Posted on 08/19/2005 12:28:00 PM PDT by neverdem
Sorry, I've already had my cuppa tea.
I was kicked out of that range for "firing too quickly." I was just doing timed fire (not rapid fire) practice!
Yes, I am, aren't I?
Incidentally, am I right in assuming that when you buy a gun in the USA you don't actually have to demonstrate you can use it safely and proficiently, nor even intend to learn how?
It's rather like buying a car in that respect. You don't need a license or permit to do that either, although it's patently just as dangerous an object.
When guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have them. You can make book that a terrorist is well armed.
Yes, a long process of government lies and misrepresentations to disarm the British people no matter what the reality of gun crime was. You really need to read this academic essay. Very democratic, NOT.
You might find this article about the ownership and carrying of firearms in Britain prior to 1920 interesting too.
This alone proves my point that we're – still - safer in the UK than in the US. Thanks.
The way you phrased post 17 suggested that you believe that the availability of firearms in the USA is the reason why it has a higher murder and violent crime rate than the UK. I pointed out that since knife ownership is not restricted in either country, but the rate of murders committed with knives in the USA is higher than the total UK murder rate then obviously there are reasons other than gun ownership rates which explain the higher homicide rate in the USA.
As to the study comparing NY and London over 200 years, what relevance does it have today what things were like in Napoleon's day? I'm talking about the UK today.
You seem to have misunderstood. I was making the point that even when London had no gun control laws whatsoever (prior to 1920) and people commonly carried revolvers on the street (refer to the second link above), the murder rate was still 5 times lower than it was in NYC and between 1900 and 1920 it was lower than it is today. The point being that British gun control laws have not decreased the murder rate or violent crime rate in the UK and the US has always had a higher homicide rate, so its more liberal gun control laws are not the reason why the US homicide rate is higher.
So what? A different society, much more staid and law-abiding, while the Swiss' guns and ammo are government property and locked away. Why is this relevant? Why bring the Swiss into this? What have they go to do with us?
First off, shooting is a very popular sport in Switzerland and reservists have to practise with their home stored rifles regulary and they have ammunition at home, so their weapons are not out of reach. Obviously, if they wanted to go out and commit bank robberies, shootings, mass-murder etc then they could do so, but they hardly ever do that and their homicide rate is often lower than in the UK. Hence greater gun availability does not automatically mean a higher homicide or violent crime rate.
Meaning it's OK to shoot people to bring down the murder rate/violent crime rate?
As long as they are threatening violence against you then yes its fine to shoot them. Stop protecting criminals.
Kicking deaths being more frequent that shooting deaths demonstrates that REAL gun crime is hardly soaring.
The point is that an unarmed person being kicked or beaten to death by a gang obviously can do FA to protect his/herself whereas an armed person has a chance. Also, if gun crime is not increasing then why is the Home Office so obsessed with constantly toughening the Firearms laws?
To clarify, I meant the kind of people who get involved in pub brawls.
You didn't make that clear and as you said innocent people are often victimised by drunken thugs. Your comment could equally well be construed to show contempt for the lives of females, disabled and elderly people who are attacked in their homes by burglars.
I know that! It's bad enough already, so why make it any easier?
When pistols were prohibited the law-abiding gave them up but the crooks didn't, hence prohibition has created an imbalance of arms in favour of the criminals.
If you're in one of those categories, you really shouldn't hang around near rough pubs at chucking-out time, where most of this sort of trouble occurs.
I'm not just talking about street violence connected to alcohol abuse in the inner cities, I was also referring to people who are confronted by burglars in their homes. BTW, the burglary rate in the USA is less than half that in the UK and you're about eight times more likely to be confronted in your home by a burglar in the UK since the "hot burglary" rate is about four times higher too. Now why would that be?
Common sense, really. Anyway, do you think hauling out a firearm is going to cow a bunch of tanked-up yobs? They'd ram it down your throat, or worse. Or call the police and get YOU banged up.
