Changing attitudes about firearms

[Toddy]

Your 'freedom' comes with too high a cost.

I wander freely, without fear, without wondering if the next person I nod a quiet, "Aye!" or "Hello", to, will decide to take some perceived offence and brandish a firearm.
They just aren't necessary in our society.

Wonder how you would take that freedom

cheers,
Toddy

p.s. the three 'heroes' you mention are pretty much forgotten here, the world moves on and the customs of previous times rapidly become of no import.

 

[Oblio13]

Your 'freedom' comes with too high a cost.

I wander freely, without fear, without wondering if the next person I nod a quiet, "Aye!" or "Hello", to, will decide to take some perceived offence and brandish a firearm.
They just aren't necessary in our society.

Wonder how you would take that freedom

cheers,
Toddy

I live in a pleasant place as well. You may have an inaccurate image of at least small-town America. I feel more threatened in London than I do here.

Times I have been threatened with a firearm: Zero. Gun crimes I have seen: Zero.

Reminds me of visiting Japan. The popular image there of America is of cowboys. I had a hard time explaining to them that modern cowboys drive golf carts around feedlots, and Texas has more gay bars than ranches.

 

[Oblio13]

p.s. the three 'heroes' you mention are pretty much forgotten here, the world moves on and the customs of previous times rapidly become of no import.

I know. The world would be a better place if such men were still respected and emulated.

 

[British Red]

Sadly, the victims of violent street crime might believe otherwise. When comparing the statistics on violent crime, it is interesting to note that you are far more likely to be assaulted in the street, mugged etc. in the UK than in the US.

What is certainly true is that the vast majority of the UK would prefer stronger rights to self defense. For example the right to defends ones home from those effecting forcible entry (without fear of prosecution) was voted recently the law most people would like to see enacted. By the listeners to radio 4.

It has been proven time and again that the vast majority of UK citizens would like to see capital punishment returned.

Many people actually are tired of feeling unempowered and unable to resist "hoodlums" and violent thugs.

I am far from sure that the cost we pay for our over liberal laws is what most people want to see.

So, whilst some feel one way about not wanting the tools for self defense, clearly others do not. What form they should take - whether in the home, the street etc. is open to debate, but there certainly are many and varied views in the UK. Toddy certainly has one, but I am far from certain if that view is held by the majority. I have a different view.

I am all in favour of rigorous licensing standards for firearms, however I also believe that peope have a right to defend themselves with any force necessary against assault against their person or property.

I tire of people making excuses for the perpetrators of crime and causing the innocent and law abiding to suffer. Criminals should suffer, not victims and the law and attitudes need to change to reflect this. That is what I believe most people in the UK want. What form it should take is open to debate, but fear should be felt by the violent and the antisocial - not a woman on a bus or a man in his home.

Red

 

[Toddy]

I don't think so, heroes belong to their times, their virtues don't always transfer well down the centuries. Few now consider the expansionism of empire to be a good thing.

You have just admitted that you carry a firearm virtually all the time, well, sorry, but that *is* Wild West-y to us
cheers,
Toddy

 

[British Red]

Not to all of us Toddy

 

[Toddy]

And yet, the law changes are accepted by the majority Red, regardless of your personal beliefs.

Time for bed, said Zebedee

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Oblio13]

I don't think so, heroes belong to their times, their virtues don't always transfer well down the centuries. ..

We're wandering even further off topic here, but it's an interesting discussion. I would have thought that their courage, dedication, eloquence, genius, and steadiness were timeless. Who do you think are more appropriate role models for today?

You have just admitted that you carry a firearm virtually all the time, well, sorry, but that *is* Wild West-y to us ..

I'm armed professionally as a pilot, and privately as a citizen. Quite common in this part of the country. Funny thing is that there's no crime to speak of here. Neighborhoods get along, houses and cars are unlocked. The last "crime wave" was a kid breaking into houses and stealing booze. A citizen caught him, not the police.

 

[British Red]

The majority were never consulted Toddy - and with luck they will be changed - however they are, for now, the law. That doesn't mean the majority asked for, or want them (unless you have any evidence of a referndum or comprhensive opinion poll to the contrary).

In the mean time we merely have a (polite) difference of opinion.

