I stand corrected, then. I was under the impression that it was a great deal of fuss and bother, with bureaucrats checking home storage facilities and hunting area before even allowing one permission to own a hunting rifle. And I thought that especially big game hunting was beyond the means of the average person.
Changing attitudes about firearms
- Thread starter Oblio13
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
I stand corrected, then. I was under the impression that it was a great deal of fuss and bother, with bureaucrats checking home storage facilities and hunting area before even allowing one permission to own a hunting rifle. And I thought that especially big game hunting was beyond the means of the average person.
I believe your unposted lands are a smaller proportion of your available landmass though.
And instead of a yelled. "Oi! " the response appears to be armed
Here SSSI's are generally exempt as are curtiledge's, otherwise one may wander. Hunting is another matter since the landowner technically owns all that is within or on his/her land. So while one may acquire resources for personal use one may not exploit those resources or use them for commercial gain.
As I said, different countries, different customs; and that's true here in the UK too. Scotland has very different land rights than England, Wales or N. Ireland, and the assortment of fishing, hunting, firearms licences is also varied across the islands.
The Isle of Man for instance allows the ownership of some handguns.
Oblio this isn't a personal attack, but Americans in general seem to have trouble accepting that most of us find our gun laws quite acceptable. To most folks those laws are of no consequence to their personal freedoms or securities.
We are genuinely a relatively law abiding society, despite the vivid rantings of the media. The least policed nation in the Western world apparantly.
When armed police appeared at railway stations and airports, after the suicide plane attacks on America, it left an awful lot of people very uneasy, they didn't even do that after the Northern Irish troubles overspilled here.
Our police wear anti stab vests, not bullet proof ones for very valid reasons.
cheers,
Toddy
And instead of a yelled. "Oi! " the response appears to be armed
Here SSSI's are generally exempt as are curtiledge's, otherwise one may wander. Hunting is another matter since the landowner technically owns all that is within or on his/her land. So while one may acquire resources for personal use one may not exploit those resources or use them for commercial gain.
As I said, different countries, different customs; and that's true here in the UK too. Scotland has very different land rights than England, Wales or N. Ireland, and the assortment of fishing, hunting, firearms licences is also varied across the islands.
The Isle of Man for instance allows the ownership of some handguns.
Oblio this isn't a personal attack, but Americans in general seem to have trouble accepting that most of us find our gun laws quite acceptable. To most folks those laws are of no consequence to their personal freedoms or securities.
We are genuinely a relatively law abiding society, despite the vivid rantings of the media. The least policed nation in the Western world apparantly.
When armed police appeared at railway stations and airports, after the suicide plane attacks on America, it left an awful lot of people very uneasy, they didn't even do that after the Northern Irish troubles overspilled here.
Our police wear anti stab vests, not bullet proof ones for very valid reasons.
cheers,
Toddy
Once it's done it's done, like driving licences and road taxes. Sorry I don't see the issue. Secure storage has always been a feature of gun ownership...........maybe that's why we don't seem to have the same problem with four year old shooting their babysitters
(I hope they charge the father with irresponsibility and make him pay for the youngsters medical care since ultimately it was his fault )Deer are a damned nuisance in some areas, joining shoots isn't beyond anyone who really wants to be involved. The biggest problem can be recovering the carcass from some areas. I know places where the culls are just left on the hills for the fox and the eagles.
cheers,
Toddy
... instead of a yelled. "Oi! " the response appears to be armed
I hope you aren't getting that impression from me. As I posted earlier, in my 52 years I've seen exactly zero instances of firearms being brandished or otherwise misused in anger.
I confess that I am unpleasantly surprised at how passive and dependent so many Brits have become since the "glory days". And I'm disturbed because we're going down the same path.
Can't speak for other parts of the country, but the police here don't wear any vests at all. Guess they aren't too worried about either guns or knives, even though neither are illegal.
By the way, Toddy, thanks for not locking this thread. (I can feel your visceral aversion to the subject through the keyboard )
It's a good debate, and hunting, self defense and self reliance are integral parts of life in the outdoors.
) It's a good debate, and hunting, self defense and self reliance are integral parts of life in the outdoors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_and_equipment_of_the_British_police
I'm told they are devilishly hot in Summer
cheers,
Toddy
I'm told they are devilishly hot in Summer
cheers,
Toddy
He lives in a society where he can carry a firearm and as a result is FAR less likely to need one than someone living in the UK where they can't carry a firearm and so are far more likely to face a situation where one would be needed do not have one available if the need arises.durulz said:
Freedom absolutely includes the freedom to defend yourself from an attacker. end of story.
The irony does not lie where you suggest.