If you were to carry a firearm for self defence in the UK it would have to be under a CCW type system and BTW there have been cases too numerous to mention in the USA where lone individualse cowed 'a bunch of tanked-up yobs' with judicious use of a pistol. Gangs of drunks are cowards when they come up against a well motivated armed citizen.
I know this is going to be hard for someone who knows all, especially what's best for everyone else, but you are wrong on that.
Why risk going hand to hand with someone who is wielding a broken bottle with the intention to maim or kill you. Better to shoot them. They obviously have nothing positive to contribute to society.
Let's keep the Arabs out of this, we're comparing the US and the UK. I couldn't give a toss what the Arab figures are. A totally alien society, useless for comparative purposes.
Right, so you only make statistical comparisions to dissimilar societies when the results suit your hypothesis?
Real gun crime with people getting added holes is very rare.
It was rarer still when pistols were legal, so the 1996/1997 pistol bans haven't done much to impede the flow of pistols to gangsters who are determined to use them in crimes and murders.
Bringing a gun to a knife fight, on the other hand, is disproportionate and unsporting.
Unsporting, disproportionte?! A knife is a deadly weapon, if someone pulls one on you then you are in a fight for your life, you aren't having a boxing match with them. If someone pulls a knife on me then I won't hesitate to shoot them.
Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy a gun in the UK would open the floodgates to escalating mayhem. The police would have to be armed at all times, which they don't want either.
Obviously, the gun laws could not be relaxed completely overnight and it would take many years of incremental steps to bring in a "shall issue" CCW system. But removing the ban on ownership of shotguns for self-defence in the home which the Socialist government of 1946 passed would be a good starting point.
Going off at a slight tangent, but still relative to safety, is accidents. I read somewhere – please don't ask me for a source – that dozens of people in the US are killed every year while cleaning or playing around with guns, sometimes even their kids get hold of them, with unpleasant results. That's just a side-effect which is non-existent here in the UK now.
Yeah, dozens, more die of drowning, so should the US government ban swimming and sailing? Kids also die from horse-play with low-powered airguns in the UK because their parents never bothered to teach them any basic gun safety principles, since just like you, they were complacent about danger from guns in the UK.
If I could legally buy a gun, I wouldn't: dangerous things for the user and bystanders without training, heavy to carry, seldom of real use in a crisis, and liable to make a disagreeable situation worse.
That's your choice, but you shouldn't try to impose it on the rest of Britain.
Having and using guns in our society is simply inappropriate. We generally manage without them rather well. And like I said, we don't appreciate being mocked for it.
It isn't inappropriate for responsible law-abiding people in a free society to own firearms if they wish and just because you live in a safe area, that doesn't mean that less fortunate people should be denied the opportunity to own a firearm to defend themselves against burglars and intruders in their homes if they feel at risk.
Sadly, through the success of that stunningly short-sighted kind of thinking, your grandchildren will live to see some horrifying days. I pray that the liberals here do not succeed in spreading that foolish attitude here as well, but I see many signs that we're merely 20-30 years "behind" your "progress".
So you support the idea that the government should have the power to subject you to mental evaluations at any time? And you don't see potential for abuse there?!
and regular inspections to ensure that guns are kept safe.
So much for being secure in one's own home. Either the government can enter without a warrant, or an intruder can invade and overpower the home-owner before the weapon can be un-secured.
Besides, Mexico's murder by firearms rate is 50% higher than the USA's and its total homicide rate is over three times higher than that of the USA, but the Mexicans have strict gun control laws. So why do you insist on comparing Britain with the USA alone?
Er, what makes you think the US and UK are comparable? We have more minorities than you have citizens. The US is far less homogeneous than the UK.
Its not clear mere possession of arms results in a high murder rate. Furthermore, there is no way for you to conduct a controlled experiment to verify that assertion.
Banning instruments rather than acts indicate a belief that man is not worthy of his own free will.
Your unconfirmed sociological fancies are scarcely grounds to deny other the basic means of self defense.
Murder is uncommon in the UK and while its somewhat higher in the US it remains uncommon.
P.S. It helps to ping the people you are speaking to. I only found your comments directed to me by accident.