I suggest that there are numerous opinion polls that significant numbers of opinion polls prove that the majority of the population wish to see capital punishment reintroduced. The law says otherwise but, the polls are proof positive that the law does not always reflect what the majority of the population want to see .

So, regardless of your personal beliefs, there is no evidence (one way or the other) as what the majority wish to see on the right of self defense.

Night night - Red

 

[jamesoconnor]

Pretty interesting thread this. Just thought I'd throw in my tuppence worth. Ive been the victim of violent crime twice, both being attempted murders. The first time was a night out with a cousin who had literally arrived of the plane from Ireland. We were onto only the second pint of the night in the pub we were in when I had a large bottle of beer shoved, not smashed into my skull and knocked unconcious where the attackers proceeded to attack my cousin and stab him 5 times. The police came to the conclusion that the reason of the attack was his Irish accent wasn't liked and they took out the big guy fist, me being 6'5.
The second incident was 3 years ago when, sitting in my car reading a book that I had just recieved from Amazon for roughly a half hour, someone opened the car door without me seeing ,stabbed me in the neck and tried to then slit my throat but luckily I diverted the blade up my chin to the bottom of my lip. The wound was 1mm from my major artery and also 1cm from my windpipe so I can count myself lucky. Both incidents were unprovoked and happened so quickly that I could do nothing to avoid them.
Would having a gun have helped me? No, as it was to fast for me to do anything. I believe the laws in the UK are fine as they are and having firearme on your person would not deter the people who willingly want to commit violent crime.
May I add that I do have shotguns and rifles but purely for hunting and lets just keep firearm law the way it is.

James

 

[Oblio13]

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?"

 

[BigShot]

Ok let's see.
The majority are against the ID cards debacle that's going on.
I do believe that's an exception that breaks the rule... there are more, but that's enough.
Government do what they will do regardless of public will.
Iraq? Uh oh - we found another.

So, do the government really act on the will of the majority?
Considering less than 50% of eligable people actually vote that's just not the case.
So ignoring the non-voters, do the government act on the will of the majority of voters? Again, no. While Labour were first past the post and so have the seats to force what they want through, the majoirty of voters actually voted for other parties.


As for feeling safe.
I've been to Switzerland and the USA - both countries with huge levels of firearm ownership and have felt incredibly safe.
I walk down the street in the UK and feel unsafe.
I feel unsafe because I don't live in the bubble that many are lucky enough to live in. The first time I was attacked in the street I was about 8 years old - my Dad was close enough to protect me in that case.
Since then I've been attacked several times resulting in anything from the loss of a few pound coins to several hundred pounds of money, phone and camera equipment and a good bit of irreplacable artwork and sentimental items I had on me - with injuries varying from nothing to eyes swollen shut and back injuries.
There have been situations where I consider myself lucky to be alive.

I'm absolutely delighted that many people FEEL safe - but that feeling of safety is a false one. While each individual is more likely not to be a victim of violent crime than not - the fact that so many are victims completely and conclusively proves that the safety feeling is an illusion.
The only way a person can have anything approaching real safety is if they are able to practice self defence in an effective manner.

The hypothetical petite girl, or this non-hypothetical tall, thin guy who doesn't fight and has been on the recieving end of numerous incidents of violent crime can not hope to defend themselves against any serious attacker using any method of defence from empty hand up to knives. The only weapon that levels the playing field is a firearm.

Yes - handguns are bloody effective tools for killing people - that is exactly the reason they should be allowed for, and are so effective in self defence. That is exactly WHY their legal presence in any society you care to look at causes a downward trend in violent crime and their abscence causes the opposite.

That they allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong is not a bad thing - it is a truly wonderful aspect of their nature and the exact reason they should be available for those who wish to carry them for self defence.

That someone would deny me, the hypothetical petite would-be rape victim or anyone else the right to defend themselves from the very real threat of violent attack from the predators in our society is abhorrent.
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.

 

[BigShot]

jamesoconnor - sorry to hear about the attacks - crap isn't it.

I disagree that firearms wouldn't have made a difference though. Look at the trends of violent crime in any area with legally owned and concealed carried firearms and you'll see that those kinds of crimes are far less likely to happen.

