A Girl's Guide to Guns

[Geezah]

WHAT should a woman do when attacked by a criminal? Should she behave passively? Use pepper spray? A gun?

Most people hope they'll get lucky and never be attacked. For those who want to think ahead, there is Paxton Quigley's new book, "Stayin' Alive."

It turns out that pepper spray may not do you a lot of good when it is raining or snowing. A woman is just as likely to disable herself as the attacker when it's windy or when using the spray indoors.

Knives and baseball bats are particularly problematic, because women have to get very close to their attackers to use them, and male criminals — that is, most criminals — tend to be much stronger physically than their female victims. When it comes to physical contact, women generally lose those fights.

The advantage of a gun is that it is ideal for keeping the criminal far away from the victim. And the victim isn't responsible for restraining the criminal, as police officers are when arresting suspects. A woman simply wants to keep the criminal away from her.

There have been a lot of good books lately exploding the myth that guns endanger people's safety. (And at least one very notable movie, Larry Elder's "Michael & Me," devastatingly tackles many of the false claims in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine.") Quigley's book covers a lot of ground, such as the myths about personal defense, when it is appropriate to use lethal force, whether there are any risks to firing a gun while pregnant (apparently not), how often children are killed by accidental gun shots (very rarely) and how one goes about choosing the best gun for a particular individual's needs. The book answers these questions from a woman's perspective.

What works defensively for men doesn't always work for women. As Quigley points out, women who used a gun to resist an attack were 2.5 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who behaved passively. Guns aren't as beneficial for men. They are only 1.4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who behaved passively.

The book includes real-life examples of defensive gun use and offers academic research on the millions of times each year that people use guns defensively. These good-news stories help Quigley illustrate how women actually react in life-threatening situations. And she also does well explaining what women should know before choosing a gun.

The book could have gone further debunking common misperceptions about guns. Take the claim that "you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than kill an attacker." This study assumed that whenever anyone in a gun-owning home was killed by a gun, it was that gun that caused the harm. But academics have found that at least 86 percent of the time, that assumption was wrong — and most of other cases were suicides.

While recent polls show that more households own guns after 9/11, there is still a lot of fear and uncertainty about guns, which may keep people from doing what is best for their family's safety. Quigley's book cuts through a lot of that unjustified fear.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Bias Against Guns."

Link (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NYPostRevPaxtonBook.html)

.........

[Bobcharge]

Hi Geezah,

I reckon, as a non-gun owner, you own more guns then me. Yet, from reading your posts, you seem more worried about being a victim of crime then I do.

What do you make of this? You don't think that you're just a tad over-the-top with your politics?

Regards,

Bob

[Thor]

Yet, from reading your posts, you seem more worried about being a victim of crime then I do.
How many of the victims do you think say "I never thought it would happen to me" (and how many can't say anything at all)?

[cut]

Geezah is scared of being raped because he's the only gay in the village.








p-)

[CMN]

When it comes to physical contact, women generally lose those fights.

The advantage of a gun is that it is ideal for keeping the criminal far away from the victim

That statement is so preposterous as to be absurd.

Isn't an attack generally a physical engagement?

So, Doris is walking down the road, big six foot rapist comes behind her and grabs her. Just what use is a firearm/knife/bottle of pepper spray then? The same goes for any instance when an attacker springs his surprise from within, say, 2-3 foot.

She'd be better off in investing in classes in Jeet Kune Do, Rapid Arnis or Krav Maga.

If carrying a weapon makes her feel happy, go for it. I just fail to see how any weapon would be more beneficial in a (for example) sexual attack than an intimate knowledge and practice of some form of self defense.

[Geezah]

I reckon, as a non-gun owner, you own more guns then me. Yet, from reading your posts, you seem more worried about being a victim of crime then I do.

I currently own 8 firearms, which to some is a drop in the ocean, but it's not a bad number as I have only been an avid firearm owner for 4yrs now.
I don't know if I would call it being worried about being a victim, but I own firearms because I enjoy shooting and I'm fully aware and understand what people are capable of. You may want to rely on the Police 100%, over here the majority of LEOs will tell you, they only enforce the law and should not be looked upon as personal bodyguards and cannto be at your side 24/7.
I favour the option of not being a victim if ever put in a position where I would need to fight back. I would prefer to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them, afterall the best defense is offense.


What do you make of this? You don't think that you're just a tad over-the-top with your politics?


A tad over the top, no, now 10yrs ago I would have thought I was a loonytoon, but at that point I had the majority British mentaliy that guns are bad and guns kill people.
It took me 6yrs,my friends house being broken into(to find a guy standing over his 10yr old kid) and 9/11 to change my mind. My Harley riding in-law also helped with that, but I'm safe with firearms, I own a safe and I have a healthy respect for how destructive they can be if used recklessly.
As far as politics, I'm a firm believer that the LAW ABIDING should be given the choice as to whether or not they want to own firearms and they should also be given the choice to use them if they were ever to be in fear of losing their life of the lives of their loved ones.

[Geezah]

When it comes to physical contact, women generally lose those fights.

The advantage of a gun is that it is ideal for keeping the criminal far away from the victim

That statement is so preposterous as to be absurd.

Isn't an attack generally a physical engagement?

It only becomes physicall if the perp is able to put his hands onthe intended victim. Perp pulls a knife, potential vicitm pulls a gun....sorted.


So, Doris is walking down the road, big six foot rapist comes behind her and grabs her. Just what use is a firearm/knife/bottle of pepper spray then? The same goes for any instance when an attacker springs his surprise from within, say, 2-3 foot.

She'd be better off in investing in classes in Jeet Kune Do, Rapid Arnis or Krav Maga.

So she would be better off just investing in some form of unarmed combat. Why not both????

I studied Chinese Boxing for over 5yrs, I fully understand that all this will do is give me the chance to regroup and pull my firearm if engaged(life threatening situation of course).


If carrying a weapon makes her feel happy, go for it. I just fail to see how any weapon would be more beneficial in a (for example) sexual attack than an intimate knowledge and practice of some form of self defense.

And to think of all the many cases where a crime has been prevented because the potential vicitm was armed, makes you wonder why we're allowed to carry firearms in the first place doesn't it........

[CMN]

And to think of all the many cases where a crime has been prevented because the potential vicitm was armed, makes you wonder why we're allowed to carry firearms in the first place doesn't it........

Ah sarcasm, the very lowest form of wit.

[Bobcharge]

How many of the victims do you think say "I never thought it would happen to me" (and how many can't say anything at all)?

I can't answer that question. If you have a view, please go into in more detail, I would be interested in hearing it.

I've been a victim of crime in the past. Even before I was I accepted that there are certain risks of living in a society like I do. I am well aware of what goes on. I'm just not convinced that allowing easy access to firearms is the way of dealing with social problems.

Regards,

Bob

[Geezah]

And to think of all the many cases where a crime has been prevented because the potential vicitm was armed, makes you wonder why we're allowed to carry firearms in the first place doesn't it........

Ah sarcasm, the very lowest form of wit.

And yet you have a hard time understanding why close to 46 out of 50 States allow some form of CCW.

As far as sarcasm, you sound just like my mum.

[Geezah]

I've been a victim of crime in the past. Even before I was I accepted that there are certain risks of living in a society like I do.

This makes no sense to me, you accpet the fact that it's part of (your)life to be victimised???


I am well aware of what goes on. I'm just not convinced that allowing easy access to firearms is the way of dealing with social problems.


Please define easy access?

[Asheren]

Women are mostly wictims of assaults and sexual related crimes. Usualy attacked from closest possible range or from ambush. It is worst possible situation to go for a gun. I myself always say taser is a girl best friend, some basics of city survival and if possible few basics of selfdefense. Chances that attacker will be able to fight after shock are close to zero.

[Bobcharge]

You may want to rely on the Police 100%, over here the majority of LEOs will tell you, they only enforce the law and should not be looked upon as personal bodyguards and cannto be at your side 24/7.
I favour the option of not being a victim if ever put in a position where I would need to fight back. I would prefer to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them, afterall the best defense is offense.

I do not rely on the Police at all. I have no faith in them as an organisation what so ever.

I think the difference between me and you is out look. From the way you write it seems that you think it's a very real possibility that your home could come under attack. Has this ever happened? Has this ever happened to anyone you know? What were the circumstances? In your life experience, is it a regular occurrence? Have you ever had to use firearms to defend yourself?

Just because I am not able to own firearms, does not mean I am not unable to defend myself. If I wanted to, I could quite easily and legally fortify my home. If for some reason I was in a position of actual confrontation I have access to a plethora of everyday house hold items, that could be used as weapons.

My main problem with your stance is that you seem to argue in favour of legalising firearms FOR EVERYBODY based on your own personal preference. I don't know you, but I would like to think that you're a reasonable person who lives there life with out interfering in anyone elses, so whether you own guns either over here or in the states does not bother me. If you were my neighbour and you had a cache of weapons under your bed, as I long as knew you were not going to use them for offensive reasons then It would not bother me. But the problem with putting firearms in general circulation means that EVERYBODY has access to them, and the chances are, with more households having arms then more burglars and criminals will have arms.

It took me 6yrs,my friends house being broken into(to find a guy standing over his 10yr old kid)

And what happened?

and 9/11 to change my mind.

But you owning guns does stop religious fanatics carrying out acts of war against enemy nations. Since the end of the last great war, the British public has put up almost non-stop with armed terrorism in it's country; be it Irish republicans, Palestinian militants, or anarchist insurgents. Do you think having the ordinary household armed would be a deterrent against this?

As far as politics, I'm a firm believer that the LAW ABIDING should be given the choice as to whether or not they want to own firearms and they should also be given the choice to use them if they were ever to be in fear of losing their life of the lives of their loved ones.

But my problem with that is perspective and trustworthiness. What is life threatening to someone is mere confrontation to another. Also, it gives people the opportunity to play God and dictate whether people live or die under the excuse of "I felt I was being reasonable."

Have you ever broken the law? I can't say I’m law abiding as I have on the occasion broken the speed limit and sent items to America via the post (in regards to Ebay business) and not declared appropriate customs. Does this make me a bad person? I don’t think so.

