Changing attitudes about firearms

[trail2]

I don't know if I have a dog in this hunt or not but will chime in. I live in a small rural town in a large rural state. Firearms are an everyday thing. Whether it's work related(LEOs) or recreation. When I go to the SM I know that probably 35% of the shoppers are carrying a side arm. For whatever purpose they are still carrying.
I don't feel threatened or overwhelmed by this. It's just a fact. I don't fear someone"brandishing" a fire arm in my face because of a perceived dirty look. What would most likely happen is they would punch my lights out.
Do I carry a side arm in town? No!
If I'm in the woods ? Yes! One reason is small game are about and in season a lot of the year.Second is because of an urban blight called Meth labs. Tweekers get a bit strange if you run into their operation and usually resort to violence. That said I have yet to meet a tweeker.
When I drive to the West of South Dakota to the Black Hills it takes about 7 hours. There are only 3 towns bigger than parking lots between me and Rapid City. Then I carry.
Why? Who knows but I would rather have than not.
Since I left the forces I have only seen one shot fired in anger. I have lived in NY, NJ and thankfully never ever needed to resort to deadly force in an everyday sitituation. Along with several million other people.
Mini rant over.! :sad6:
That being said I DO favour mandatory LONG custodial sentences for those who use fire arms in the course of a crime. No matter what.
Sorry to take up so much of your time.
Jon R.

 

[dogwood]

The one issue I have is with the response to gang violence - while the apparent need to get guns off the streets is understandable - it is also flawed.
As you state later in the post the answer is in removing the cause of the problem, and guns are not that cause.

We don't need to ban guns to make South Central LA a safer place - we need to find a solution to gang violence (and the need for gangs at all)...

BigShot, I think you and I are on the same page here, just expressing it slightly differently.

And FWIW I would never dispute someone's right to defend themselves -- the Algiers Point example demonstrates how guns can be a force for civilization when all hell breaks loose.

If anyone wants to read a news story about it you can find one here (it's a great story): http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/content/shared/news/nation/stories/09/10KATRINA_ALGIERS.html

 

[spoony]

Well, I've seen both sides;

The shoots I have observed on the moors above Stanhope; definitely prove that, up there at least, if you turned up in anything cheaper than a 1 year old Range Rover or Land Cruiser( Porsche Cayenne's are also acceptable!)...........well,you weren't one of the shooters.
The clothing worn by the shooters was usually brand new and they didn't seem to hit much
These shoots are run ( at the rqd safe distances etc) at either side of the main road's from Consett over to Weardale, so I suppose a lot of folk passing; see all the expensive vehicles and kit and assume that only "Rich People" shoot. It's an easy mistake to make if you think about it.

At the same time, I also have experience of lads who get together to shoot, usually clay but when the opportunity arises,a bit of woody or general rough shooting. Most of these lads ( and lasses actually) are just ordinary working folk, with no delusions of grandeur and affordable transport.They are also, undoubtedly MUCH better shots than the toff's

The thing with these sort of shoots and I would imagine the shoots Red refers to; are held on private land, usually not that near main roads, so Joe public might hear the shots but have no idea that it's the local plumber, mechanic, bus driver, farmer etc making the racket.

Actually,thinking about it; to be fair, I'm sure the toffs would welcome any of the rough shooters, to come along for a day on the moors......as long as they were waving fertilizer bag flags and blowing whistles etc

cheers
R.B.

If you know of some cheap driven shoots up our way can you point me out to them please, because all the oness i have seen cost an arm and a leg,

 

[durulz]

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.

So, do you like living in a society where you need to 'almost always have a pistol on my belt'?
That's not 'freedom', my friend.
If you're happy, then I'm happy for you. If you can't see any irony in the 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the necessity to 'almost always' carry a gun then I don't see what more I can say to you.

 

[durulz]

Sadly, the victims of violent street crime might believe otherwise.

