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
Happy ending. I do wish I could have shot them as well, though...
Considering the state that Kafeel Ahmed was in by the time they put him out, that would probably constitute a mercy killing. Although I do find your apparent glee at little disturbing... Personally, I'm glad they stood trial in accordance with the law.
On that note it might be as well to put this thread to bed.
Any relevance to bushcraft has long since disappeared.
Any relevance to bushcraft has long since disappeared.
... Any relevance to bushcraft has long since disappeared.
It is in "off topic/other chatter", and it seems to interest the members, judging from participation.
There was some fire damage to the building they crashed into though, OK it wasn't a major fire and it was soon under control, they still managed to drive a car into the building though, no one stopped them doing that part, they were not stopped by vigilant and unarmed civilians.
There has been some good discussion here lately, but we must remember that it is not the good guys that are the problem, it is the bad guys:BlueTeamE
There has been some good discussion here lately, but we must remember that it is not the good guys that are the problem, it is the bad guys:BlueTeamE
Happy ending. I do wish I could have shot them as well, though...
LOL i imagine many would have wanted too, and if handguns were legal i dare say they would have been, however i dare say the flamming idiots would with out a doubt have had guns too and would have well and truly earned their 72 virgins.
Is there enough crime to actually warrant the populace being empowered with the capacity to cause another life to cease to exist? Crime levels are indeed rising but as British Red has mentioned, has anybody actually consulted the entire population regarding their ability to defend themselves?? The papers get on their high horse at times regarding this but i trust the press as much as i trust my dog not to jump in by sleeping bag when i leave the tent.
I do think that if crime levels get to high (now thats a totally different subject) the public will be more vocal about their rights to self defence.
"What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" [Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons]
Let's send the Royal Inniskilling Lawyers and the Duke of Cornwall's Barristers to Iran then, before they get the bomb.
It was a joke about fighting terrorism with lawyers. Royal Inniskilling LAWYERS and the Duke of Cornwall's BARRISTERS. A play on the names of Infantry regiments. I should have added a smiley-face-thingy.
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you" Benjamin Franklin
What an interesting, bizarre thread!! Its astonishing that it wasnt shut off quick what with the no political comment rules. But lively debate neednt be scary
I agree with gregorach largely, I arent particularly for or against gun ownership (for self defense or any other purpose), despite having participated in various shooting activities (shotguns to clays and vermin, rifles, pistols) from age 13/14, it doesnt bother me that much now. And its also true that every one is biased. And that each should be free to their own conscience and choice in the matter
My thoughts after wading through this mega thread is that
1/ Prohibition of legally held firearms hasnt reduced gun crime
2/ We are rapidly reaching a point where only the police and military are seen as fit to be armed, and even they cock up sometimes.
3/ The same elite that claims, absurdly, to govern by democratic consent DO have the benefit of armed protection if they need it, while outlawing and demonising legitimate sport gun use, and the idea of defense of person or property, among their electorate.
4/ When people get vociferous about crime levels rising to anarchic levels THEY will be the ones who get criminalised for being bolshy Gang of four-He'd send in the army/aramalite rifle etc
5/ I am of the opinion that as things stand at present, with our post Roy jenkins "permissive society is a civilised society" mentality, Criminals are "permitted" to do pretty much as they please; and to prove how civilised we have become, we are expected to tolerate it, not stigmatise those poor victims. As long as criminality is explained away as a social ill, rather than plain bad behaviour that needs to be corrected, then if gun ownership was relaxed, for self defense even, it could well be disarstous I feel. Because we have been slowly but surely moulded up into "state dependent" people, where "the state agencies and the emergency services do it all for us" including thinking. Being personally responsible is like difficult if not impossible because of increasing reach of state organised rules and regulations. We are still expected to put up with or "manage" criminal behaviours. But certainly not do anything practical ourselves. So suddenly having a pistol could be too much. Laws and penalties around ownership and use would need to be draconian, and enforced rigidly. It would be fantastic to walk anywhere in Britain without thinking is this dodgy, could I get mugged? And for criminals to be afraid of the risks of carrying out their industry. They dont appear to be at the moment.
6/ My cynical view of the handgun ban post dunblane, was that the govt saw a golden opportunity to overnight disarm people who "could" "possibly" be dangerous in terms of organised dissent. The subsequent passage of the civil contingencies bill only served to reinforce this dark, dystopian view
I agree with gregorach largely, I arent particularly for or against gun ownership (for self defense or any other purpose), despite having participated in various shooting activities (shotguns to clays and vermin, rifles, pistols) from age 13/14, it doesnt bother me that much now. And its also true that every one is biased. And that each should be free to their own conscience and choice in the matter
My thoughts after wading through this mega thread is that
1/ Prohibition of legally held firearms hasnt reduced gun crime
2/ We are rapidly reaching a point where only the police and military are seen as fit to be armed, and even they cock up sometimes.
3/ The same elite that claims, absurdly, to govern by democratic consent DO have the benefit of armed protection if they need it, while outlawing and demonising legitimate sport gun use, and the idea of defense of person or property, among their electorate.