Guns don't only help when you can get them out and point them at an attacker... guns help by their very presence in society. They probably do more to deter criminals by sitting in handbags and shoulder holsters than they do sitting in the hands of a would-be-victim of crime pointing at the attacker.

When they are present people are far less likely to attack in the first place.




Oblio....
First - I'm incredibly jealous - I'd love to live somewhere like that.
Second - I might have to take you up on that offer I'm gonna try to be in Americaland this summer.
Third - The grain on that rifle stock is absolutely beautiful.

 

[firecrest]

Just to clarify my stance, because I tend to play the devils advocate a lot.

I don't think relaxed gun laws in the UK are much of a good idea because I believe the UK national identity to be poorly aquainted with guns. Most citizens would not rush out to buy one and children are all to eager to commit big crimes these days. I think it wouldnt help crime stats because its more a psychological issue than simply a matter of having the means.
If gun laws were relaxed, Id agree only if punishments became much more severe.
If gun laws were relaxed, Id personally own a gun because I do not live in a safe area and if other people are going to get them, I best get one first.

Incidentally, we concentrate a lot on protecting property from invasion, but do we have the same rights to shoot the banker that invades our savings and blows it all? No. I believe only in self defence, not property defence. If we can shoot theives and robbers then we aught to be able to shoot bankers and politicians.

 

[korvin karbon]

oblio, i hope you realsie how big the stampede is going to be to take you up on your offer LOL

As for guns, its the person behind the trigger who kills. Proper education is the key, sadly the vast majority of gun crime is commited by people who probably are that un educated that they dont understand the basic operation of the gun.

Not being able to have ahandgun in the UK does not bother me in the slightest, sure it would be handy if i decided to walk around the most scumbag infested areas of glasgow and edinburgh, but there is the failing. The gun gets you out of trouble, personally i dont want to get into trouble, so i avoid those sitauations and 99% of the time i have been big and ugly enough to only use my hands to deal with problems. Horses for courses really.

i think the gun laws that we have here are adequate enough, i do not want to see them extended. Not to sure about realxing, well not to the extent that automatic weapons are considered a requirment for rabbit hunting.

if i was in north america then i would almost certainly be a gun owner,
1 because when i have been shooting i enjoyed it
2 hunting rabbits was fun ( quit sniggering you big game hunters)
3 you have some nasty critters ( some might say even meaner than the sabre toothed mountain haggis )
4 i know that there is a greater chance of a burglar/mugger etc etc likely to be armed

anyway, its nice to see that this has not turned into a complete mud flinging flight like his issue has on several other forums before.

 

[korvin karbon]

Incidentally, we concentrate a lot on protecting property from invasion, but do we have the same rights to shoot the banker that invades our savings and blows it all? No. I believe only in self defence, not property defence. If we can shoot theives and robbers then we aught to be able to shoot bankers and politicians.

we need a cop show that does that, we see shop lifters tackled to the ground for shop lifting, so for the greedy git bankers maybe we should have an elephant keep them pinned to the ground (wehn i say elephant i of course mean elephant herd)

 

[Oblio13]

... tired of feeling unempowered and unable to resist "hoodlums" and violent thugs.... fear should be felt by the violent and the antisocial - not a woman on a bus or a man in his home...

I think you hit the nail on the head. When people are indoctrinated to believe that they shouldn't do something as elemental as resisting aggression, it does psychological damage. Not to mention creating a wonderful working environment for human predators.

And the great hypocrisy is that those who make such laws are protected by armed bodyguards.

 

[BigShot]

Firecrest - on the whole I agree.
Obviously I'd love to see the laws relaxed - but I think it would be counterproductive to simply say "right - that's it - you can have guns now".

I actually do believe the result of that would be a pretty horrible one...
...that's why I'd be in favour of a gradual reintroduction alongside a huge program of education and reforms of law, the penal system and so on.
That said - I'd like to see a faster reintroduction than many would want to see.

I believe that with the right approach we could reintroduce them safely.

First we'd have to empower victims of crime in the current climate.
So a complete reform of the current laws of self defence allowing people to defend themselves effectively - I care not what arguments people make about "reasonable force" being a good law - it is not.
It, along with other laws, fails to allow a person to prepare to defend themselves (by carrying a blunt or edged weapon) and so instantly advantages the criminal.