In regards to British law on defence, a while back my friend was having a party. A neighbour came around and was quite confrontational, he was up for a ruck purely because he did not like my friend. My friend took the initiative and gave the person a slap before he was able to land blows on my friend. When everything was sorted out through the appropriate measures (courts etc.) it was my friend who came off worse, because he had the option to avoid confrontation and walk away.

Regards,

Bob

[Bobcharge]

This makes no sense to me, you accpet the fact that it's part of (your)life to be victimised???

No, I accept that I live in a relatively dangerous society, and there are many reasons for this. I accept that some parts of South London can be quite violent. It's the same with your life.

I don't like the suggestion that I was "victimised." This suggests that people purposely set out with the intention of causing me harm which was not the case. I would argue that I was started on, but i'm sure if you ask the perputrators of the crime, then they would argue it was the other way around.

If I was armed would it have stopped the situation? No. Does it stop crime in places like America? Even if I was armed, I would not have used weapons because I do not like the idea of killing people, regardless of whether they wanted to give me a slap or not.

Please define easy access?

Accessable to the general public for defense purposes, like in America.

[Thor]

I can't answer that question. If you have a view, please go into in more detail, I would be interested in hearing it.

I've been a victim of crime in the past. Even before I was I accepted that there are certain risks of living in a society like I do. I am well aware of what goes on. I'm just not convinced that allowing easy access to firearms is the way of dealing with social problems.

Regards,

Bob
I simply think that you sir have a very naive perspective. Easy victims are easy targets and statistically you as a previous victim are more likely to find yourself in the same situation over and over again (or end up dead).

Crime and social problems exist and will continue to do so throughout our life times. As an individual the only thing you can do is to take the right precautions to make sure that should anything happen, you or a loved one will be prepared to take care of business.

[Geezah]

You may want to rely on the Police 100%, over here the majority of LEOs will tell you, they only enforce the law and should not be looked upon as personal bodyguards and cannto be at your side 24/7.
I favour the option of not being a victim if ever put in a position where I would need to fight back. I would prefer to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them, afterall the best defense is offense.

I do not rely on the Police at all. I have no faith in them as an organisation what so ever.

That's a shame, I view the Police as Law Enforcement, almost like a middle man of sorts, but I am fully aware and understand that they cannot be there 24/7, and some of the responsibilty of looking after me and mine falls on my shoulders.


I think the difference between me and you is out look. From the way you write it seems that you think it's a very real possibility that your home could come under attack. Has this ever happened? Has this ever happened to anyone you know? What were the circumstances? In your life experience, is it a regular occurrence? Have you ever had to use firearms to defend yourself?

Prior to moving out here I lived in Stamford Brook, worked in Hammersmith knocked around in Ladbroke Grove and Barnes and was fully aware of some of the things that were taking place. Plus from personal experience I know what lengths people will go to get what they want.

I have never had to use a firearm for self-defense and hopefully I will never have to.
I would say I know more victims of crime back in England than I do here, and maybe this has helped mold me into the person I am now.


Just because I am not able to own firearms, does not mean I am not unable to defend myself.

You may be able to defend yourself, but I think I am in a position to do it allot more efficiently.


If I wanted to, I could quite easily and legally fortify my home.

Who said anything about fortiying their home??


If for some reason I was in a position of actual confrontation I have access to a plethora of everyday house hold items, that could be used as weapons.

And I have access to firearms, again, the use of firearms is IMHO is allot more efficient in dealing with an immediate threat than household implements.


My main problem with your stance is that you seem to argue in favour of legalising firearms FOR EVERYBODY based on your own personal preference.

PLease define EVERYBODY, as I believe that if you fall within set guidelines then yes, if you choose should have legal access to firearms.


I don't know you, but I would like to think that you're a reasonable person who lives there life with out interfering in anyone elses, so whether you own guns either over here or in the states does not bother me. If you were my neighbour and you had a cache of weapons under your bed, as I long as knew you were not going to use them for offensive reasons then It would not bother me.

Neighbours I do not know,do not know I have firearms as I am very discreet when loading them up, the ones(or one) that know(s) don't care and actually use them as a reason to start a conversation.
I'm just like every other Joe, and the only piece of camo i have is a camo hat;)


But the problem with putting firearms in general circulation means that EVERYBODY has access to them, and the chances are, with more households having arms then more burglars and criminals will have arms.

Funny that, the UK is worse off as far as burglaries go, the reason you have hot and cold burglaries over there is the perps are fully aware they have little to nothing to worry about when it comes to the victim.
Over here, there was a study done on prison immates and burlaries and there worst fear was being shot by the home owners, thing is here home owners are less forgiving than the Police. To be honest, if someone comes into my house uninvited I hope I would do the right thing, I have a Wife and a littlen to worry about and I can live with putting a perp out of his misery over something happening to my family bcause I did nothing.

It took me 6yrs,my friends house being broken into(to find a guy standing over his 10yr old kid)
And what happened?

My mates son was asleep on the couch downstairs, well the drunk guy just walked into his house(he was looking for his ex-girlfriend two doors down, she had a restraining order against him) anyway, the dogs work up his Wife she came downstairs bought sh!t herself screamed fo her husband he came down and got in his face. My mate ain't a small guy and at this point we were all heavily involved in the Chinese boxing. Apparenlty he didn't do anything to the drunk guy as he did not feel he was a threat(I found that part weird) and he just walked out. 911 was dialed and the Police picked him up, one of the LEOs even made a comment to my mate that he would have shot him, I have to agree with him, or hold him under threat of being shot until the Police turn up.
Anyway that increased my interest in owning a firearm.

and 9/11 to change my mind.

But you owning guns does stop religious fanatics carrying out acts of war against enemy nations. Since the end of the last great war, the British public has put up almost non-stop with armed terrorism in it's country; be it Irish republicans, Palestinian militants, or anarchist insurgents. Do you think having the ordinary household armed would be a deterrent against this?

No, but when you live right up the road from Wright Patt Airforce base and you can hear the sonic booms from the fighters taking off, real sinks in that it could be the end of the World. Not really keen on ending up like the victims in New Orleans that had to rely on the Police to protect them while the bad guys take what they want.


As far as politics, I'm a firm believer that the LAW ABIDING should be given the choice as to whether or not they want to own firearms and they should also be given the choice to use them if they were ever to be in fear of losing their life of the lives of their loved ones.

But my problem with that is perspective and trustworthiness. What is life threatening to someone is mere confrontation to another. Also, it gives people the opportunity to play God and dictate whether people live or die under the excuse of "I felt I was being reasonable."

You can't just own a firearm and play God, if you do, you will go to jail and you will have to prove you were in the right. I shoot someone in my house or on the street, I will go to jail, I will have to get a lawyer, I will have to prove I was in the right. Now if I get off without a criminal conviction this doen't mean the family of the potential bad guy will not own everything I have when they drag me into a civil court, so please don't try and make it sound so easy.


Have you ever broken the law? I can't say I’m law abiding as I have on the occasion broken the speed limit and sent items to America via the post (in regards to Ebay business) and not declared appropriate customs. Does this make me a bad person? I don’t think so.

Are we talking felonies or misdemeanors, after all a speeding ticket is not considered serious, unless it's completely reckless and you have put other lives at risk.


In regards to British law on defence, a while back my friend was having a party. A neighbour came around and was quite confrontational, he was up for a ruck purely because he did not like my friend. My friend took the initiative and gave the person a slap before he was able to land blows on my friend. When everything was sorted out through the appropriate measures (courts etc.) it was my friend who came off worse, because he had the option to avoid confrontation and walk away.

Ok, that's how it is here, while i carry concealed, if confronted I have a duty to retreat. If I cannot retreat and I fear for my life only then am I able to pull my firearm, if I pull my firearm, then I need to make sure and pull the trigger. The law does not allow for me to brandish my firearm just to stop any type of confrontation.

[Geezah]

This makes no sense to me, you accpet the fact that it's part of (your)life to be victimised???

No, I accept that I live in a relatively dangerous society, and there are many reasons for this. I accept that some parts of South London can be quite violent. It's the same with your life.

I don't like the suggestion that I was "victimised." This suggests that people purposely set out with the intention of causing me harm which was not the case. I would argue that I was started on, but i'm sure if you ask the perputrators of the crime, then they would argue it was the other way around.

If I was armed would it have stopped the situation? No. Does it stop crime in places like America? Even if I was armed, I would not have used weapons because I do not like the idea of killing people, regardless of whether they wanted to give me a slap or not.

Are you aware that there are like 2.5million defensive uses of firearms a year, they stop crime, it's a fact of life. If you liek go back over my posts since I've been active on here, there are allot of important facts that the majority of the leftists rags do not want you to hear of know about.

I was told by my mates in Ladbroke Grove, if you look like a vicitm, you will be treated like one. I think allot of it comes down to how you carry yourself, please do not take this has a slight against you but that's just what I was told.
Funny, realy as I am probably allot less confrontationla now than I was when I lived in the UK. IF someone wants to play staring games I'm normally the first to look away.

Please define easy access?

Accessable to the general public for defense purposes, like in America.

When I asked you to define easy access, I was looking fro abit more information than the above. HAve you any idea about the law towards firearm ownership over here?

[StukaJr]

From the article:

Quigley's book covers a lot of ground, such as the myths about personal defense, when it is appropriate to use lethal force, whether there are any risks to firing a gun while pregnant (apparently not)

Hmmmm... There is certainly no risk of firing a gun in defense while pregnant, but I'm certain there are risks with prolonged expossure to lead and other harmful chemicals associated with recreational shooting... Perhaps, honing your skills punching paper are best shelved while pregnant.

I'm also surprised that the article does not cover the reduced likelyhood of the attacks with criminals having to fear a lethal response. It also does not take into consideration multiple attackers when discussing the effectiveness of tazers and sprays. Sprays available to the public are weak and largely ineffective, needing 1-2 second expossure to really work and even their effects are largely psychological and possible to overcome. Lab goggles would render any spray useless. Certain clothes will negate effects of tazers and baseball bats - I don't understand people who choose to defend their lives with half meassures.

[Turhapuro]

You don't need guns to defend yourself. Good spyderco tactical knife is enough.