Thanks for all the responses and more or less useful links. Look, I'm wasting too much time lately on this site, and I'm busy in the run up to my hols, but I'll reply in detail once more.
I've been taken to task for admitting US comparisons, but not Swiss and Saudi ones. A very good point: like every other country, Britain is different, and has many unique features in its society. So I will totally ignore ALL those foreign (meaning also US) statistics and study the British situation.
I've never personally been bothered about guns. Never wanted, needed, carried or fired one, never been in or seen a situation that would have warranted one, never met anyone who "needed killin'" as you Americans put it. I've also never met anyone who had a gun in the UK, nor wanted one, including my sister (inner-city police officer). I'm not imposing my views on others, I just think that nobody in the UK really wants guns either.
The situation in Britain as regards guns is detailed in the police report from David Hunter. Thanks for that.
Statistically, violent crime is rising in Britain. First, we need to define what this covers, why it's happening, and what part guns play.
You surely don't believe that thugs were biding their time for years for fear of gun-owners, then said, "Goody, now we can start being violent and nobody will shoot us!". Violent crime is rising due to various factors, partly in my view due to increased reporting of incidents that used to be ignored. I remember in the 70s a "violent crime" involving a knife that we laughed off: the PC lot today would call the Old Bill at once. I'd need to study the mountain of statistics very carefully (once I retire or in a second reincarnation), but remain unsure whether "violent crime" is any worse now than back in my youth. Subjectively speaking, I believe not. There's a lot more sensationalised reporting in the media, though.
What's crime in the UK like today?
An affluent, binge-drinking and football-crazy culture, enormous numbers of young men drinking against the clock, then looking for trouble/testing their mettle against their fellows, annoying the more staid elements of society, vandalizing public property, etc. Much of this is considered "violent crime". Introducing guns anywhere into this mix would be, shall we say, less than helpful.
Burglary: this is a problem, although at present falling. Burglars tend to be professionals (some local rates have been known to plunge once a single burglar goes to prison and soar back up when he's out) or more often junkies with a habit to feed. Never armed, seldom violent, will usually scarper if confronted. They can usually outrun any knife, club etc. You don't need a gun to see them off, and they're never gun-armed (unless extremely stupid) because they don't expect to meet a gun either. If they did, we'd see a rise in armed burglaries.
A little anecdote: near my native city a few months ago a doddery old ex-soldier confronted two intruders in his country home and went for them with a short samurai sword (can't remember the Jap. technical term). Of course the brave old fool dropped it, but the one intruder was hurt in the hand (either by the old bloke or when he tried to grab it), then stepped on the blade; he hobbled off sharpish, bleeding profusely, helped by his mate who'd already run outside (I think the police picked them up later). I recall the police officer at the scene being quoted: "of course no charges will be preferred (against the householder)": he'd used legitimate and proportionate force, although the intruders weren't of course armed. Now if the old guy had dropped a handgun, not a sword, it might have been more than just the bloke's carpet that suffered. This incident was well-reported because it's rare that householders ever confront intruders.
By the way, there seems to be some misconception on FR that British people aren't allowed to defend themselves against criminals. This is quite wrong: you CAN defend yourself, violently and brutally, you can incapacitate an intruder any way you can IF he is in any way threatening (and not trying to scarper). WHEN he's down and out, you CAN'T shoot him, cut his throat or beat his brains out. I'd have thought this was common sense. The Home Office recently issued guidelines on what you could and could not do (I saw them here on FR, where they predictably aroused derision from the gun-smitten).
Gang crime. The report indicated that there are plenty of guns for criminals if they want to pay the very high prices demanded or run the risk of smuggling them in from the continent. Imitation firearms can be converted (which is why there are calls to ban these too). Shooting deaths are primarily of gang members and drug dealers and their adherents. The other rare cases (of innocent people being killed) will dominate national news for days. Unfortunately, they also tend to scare the more timid elements of our society into believing that gun crime is widespread. The police have the men and the guns to combat real gun crime. Kids with airguns or nutters robbing sweet-shops with toys aren't really a threat to society.