Following that a program whereby people can get access to firearms after training in marksmanship, maintenance, safety - and probably psych analysis on top of background checks.

Over a period of time we could relax the laws that need relaxing, tighten those that need tightening and bring about a cultural shift.

Not an easy process, but one I believe would be effective.
See the 2000 women program that took place in Orlando, Florida in response to the soaring incidence of rape for something I think would be a good start.



All that said - I actually don't believe allowing people to carry and use non-firearm weapons for self defence would be as effective as the system I'd like to see - not by a long shot. All of those items need intimate contact with your attacker IF it comes to using it (the "what if they don't run away?" scenario) and carry a real risk of annoying them and leading to it being used against the victim.
What allowing that would do is give people permission to defend themselves, to take responsibility for themselves, and make criminals think twice about who they attack.
It would say "it's ok to defend yourself - and if your attacker gets hurt in the process - that's his own fault for being a predator and not yours for not wanting to be a victim".
Really I think that's more a concession to those I disagree with than something I'd like to see - I have more problems with edged, blunt and chemical weapons for self defence than I do with firearms.

 

[dogwood]

As a gun owner and a gun rights promoter, I have to admit this: the perception of what guns do to a community is intensely regional and based on the situation at hand.

If you live in South Central LA and have to dive to the ground and cover your six year old with your body because of stray bullets from a gang-banger , you just want guns off the streets and to hell with the larger issues. Completely understandable.

According to the NY Times an army device that measures ballistic acoustics was installed in a bad area of Camden, New Jersey and it measured a staggering 1,200 shots in a five day period. If you live there, you want guns off the streets. Undertandable.

Meanwhile, the neighbors of Algiers Point in New Orleans banded together and collected six guns from their houses and kept *all* of their neighbors safe in the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. You literally had 76 year old grannies in rocking chairs with a .38 revolver. They made themselves and their entire neighborhood safe and nobody needed to get shot. The presence of this elderly militia and their guns was enough to scare away the bad guys.

So they don't want to lose their guns -- it allowed them and their immediate community to remain civilized as everything around them broke down.

The problem, ultimately, is this: mingling gun policy and crime policy is a staggering mistake. No rigorous examination of either side of this gun/crime discussion can make a truly convincing case.

Gun control advocates can't honestly prove that getting guns off the streets makes for less crime or safer cities. The data doesn't support it, although in certain places like South Central the gun control case gets a lot stronger and more urgent.

Gun rights advocates can't make the case that guns are truly a deterrent to crime although they can claim better statistical evidence to support their side. And they've got this: if you had a culture where 100% of the adults were armed 100% of the time, the crime rate will certainly plummet (but the accident rate will rise...)

In the end though, having a gun discussion and bringing crime into it is intellectually dishonest.

Our goal, should be to reduce all kinds of crime and reduce violent crime in particular. Talking about getting rid of guns has no real bearing on getting rid of crime and is just a distraction from the real issue of crime.

Almost all violent crime finds roots in cultural issues, poverty and/or substance abuse (crime by the mentally ill is a vanishingly small statistic).

Despair and hopelessness are more deadly to any culture than any gun. Thriving people are overwhelmingly less likely to commit crimes.

But for some reason, aside from lip service, both the gun rights side and the gun control side refuse to truly focus on stopping crime.

In America, I won't take gun rights organizations seriously until I see the NRA in South Central LA starting jobs programs and education programs.

Likewise I can't take gun-control advocates seriously until I see them starting job programs and education programs and voting to increase police budgets.

If we get rid of crime the presence of guns won't be an issue and gun policy will revolve around one thing and one thing only: making sure they're handled in a safe and responsible manner.

Crime is the issue. Guns are not.

 

[BigShot]

Dogwood - an excellent post.
I bow to pretty much all of it.

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).
Disarming law abiding citizens will not achieve that and will, in fact, remove their ability to protect themselves when the bad guys DO take an interest in them.
I know you know that - just thought I'd point it out though as your post seemed to suggest otherwise at that point.

I may not have made it clear (or even mentioned it come to think of it) in this thread - but I'm absolutely all for trying to tackle the reasons for the violence - but even with that in place allowing people the freedom to defend themselves effectively is an important issue.