Being a victim does not confer wisdom.

 

[British Red]

Neither does it imply that one is not wise.

My point however was simply this. If one wants to truly understand what the majority of people feel about crime, punishment and the right to self defense in the UK, one should ask the population.

I think the outcome would surprise many. I believe that the majority would vote for capital punishment, some for of "castle law" (homeowners absolute right to use whatever force they believe necessary if their home is broken into) and I suspect that the rights to defend oneself when attacked would also be strengthened.

That is my opinion however - and no more (but no less) valid than anyone elses. My poiont is that we should do the population of the UK the courtesy of allowing them to decide what they want. The best way to achieve that is to ask them - in the form of a referndum would be my suggestion.

My feeling is that people are heartily sick of feeling that thugs and no marks can get away with violence and intimidation and want to see a change where honest decent people no longer walk with their heads bowed or live in fear. As a minimum we should do the population of the country the courtesy of asking them. That way we will KNOW what the majority want - rather than speculating about it.

I hope we can agree on that at least

Red

 

[Tadpole]

My feeling is that people are heartily sick of feeling that thugs and no marks can get away with violence and intimidation and want to see a change where honest decent people no longer walk with their heads bowed or live in fear. As a minimum we should do the population of the country the courtesy of asking them. That way we will KNOW what the majority want - rather than speculating about it.

I hope we can agree on that at least

Red

The problem with asking the majority is that, they, by their very nature, out weigh the minority, in this case the minority are people like us. If you ask “the majority” of people about knives they would say "ban them", if you ask “the majority” about wild camping and open fires they would say "ban it", If you ask the majority about any kind of hunting they will say "ban it".
If you ask the majority about anything they don’t understand then their knees will jerk and their media bias, (I.E the papers they read), will be their response rather than any carefully considered views.
It was a knee jerk reaction to Hungerford and Dunblane that got hand guns banned, there was a public out cry in 1996 against knives when a Wolverhampton school was attacked by a deranged man wielding a machete. It’s a media led jerking of the knees that led to fox hunting with dogs to ‘banned’.
I’m sorry but putting your trust in the “will of the people” will not give you the results you think it will.
The sheeple will follow the direction given by the sheepdog, the sheepdog in this case will be the media, a media that does not care what happens so long as what ever happens sells their papers, this is not the way to bring about change for the better.
As with most thing “the opinions” held by “the majority” tend to be wrong.

 

[Grooveski]

In the meantime, I am once again reminded of how fortunate I am to live in a place where wandering with a dog and a rifle, foraging for dinner and enjoying it by a campfire aren't illegal or shocking to the neighbors. If any of you ever visit this part of the world, I'd love to host you for a campout that we can write up and post pics of. I bet I could even take Toddy from "You shouldn't be allowed to own that" to "Can I try it?"

You seem to be implying that hunting trips don't happen or aren't permitted in the UK.
Folk here go hunting plenty and as has been stated a few times if you want to own a rifle you need only apply for a licence. As long as you have no criminal record, can demonstrate you have safe storage and somewhere to use it you'll get one.

"wandering with a dog and a rifle, foraging for dinner and enjoying it by a campfire" isn't illegal or shocking to the neighbours. It's perfectly normal behaviour. Don't go getting misty-eyed over something that isn't an issue. Concealed handguns are the issue.

(toad traffic accidents)

That typo's just screaming out for a Wind in the Willows wisecrack.

 

[Armleywhite]

I'll ignore your apparently elitist view of language and the condescending manner in which you brushed aside what I had to say, but I'll take one of the situations I've actually been in and insert a firearm into it.