[martinexsquaddie]

bwhahhaahahahaa
mr knife fighting supremo ever tried the magic marker game? you try and mark you opponet without being marked yourself its almost impossible

[oldsoak]

bwhahhaahahahaa
mr knife fighting supremo ever tried the magic marker game? you try and mark you opponet without being marked yourself its almost impossible

Yep - ran out of swarfega trying to get rid of the stains of the arms and it knackered my T shirt !
In a knife fight, you are going to bleed unless you are very quick and he's not looking

[Howitz]

I think the difference between me and you is out look. From the way you write it seems that you think it's a very real possibility that your home could come under attack. Has this ever happened? Has this ever happened to anyone you know? What were the circumstances? In your life experience, is it a regular occurrence? Have you ever had to use firearms to defend yourself?

Both my parents smoke, probably about 3 packs a day between the two of them. Neither have cancer, i don't know anyone who has cancer. I've heard of some people getting cancer around the area, but none had lung cancer because of smoking. I've also heard of people smoking like chimneys and live long healthy lives. So, I guess I have nothing to fear if I start smoking, aye?

[CMN]

And yet you have a hard time understanding why close to 46 out of 50 States allow some form of CCW.

As far as sarcasm, you sound just like my mum.

Astounding.

Now you follow it with name calling. The maturity is astounding.

Unlike you, I simply believe that a cold piece of steel is not the answer to societies ills.

If CCW is such a resounding success, why do 46 states as opposed to all 50 implementing it? How can you expect other countries to follow, if your place of residence is not even in unanimous agreement?

So if you cross into the wrong state, you can't take your weapon and are then an utterly defenceless being?

And finally...why care? You get to have all the guns you want now. I'm sure everyone on these Isles is happy for you.

[Geezah]

And yet you have a hard time understanding why close to 46 out of 50 States allow some form of CCW.

As far as sarcasm, you sound just like my mum.

Astounding.

Now you follow it with name calling. The maturity is astounding.

Name calling......because I said you sound like my mum. Mate, I apoligize if I hit a sore spot but saying you sound like mum was not meant as an insult. It's just my mother used to say the exact same thing!


Unlike you, I simply believe that a cold piece of steel is not the answer to societies ills.

I'm not sure that I've ever said that, I have said time and again that I'm a firm believer in the law abiding having access to firearms to protect themselves and their family if they so wish. Not sure where you get societies ill from that though?


If CCW is such a resounding success, why do 46 states as opposed to all 50 implementing it? How can you expect other countries to follow, if your place of residence is not even in unanimous agreement?

Compare 46 to how many allowed CCW 10yrs ago, 15yrs ago. It takes time but the majority of States have got on board.


So if you cross into the wrong state, you can't take your weapon and are then an utterly defenceless being?

Well, I'm pretty much sorted over here, I travel into Indiana, I'm sorted, I travel into Kentucky again I'm sorted. I think I can even travel to Florida and have my pistol on my hip, so there really isn't much to worry about. But to be honest, I do not carry my firearm everyday.


And finally...why care? You get to have all the guns you want now. I'm sure everyone on these Isles is happy for you.

Because I can.

[Durandal]

Geezah, your avatar...

Sort of looks like a promo copy for "Ask Geezah!"

Hehehehe...

Good responses man. Another one would be:

Simply be prepared. You have a flash light in case the lights go off, even if they never do. People carry tools to change a tire in case it gets flat while driving, even if it never does. Everyone has insurance (or should), just in case, be it car, home, or life, even if it nothing ever happens.

Why?

What happens if you do not?

In the United States, there are 21.1 victims per 1000 (age 12 and over) of violent crime (murder, assault, rape (but not sexual assault), etc). This down considerably since the early 90s when States began to issue Conceal Carry permits.

You have a average chance of 2.1% of being a victim. That is pretty damn high.

There are also approximately 1.3 MILLION uses of a firearm in self defense...many surveys have been done on this and range from 800K to 2.5 million.

Geezah is not paranoid or irrational, he is simply prepared...insured.

[Minardiau]

Hey guys. Having a gun debate without me is just not on. :)

Anyway my .02cents.

I'm favour of restricted access to firearms and against CCW laws. This position will never change despite being interested in guns and doing the occasional shoot myself.

I ask this question.

What would be more effective in deterring crime?

a) Allowing easier access to firearms to use as a deterrent or

b) Implementing social policies that remove or largely remove the need for someone to commit a violent crime

It's a simple fact that most violent crime or any crime for that matter is a result of a persons need for money to support themselves. Even in the most crime ridden areas of cities. Why do the gangs flourish? Simply because there is a lack of social policy. Gangs can provide it's members with more then what a government can do.

Why would a person go and flip burgers for 5 bucks an hour when they can just as easily sell crack on a corner and make 200 bucks a day? Yet if the social fabric of society was in place that mean't even if you lived in a poverty stricken suburb. There was still a light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunatly this is not the case.

I'd be more then happy to have less restrictive gun laws. But only if the social policy of society meant that the chances of a person commiting a crime to begin with are next to none.

[Laconian]

Hey guys. Having a gun debate without me is just not on. :)

Anyway my .02cents.

I'm favour of restricted access to firearms and against CCW laws. This position will never change despite being interested in guns and doing the occasional shoot myself.

I ask this question.

What would be more effective in deterring crime?

a) Allowing easier access to firearms to use as a deterrent or

b) Implementing social policies that remove or largely remove the need for someone to commit a violent crime

It's a simple fact that most violent crime or any crime for that matter is a result of a persons need for money to support themselves. Even in the most crime ridden areas of cities. Why do the gangs flourish? Simply because there is a lack of social policy. Gangs can provide it's members with more then what a government can do.

Why would a person go and flip burgers for 5 bucks an hour when they can just as easily sell crack on a corner and make 200 bucks a day? Yet if the social fabric of society was in place that mean't even if you lived in a poverty stricken suburb. There was still a light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunatly this is not the case.

I'd be more then happy to have less restrictive gun laws. But only if the social policy of society meant that the chances of a person commiting a crime to begin with are next to none.

Sorry, but I disagree, although a some crimes are committed for money, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed for other reasons. I've never heard of a rape-for-profit crime. Car-jackings, home invasions, many homicides, especially premeditiated ones, are not for-profit crimes.

Some people turn to crime to support their families; but the number is small. Very few criminals are knocking over liquor stores to buy baby food. Nobody is supporting their families fencing stolen VCRs, TVs or power tools. Most dopers aren't in the biz 'cause they are putting the chilluns through Harvard. Some people are just bad and they prey on other people for power, because its easier to take someone else's stuff or because they can or for kicks.

If I choose to own a gun to protect myself or property I'm not concerned about curing society's ills; I'm concerned about protecting my family & sanctity of my home.

[California Joe]

The best part of this whole thread is where CMN took offense to sounding like Geezahs Mum. rofl Can you imagine that response in a Balkans or Greek/Turk thread? "I'm sorry Clearday but you sound like my Mother" "I am sick of your insults Achilles, I'm leaving this forum, you have crossed a line..."

[Minardiau]

Thats the best things about us blokes. We can call each other every 4 letter word under the sun. But there is still respect.

Most of the time.

[Durandal]

What would be more effective in deterring crime?

a) Allowing easier access to firearms to use as a deterrent or

b) Implementing social policies that remove or largely remove the need for someone to commit a violent crime

A happy pill for everyone! Or take 70% of what I earn and give it to some waste of flesh who is to lazy to bust their ass. Which is your solution? Because that is what it will take.

Why would a person go and flip burgers for 5 bucks an hour when they can just as easily sell crack on a corner and make 200 bucks a day? Yet if the social fabric of society was in place that mean't even if you lived in a poverty stricken suburb. There was still a light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunatly this is not the case.

A complete myth. The typical drug dealer and/or trafficker doesn't make $hit. Your typical burger flipper makes around 7 USD an hour.

[Minardiau]

I was just saying this for argument purposes.

[MEGR]

All we need now is Hot Lips and then the circle will be complete.

[digrar]

Thats the best things about us blokes. We can call each other every 4 letter word under the sun. But there is still respect.

Most of the time.

That's right you're a ****ing ****, an arsehole, a ****, an ******, a *********, have **** for brains and a bastard but I still respect you. :hug: p-)

[Minardiau]

See what I mean guys.

Didrar is a top bloke. Just wants to have sex with Johnny.

[Thor]

Thats the best things about us blokes. We can call each other every 4 letter word under the sun. But there is still respect.

Most of the time.
Either you're a soldier from the start or an actor trying to play the part.

Aight

[nognig]

b) Implementing social policies that remove or largely remove the need for someone to commit a violent crime

It's a simple fact that most violent crime or any crime for that matter is a result of a persons need for money to support themselves. Even in the most crime ridden areas of cities. Why do the gangs flourish? Simply because there is a lack of social policy. Gangs can provide it's members with more then what a government can do.


Is that so? How come during the great depression in the US, the crime rate was six times lower than it is now? People back then were a hell of a lot poorer than they are now.

Back in the 1930's, the US didn't have welfare programs, pension programs, etc. There was practically no social safety neat. There was also 25% unemployment, yet the crime rate was lower than now? Why?

Maybe because parents actually raised their children to do the right thing, rather than relying on the gov't to do it for them.

Crime rate source on pages 4 and 5 (http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf)

NN

[Durandal]

I was just saying this for argument purposes.

Don't cry.

I was making a "counter" argument.

:hug:

[Bobcharge]

I simply think that you sir have a very naive perspective. Easy victims are easy targets and statistically you as a previous victim are more likely to find yourself in the same situation over and over again (or end up dead).

I don't look at it like that. You see, I'm relatively happy with my life, yes, there have been several instances over the last 19 years of my life where I have gotten into trouble. Is this unusual? Is this terrible or is this something that just happens? I'm not convinced that if I was allowed to walk around with a Glock inside my coat it would be any different. The only difference is that the likely hood of an attacker having a lethal weapon would be increased.

Think of me as having a victim mentality if you will, but I would argue that people who walk around carrying guns in their day to day life because they fear for their own safety are more victims of criminality than I will ever been.

Have you seen the documentary Bowling For Columbine? Now, I'm sure there's a lot of just criticism about Michael Moore's presentation of facts, but what do you make to his argument that there's more crime and guns in America, compared to that of Canada, because of PARANOIA?

