Changing attitudes about firearms

[firecrest]

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

The point Im trying to make is that alowing citizens to carry firearms is giving citizens the means with which to kill others. A responsibility of this magnitude must have a punishment of equal magnitude should this right be abused. At the moment, we have soft laws, and I do not believe it is possible to have armed citizens and soft laws governing the consequences. I wouldnt expect somebody aged 19 in an armed robbery to get a "life means life" however, Im sure it is entirely probable - the law is really only there to protect property and wealth , human life comes second. You can get 20 years for art fraud (defrauding a rich person) and as little as 3 years for murder.
If the same 19 year old shot somebody in the robbery, I should expect, at the very least, a hefty sentence.
As for the argument that the death penalty allows for innocent people to be executed by the state, this is true and probably unavoidable, because the law can never be perfect or free from corruption. However the numbers of people murdered by people who have been released from prison vastly overwhelm this number, and, of the top of my head, since the death penalty was abolished and today, some 70 innocent people have been murdered by "lifers" who's life sentence was paroled. This compares to only a handful of people who may be executed in error.
Life means Life, or death penalty - I'm happy with either, I'm concerned only with the removal of threat from society, and a strong deterrent.

 

[British Red]

An interesting debate. My observation is lets stick to the facts.

The fact is that after every succesive gun ban in the UK, gun crime and death by firearms went UP. That is an indisputable fact from the police and governments own statistics.

Gun bans have had no positive effect on gun crime in the UK - indeed the reverse is demonstrably true.

As emotional as people are on this issue it is undeniably true that there are no legally held civilian handguns in mainland Britiain - but deaths and violent assaults from handguns are far higher than they were before the ban. This obviously cannot be caused by legally held handguns - there are none.

(For the avoidance of pointless sideline arguments you can still hold LBRs, muzzle loading handguns, section 5 hanguns for extroadinary reasons and section 7 historic items - none of these has ever been invoved in a recorded crime so are irrelavent for the purposes at hand. In addition handguns are still legal in NI, IoM and one or two other places - hence mainland)

So the FACT is that the only effect of gun bans has been to deny those who use them legally and responsibly that hobby. However much people may wish to argue it has rendered the streets safer, the facts say that this is untrue.

So, for those who endorse such bans, please realise that this is simply because you don't like them - not for any public safety reason. The home office statistics wholly disprove any positive effect of gun bans

Red

 

[firecrest]

Personally, oblio, I do not believe young children are responsible enough to own guns no more than I think they can be responsible enough to drive a car. Children lapse in attention and are less aware of dangers much more so than adults. While many may raise their children with guns and have no incidence, I suspect children are more likely to have accidents with guns than adults if the time spent with the gun can be measured for both.

 

[BigShot]

British Red - a finely worded post. You said that in a more clear and straightforward manner than I managed through several posts.
Agreed completely.



Firecrest - I agree that there needs to be stiff punishment for those who misuse firearms (I'd also like to see a more sensible situation when it comes to punishing crimes against the person versus crimes against property)
However - allowing people firearms isn't allowing them means to kill people - they already have that ability in knives, pointy sticks, bricks, rocks, bits of wood, feet, hands, teeth and not to forget - the current large number of illegally owned firearms.
Just a minor point, but important, I think.

 

[Oblio13]

Personally, oblio, I do not believe young children are responsible enough to own guns no more than I think they can be responsible enough to drive a car. Children lapse in attention and are less aware of dangers much more so than adults. While many may raise their children with guns and have no incidence, I suspect children are more likely to have accidents with guns than adults if the time spent with the gun can be measured for both.

It's not like I handed out guns like lollipops and told them to go play in the street.

I taught them to drive at an early age, too, sitting in my lap on boats and tractors. I didn't hand car keys to eight-year-olds and tell them to be back by midnight.

 

[wicca]

Bigshot, apologies for the slow reply to your direct questions.
Just for the record, I am very much in favour of private ownership of firearms for all sporting and legitimate purposes, and I also I believe that culling and pest control properly carried out..by skilled people is best done with a firearm. I was trying to reply to Oblio's original comment about the 'changing attitude towards firearms' by pointing out that the actions of a tiny minority
had allowed those in power to enact laws which, to non firearm owners and those opposed to firearms for any purpose, had great appeal, especially as those laws perhaps held the promise of a "gun free" society. I think subsequent events have proved those hopes ill founded.
Ok, this all started with question about a man with an axe and a long gun, I could cope with that but the discussion has gone into areas that 'ol Wicca (who was on 'Safari' with a nasty gun for 22 years at HMG's expense) isn't qualified to comment on, so I shall just spectate from here...

 

[firecrest]

It's not like I handed out guns like lollipops and told them to go play in the street.