I got off the bus and started walking home, I heard "hey!", ignored it and kept walking. I heard "hey - come here!", ignored it and kept walking.
After turning a corner and walking about 50 yards more I heard one final "hey - I want to talk to you", looked over my shoulder and saw two men following me.
Having seen both of them around the neighbourhood since childhood I didn't think anything of it and said "what's up?"
There followed a brief accusation that I'd been giving them "dirty looks" on the bus - which I denied and at this point realised what was coming. Being unarmed, outnumbered, and not exactly a big guy or a capable fighter (thanks in part to my injured wrist and in part to the lack of training or fighter's instinct) I tried to walk away - for which I recieved a pretty savage beating.

That's what really happened - now the same again with a gun...
....which I denied and at this point realised what was coming. Knowing I was ounumbered, unlikely to get away and seriously unlikely to win a fist fight with two men both of whom were larger than I and up for a fight I wasn't expecting - I drew my gun and shouted at them to go away.

Here's where it goes a bit "choose your own adventure".
If they run away (which is far more likely) I make safe and holster the gun, walk the rest of the way home and inform the police that two guys tried to attack me and were scared off - leaving it up to them to see if they find anyone in the area.
If they advance on me I now know their intentions towards are really quite bad - they MUST be if they advance on someone pointing a gun at their chest - and I pull the trigger - immediately I start first aid while phoning for police and an ambulance.
I wouldn't be happy about it, but at least I wouldn't have had a beating at the hands of 2 people I didn't even take as a threat at first.

HOWEVER (and this is an important point)
If we lived in a society where handguns could legally be carried for self defence and had laws that defended victims rather than criminals I don't believe the attack would have happened in the first place.


I believe a similar situation would have unfolded (again - IF it would have unfolded at all) the time I was attacked, beaten, robbed and left with a back injury by a gang of 8.

You seriously believe your dreams that that how it panns out don't you. What if you did pul la gun, due to relaxed laws they have sidearms too, that then? Gun battle in which you COULD end up dead or some poor kid passing by gets hit by the ever ready stray to end their life... You ask in a previous question on how a 4 year old gets hold of a gun??? kids cut themselves with knives. If guns were allowed legally then this would not be so shocking as kids get their hands on things their not meant to all the time! Still, I'm pretty sure you have stats for that as well..

 

[Toddy]

In the meantime, I am once again reminded of how fortunate I am to live in a place where wandering with a dog and a rifle, foraging for dinner and enjoying it by a campfire aren't illegal or shocking to the neighbors. If any of you ever visit this part of the world, I'd love to host you for a campout that we can write up and post pics of. I bet I could even take Toddy from "You shouldn't be allowed to own that" to "Can I try it?"

QUOTE]

It appears that you are labouring under a misallusion; kind though your offer is, we do hunt here, we do camp with fires and dogs and no one is shocked.

In fact I believe our right to free access is greater than yours, though I suspect that you would find that right offensive since it means that even if you own the land others have a right to use it too.

Toddy ("You shouldn't be allowed to own that!") is another misallusion; society says that firearms are not acceptable possessions. I am fully part of my society, no hankering after some none existant golden age of pistol bearing khaki clad stiff upper lipped empire founding officers, don'tcha know

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Armleywhite]

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.




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


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.'



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.


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'.


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

WOW, you really are in the know aren't you? As I have said, and you obviously have "missed", NO, I don't have stats as I said at the time I'm not that anal. However, stats can be massaged to prove anything!! Rubbish me all you like big guy and I don't really give a flying dodar on what you think of me. I don't agree with guns in the UK for "protection" never will! I just find it utterly amazing that some of you think that carrying a gun is the end to your ills?? when you seriously have to point a loaded weapon in the face of an aggressor you think it so easy to pull the trigger? like I said, seen enough rambo films and bingo, it's a piece of pish eh??