Crime and social problems exist and will continue to do so throughout our life times. As an individual the only thing you can do is to take the right precautions to make sure that should anything happen, you or a loved one will be prepared to take care of business.

Agreed, but arming the country is not taking the right precautions.

Prior to moving out here I lived in Stamford Brook, worked in Hammersmith knocked around in Ladbroke Grove and Barnes and was fully aware of some of the things that were taking place. Plus from personal experience I know what lengths people will go to get what they want.

I have never had to use a firearm for self-defense and hopefully I will never have to.
I would say I know more victims of crime back in England than I do here, and maybe this has helped mold me into the person I am now.

But do you think this is more down to the differences in the two different societies then anything to do with gun control? Life in England, well, urban England is very isolated and ghettoised, there is not much community spirit, is the community you live in now the same?

My point is that different places have different cultures, comparisons between places like South Central LA, and small community villages in Buckinghamshire with zero crimes rates are not comparable.

You may be able to defend yourself, but I think I am in a position to do it allot more efficiently.

But you're also in the position to be more likely faced with a life-or-death situation. If someone awoke you at night breaking into his house, would the thought “is he armed?” run through you head? If the same happened over here I would fancy my chances a lot more than yours.

Who said anything about fortiying their home??

It's an example of a defensive measure, to prevent crime. Surely it’s better a defensive measure than easing access into your home so that you’re faced with a circumstance where you have to physically defend yourself.

And I have access to firearms, again, the use of firearms is IMHO is allot more efficient in dealing with an immediate threat than household implements.

But it's also a lot more serious action as well. You could easily kill someone with a firearm, and for what? So they don't still your television. For me, human life is worth a lot more than that, and I’m glad I live in a society that recognises the downside of vigilantism.

PLease define EVERYBODY, as I believe that if you fall within set guidelines then yes, if you choose should have legal access to firearms.

Everybody means general circulation, the general population. I understand that American gun laws are not like some wild west film, there are regulations about what you can own and where you use them, and also criminal checks etc.

For example, you can already own fire arms in this country if you fall within set guidelines. I don't some much have a problem with this per-se as it is very well regulated. But by following an American model where say, law abiding citizens are allowed to own firearms for self-defence, you put many more firearms in general circulation.

If, you argue, say any adult with out a criminal record can possess a fire arm for self-defence purposes you are talking about potentionally 75% of the population being armed. With this, comes supply and demand and more firearms will be in circulation, and the ease to get them will increase.

Whether it is legal to own a fire arm or not will not bother criminals as by their very nature they are ignorant of the law.

Neighbours I do not know,do not know I have firearms as I am very discreet when loading them up, the ones(or one) that know(s) don't care and actually use them as a reason to start a conversation.
I'm just like every other Joe, and the only piece of camo i have is a camo hat.

I’m sure. It’s a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do in your culture.

Funny that, the UK is worse off as far as burglaries go,

Do we?

the reason you have hot and cold burglaries over there is the perps are fully aware they have little to nothing to worry about when it comes to the victim.

But that’s a very extreme all or nothing view. I would not consider a 7 foot paratrooper brick **** house built hard bastard with an 13” machete, nothing to worry about, if I happened to break into his house. Nor would I consider a highly skilled martial arts trained street fighter with a samurai sword nothing to worry about if I happened to break into his house. Clearly, Burglars do consider they have something to worry about as they are now starting to carry knives, and I would reckon the majority of burglaries happen in this country when houses are unoccupied anyway!

Over here, there was a study done on prison immates and burlaries and there worst fear was being shot by the home owners, thing is here home owners are less forgiving than the Police.

But those people still committed the crimes regardless. I'm sure if you did the same study over here, the average burglar response to being asked what his worst fear was/is would be running into the home owner. All that would happen over here is that burglars would ditch their knives for firearms.

My mates son was asleep on the couch downstairs, well the drunk guy just walked into his house(he was looking for his ex-girlfriend two doors down, she had a restraining order against him) anyway, the dogs work up his Wife she came downstairs bought sh!t herself screamed fo her husband he came down and got in his face. My mate ain't a small guy and at this point we were all heavily involved in the Chinese boxing. Apparenlty he didn't do anything to the drunk guy as he did not feel he was a threat(I found that part weird) and he just walked out. 911 was dialed and the Police picked him up, one of the LEOs even made a comment to my mate that he would have shot him, I have to agree with him, or hold him under threat of being shot until the Police turn up.
Anyway that increased my interest in owning a firearm.


How did this person just walk into your friends house? Was there no lock on the door?

With all due respect, your friend seems a lot more reasonable than you. You seem quite dangerous if you are interested in shooting drunk people for making the mistake of choosing the wrong house while looking for their girlfriend.

No, but when you live right up the road from Wright Patt Airforce base and you can hear the sonic booms from the fighters taking off, real sinks in that it could be the end of the World. Not really keen on ending up like the victims in New Orleans that had to rely on the Police to protect them while the bad guys take what they want.

I dunno, if my house had been destroyed by a natural disaster, and I had absolutely nothing I would probably become a “bad guy” too and start stealing out of pure desperation.

You can't just own a firearm and play God, if you do, you will go to jail and you will have to prove you were in the right. I shoot someone in my house or on the street, I will go to jail, I will have to get a lawyer, I will have to prove I was in the right. Now if I get off without a criminal conviction this doen't mean the family of the potential bad guy will not own everything I have when they drag me into a civil court, so please don't try and make it sound so easy.

But even recognising these problems you’re still interested in shooting people. That’s something I don’t understand.

Are we talking felonies or misdemeanors, after all a speeding ticket is not considered serious, unless it's completely reckless and you have put other lives at risk.

It’s up-to-you how to define it, you’re the one who brought up the point of being law abiding. In my area, and culture, selling a bit of dope is not a serious crime, but more a public service.

Ok, that's how it is here, while i carry concealed, if confronted I have a duty to retreat. If I cannot retreat and I fear for my life only then am I able to pull my firearm, if I pull my firearm, then I need to make sure and pull the trigger. The law does not allow for me to brandish my firearm just to stop any type of confrontation.

Do you think this is right or wrong?

Are you aware that there are like 2.5million defensive uses of firearms a year, they stop crime, it's a fact of life. If you liek go back over my posts since I've been active on here, there are allot of important facts that the majority of the leftists rags do not want you to hear of know about.

I will have a look.

I was told by my mates in Ladbroke Grove, if you look like a vicitm, you will be treated like one. I think allot of it comes down to how you carry yourself, please do not take this has a slight against you but that's just what I was told.

No, you’re quite right. But carrying a concealed weapon does not make you look any less of a victim.

Although, it can be the other way around, in prison for example if you walk around strutting yourself like a big man then people are more interested on starting on you. For some people, it’s more of a challenge to beat a “big man” than it is any one else.

When I asked you to define easy access, I was looking fro abit more information than the above.

I don’t know how else to define it. Any adult without a criminal record can own a 10-round capacity hand gun for defensive purposes, for example.

HAve you any idea about the law towards firearm ownership over here?

I probably have more idea than the average UK person. Anything you think is important to feel free to tell me. I am by know means an expert on American law! :)

So, I guess I have nothing to fear if I start smoking, aye?

You could be one of the 25% percent of smokers that get cancer. What's your point?

And finally...why care? You get to have all the guns you want now. I'm sure everyone on these Isles is happy for you.

That is the essence of my point. Geezer seems more concerned about crime and being the victim of the crime then I do, despite the fact that he has access to firearms and I don’t.

Minardiau, word; you talk much sense!

[Herrmannek]

Anyone have torrent to tha tmovie "Michael & Me"? I wanted to see it but haven't chance finding it yet(not that I was realy looking for it)...

[Howitz]

Is this unusual? Is this terrible or is this something that just happens? I'm not convinced that if I was allowed to walk around with a Glock inside my coat it would be any different. The only difference is that the likely hood of an attacker having a lethal weapon would be increased.

Explain that last bit to me, how does carrying concealed increase the chances of being attacked with a lethal weapon?

For example, you can already own fire arms in this country if you fall within set guidelines. I don't some much have a problem with this per-se as it is very well regulated. But by following an American model where say, law abiding citizens are allowed to own firearms for self-defence, you put many more firearms in general circulation.

What are the guide lines that are there, in addition to following the laws, that the US needs? If you're only against the simple amount of guns in circulation (I could use a definition on this too), then why not, say, limits on the amount of guns a certain place could sell, as that would attack the problem more directly, and cut the BS. Or is there a reason why a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun? (I don't necesarily advocate this, just interested in a response.)


But even recognising these problems you’re still interested in shooting people. That’s something I don’t understand.
I think you're misjudging, he said he dosen't ever want to have to use his gun, but carries for reasons of self defence. (for example, I know CPR, I don't WANT to be in a situation where someone's life is in my hands, but because I feel I need to be prepared if in that situation) I don't believe many CCW holders walk around waiting for someone to look at them funny so they can start unloading on them. They are, probably, more aware of there surroundings, though.

You could be one of the 25% percent of smokers that get cancer. What's your point?
You just made my point, I'm still at a risk, despite not knowing anyone who has been a victim of cancer. Just as Geezer has never had to use his gun to defend himself, and dosen't know of anyone personally who has either. But that dosen't mean he never will. I won't start smoking because I don't want to end up a statistic, and Geezer carries because he dosen't want to be a statistic.

[Geezah]

Have you seen the documentary Bowling For Columbine? Now, I'm sure there's a lot of just criticism about Michael Moore's presentation of facts, but what do you make to his argument that there's more crime and guns in America, compared to that of Canada, because of PARANOIA?

Ok, bringing up MMs MOCKumentary was not a good idea on your part. It was his twisted version of the truth. PLease do abit more research to back up your claims.

Crime and social problems exist and will continue to do so throughout our life times. As an individual the only thing you can do is to take the right precautions to make sure that should anything happen, you or a loved one will be prepared to take care of business.

Agreed, but arming the country is not taking the right precautions.

No-one has said we need to arm the country, those that are pro-firearm just believe in being able to make the decision to own arms ourselves.