In short, seen from a purely BRITISH context, gun control is a non-issue. The majority of my countrymen have no interest in guns. In almost all REAL-LIFE situations there's no call for them. You really have to construct an unrealistic and theoretical scenario to justify them. I DO have a heart for well-monitored bona-fide gun clubs, target shooters, re-enactors etc. The law needs to be relaxed here, in my view, but most other British people DON'T agree.
My take on the US situation: here on FR I have often detected a distinctly un-Christian tendency to advocate shooting of all sorts of people who arouse their ire. A murderer who gets killed is perhaps less deserving of sympathy, but do you really, really want to shoot burglars, vandals, car thieves, pickpockets, aggressive drunks etc.? Very unhealthy, if you ask me.
I also detect a certain lack of reality as regards guns. I have often chuckled at posters drooling over their Glocks or Magnums or whatever and how they'd deal with "perps". Unfortunately, the reality is that most situations they fantasize about are, well, fantasy, just movie stuff: an intruder is rarely confronted in the house, and it's even rarer they have murderous intent; even in "violent" Britain you rarely see a crime being committed (like women being attacked) where you can step in and get a clear shot; most crimes take place out of the public eye, in the dead of night, and/or are over before anyone can react; and even in the US the police might take a dim view of bystanders opening fire in unclear situations (what would be the legal consequences for shooting innocent people or even an armed plain-clothes by mistake?); many gun-owners live in nice little communities where crime never happens.
I know it must be very frustrating for handgun owners never having a realistic chance to shoot anybody, after paying all that money for a sophisticated piece of engineering. Unless you carry the gun around in your hand at all times, a gun-toting criminal will usually have the drop on you, and where are you then? Up shit-creek without a paddle.
Luckily, in Britain we do it on the cheap. If you hear someone downstairs at night, off you go with a broom, pair of scissors, beer mug, letter opener, whatever and get stuck in: you'll almost certainly be better armed than your assailant, and you know the "terrain" and where other potential weapons are. He'll probably do a runner long before that anyway. What he can steal from you isn't for him worth the violence and the possibility of a long spell in the nick.
What's the other big bogeyman? Standard movie fare is the rapist surpising a sleeping single woman at the dead of night. However, these types would tend to be stealthy, and maybe well–armed and prepared for violence. Can't see anything really helping against this kind of scenario, which I suppose is what makes it so attractive for film-makers. But how often does this happen in REAL LIFE?
Some posters also seem to dream that they have their guns to hand at just the right moment – and nobody else has one, or is slower. You've all been watching too many westerns. However, that's my view. If you Americans want to criticise British attitudes, although they're none of your business, I suppose I have the right to criticise yours (which are none of mine).
Of course, in the USA you have many armed criminals and nutty fellow-citizens, wild animals, Mexicans and what-not. So keep your guns, buy a few more, why not, if they make you feel better? I'm told shooting is nearly as much fun as sex, and indeed maybe serves as a substitute for some people, particularly if they're a bit insecure. Better not go there.
Thanks for all the thought-provoking exchanges!
It's rather like buying a car in that respect. You don't need a license or permit to do that either, although it's patently just as dangerous an object.
Ah yes, so you can buy a car without knowing how to drive (D'oh!), but you can buy a gun without knowing how to use it? Weird!
OK, thanks. That's a relief.
Once they take it away, they don't give it back. You've got to take it back.
>So you support the idea that the government should have the power to subject you to mental evaluations at any time? And you don't see potential for abuse there?!<
No, I'd only be subjected to mental evaluation if I wanted to buy a gun. Sounds sensible to me.
As regards inspections, I meant gun clubs, but you're right, private homes of gun-owners should be included too. But only of gun-owners.
I take your point. See my long reply to David Hunter.
Luckily, the UK is largely free of Zimbabwea government officials and Mexicans. Should they ever become a plague, I expect HMG to address the situation in no uncertain terms.
I'll have you know I CAN be swayed by facts previously unknown to me. But I tend to question everything I read, and like Churchill, never trust any statistics that I haven't manipulated myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.