 

[Klenchblaize]

The problem with asking the majority is that, they, by their very nature, out weigh the minority, in this case the minority are people like us. If you ask “the majority” of people about knives they would say "ban them", if you ask “the majority” about wild camping and open fires they would say "ban it", If you ask the majority about any kind of hunting they will say "ban it".
If you ask the majority about anything they don’t understand then their knees will jerk and their media bias, (I.E the papers they read), will be their response rather than any carefully considered views.
It was a knee jerk reaction to Hungerford and Dunblane that got hand guns banned, there was a public out cry in 1996 against knives when a Wolverhampton school was attacked by a deranged man wielding a machete. It’s a media led jerking of the knees that led to fox hunting with dogs to ‘banned’.
I’m sorry but putting your trust in the “will of the people” will not give you the results you think it will.
The sheeple will follow the direction given by the sheepdog, the sheepdog in this case will be the media, a media that does not care what happens so long as what ever happens sells their papers, this is not the way to bring about change for the better.
As with most thing “the opinions” held by “the majority” tend to be wrong.

Totally correct Tadpole and the best argument for ensuring that those who wish to continue with minority interests speak with a united and strong voices to at least challenge such reactions. I always thought the reaction, in terms of firearms legislation to the Dunblane tragedy, was akin to asking the parents of a child killed in an RTA to pronounce on future road traffic policy.

I too am bowing out of this thread now as having only recently returned to the site I would quite like to stay on if at all possible! After all I have a pair of rather fine knives to show you all when I can get around to taking a decent picture and that I only had to wait 4 years to be delivered! How's that for going off topic!

K

 

[xylaria]

I don't want to live in country that has the death penalty. I never wish to responsible for the death of another, so I couldn't morally uphold a legal system that permitted murder. I certainly don't want to live in a community that feels it has to enforce the law of the land. Britian has had a juries since danelaw and the right to proper trial stops a society desending into anarchy. In places where law and order has broken down to the extent where members of the civilian population are judge jury and executioner are horrible places to live. Ask anyone that has lived in south africa or in some catholic areas of NI 20 year ago if kangaroo courts are humane. However the human right act should not apply to persons under sentence, the convicted deserve no rights beyond the basic human needs, and playstations and TVs aren't one of them.

I have two families on my street that produce virtually all the anti social behaviour in the neighbourhood. I have moments where I could quite happily smash out some of their kneecaps, there are the legal tools to deal them, but they are not been used. I have lived across the road from a drug den before. The house had bricks put through windows, hate mail even a drive by shooting, none of this made them move on or stop. Eventually the house was closed by police, but this was entirely due to the public giving evidence through crimestoppers and surveillance ops from neighbours houses. It took years for this happen, I can only hope that constantly reporting my present neighbours can have the same effect eventually. I want to uphold the law not enforce it.

 

[Armleywhite]

I don't want to live in country that has the death penalty. I never wish to responsible for the death of another, so I couldn't morally uphold a legal system that permitted murder. I certainly don't want to live in a community that feels it has to enforce the law of the land. Britian has had a juries since danelaw and the right to proper trial stops a society desending into anarchy. In places where law and order has broken down to the extent where members of the civilian population are judge jury and executioner are horrible places to live. Ask anyone that has lived in south africa or in some catholic areas of NI 20 year ago if kangaroo courts are humane. However the human right act should not apply to persons under sentence, the convicted deserve no rights beyond the basic human needs, and playstations and TVs aren't one of them.

I have two families on my street that produce virtually all the anti social behaviour in the neighbourhood. I have moments where I could quite happily smash out some of their kneecaps, there are the legal tools to deal them, but they are not been used. I have lived across the road from a drug den before. The house had bricks put through windows, hate mail even a drive by shooting, none of this made them move on or stop. Eventually the house was closed by police, but this was entirely due to the public giving evidence through crimestoppers and surveillance ops from neighbours houses. It took years for this happen, I can only hope that constantly reporting my present neighbours can have the same effect eventually. I want to uphold the law not enforce it.

Excellent post!!

 

[Tadpole]

Don't carry a gun if you don't want to - noone is asking you to - but if those of us who wish to can carry them - you WILL be safer as a result - and not some illusionary feeling of safety - real safety - a lower chance of being the victim of any kind of violent crime, be it in the street or as a result of a night time home invasion.