Prior to moving out here I lived in Stamford Brook, worked in Hammersmith knocked around in Ladbroke Grove and Barnes and was fully aware of some of the things that were taking place. Plus from personal experience I know what lengths people will go to get what they want.

I have never had to use a firearm for self-defense and hopefully I will never have to.
I would say I know more victims of crime back in England than I do here, and maybe this has helped mold me into the person I am now.


But do you think this is more down to the differences in the two different societies then anything to do with gun control? Life in England, well, urban England is very isolated and ghettoised, there is not much community spirit, is the community you live in now the same?

Two different societies, the Ameircan Bill of Rights is based on the British Bill of Rights and up until quite a few years ago you could carry a handgun legally in the UK.
Where I live now doesn't even compare to Stamford Brook, and I like it that way.


My point is that different places have different cultures, comparisons between places like South Central LA, and small community villages in Buckinghamshire with zero crimes rates are not comparable.


You may be able to defend yourself, but I think I am in a position to do it allot more efficiently.

But you're also in the position to be more likely faced with a life-or-death situation. If someone awoke you at night breaking into his house, would the thought “is he armed?” run through you head? If the same happened over here I would fancy my chances a lot more than yours.

If someone broke into my house here(I can't afford to worry about whether or not he is armed, you have to think it's go time) and even if the perp were we'd be on even ground. For example, prior to me owning firearms my Wife woke me up thinking someone was trying to get into our old house, I grabbed for the hammer I had by my bed. I didn't think I need to be carefull they may be armed. Actually turned out to be a drunk that drove his car into the neighbours car.
Tere were some trick or treaters in England that knocked on the door of a victim and shot him, I'm guessing he was not armed!


Who said anything about fortiying their home??

It's an example of a defensive measure, to prevent crime. Surely it’s better a defensive measure than easing access into your home so that you’re faced with a circumstance where you have to physically defend yourself.

Mate, you sound like a victim again. I do not go to extremes to secure my home. I do not want to live in Fort Knox, if someone chooses to enter my premises uninvited then I will hopefully deal with it.
It would be nice if you could take a stance and stick with it though. You said the following,


I've been a victim of crime in the past. Even before I was I accepted that there are certain risks of living in a society like I do.

This makes no sense to me, you accpet the fact that it's part of (your)life to be victimised???

No, I accept that I live in a relatively dangerous society, and there are many reasons for this. I accept that some parts of South London can be quite violent. It's the same with your life.

Are you aware that there are like 2.5million defensive uses of firearms a year, they stop crime, it's a fact of life.

It sounds like you are fully aware that you could be a victim again, me I undertsand what people are capable of and choose not to be a victim.

This makes more sense to me than fortifying my home while I cower inside waiting to be a victim. Please do not tell me how negative firearm ownership is when so far I have only experiened the positive!


And I have access to firearms, again, the use of firearms is IMHO is allot more efficient in dealing with an immediate threat than household implements.

But it's also a lot more serious action as well. You could easily kill someone with a firearm, and for what? So they don't still your television. For me, human life is worth a lot more than that, and I’m glad I live in a society that recognises the downside of vigilantism.

Sorry, I may have missed something here, do criminals now work to a script, just how do you know that all they want is your television. What about that poor 3yr old girl that was kidnapped and raped, did the criminal not follow the script on that crime. The thing that you're missing is criminals are criminals because they break the law. If someone enters my house unvitied then I am well within my rights to shoot them. I WILL NOT TAKE A CHANCE WITH THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS!


PLease define EVERYBODY, as I believe that if you fall within set guidelines then yes, if you choose should have legal access to firearms.

Everybody means general circulation, the general population. I understand that American gun laws are not like some wild west film, there are regulations about what you can own and where you use them, and also criminal checks etc.

Then that is not everybody, criminals are not allowed firearms but for some reason they do not obey the laws, just like the crims in the UK!



For example, you can already own fire arms in this country if you fall within set guidelines. I don't some much have a problem with this per-se as it is very well regulated. But by following an American model where say, law abiding citizens are allowed to own firearms for self-defence, you put many more firearms in general circulation.

And you are saying that there is then more chance of a legally owned firearm being used to perpetrate a crime????
If so this is completely untrue, please check over my posts, there is important information in them, I have posted info from the House's of Parliment on this very subject.


If, you argue, say any adult with out a criminal record can possess a fire arm for self-defence purposes you are talking about potentionally 75% of the population being armed. With this, comes supply and demand and more firearms will be in circulation, and the ease to get them will increase.

I am talking about giving them the choice to own firearm. There are 80million legally held firearms in the US, just becuase some can choose does not mean he has to own one. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.


Whether it is legal to own a fire arm or not will not bother criminals as by their very nature they are ignorant of the law.

But they fear being confronted with superior or equal force.


Neighbours I do not know,do not know I have firearms as I am very discreet when loading them up, the ones(or one) that know(s) don't care and actually use them as a reason to start a conversation.
I'm just like every other Joe, and the only piece of camo i have is a camo hat.

I’m sure. It’s a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do in your culture.

As it was I'm sure in the UK maybe 70yrs ago.


Funny that, the UK is worse off as far as burglaries go,

Do we?

Yes


the reason you have hot and cold burglaries over there is the perps are fully aware they have little to nothing to worry about when it comes to the victim.

But that’s a very extreme all or nothing view. I would not consider a 7 foot paratrooper brick **** house built hard bastard with an 13” machete, nothing to worry about, if I happened to break into his house. Nor would I consider a highly skilled martial arts trained street fighter with a samurai sword nothing to worry about if I happened to break into his house. Clearly, Burglars do consider they have something to worry about as they are now starting to carry knives, and I would reckon the majority of burglaries happen in this country when houses are unoccupied anyway!

And criminals never target soft targets do they, again you're being too black and white.


Over here, there was a study done on prison immates and burlaries and there worst fear was being shot by the home owners, thing is here home owners are less forgiving than the Police.

But those people still committed the crimes regardless. I'm sure if you did the same study over here, the average burglar response to being asked what his worst fear was/is would be running into the home owner. All that would happen over here is that burglars would ditch their knives for firearms.

Chances are burglars are less lightly to enter a home when the occupants are at home for fear of being shot, they do not have to worry about that over there. And as far as crims ditching knives for guns, you sound like that top cop, his reaosn for not arming more Police was becuase this would force the crims to get bigger and better guns.


How did this person just walk into your friends house? Was there no lock on the door?

The door was unlocked.


With all due respect, your friend seems a lot more reasonable than you. You seem quite dangerous if you are interested in shooting drunk people for making the mistake of choosing the wrong house while looking for their girlfriend.

Ex-girlfiend, and I guess I'm as dangerous as the Eaton LEO who told my friend he would have shot him.


I dunno, if my house had been destroyed by a natural disaster, and I had absolutely nothing I would probably become a “bad guy” too and start stealing out of pure desperation.

All the more reason to fear people like me then!



But even recognising these problems you’re still interested in shooting people. That’s something I don’t understand.

I did not say I was interested in shooting people, please show me where I said this?
I am prepared to shoot someone if I have to. Prepared and interested are two different things entirely.


Are we talking felonies or misdemeanors, after all a speeding ticket is not considered serious, unless it's completely reckless and you have put other lives at risk.

It’s up-to-you how to define it, you’re the one who brought up the point of being law abiding. In my area, and culture, selling a bit of dope is not a serious crime, but more a public service.

Drugs and firearms do not mix, assault and firearms do not mix, spousal abuse and firearms do not mix. A speeding ticket and firearms to me is not a problem.


Ok, that's how it is here, while i carry concealed, if confronted I have a duty to retreat. If I cannot retreat and I fear for my life only then am I able to pull my firearm, if I pull my firearm, then I need to make sure and pull the trigger. The law does not allow for me to brandish my firearm just to stop any type of confrontation.

Do you think this is right or wrong?

Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's the law.
If I were to do it, more than likely I would go to court and it would be up to a jury of my peers to decide if there was any wrongdoing.


I was told by my mates in Ladbroke Grove, if you look like a vicitm, you will be treated like one. I think allot of it comes down to how you carry yourself, please do not take this has a slight against you but that's just what I was told.

No, you’re quite right. But carrying a concealed weapon does not make you look any less of a victim.

But the crimes don't know do they, just the fact that crims do not know who is carrying is a detterant.


Although, it can be the other way around, in prison for example if you walk around strutting yourself like a big man then people are more interested on starting on you. For some people, it’s more of a challenge to beat a “big man” than it is any one else.

Wouldn't know, never been, but I'll take your word on that.


I don’t know how else to define it. Any adult without a criminal record can own a 10-round capacity hand gun for defensive purposes, for example.

And the problem with this is what??



I probably have more idea than the average UK person. Anything you think is important to feel free to tell me. I am by know means an expert on American law! :)

OK



That is the essence of my point. Geezer seems more concerned about crime and being the victim of the crime then I do, despite the fact that he has access to firearms and I don’t.

Yet I do not talk about fortifying my home or taking a defensive stance, but I am prepared to take an offensive stance if need be.

[Durandal]

Have you seen the documentary Bowling For Columbine? Now, I'm sure there's a lot of just criticism about Michael Moore's presentation of facts, but what do you make to his argument that there's more crime and guns in America, compared to that of Canada, because of PARANOIA?

Actually, in BfC Moore disproves his own argument though for the life of me I do not know why he does not see it.

The main mistake he made:

Going to Canada. Plain and simple. Though there are less guns in Canada, a larger percentage of the population actually owns firearms than in the United States.

His fallacy is that guns and the gun culture create the problem, yet he shows us this idyllic world that is Canada, where everyone has a door unlocked and there is almost no gun related deaths (relative to the United States) AND where more households contain a firearm (legal or not) than in the United States.

Using his very simple explanation for such a high number of firearm related deaths in the United States (More guns = More gun violence) you would thing that Canada would actually have a higher number of gun related deaths (murders, accidents, suicides)...

...yet for some odd reason it doesn't.

The same is true also for Switzerland and New Zealand as well. Both nations have a fairly high saturation of firearms within the civilian market (legal and illegal).

So what is the reason?

I'll argue that since a majority of firearm related deaths in this country are (per capita) either crime related, minority related, or both that in fact, its simple a class issue mainly seen within the black population. Something that none of the three nations listed above have.