The irony is that you do not see that your "freedom" to live in a society without legally owned firearms serves no purpose other than to give a false illusion of safety while increasing your risk of being the victim of a violent crime. (and even more ironically - increasing your risk of being a victim of crime involving a firearm - funny that)
It's no dream - that's the reality of how things usually work in a legally armed society.armleywhite said:
Is it not an anti-gun argument that if the attacker is armed, the vitim would have no chance to draw? Yet now the anti-gun argument says the exact opposite - the victim draws his arm and then the attacker CAN darw theirs. Which is it?
So what would really happen? If they attempt to pull - I being better trained in the use of firearms (fact of the matter is that legal firearm owners are typically far better trained than criminals and far less likely to make a mistaken kill than an armed police officer) would get my shots off first - and hit the target - not miss like some sideways-aiming gangster.
You're very dismissive of stats - they aren't the answer to everyhing, of course - but they can tell us a lot. Your eagerness to disregard them seems telling.
That said - yes, kids cut themselves with knives - but noone would sensibly argue that knives are just as lethal as a gun - they can be, but it's more difficult to make them such.
I'm not arguing that guns should be allowed and kept in a drawer in the kitchen. I'm arguing that they should be allowed and either locked securely in a cabinet and the key kept on the owner's person, or kept on the person. No access for kiddies that way.
Who has said that?
I've argued nothing of the sort, just that the presence of legally owned firearms in a society makes it a safer place, not a more dangerous one.
There's more to this than shootouts and swift justice no matter how much you try to ignore that fact.
And again you ignore the simple fact that this is NOT about killing people.
This is about the legal status of a tool which, as much as stats can be massaged, it can be concretely shown that the prohibition of which causes a less safe society and the widespread ownership and carrying of which plays a huge part in make society safer.
This is about a tool the very presence of which makes the need to use it in anger LOWER and the very drawing of which usually stops crime in its tracks without any need to discharge a round.
You don't like guns - that's fine, I don't expect everyone to like them - but the simple fact that people like you deliberately ignore the benefit legally owned and carried firearms bring to society, deliberately twist scenarios and ignore realits and prevent those of us who wish to defend ourselves and others from attack from doing so is absolutely sickening.
Those who remove a person's right and ability to defend themselves from attack are as guilty as the attacker when they become a victim.
Hardly what you could call a gun-nut bent on death - and even he saw benefit in an armed society.
I find it very strange that you point the finger at the pro-gun people in this thread using smears about hollywood, sub-hollywood and rambo - and yet your entire argument seems based on little more than what you see in movies and that other hollywood we call "the news" - notorious for spinning every crime into an epidemic.
Even your "knife crime is going up" thing - there's an article on this very website that shows the opposite is true.
Of course - you wouldn't like to read it - it uses statistics and we all know stats are complete rubbish... of course, how you know the "majority" in the US die by their own gun and how knife crime is going up and so on without the use of stats is beyond me.
Well - it's not beyond me really - you're making it up as you go along - but I wouldn't so rude as to point that out.
Well - maybe I am.
Ditto.xylaria said:
You never need to be - pacifism is fine for those who wish to practice it.
I'm not aware of one that does. If a legal gun owner killed someone in self defence you would have no responsibility for that death. Just like you have no responsibility for the actions of the sober driver breaking no laws who kills another road user by accident.
However, you're obviously talking about "killing" as "murder" - not that it fits the description when in self defence, but that aside...
In a legal system which denies people their right to bear arms for personal defence, more innocent people are killed than an equivalent society where the right is recognised.
While it's true there's always difficulty in comparing 2 separate societies, the trends in places which either remove or introduce restrictions on firearms are proof enough that prohibition causes far more innocent deaths than does legalisation of concealed carry.
Not sure what you mean there. Guessing though... What is better? A would-be victim stopping the crime (and that doesn't necessarily mean shots fired) - added to a lower rate of crime overall... or a police force failing to find the criminal... or a jury failing to convict?
There are no mistaken identities, technicalities and loopholes when a crime is being comitted.
And those who go to trial will have a fair one, rightly so. None of this means the removal of a right to fair trial - but how can there possibly be a miscarriage of justice when an armed woman is being dragged into a park by a rapist? She's not going to convict an innocent man - she's going to stop herself being raped. The moment he lets go to ready himself for the act - she brings out her pistol and either scares, restrains or shoots him. 2 out of 3 we lose a rapist, the other one she's ok. Where's the negative?
Finally to your neighbours. Anyone would be wrong to wade in guns blazing. The legal use of firearms is to prevent an assault on person and (in some legal systems) property.