I taught them to drive at an early age, too, sitting in my lap on boats and tractors. I didn't hand car keys to eight-year-olds and tell them to be back by midnight.

Im not saying you did. I just believe it will always be more dangerous for children than adults, no matter what precautions are taken. It may not even be a bad thing to expose children to that level of danger and responsibility, I just suspect there will be more casualties.

 

[firecrest]

British Red - a finely worded post. You said that in a more clear and straightforward manner than I managed through several posts.
Agreed completely.



Firecrest - I agree that there needs to be stiff punishment for those who misuse firearms (I'd also like to see a more sensible situation when it comes to punishing crimes against the person versus crimes against property)
However - allowing people firearms isn't allowing them means to kill people - they already have that ability in knives, pointy sticks, bricks, rocks, bits of wood, feet, hands, teeth and not to forget - the current large number of illegally owned firearms.
Just a minor point, but important, I think.

A knife, stick, rock, bit of wood, feet, anything else, all require a level of skill. A gun does not. A child of two can kill a 6 foot man with a gun and cannot with any other weapon.
If handguns were legal again, I would buy one because nothing else will protect me.But I want tougher sentencing for those that I might actually be protecting myself against.

 

[Oblio13]

A knife, stick, rock, bit of wood, feet, anything else, all require a level of skill. A gun does not....

Wow, the Marine Corps and a federal law enforcement agency sure wasted a lot of time and money sending me to shooting schools, then.

 

[durulz]

So if it was legal to carry a handgun, how would you decide who is responsible enough to have one and who isn't? And how do you stop the 'responsible' ones giving a gun to one of the irresponsible ones?
And isn't it a bit late to decide someone was irresponsible after they've pulled the trigger?

 

[Oblio13]

So if it was legal to carry a handgun, how would you decide who is responsible enough to have one and who isn't? And how do you stop the 'responsible' ones giving a gun to one of the irresponsible ones?
And isn't it a bit late to decide someone was irresponsible after they've pulled the trigger?

How do we decide those things with axes, bicycles, swimming pools, power tools, horses, and chainsaws?

Women are equipped to become prostitutes, should we trust them? (Okay, okay, bad example...)

 

[firecrest]

Wow, the Marine Corps and a federal law enforcement agency sure wasted a lot of time and money sending me to shooting schools, then.

Are you suggesting that a kid that accidentally shoots his sister had to be in the Marine corps and a federal law enforment agency before he squeezes a trigger? Operating toys is easier, please don't sidestep the statement.

As for who is responsible and who isnt, I dont know. "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" My sister was sexually assaulted on a bus in day time 2 days ago. Nobody did anything, they were "too scared". the police are "looking for him" Im tired of this society which forces women into vunerability without real or adiquate protection from the law. I dont advocate than my sister had a gun to blow his head off, Im just tired of it all.

 

[durulz]

How do we decide those things with axes, bicycles, swimming pools, power tools, horses, and chainsaws?

Women are equipped to become prostitutes, should we trust them? (Okay, okay, bad example...)

Firearms are designed specifically for one purpose - shooting things! Those other items you mention can (and are) used to injure people but that is not their purpose.
So, could you answer the orginal question rather than avoid it?

 

[Oblio13]

Firearms are designed specifically for one purpose - shooting things! Those other items you mention can (and are) used to injure people but that is not their purpose.
So, could you answer the orginal question rather than avoid it?

Sure: Just like we should with axes, bicycles, swimming pools, power tools, horses and chainsaws. Not with nanny-state overregulation. Not by assuming people are criminals because they might commit a crime. Not by trying to outlaw all risk. Not by forcing people to be helplessly passive in the face of crime.

As a general rule, people who are educated respond well to responsibility, and grow to be ever more responsible when given it. People from whom responsibility is withheld tend to become dependent, immature and untrustworthy. It's not hard to see which way our respective governments are training us.

A firearm is an inanimate object. A fairly simple machine for throwing a ball. It has no conscience. It is capable of neither good nor evil. Like fire, it can be a useful, lifesaving tool, or a monster. Like fire, it's impossible to prevent people who really want it from getting it.

Your leaders have armed security, even while they're denying it to you. Is your life worth less than theirs?

 

[Oblio13]

Are you suggesting that a kid that accidentally shoots his sister had to be in the Marine corps and a federal law enforment agency before he squeezes a trigger? ...

That unfortunate tragedy made international headlines precisely because it's an anomaly. As a general rule, four-year-olds don't hunt down their babysitters with shotguns. I'm still trying to figure out how he even shouldered the thing. And it wouldn't surprise me if there's more to the story. (Like maybe the other teenager present had something to do with it and is trying to blame a defenseless kid.) Several things I've been intimately familiar with have made headlines over the years, and they've all been inaccurately reported.