Now some might see that as a racist comment. It isn't. A majority of gun related deaths (per capita) is within black communities. These deaths are usually committed by a black person upon another black person AND/OR involved in a criminal act.

The other bulk of the gun related deaths (nearly half) are suicides. I think its silly that we count these.

So where does that put us?

Michael Moore went looking for answer. Instead of finding the answer he mislead the viewer with well over a dozen (deliberate or ignorant) misleading points or simple lies to twist the answer that he wanted...which he never really got around to presenting to his audience because he went WAY off point in the abortion of an interview with Heston, leaving a bad taste in most of the viewers (pro gun or not).

The picture, like most of his, did little to prove a point so much as harass people Moore does not like. The same can be found in Roger and Me and in his latest bungling of a documentary...

Guns do not cause violence. You cannot look at the number of guns and say X number of guns = Y number of deaths.

Nor is it rational to claim that it is important to target guns because of their use in firearm related deaths and violent crime. USing that rationale there are a thousand other MUCH more dangerous things out there than firearms...much more. You have to have some sort of moral equivalency...

[Bobcharge]

Explain that last bit to me, how does carrying concealed increase the chances of being attacked with a lethal weapon?

What I’m saying Is that if guns were in general circulation like they are in America then the chances of criminals carrying them would increase.

What are the guide lines that are there, in addition to following the laws, that the US needs?

Ideally, I would not like to see one single weapon in society, but given reality this is not a reasonable request.

There are reasons for owning firearms. Although I am against hunting I can understand why they are permitted for this reason. I do not think that self-defence is justification for permitting fire arms.

If you're only against the simple amount of guns in circulation (I could use a definition on this too), then why not, say, limits on the amount of guns a certain place could sell, as that would attack the problem more directly, and cut the BS.

Totally, I think that this is a good model for a country that allows mainstream circulation of firearms. Is this the case in the States?

There are other factors to take into account, such as type of guns. I believe, and don’t quote me on this, that if you are permitted to own fire-arms in the UK, you cannot own automatics and the magazine capacity can be no more than 3 rounds. This is a sensible precaution because to hunt deer for example, you do not need a large capacity semi-automatic easily concealable (a hand gun for example) weapon. It also allows consideration that if the weapon was being used for criminal purposes, either intentionally or in the heat of the moment, there is a lower potential for causing damage.

Or is there a reason why a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun?

All responsible people should be able to own a gun, but until society can adequately insure that they will not fall into hands of people that wish to do wrong with them then it’s a reality we have to live with it.

Don’t get me wrong; I would love to own a gun. I would never point it at anything sentient, but I would love to have one to fire, strip, collect, clean etc. But society does not make provisions for me, it acts in unison (or should act!) in the interests of the majority of people. And it is commonly accepted that the negatives of having firearms in a mainstream circulation out way the positive benefits.

I don’t believe I’ve seen a single post on this board from a Englishman advocating mainstream circulation of guns. There’s plenty of people though, from all political persuasions from far-right to far left, that share similar views to me, and there’s a reason for that.

The English as a nation are very volatile and aggressive people; arming them is not a good idea. We have a culture where people fight in the streets because they enjoy it, adding guns to that equation isn’t going to make us all calm down.

I think you're misjudging, he said he dosen't ever want to have to use his gun, but carries for reasons of self defence. (for example, I know CPR, I don't WANT to be in a situation where someone's life is in my hands, but because I feel I need to be prepared if in that situation) I don't believe many CCW holders walk around waiting for someone to look at them funny so they can start unloading on them. They are, probably, more aware of there surroundings, though.

I’m not saying he wants to, but he seems relatively enthusiastic to use his weapon given the opportunities arises. Much more than his neighbour with the kid, was the example.

You just made my point, I'm still at a risk, despite not knowing anyone who has been a victim of cancer. Just as Geezer has never had to use his gun to defend himself, and dosen't know of anyone personally who has either. But that dosen't mean he never will. I won't start smoking because I don't want to end up a statistic, and Geezer carries because he dosen't want to be a statistic.

I can accept that but it doesn’t justify permitting guns in my opinion. From the way both of you talk it seems you believe there’s a real threat of serious violence or death being committed against you. This view is totally alien to me and the culture I live in. If that’s what legalising guns does then it’s another reason why I’m against it.

Ok, bringing up MMs MOCKumentary was not a good idea on your part. It was his twisted version of the truth. PLease do abit more research to back up your claims.

What was wrong with his argument in regards to the gun situation in Canada compared to America? His point was not about gun ownership being bad per-se but people owning guns because they live in fear. Thoughts?

No-one has said we need to arm the country, those that are pro-firearm just believe in being able to make the decision to own arms ourselves.

I understand, I’m merely loose with language because it saves me time. Of course I understand that pro-firearm people on this board are not advocating the lines of the BNP which is that everybody has to by law own a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Anyway, there’s another argument Michael Moore puts forth: where do you draw the line? Should you be able to own nuclear weapons? Given the current situation in the world, you might possible need them to defend yourself and your family in the future.

Two different societies, the Ameircan Bill of Rights is based on the British Bill of Rights and up until quite a few years ago you could carry a handgun legally in the UK.

I didn’t realise England even had a bill of rights.

If someone broke into my house here(I can't afford to worry about whether or not he is armed, you have to think it's go time)

Because guns are widely available?

It’s arguments like these that worry me, If you can’t take a second to pause, and concentrate on the situation then you cannot be a fair judge of whether deadly force is needed.

Tere were some trick or treaters in England that knocked on the door of a victim and shot him, I'm guessing he was not armed!

Yeah, but the flip side to that is that if everybody was armed then there would probably be more than one example of someone getting shot, after being confused for a criminal, out trick or treating.

Mate, you sound like a victim again.

It was an example, I said that if I wish too, not that I do.

I do not go to extremes to secure my home. I do not want to live in Fort Knox, if someone chooses to enter my premises uninvited then I will hopefully deal with it.

But you go to extremes in the regards that you carry around a loaded weapon with the interest in possibly killing someone because it’s in the back of your mind every time you put the weapon in your holster that today you could get murdered. It seems like a real monkey on your back.

As I said, if I wanted to, I could walk around tooled up (legally with an umbrella) but I don’t feel the need to because I feel relatively safe in my society. I feel safe because guns aren’t in mainstream circulation, if they were then I would probably carry one myself.

It sounds like you are fully aware that you could be a victim again, me I undertsand what people are capable of and choose not to be a victim.

We are both fully aware that we could be the victim of crime. Carrying a gun will not stop people attacking you. The chances of a criminal walking up and pointing a gun at you are much more likely then it happening over here and having a gun in a holster on your belt won’t allow you to do anything about that.

This makes more sense to me than fortifying my home while I cower inside waiting to be a victim.

If you were to secure your home then there would not be a confrontation for you to worry about.

Out of interest, do you fancy your chances in a gun fight? Being accurate enough and being quick enough?

Sorry, I may have missed something here, do criminals now work to a script, just how do you know that all they want is your television.

No, but I work on probability. Look up crime statistics, I’m sure there are relatively few examples of people breaking into homes with the intention of causing physical harm to the people inside.

What about that poor 3yr old girl that was kidnapped and raped, did the criminal not follow the script on that crime.

Fire arms would not have stopped that situation.

Anyway, when that is the norm when it comes to break ins then I will probably come around to your way of thinking, but the way it stands is that instances like that are very, very rare. That is the main reason It made headlines. If every burglary was reported in similar depth then daily newspapers would be 5 inches thick.

My local newspaper doesn’t even bother to report burglaries, but when someone is killed as a result in makes major national news, and that is because instances like that are highly unusual.

The thing that you're missing is criminals are criminals because they break the law. If someone enters my house unvitied then I am well within my rights to shoot them. I WILL NOT TAKE A CHANCE WITH THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS!

But the problem with that is the assumption that every law breaker is a potential murderer, and as you’ve recognised yourself, just because someone breaks the law it does not make them wall to wall psychopathic murderers.

With arguments like that you end up with a Tony Martin situation. When some 17 year old boy is blasted in the back as he’s running away because Martin’s sick of having his house robbed. Now even though I think what Tony Martin did was wrong I can sympathise with his view. Regardless, that does not give him a justification to kill people. Now you might think that one less 17 year old burglar is one less to worry about but I think it’s a very sad state of affairs when people are killed because they do wrong.

If you or your family are in genuine danger of being killed then by all means use deadly force, British courts will allow that. But to allow people to kill people because they thought this or that is highly dangerous for society.

Then that is not everybody, criminals are not allowed firearms but for some reason they do not obey the laws, just like the crims in the UK!

Yeah, there’s no need to be pedantic. If I was to define what I mean every time I make reference to allowing guns in mainstream circulation then I wouldn’t even have got round to actually debating with you, I’d still be writing posts! :)

And you are saying that there is then more chance of a legally owned firearm being used to perpetrate a crime????

Yes. I’m saying the more guns in the country, the more firearms offences there will be.

If so this is completely untrue, please check over my posts, there is important information in them, I have posted info from the House's of Parliment on this very subject.

I will look, but it will take some time.

I am talking about giving them the choice to own firearm. There are 80million legally held firearms in the US, just becuase some can choose does not mean he has to own one. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

I know, that’s why I used the word “potential.” Regardless of how much of the population would choose to own guns, my argument still applies.

But they fear being confronted with superior or equal force.

But being some malnourished crack addict with a knife does not necessarily stop you breaking into some hard bastard armed with a machete’s house. Infact, if you were to put guns in general circulation it would encourage those interested in doing burglaries because they would feel protected. If you believe owning carrying a gun gives you an advantage in a fight then surely this logic applies to criminals as well.

You can get shot in this country for carrying a replica fire arms, yet still criminals carry them because it gives them the advantage over people who would generally be a superior force.

As it was I'm sure in the UK maybe 70yrs ago.

Indeed, my friend tells me stories of how when he was a youth, maybe 20 years ago the local farmer had an L1A1 SLR and 7.62 NATO rounds he used to off the cows with. When my friend was in the army, his RSM, who had just come back from the Falklands, had a cache of foreign weapons (souvenirs) under his bed. Even though it was illegal back then they’re just examples of how generally law abiding people treated the serious of illegal gun owning. Now, of course, society has changed very much and examples like that would be few and far between.