It's just that simple.

In the USA in 2000 78% of violent assaults that required hospital treatment were carried out by family member or intimate friend.
Only 7% of violent injuries were as a result of being robbed or sexually assaulted and only 2% for rape.
79% of (rape) sexual assault victims knew their attacker.

Stranger danger is not the problem, and I’m pretty sure that having a hand gun would not have helped in most of the violent/sexual assaults where the person who is attacking is a brother, husband, close friend, or even fellow worker.
If a handgun makes a person feel safer, then they are suffering under a greater illusion of ‘safety’ than you seem to think we are.

1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that a gun kept at home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than to stop an intruder. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that children in states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.”

I'm done here. (no really I am )

 

[Oblio13]

So, do you like living in a society where you need to 'almost always have a pistol on my belt'?
That's not 'freedom', my friend.
If you're happy, then I'm happy for you. If you can't see any irony in the 'freedom' and 'liberty' in the necessity to 'almost always' carry a gun then I don't see what more I can say to you.

Not where I "need" to, where I can. Not where it's a necessity, where it's a right.

 

[Oblio13]

You seem to be implying that hunting trips don't happen or aren't permitted in the UK.
Folk here go hunting plenty and as has been stated a few times if you want to own a rifle you need only apply for a licence. As long as you have no criminal record, can demonstrate you have safe storage and somewhere to use it you'll get one.

"wandering with a dog and a rifle, foraging for dinner and enjoying it by a campfire" isn't illegal or shocking to the neighbours. It's perfectly normal behaviour. Don't go getting misty-eyed over something that isn't an issue. Concealed handguns are the issue.

Actually, concealed handguns weren't the issue, but that's the turn the thread has taken and since it's spirited but civil it's a good turn and let's go with it.

I know that there is some limited hunting in the UK, I was speaking in relative terms. (In the last couple years, for example, I've shot deer, bear, moose, caribou, antelope, coyote, beaver, rabbits, squirrels, ducks and turkey.)

Anyway, there seem to be many posts here (including yours above) about all the permits, regulations and requirements for everything down to catching crawfish.

 

[Oblio13]

... 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine ... A study by the Harvard School of Public Health ...

Both those sources are notoriously biased, and infamous for twisting statistics. There are plenty of other, more reliable studies with different conclusions. People who avoid a robbery or worse without firing a shot, myself included, aren't part of any statistics. There's no way to quantify that.

 

[Toddy]

That's because our native crayfish are under increasing threat not only from incomers but from the diseases they carry. Licences are supposed to ensure that folks know what they are doing and don't spread the disease or eggs of the incomers from one river system to another.

I don't shoot, my neighbour does, this last year he has had, rabbit, squirrel, roe, red, sika and the hybrid deer, pheasant, grouse, duck, goose....all legally. No fuss, no bother.

Different countries, different customs, and remember, we are an island people with finite land masses. We are literally surrounded by water. If we exterminate a species it can't recolonise without our assistance. Similarly island flora and fauna evolves to fit the available habitat and resource niches. Incoming species, such as the grey squirrel and the signal crayfish have a different vigour, in the long term they may not survive here but in the interim they may exterminate the native species.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Oblio13]

It appears that you are labouring under a misallusion; kind though your offer is, we do hunt here, we do camp with fires and dogs and no one is shocked.

What can the average person hunt? What have you hunted?

Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression. There seem like quite a few threads here that speak of confrontations with landowners and other hikers, and what seems like a mind-boggling number of regulations about everything from pocket knives to catching crawfish. Part of that is just a matter of population density, which thankfully isn't yet a problem where I live.

In fact I believe our right to free access is greater than yours, though I suspect that you would find that right offensive since it means that even if you own the land others have a right to use it too.

Same here. Anyone is free to hike or hunt on all unposted land.