... I dont advocate than my sister had a gun to blow his head off, Im just tired of it all...

Why not? I can't think of a single negative to the scenario of rape victims resisting their attackers forcefully.

While I'm at it, if even one out of a hundred Jews had shot the first Brown Shirt through the door, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. Even the densest thugs would eventually have said "Why don't we pick on the Armenians instead?"

Imagine a world where a violent criminal's last words are likely to be: "Hey, that's not your wallet!"

 

[firecrest]

if he had raped her Id like to have seen him shot yes.

 

[Toddy]

The scarey thing is Oblio13 that you don't even see that the assurance that the firearm solves all your problems appalls us.

An axe is a tool for cutting wood, that's it's primary function.
A pistol's primary function is to shoot another person. If you threaten someone with a firearm then they will just find one too and threaten you back, and eventually threat becomes reality.
It's called 'escalation' of aggression.

It's not a normal part of our society, and we are making strenuous attempts, despite the media hype, to keep it that way.

A rifle's primary function is for hunting (the armed services hunt different beasts ) and as such it deserves to be considered under different criteria.

Before anyone riposts, yes I know, target shooting/ collecting/ smithing, etc., are also relevant to pistols, and airguns are a whole other category.Let's keep the argument simple though.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Matt.S]

...the Wyat Earp brigade...

...Harry callahan version of sidearm...

...shoulder holsters and strutting around with a gun under the arm.

Seen enough films though eh?

Still, I bet that would rise if every home rambo had one, Still, you have the stats eh?

You seem to be making a lot of irrelevant, sarcastic, personal insinuations which I consider insulting. Please desist, as they could lead to the closing of this thread. Courtesy costs nothing and rudeness does nothing for your argument other than making you sound childish and detracts from your credibility.

Mmm...think you're being a tad naive and disingenuous. Been watching too many 1950s westerns with those pesky injuns, I think...

I'm pretty sure rese's (sp?) parent will congratulate you on your argument there.

What's that got to do with it? This is a total non-argument; the little scrotes who killed him were acting irresponsibly and were breaking the law on several counts before they even fired a shot. It's highly unlikely that any bystander could have prevented his death

You really believe that the old west was safer than today, where the law was the gun and whoever managed to get it out of the holster quickest was the safesst? No rapes get serious. Of course my stats are non existence, but at least I know hollywood when I see it!

Yes and it seems you believe it! If you were interested in the truth I could point you in a few directions, but I suspect you are more interested in what you 'know.'

People can make weapons out of anything. Give me one round and I'll make you an anti personnel mine. Not rocket science..

Very true. I have an arc welder, a forge, an anvil, a drill, a vice, a set of files and a pile of steel within a 5 yard radius of me. Considering the number of crude yet functional submachineguns, pistols and shot-pistols I could manufacture in a week, it does rather bring into question the very principle of gun control.

Gun crime is dropping in the UK due to tougher laws and... Oh well, take a look yourself. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

You believe the government's own 'massaged' and 'creatively interpreted' statistics? Those statistics each concerned a very narrow time period and were very selective. Also if I recall correctly the way that crime was reported/statistics compiled changed at that time, resulting in a lot of accusations of the Home Office being 'creative with the truth'.

My sister was sexually assaulted on a bus in day time 2 days ago. Nobody did anything, they were "too scared". the police are "looking for him" Im tired of this society which forces women into vunerability without real or adiquate protection from the law. I dont advocate than my sister had a gun to blow his head off, Im just tired of it all.

I am sorry for your sister, please allow me to extend my condolences.

 

[Oblio13]

The scarey thing is Oblio13 that you don't even see that the assurance that the firearm solves all your problems appalls us...

The means of self defense don't "solve all one's problems", they just influence the odds in a positive direction.

The UK used to be my kind of place. George Broadfoot, Colin Campbell and Winston Churchill would not have been appalled by my attitude at all. I'll go so far as to say that they'd be more shocked by yours.

And aside from the self defense stuff, hunting is probably the most wholesome and enjoyable of my hobbies.

I almost always have a pistol on my belt, not because it's more effective than a rifle, just because it's more convenient and unobtrusive. I frequently come home from cutting firewood or goofing off on our property with wild game as well as greens and mushrooms. I bet you'd love it if you got a proper taste of that kind of freedom.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just as a matter of accuracy, may I point out that handguns are illegal in Great Britain, but not throughout the UK. It's still legal to own a handgun in Northern Ireland. You have to be a member of a club in order to get a handgun on your FAC (shotguns also require an FAC here), and demonstrate to the PSNI Firearms and Explosives Branch that your gunsafe meets their requirements. Alternatively, if you are a member (or former member) of the security forces, or can otherwise demonstrate a significant risk, you can apply to have a handgun as a Personal Protective Weapon, and carry it concealed.