If they were roaming the streets looking for rape victims things would be different, but they aren't.
You ahve to wonder though - would their behaviour be the same if all those who suffered from their actions were armed?
Would they be as likely to assault someone if that person or a passer by might be armed?
The reality of places with armed citizens says no - they are far less likely to act that way.
Good on you standing up to them though - reporting crimes, giving statements and standing up in court can be a risky business - I love it that there are still people who take the responsibility to get people like that removed.
it used to be like that in England once.
Bobbies wore a shirt and carried a wooden stick, a pair of handcuffs and not much else (well, besides the rest of the uniform of course - haha).
The population was armed to the teeth back then (and it wasn't so long ago now either)
In the "tottenham outrage" (or was it scandal - never can remember) a couple of russians (i think) robbed a bank/post office and shot a couple of people.
The police borrowed handguns from passers by - and with a few armed citizens tagging along - they gave chase. One criminal was shot, the other shot himself (iirc).
It was an outrage (or scandal) because it had happened at all - not because people were armed and the cops weren't.
Now we have armed response units, police wearing stab vests, carrying 10,000 tasers (not each), chemical weapons and metal coshes (the only nod to the wooden stick of the past).
What changed? The population were disarmed and criminals given free run of the place. That's all.
There's LESS poverty now than there was then - so it can't be that.
Oh and also - thanks from me too Toddy.
I think the mods on here do a fine job (and I speak as an ex-mod of an extremely busy forum) and I'm glad you'll allow threads like this to run as long as they stay civil (even if a bit heated) - I think it's a healthy policy.
Keep up the good work
I think the mods on here do a fine job (and I speak as an ex-mod of an extremely busy forum) and I'm glad you'll allow threads like this to run as long as they stay civil (even if a bit heated) - I think it's a healthy policy.
Keep up the good work
Of course you wouldn't be rude to point it out to me, even though you just did!!!! ONCE AGAIN, I never said I was anti stats, just that given the information they can be massaged to prove anything!! And this point was born out in a previous post where toddy provides stats, yet someone claims there not reliable???? They either are or their not, thats why I never put to much credence to message board stat guru's
I put my line about knife crime from various sources, ie - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4078019.stm or http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm
Of course you'll probably rubbish these as non conclusive.. You also seem to think that just because YOU may take the safety of guns seriously that everyone would?? Now who's not being realistic. You seem tothink that you will be the big safe chap walking round with your 357 under your arm and no one will touch you. What ifs do not count my friend.. What if their quicker on the draw, or already have their weapon drawn and ready to use. Crack heads don't give a toss about your life you think you can beat the bullet and draw quicker... Jeez.. "you ignore the fact it's not about killing people" So why carry the dammn thing then if thats the ultimate intention to save your own neck?? you have a gun, the crack head has a gun he doesn't give a dman except for his fix, so he couldn't care less who he hits , you fire back "because its legal and you can" and we could end up with another innocent kid lying dead as a result!!
You still truly think that no kiddie is going to play with daddies big bang stick? Someone on here TOLD they did it as a kid. Luckily it ended happily, but I bet his dad left a few pounds of the old smelly stuff in his kecks. But hey, it's ok it's locked away. And when that rapist breaks in the house to carry out his eveil deed on your wife (which I hope never happens, it's only as an example) she asks him to wait a bit while she finds the key to unlock the cabinet for her to shoot him??????????????
Sorry, but I will never see the reason for anyone in the UK to carry firearms on a daily basis. Stats or not!!
I don't like guns, you bet. I have many damn good reasons why not as well!!!!
I put my line about knife crime from various sources, ie - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4078019.stm or http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm
Of course you'll probably rubbish these as non conclusive.. You also seem to think that just because YOU may take the safety of guns seriously that everyone would?? Now who's not being realistic. You seem tothink that you will be the big safe chap walking round with your 357 under your arm and no one will touch you. What ifs do not count my friend.. What if their quicker on the draw, or already have their weapon drawn and ready to use. Crack heads don't give a toss about your life you think you can beat the bullet and draw quicker... Jeez.. "you ignore the fact it's not about killing people" So why carry the dammn thing then if thats the ultimate intention to save your own neck?? you have a gun, the crack head has a gun he doesn't give a dman except for his fix, so he couldn't care less who he hits , you fire back "because its legal and you can" and we could end up with another innocent kid lying dead as a result!!
You still truly think that no kiddie is going to play with daddies big bang stick? Someone on here TOLD they did it as a kid. Luckily it ended happily, but I bet his dad left a few pounds of the old smelly stuff in his kecks. But hey, it's ok it's locked away. And when that rapist breaks in the house to carry out his eveil deed on your wife (which I hope never happens, it's only as an example) she asks him to wait a bit while she finds the key to unlock the cabinet for her to shoot him??????????????