And criminals never target soft targets do they, again you're being too black and white.

Not at all. I’m just illustrating possibilities. At the end of the day, unless burglars do (extensive) research on the places they target they don’t know what reception they could meet. In the states, they could bump into the less than 30% of the population with guns, sounds like pretty good odds to me.

If anyone is being to black and white here it’s you to suggest that only the weak, vulnerable and sincere will take advantage of mainstream gun ownership.

Chances are burglars are less lightly to enter a home when the occupants are at home for fear of being shot, they do not have to worry about that over there.

But there’s plenty of deterrents over here to stop people burgling homes while people are at home. The threat of deadly force for example.

Are you seriously under the impression that it’s common for burglars to commit crimes over here while people are in there homes?

And as far as crims ditching knives for guns, you sound like that top cop, his reaosn for not arming more Police was becuase this would force the crims to get bigger and better guns.

Yes, I support that view. More coppers carrying guns means more criminals carrying guns.

The door was unlocked.

Well there you have it.

Ex-girlfiend, and I guess I'm as dangerous as the Eaton LEO who told my friend he would have shot him.

Eaton LEO? I assume that some sort of police officer. Police officers are not the bastions of moral decency. Over here there’s endless cases of police officers abusing their power. There’s many reasons for people to join the police force. Some do it out of genuine decency, but some do it because they like causing trouble safe in the knowledge that there’s not much chance of repercussions. The case of the Guildford four is an example of police corruption.

All the more reason to fear people like me then!

But I don’t fear people like you. In all honesty, and with all due respect, you seem a lot more sacred and confused of crime then I do. And sacred and confused people in times of emergency cannot be relied on.

My old maths teacher used this wonderful quote: Empty vessels make the most noise.

I did not say I was interested in shooting people, please show me where I said this? I am prepared to shoot someone if I have to. Prepared and interested are two different things entirely.


This is from the conversation about the man entering your friends flat and that you, in that circumstance would have shot the intruder. Your very argument relies around the fact that you seem very at ease to admit that given the opportunity you would or be prepared to shoot someone.

Drugs and firearms do not mix, assault and firearms do not mix, spousal abuse and firearms do not mix. A speeding ticket and firearms to me is not a problem.

Just because you use drugs does not make you an irresponsible person.

Do drink and firearms mix? Drinking and driving don’t mix, but separate they are both considered acceptable.

Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's the law.

I’m just interested in your opinion on this. If society never recognised the fact that sometimes laws are wrong then society itself would never progress.

But the crimes don't know do they, just the fact that crims do not know who is carrying is a detterant.

But it doesn’t stop crime, it just increases the likely hood that those wanting to commit crime will carry arms because they feel they need to. The way the law stands, anyone in this country could walk around carrying a big **** off knife (you‘d have to have reasonable cause, but if you were smart you could blag it). This doesn’t act as a deterrent, why would guns be any different?

The chances are by the time you’ve even reached to get your gun, the criminal would feel it necessary to shoot you because he would feel his life is in danger. You remove fire arms the equation and there’s not much argument for either the criminal or the victim to use deadly force.

And the problem with this is what??

For the very reasons stated in my posts, it would encourage gun crime.

Yet I do not talk about fortifying my home or taking a defensive stance, but I am prepared to take an offensive stance if need be.

And I don’t talk about having to take any precaution, because I don‘t live in fear.

The main mistake he made:

Going to Canada. Plain and simple. Though there are less guns in Canada, a larger percentage of the population actually owns firearms than in the United States.

His fallacy is that guns and the gun culture create the problem, yet he shows us this idyllic world that is Canada, where everyone has a door unlocked and there is almost no gun related deaths (relative to the United States) AND where more households contain a firearm (legal or not) than in the United States.

Using his very simple explanation for such a high number of firearm related deaths in the United States (More guns = More gun violence) you would thing that Canada would actually have a higher number of gun related deaths (murders, accidents, suicides)...

...yet for some odd reason it doesn't.

But isn’t his argument that people in America live in a perpetual culture of fear and are more sacred, and therefore more willing to use firearms then their Canadian cousins?

I'll argue that since a majority of firearm related deaths in this country are (per capita) either crime related, minority related, or both that in fact, its simple a class issue mainly seen within the black population. Something that none of the three nations listed above have.

Now some might see that as a racist comment. It isn't. A majority of gun related deaths (per capita) is within black communities. These deaths are usually committed by a black person upon another black person AND/OR involved in a criminal act.

Do you have a suggestion as to why black people are more likely to commit gun crimes then white people?

Anyway, thank you three for the effort and time you’ve put into writing. It’s appreciated.

Regards,

Bob

[Minardiau]

So what is the reason?

I'll argue that since a majority of firearm related deaths in this country are (per capita) either crime related, minority related, or both that in fact, its simple a class issue mainly seen within the black population. Something that none of the three nations listed above have.

Now some might see that as a racist comment. It isn't. A majority of gun related deaths (per capita) is within black communities. These deaths are usually committed by a black person upon another black person AND/OR involved in a criminal act.



Thats basically what I have been saying all along. But my approach is that until the divide is removed and people dont need to commit a crime then gun restrictions stay

[DefensorForskin]

Im coming into this one late. I've scrolled down through these last few pages and the one thing that Im seeing here is truely a differnce of opinion based on emotional,logical, and cultural differences. Basically its like this, Americans can own firearms because its a constitutionally guaranteed right. Don't like it too bad. Are people going to want or need firearms for home or personal protection? Yes. You don't like it. Tough ****. I'm a gun owner and have been one for 20 years. I grew up in a home where my father owned weapons. My father taught me how to safely shoot weapons and impressed upon me the huge responsiblilty and moral obligations of owning a firearm. I hunt, I target shoot and I carry a weapon every day. I've served my country as a military police officer for the past 6 years and Im a veteran of three campaigns. I've seen the need for firearms in protecting ones life. If there are those who seem to think they don't need firearms for protection then thats their own choice. Don't try to foist your opinions off on others because of your fears or misguided conceptions. Simply put, having a firearm will prevent any trouble that may come your way. I for one will not be one to take another opinions as fact. I will continue to have firearms and will use them if needed to protect my family. I will not listen some idiot who beleives that firearms are not needed. To believe that way especially if you have a family, you are less of a person in my estimation. By reading some of your posts, I firmly belive more than a few of you need to take a few steps into the real world. Ive seen the reason why firearms are needed in this world, and can see why they were invented. They stop people from hurting, killing, raping robbing, and who knows what else is on some criminals mind. 'nuff said.

[Durandal]

Thats basically what I have been saying all along. But my approach is that until the divide is removed and people dont need to commit a crime then gun restrictions stay

This makes absolutely no sense. You are blaming a minority of people and making the majority pay for their actions.

Thankfully, what we are discussing is a Constitutional RIGHT, not some sort of privilege granted to you by the State, like driving.

[Oddbod]

With reference to "hot" burglaries:

These run at 13% in the US & 52%(2004 figures) here in the UK.

The threat of being confronted by a resident with the means to defend himself certainly appears to make a big difference.


Why should it be OK for criminals to be free from the chance that their victims may have the means to defend themselves?
Gun laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding & therefore do absoloutely NOTHING to affect the armed criminal.

[Bia]

My father was a lifer Jarhead.
He passed away in car acident when I was 12. My much older sister sold ALL of his weapons.
I have no guns but miss shooting with him.
He taught me well for being such a small child.

I dont fear being a victim...I live alone now but wish like hell I had his SKS or Mossburg 12 ga. Those were my favorite to fire....though that Mossburg was brutal on my shoulder.

Someone take me shooting! ;)

[Durandal]

I can hook you up if you live in Ohio or Kentucky. :)

I have a VERY sweet private range and tactical pistol course...(and camping area).

[Geezah]

Explain that last bit to me, how does carrying concealed increase the chances of being attacked with a lethal weapon?

What I’m saying Is that if guns were in general circulation like they are in America then the chances of criminals carrying them would increase.

You are so incorrect it's not even funny. Mate, firearms are not in general circulation in the UK, so what's your excuse for increase in firearm related incidents???

Here's a wake up call from the House's of Parliament. Please read it as I'm starting to get a little board!

Scroll down to Part Two (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm), it's a right little eye opener and shoots down your claim that more firearms equal more crime. It has been proven time and again over here that more legal ownership of firearms equals less crime!



What are the guide lines that are there, in addition to following the laws, that the US needs?

Ideally, I would not like to see one single weapon in society, but given reality this is not a reasonable request.

There are reasons for owning firearms. Although I am against hunting I can understand why they are permitted for this reason. I do not think that self-defence is justification for permitting fire arms.

I don't really care what you think, from what I have read(trust me it's allot) I have seen the positive side of firearm ownership. I once thought like you, I even argued the same point, I later found out I was wrong.


Or is there a reason why a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun?

All responsible people should be able to own a gun, but until society can adequately insure that they will not fall into hands of people that wish to do wrong with them then it’s a reality we have to live with it.

So you want to ban firearms for the good apples in the hope that the bad apples will pay attention as well. It doesn't work, only people that no longer have handguns in the UK are the ones that obeyed the law and handed them in.


Don’t get me wrong; I would love to own a gun. I would never point it at anything sentient, but I would love to have one to fire, strip, collect, clean etc. But society does not make provisions for me, it acts in unison (or should act!) in the interests of the majority of people. And it is commonly accepted that the negatives of having firearms in a mainstream circulation out way the positive benefits.

Show me, prove this point to me. I want to see where the negatives outway the positive!


I don’t believe I’ve seen a single post on this board from a Englishman advocating mainstream circulation of guns. There’s plenty of people though, from all political persuasions from far-right to far left, that share similar views to me, and there’s a reason for that.

Well there's me and there are a few others, but seeing as you're a noob you will eventually come across them.


The English as a nation are very volatile and aggressive people; arming them is not a good idea. We have a culture where people fight in the streets because they enjoy it, adding guns to that equation isn’t going to make us all calm down.