4/ When people get vociferous about crime levels rising to anarchic levels THEY will be the ones who get criminalised for being bolshy Gang of four-He'd send in the army/aramalite rifle etc
5/ I am of the opinion that as things stand at present, with our post Roy jenkins "permissive society is a civilised society" mentality, Criminals are "permitted" to do pretty much as they please; and to prove how civilised we have become, we are expected to tolerate it, not stigmatise those poor victims. As long as criminality is explained away as a social ill, rather than plain bad behaviour that needs to be corrected, then if gun ownership was relaxed, for self defense even, it could well be disarstous I feel. Because we have been slowly but surely moulded up into "state dependent" people, where "the state agencies and the emergency services do it all for us" including thinking. Being personally responsible is like difficult if not impossible because of increasing reach of state organised rules and regulations. We are still expected to put up with or "manage" criminal behaviours. But certainly not do anything practical ourselves. So suddenly having a pistol could be too much. Laws and penalties around ownership and use would need to be draconian, and enforced rigidly. It would be fantastic to walk anywhere in Britain without thinking is this dodgy, could I get mugged? And for criminals to be afraid of the risks of carrying out their industry. They dont appear to be at the moment.
6/ My cynical view of the handgun ban post dunblane, was that the govt saw a golden opportunity to overnight disarm people who "could" "possibly" be dangerous in terms of organised dissent. The subsequent passage of the civil contingencies bill only served to reinforce this dark, dystopian view
No, they crashed into the bollards and set themselves alight. The folks round about put out the fire, pulled the propane out of the jeep and kicked the burning man out of the way so he couldn't set anything or one else on fire. The burning jeep didn't set the building alight but it did scorch it severely.
**************
Sorry Oblio, my connection crashed before I could respond to you.
post 353........."No firearms "
The attack failed, the propane 'bombs' didn't go off, the jeep went on fire, so did the would be bombers...........er, that was it really.
cheers,
Toddy
Dazzler,
Very good post.
Having the means to defend yourself is only as good as the court system that backs it up and the cultural context in which it takes place.
In reading this thread there is a huge cultural divide regarding the roles of government and the individual in terms of where "rights" come form. The American concept is that the people retain all of their rights and empower the government to act for the collective.
If I read correctly what many have written here, the UK view is that the government retains all the rights and empowers the citizen to act as it sees fit.
Brazil (where I spend much of my life) has a similar view in that certain calibers of firearms are "liberated" for civilian use, subject to draconian encumbrances. There are many here in the US that think the government should dispense rights or grant them to the people. That's what bothers me most about this whole debate over here on this side of the pond. Mac
Very good post.
Having the means to defend yourself is only as good as the court system that backs it up and the cultural context in which it takes place.
In reading this thread there is a huge cultural divide regarding the roles of government and the individual in terms of where "rights" come form. The American concept is that the people retain all of their rights and empower the government to act for the collective.
If I read correctly what many have written here, the UK view is that the government retains all the rights and empowers the citizen to act as it sees fit.
Brazil (where I spend much of my life) has a similar view in that certain calibers of firearms are "liberated" for civilian use, subject to draconian encumbrances. There are many here in the US that think the government should dispense rights or grant them to the people. That's what bothers me most about this whole debate over here on this side of the pond. Mac
But we *are* the government, we elect it, we empower it, we pay for it, we accept it.......the only issue really is that one size doesn't fit anyone quite perfectly.
On the whole most are relatively contented with it, regardless of what the assorted medias scream.
As for rights........well, habeas corpus, accountable jurisprudence, education, health care, freedom of speech, responsible land and water access; bearing handguns never came into it.
cheers,
Toddy
On the whole most are relatively contented with it, regardless of what the assorted medias scream.
As for rights........well, habeas corpus, accountable jurisprudence, education, health care, freedom of speech, responsible land and water access; bearing handguns never came into it.
cheers,
Toddy
Just who is this 'gun lobby' you speak of? There are two major UK shooting organisations -- the NRA, and BASC. BASC are >90% interested in shooting furry or feathered things with rifles or shotguns. The NRA is >90% interested in shooting paper circles at 300+ yards with heavy, expensive single-shot rifles. When was the last time you heard the National Rifle Association of the UK talk about defensive use of firearms? Or pistols for that matter? Or rights? Saying 'gun lobby', especially with regard to the UK situation, is like saying 'the pre-Roman Celtic civilisation' -- it's pointless, misleading and implies a lack of knowledge about the subject.I wonder if the gun lobby split the issue...........sport vs defensive carry........I could see a limited handgun licence for that being acceptable to a lot of folks, especially with the interest in airsoft and paintballing.
They'll never go for it though, they just angrily demand *rights*
cheers,
M
Oh and by the way yes during WW2 a lot of privately owned American arms were sent over here as national defense aids. Very few made it back. I understand the majority were issued to the Home Guard.
I thought this was interesting...
The FBI's report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.
As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of "first place" in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland's high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an "assault weapon" ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.
Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and "Castle Doctrine" movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida's 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state's landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.
The FBI's report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.
As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of "first place" in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland's high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an "assault weapon" ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.
Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and "Castle Doctrine" movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida's 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state's landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.
- Status
