrying knives in the US than in the UK. It's unclear if you are referring to Louisiana or Los Angeles, but if the latter (which I suspect) they too have very heavy state and local regulations on guns.
When did I ever say I thought it was easy? For the record I've seen two Rambo films and I think they are total tosh and couldn't be paid to be associated with them.
That is of course your prerogative, as it is mine to take a different opinion. I am aware that you have served Her Maj, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to our country. I can see that your opinion on this is unlikely to change, and certainly not during an argument on an Internet forum where a discussion seems to get messy so easily. Thank you for an interesting debate, but I am afraid that you have moved my position on this issue no more than I have yours!
No hard feelings to you. Regards Matt.
Good post Mike , but the governments taking away individual rights has more to do with capitalism than socialism. They care nothing of ideals, only of profit. Taking away your rights, making you dependent makes you easier to control. You work for your owners whether you are in a capitalist society or a socialist one. They want you to give maximum profit for minimum return, and a quick way to force us into this system is removal of independence. read ragged trousered philanphropists as a counter to 1984, this was the book that inspired orwell in the first place.
Its also part of the increasing babying of adults. I thouroughly believe all adults have the right to danger and the right to die!
Its also part of the increasing babying of adults. I thouroughly believe all adults have the right to danger and the right to die!
Again excellent post :You_Rock_
I am heartily tired of a society that want me to be so dependent. The right to self defence is just such a right. As a good friend of mine (who is a police officer) puts it
This whole attitude of impinging on personal liberties, because of the criminal acts of others is just foolish.
"Make guns illegal because criminals use guns" is just about the silliest logical though process ever. They are criminals, they commit criminal acts ergo they don't care what the law says. The only people who obey laws are people who aren't going to commit crime. So making things illegal punishes people who aren't going to commit crime.
Again, for the "ban guns" people ...many types have been banned...and gun crime went UP not down. These are facts not my opinion. Check the gun crime annual statistics on the home office website for yourselves. It doesn't achieve anything other than to impinge on the law abiding.
The same applies to many other aspects of life.
Governments and laws should punish law breakers (as hard as you like) not the law abiding.
Criminals who plan to kill people with guns already face the strongest legal sanctions available under the law. Passing more laws will not deter them.
It really is that simple.
Red
I am heartily tired of a society that want me to be so dependent. The right to self defence is just such a right. As a good friend of mine (who is a police officer) puts it
This whole attitude of impinging on personal liberties, because of the criminal acts of others is just foolish.
"Make guns illegal because criminals use guns" is just about the silliest logical though process ever. They are criminals, they commit criminal acts ergo they don't care what the law says. The only people who obey laws are people who aren't going to commit crime. So making things illegal punishes people who aren't going to commit crime.
Again, for the "ban guns" people ...many types have been banned...and gun crime went UP not down. These are facts not my opinion. Check the gun crime annual statistics on the home office website for yourselves. It doesn't achieve anything other than to impinge on the law abiding.
The same applies to many other aspects of life.
Governments and laws should punish law breakers (as hard as you like) not the law abiding.
Criminals who plan to kill people with guns already face the strongest legal sanctions available under the law. Passing more laws will not deter them.
It really is that simple.
Red
Stepping aside from the to ban or not to ban argument for a moment.
I understood that rising gun crime (still a fraction of the assault issue, even now despite the media hype and screaming hyperbole ) was happening *before* the ban on handguns and that the reason was simply the availability of the guns post the Falklands, Iran/ Iraq, the increase in disposable income, the growth in inner city gang/ drug culture, etc., etc., and that the gun lobby has simply latched onto a very slight increase in statistics to bolster their own cause.
Watch the fireworks kiddies
cheers,
Toddy
I understood that rising gun crime (still a fraction of the assault issue, even now despite the media hype and screaming hyperbole ) was happening *before* the ban on handguns and that the reason was simply the availability of the guns post the Falklands, Iran/ Iraq, the increase in disposable income, the growth in inner city gang/ drug culture, etc., etc., and that the gun lobby has simply latched onto a very slight increase in statistics to bolster their own cause.
Watch the fireworks kiddies
cheers,
Toddy
I was going to jump in here but it won't change anyone's mind. I'm armed, don't try to eat me and you'll be fine. Mac
Stepping aside from the to ban or not to ban argument for a moment.
I understood that rising gun crime (still a fraction of the assault issue, even now despite the media hype and screaming hyperbole ) was happening *before* the ban on handguns and that the reason was simply the availability of the guns post the Falklands, Iran/ Iraq, the increase in disposable income, the growth in inner city gang/ drug culture, etc., etc., and that the gun lobby has simply latched onto a very slight increase in statistics to bolster their own cause.
Watch the fireworks kiddies
cheers,
Toddy
At least you understand that gun crime is rising and the ban had no positive effect
Its a start Toddy, a small one, but a start
Red
No fireworks Toddy - just the facts again
Now the amount of recorded gun crime doubling in less than a decade may be something that you consider "a very slight increase in statistics". I think to most people its a little more than that.