Sorry, but I will never see the reason for anyone in the UK to carry firearms on a daily basis. Stats or not!!
I don't like guns, you bet. I have many damn good reasons why not as well!!!!
It was the moral and political breakdown of the law that has allowwed that, not the anti gun brigade!!
By the way, Toddy, thanks for not locking this thread. (I can feel your visceral aversion to the subject through the keyboard
It's a good debate, and hunting, self defense and self reliance are integral parts of life in the outdoors.
My aversion to this thread is purely because it has all the potential to go nuclear
We generally close political threads simply on that basis. We do like a quiet life
well, online anyway The gun issue isn't really relevant to most folks who do any bushcrafting in the UK, you note we only have one forum on BcUK that relates to it, we simply have no need for more.
Self defence tbh is not an issue I have ever had to deal with when out and about, and I've been at it a fair while
Self reliance is always a good topic for the practically minded.
cheers,
Toddy
I personally think that unless the thread descends into total anarchy then it's good to keep going, even if it does appear to be heated.
You're dead right I'll rubbish at lest the first one... the first link you provided (BBC) does nothing more than say it's on the up. Hardly a good basis for argument.
We already know the media seriously overplay crime "epidemics".
Some stats are more reliable than others. Those rubbished in this thread were published by a journal of medicine (hardly an authority) notorious for distorting studies when it comes to things like gun control.
Someone on here told us they played with daddies .22 - but they also told us he put the key away where she could see and reach.
Parents should take responsibility for their kids - when they get hold of a gun it is the parent's fault - not society's.
So now you've given that argument and are going down the "accidents" route - should we now ban shotguns and firearms in the UK to avoid accidents in those homes that have them?
Or is it only handguns you're afraid of accidents with?
Why carry them if it's not just to kill someone?
Oh I dunno - maybe my entire argument as presented several times over and over in this very thread?
1> The presence of firearms in the home reduces the number of incidents of home invasion when people are at home (that includes rapists breaking in).
2> On the subject of rapists - did I forget to mention the proven effect armed women has on rape stats? I know I didn't... Orlando Florida for one of the key examples (and one that began the current trend to "shall issue" laws in the USA)
3> Concealed weapons on the street reduce the chance of everyone being attacked (armed or otherwise) as demonstraed in all areas which have introduced "shall issue" concealed carry laws that previously were under legal or effective prohibition.
4> Drawing a weapon is usually enough to stop a crime without any need to fire a single round.
Do you want me to write it all up again in another full post? I've done it several times already and I'll do it again if I need to.
Oh and for your junkie point - a friend of mine has been in that situation (junkie - now long since recovered thankfully, not victim) and had no trouble getting his hands on illegal firearms and using them in robberies. No law would have stopped him doing so.
Now fortunately he wasn't out there enough to actually kill with them, but many are.
You would have UNARMED people coming up against ARMED c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s (you know - the ones who ignore laws anyway so won't be disarmed by prohibitions like the one in the UK) and think that makes them safer. You think it's a good thing that people are not allowed to defend themselves against the attacks of armed predators (and even if they are not armed - they are usually far better at fighting than their victim so it's still predation, not a level playing field) - I think that is absolutely sickening.
How very strange.
We already know the media seriously overplay crime "epidemics".
Some stats are more reliable than others. Those rubbished in this thread were published by a journal of medicine (hardly an authority) notorious for distorting studies when it comes to things like gun control.
Someone on here told us they played with daddies .22 - but they also told us he put the key away where she could see and reach.
Parents should take responsibility for their kids - when they get hold of a gun it is the parent's fault - not society's.
So now you've given that argument and are going down the "accidents" route - should we now ban shotguns and firearms in the UK to avoid accidents in those homes that have them?
Or is it only handguns you're afraid of accidents with?
Why carry them if it's not just to kill someone?
Oh I dunno - maybe my entire argument as presented several times over and over in this very thread?
1> The presence of firearms in the home reduces the number of incidents of home invasion when people are at home (that includes rapists breaking in).
2> On the subject of rapists - did I forget to mention the proven effect armed women has on rape stats? I know I didn't... Orlando Florida for one of the key examples (and one that began the current trend to "shall issue" laws in the USA)
3> Concealed weapons on the street reduce the chance of everyone being attacked (armed or otherwise) as demonstraed in all areas which have introduced "shall issue" concealed carry laws that previously were under legal or effective prohibition.
4> Drawing a weapon is usually enough to stop a crime without any need to fire a single round.
Do you want me to write it all up again in another full post? I've done it several times already and I'll do it again if I need to.
Oh and for your junkie point - a friend of mine has been in that situation (junkie - now long since recovered thankfully, not victim) and had no trouble getting his hands on illegal firearms and using them in robberies. No law would have stopped him doing so.
Now fortunately he wasn't out there enough to actually kill with them, but many are.
You would have UNARMED people coming up against ARMED c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s (you know - the ones who ignore laws anyway so won't be disarmed by prohibitions like the one in the UK) and think that makes them safer. You think it's a good thing that people are not allowed to defend themselves against the attacks of armed predators (and even if they are not armed - they are usually far better at fighting than their victim so it's still predation, not a level playing field) - I think that is absolutely sickening.
How very strange.
Heated is good, it's not an internet always-completely-agree-with-each-other forum. Just maintain enough self control to keep your pistol holstered.
Toddy, most western cultures -- and yes, America -- are also genuinely law abiding societies, guns or not.
On the issue of whether the UK is the least policed Western nation, I suspect that depends on how you define policing. I think you also are the most monitored Western culture with a heavier blanketing of CCTVs than any nation in the world. I consider that heavy policing, but then again I'm big on privacy.
My guess is that the Scandinavia countries (based on my experience, no stats!) are likely the least policed.
But again, I think it's a logical fallacy to argue the gun rights issue (pro or con) using crime anyway.
Like I said In a previous post, I live in one of the largest cities in the uk and I can honestly say that I have never felt so threatened that a gun would have eased things. My point, which you claim I keep making without cause about criminals already have access to guns is totally valid. Criminals are armed, so are a lot of kids in bigger cities anyway, but throw in the mix the gung ho "legitimate" owner and you have the potential for disaster!!
Yes the kiddie played with a 22, and he locked it away. Still a what if is'nt it? Yes perents should take FULL responsibilty, but accidents happen, mistakes are made. My son, about 10 years ago, got a hold of his grandmothers heart tablets, in a blink of an eye they were down his neck. Several hours in the local A+E he was sent home ok. What if a parent is distracted for one second kid granbs gun and bang, dead someone?? Kids get things that they shouldn't all the time! No matter how well we think we hide / secure them!
As to carrying guns to dissuade the antagonist. Your talking about perfectly decent people being allowed to arm themselves agains ta society the doesn't care about life, let alone yours. Sorry, I'd rather have the pain and anguish of being mugged than taking anothers life! Which is what it might come down to if everyone had guns. Also, i always thought that concealed weapons were illegal, even in the us?
Has the words of one who lives in LA / NY and that of the homeowner holding the kids on the floor when there are hundreds of shootings per DAY in the ghetto's, not proved that even in the liberated US the gun law is failing in thoe very same situation you claim it would help over here?
Yes the kiddie played with a 22, and he locked it away. Still a what if is'nt it? Yes perents should take FULL responsibilty, but accidents happen, mistakes are made. My son, about 10 years ago, got a hold of his grandmothers heart tablets, in a blink of an eye they were down his neck. Several hours in the local A+E he was sent home ok. What if a parent is distracted for one second kid granbs gun and bang, dead someone?? Kids get things that they shouldn't all the time! No matter how well we think we hide / secure them!
As to carrying guns to dissuade the antagonist. Your talking about perfectly decent people being allowed to arm themselves agains ta society the doesn't care about life, let alone yours. Sorry, I'd rather have the pain and anguish of being mugged than taking anothers life! Which is what it might come down to if everyone had guns. Also, i always thought that concealed weapons were illegal, even in the us?
Has the words of one who lives in LA / NY and that of the homeowner holding the kids on the floor when there are hundreds of shootings per DAY in the ghetto's, not proved that even in the liberated US the gun law is failing in thoe very same situation you claim it would help over here?
The Scottish force employs about 16,000 police for just under 5 million people. As I said, low numbers.
It was me who worked out where the key to the gun chest was (through two other locks to find it ) and that was nearly 50 years ago........now don't all go blaming me for the greater level of security imposed on gun cabinets in the intervening years
I shan't tell you what I did when I was puzzling out how a syphon worked Let's just say I got my backside skelped (is that legal nowadays ) and leave it at that.
cheers,
Toddy
It was me who worked out where the key to the gun chest was (through two other locks to find it ) and that was nearly 50 years ago........now don't all go blaming me for the greater level of security imposed on gun cabinets in the intervening years
I shan't tell you what I did when I was puzzling out how a syphon worked
Let's just say I got my backside skelped (is that legal nowadays ) and leave it at that.cheers,
Toddy
- Status