No as it happens also not true. Firearms offenses fell between 1993 and 1997
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/british-crime-statistics-19972002-601188.html
So there we have it,
Firearms crime was falling pre-ban (not rising)
The post ban rise is not "a very slight rise in statistics" but in fact a rise of over 100% in national gun crime
However, as they say "never let the facts stand in the way of a good argument"
Red
Didn't you say yourself earlier that you had a permit to carry for your work and another for outside of work? A permit's a permit.
A car is a car, too, but there are Bentley's and there are Yugo's.
I have the authority to carry a weapon professionally, and a license to carry a concealed handgun privately. We don't need licenses or permission to own and carry unconcealed weapons.
In most US states, the government must allow one to buy a weapon and must issue a concealed carry permit unless there is a reason not to. It's called "shall issue". Seems the other way around in the UK. Sort of like the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent".
Property checks would not go over well here, either. The idea of police entering our homes to make sure we're doing things the state's way is even addressed in our constitution.
We view self defense as a right, not as something we have to beg permission for. Although as our society becomes ever more urban and ever more dependent, this is unfortunately changing.
I work in some of the most deprived inner city areas of one of the major cities. I see first hand the effects of crime. I recognise individual causes for scarring to the extent that I can even tell what *kind* of blade caused a wound.
In all the years I have worked there, both pre and post the handgun ban, I have never seen a gun wound, not one, not ever.
I'm not saying that gun crime does not exist, I am saying that it is not a major issue and the reality on the ground bears as little relevance to those statistics as does a self inflicted axe wound that becomes part of the statistics for knife crime.
Breakdown those statistics BR and you will find that they are drug and gang related and the crimes are mostly confined within that culture. They do not impose on the rest of us beyond that.
I think the ban was necessary. It was necessary because the gun owning fraternity sat on their self appointed and self assured backsides and did not do anything to restrict the access to licences, despite severe misgivings and warnings by police and social agencies that some people were just not suitably stable enough to possess one.
Now they reap what they sowed.
Handguns have no place within a civilized urban society. Frankly I sincerely doubt they have any place within a rural one such as the UK either. Too few folk are accurate enough to use them for anything beyond ten metres for them even to be of use against rats.
Have I shot with one ? Yes, several.
Was it fun ? Yes.
Would I target shoot with one ? Probably not, it wasn't that much fun.
Would I use one for defence ? Get real
I'm more likely to bash a knife wielding iijit with my handbag
This thread is boring. Like chewing old soup.
Have we had enough yet ? or do the NRA and it's proponants still feel the need for the last word ?
cheers,
Toddy
In all the years I have worked there, both pre and post the handgun ban, I have never seen a gun wound, not one, not ever.
I'm not saying that gun crime does not exist, I am saying that it is not a major issue and the reality on the ground bears as little relevance to those statistics as does a self inflicted axe wound that becomes part of the statistics for knife crime.
Breakdown those statistics BR and you will find that they are drug and gang related and the crimes are mostly confined within that culture. They do not impose on the rest of us beyond that.
I think the ban was necessary. It was necessary because the gun owning fraternity sat on their self appointed and self assured backsides and did not do anything to restrict the access to licences, despite severe misgivings and warnings by police and social agencies that some people were just not suitably stable enough to possess one.
Now they reap what they sowed.
Handguns have no place within a civilized urban society. Frankly I sincerely doubt they have any place within a rural one such as the UK either. Too few folk are accurate enough to use them for anything beyond ten metres for them even to be of use against rats.
Have I shot with one ? Yes, several.
Was it fun ? Yes.
Would I target shoot with one ? Probably not, it wasn't that much fun.
Would I use one for defence ? Get real
I'm more likely to bash a knife wielding iijit with my handbag This thread is boring. Like chewing old soup.
Have we had enough yet ? or do the NRA and it's proponants still feel the need for the last word ?
cheers,
Toddy
Presuming that your last jab was aimed at me, let's keep it going. Why not?
If you're bored, there's other soup you can chew.
That was a polite hint, heavy mind you, that this thread is so off topic that it's outer limit time.
The thread has reached the stage that all that is being said is to regurgetate the arguments, which incidentally are Off Topic !
Bluntly the thread has only been left open because a Mod was prepared to babysit it; if another one doesn't come along to intervene this one has had enough.
cheers,
Toddy
The thread has reached the stage that all that is being said is to regurgetate the arguments, which incidentally are Off Topic !
Bluntly the thread has only been left open because a Mod was prepared to babysit it; if another one doesn't come along to intervene this one has had enough.
cheers,
Toddy
Have we had enough yet ? or do the NRA and it's proponants still feel the need for the last word ?
I trust you're being tongue-in-cheek with that remark. Plenty of people who believe in gun rights aren't NRA members and don't carry on a daily basis, and are not wild animals, etc.
For the record, I am a proponent of gun rights (and I won't use crime to justify it, not necessary...) and I hate the NRA and consider it an insane organization. (No, that isn't to say anything about individual members, I'm talking about the organization...)
All that said, I'm bailing out on this thread. I think everything that can be said has been said and with the most respect and restraint that I've ever seen this topic discussed online -- well done, folks!.
But this isn't going anywhere at this point -- I loved learning about UK perceptions on guns early on however!
And so I'll bid you all on this thread a fond adieu from the not too wild, rather modestly armed, not mean-spirited, please-don't-stereotype-me-and-I-won't-stereotype-you US.
- Status