Arming them, you keep on with this idea that everyone will take up arsm if given the chance. Well wake here's a wake up call. The crims are already for the most part armed so that just leave the law abiding. Anyway if the proper checks and balances are in place legally held firearms would not fall into the hands of the crims(for the most part).


I think you're misjudging, he said he dosen't ever want to have to use his gun, but carries for reasons of self defence. (for example, I know CPR, I don't WANT to be in a situation where someone's life is in my hands, but because I feel I need to be prepared if in that situation) I don't believe many CCW holders walk around waiting for someone to look at them funny so they can start unloading on them. They are, probably, more aware of there surroundings, though.

I’m not saying he wants to, but he seems relatively enthusiastic to use his weapon given the opportunities arises. Much more than his neighbour with the kid, was the example.

I'm not sure how you came up with this idea that I'm enthusiastic to off someone, if by saying that I would protect my family if someone entered my home uninvited as enthusiastic. Then I guess that's your understanding of the word.


And please pay attention, it was not my neighbour it was my Si-hing(Kung Fu elder).

Saying that, I studied Kung Fu for over 5yrs, does that mean I'm itching to have a go. I would say it had the complete opposite affect on me.


You just made my point, I'm still at a risk, despite not knowing anyone who has been a victim of cancer. Just as Geezer has never had to use his gun to defend himself, and dosen't know of anyone personally who has either. But that dosen't mean he never will. I won't start smoking because I don't want to end up a statistic, and Geezer carries because he dosen't want to be a statistic.

I can accept that but it doesn’t justify permitting guns in my opinion. From the way both of you talk it seems you believe there’s a real threat of serious violence or death being committed against you. This view is totally alien to me and the culture I live in. If that’s what legalising guns does then it’s another reason why I’m against it.

I grew up in West London, and I guess they must be completely different.
MAybe you will get it this time, I have only owned firearms for the last 4yrs,this is my 10th year here. What do you think I was doing all that time!?


Ok, bringing up MMs MOCKumentary was not a good idea on your part. It was his twisted version of the truth. PLease do abit more research to back up your claims.

What was wrong with his argument in regards to the gun situation in Canada compared to America? His point was not about gun ownership being bad per-se but people owning guns because they live in fear. Thoughts?

Durandal's already answered that, but seeing as you think MMs information is gospel then I guess by me being an NRA member I've pledged my alligience(sp?) to the KKK?


No-one has said we need to arm the country, those that are pro-firearm just believe in being able to make the decision to own arms ourselves.

I understand, I’m merely loose with language because it saves me time. Of course I understand that pro-firearm people on this board are not advocating the lines of the BNP which is that everybody has to by law own a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Then it isn't everybody then is it.

And by the way, there is no such thing as a Semi-Automatic ASSault Rifle;)


Anyway, there’s another argument Michael Moore puts forth: where do you draw the line? Should you be able to own nuclear weapons? Given the current situation in the world, you might possible need them to defend yourself and your family in the future.

Don't you think that's a bit extreme, I know that antis liek to use extremes to get their point across but I don't think that will ever happen. Afterall, not much has changed in the last hundred years as far as the what is available to the law abiding under the 2nd Am.


Two different societies, the Ameircan Bill of Rights is based on the British Bill of Rights and up until quite a few years ago you could carry a handgun legally in the UK.

I didn’t realise England even had a bill of rights.

That's why I suggested you start reading some of my old posts. Lot s of information to be had in them. Allot easier than coming in here and trying to lay down the law.


If someone broke into my house here(I can't afford to worry about whether or not he is armed, you have to think it's go time) [/quote

Because guns are widely available?

It’s arguments like these that worry me, If you can’t take a second to pause, and concentrate on the situation then you cannot be a fair judge of whether deadly force is needed.

And prior to being a firearm it was a hammer. One of the things that was drummed into my head in Martial Arts was the best Defense is Offense, you do not think you just react, it should become 2nd nature, even 1st nature.
I do not care if you agree with my way of thinking, but I WILL NOT TAKE A CHANCE WItH MY FAMILYS LIVES!

[quote=Geezah]
Tere were some trick or treaters in England that knocked on the door of a victim and shot him, I'm guessing he was not armed!

Yeah, but the flip side to that is that if everybody was armed then there would probably be more than one example of someone getting shot, after being confused for a criminal, out trick or treating.

Prove it, you have plenty of time now to back up your point of view with facts?
My link at the top of the page clearly shows that increased firearm ownership amoungst the law abiding did not suddenly mean that there were more cases of firearm violence.
But just for arguements sake, if that were the case why is it the US is expereincing a 21yr low of violent crime with firearms being readily available. This is a claimt he UK cannot make!

Another link for your reading pleasure.

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)


I do not go to extremes to secure my home. I do not want to live in Fort Knox, if someone chooses to enter my premises uninvited then I will hopefully deal with it.

But you go to extremes in the regards that you carry around a loaded weapon with the interest in possibly killing someone because it’s in the back of your mind every time you put the weapon in your holster that today you could get murdered. It seems like a real monkey on your back.

Not once have I ever said "I am interested in shooting someone"! I have said I am prepared to, but this does not mean I am interested in doing it.Do I need to post the English Dictionary's explanations of "Interested" and "Prepared"?

Again I studied Martial Arts for over 5yrs, doesn't mean I want to go out and fight all the time, I could have done what Bruce Lee did and go and wait outside bars to start fights with drunks to test out my Kung Fu, but I chose not to.




As I said, if I wanted to, I could walk around tooled up (legally with an umbrella) but I don’t feel the need to because I feel relatively safe in my society. I feel safe because guns aren’t in mainstream circulation, if they were then I would probably carry one myself.

Am I to understand "mainstream" as alowed by the law abiding, because, if this is the case you do not make sense.


It sounds like you are fully aware that you could be a victim again, me I undertsand what people are capable of and choose not to be a victim.

We are both fully aware that we could be the victim of crime. Carrying a gun will not stop people attacking you. The chances of a criminal walking up and pointing a gun at you are much more likely then it happening over here and having a gun in a holster on your belt won’t allow you to do anything about that.

Not true, we in Ohio have since a drop in violent crime since the introduction of CCW, afterall a crim looking for an easy target now has to take into consideration that the 90yr old granny could be carrying. The saem could not be said in England, chances of the law abiding carrying are none, it is not allowed by law, so no-one that obeys the law will carry a firearm and crimianls are fully aware of this and act on it.


This makes more sense to me than fortifying my home while I cower inside waiting to be a victim.

If you were to secure your home then there would not be a confrontation for you to worry about.

As I said I am not prepaid to go to extreme to fortify my home< I do not liek the idea of living in Fort Knox. As far as a confrontation inside my home hopefully this will never happen but as it has happened to others in the past there is a chance it could.


Out of interest, do you fancy your chances in a gun fight? Being accurate enough and being quick enough?

This isn't Bonanza you know, as far as do I fancy my chances, it never crossed my mind.


Sorry, I may have missed something here, do criminals now work to a script, just how do you know that all they want is your television.

No, but I work on probability. Look up crime statistics, I’m sure there are relatively few examples of people breaking into homes with the intention of causing physical harm to the people inside.

No, but there are those that are prepaid to do what ever they have to to get away.

A recent example of what people are prepaid to do to secure their escape, granted a firearm may have done little but it proves my point that tea leafs do not care about the victim!

(UK)Brothers jailed over farm death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/4594628.stm)



Anyway, when that is the norm when it comes to break ins then I will probably come around to your way of thinking, but the way it stands is that instances like that are very, very rare. That is the main reason It made headlines. If every burglary was reported in similar depth then daily newspapers would be 5 inches thick.

My local newspaper doesn’t even bother to report burglaries, but when someone is killed as a result in makes major national news, and that is because instances like that are highly unusual.

So again you have helped make my point, burglaries allot higher in the UK than they are here(so I guess firearm ownership is a detterant). OB supplied stats in his post in regards Hot and Cold burglries.


The thing that you're missing is criminals are criminals because they break the law. If someone enters my house unvitied then I am well within my rights to shoot them. I WILL NOT TAKE A CHANCE WITH THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS!

But the problem with that is the assumption that every law breaker is a potential murderer, and as you’ve recognised yourself, just because someone breaks the law it does not make them wall to wall psychopathic murderers.

Are you trying to tell me there is some justification for criminals breaking the law?
Anyway if someone enters my house uninvited I will take that as a an immidiete threat to my family, there is no reason under the sun why they should be in my home.


With arguments like that you end up with a Tony Martin situation. When some 17 year old boy is blasted in the back as he’s running away because Martin’s sick of having his house robbed. Now even though I think what Tony Martin did was wrong I can sympathise with his view. Regardless, that does not give him a justification to kill people. Now you might think that one less 17 year old burglar is one less to worry about but I think it’s a very sad state of affairs when people are killed because they do wrong.

Is the line really that fine between right and wrong, are things that bad that people will enter houses uninvited no realising that they have commited a crime?


If you or your family are in genuine danger of being killed then by all means use deadly force, British courts will allow that. But to allow people to kill people because they thought this or that is highly dangerous for society.

How will I know, after all, how do I not know if all Mr. Badguy wants is my TV?


Then that is not everybody, criminals are not allowed firearms but for some reason they do not obey the laws, just like the crims in the UK!

Yeah, there’s no need to be pedantic. If I was to define what I mean every time I make reference to allowing guns in mainstream circulation then I wouldn’t even have got round to actually debating with you, I’d still be writing posts! :)

But it would help get your point across, ratehr than trying to paint everyone with the same brush.


And you are saying that there is then more chance of a legally owned firearm being used to perpetrate a crime????

Yes. I’m saying the more guns in the country, the more firearms offences there will be.

You are wrong, please again read those links to the House's of Parliment, they will show you how wrong you really are. Also with 80million legally held firearms we are at a 21yr low in regards violent crime, the UK cannot again say the same thing.



I will look, but it will take some time.

Not now, I've supplied a couple of links



But they fear being confronted with superior or equal force.

But being some malnourished crack addict with a knife does not necessarily stop you breaking into some hard bastard armed with a machete’s house. Infact, if you were to put guns in general circulation it would encourage those interested in doing burglaries because they would feel protected. If you believe owning carrying a gun gives you an advantage in a fight then surely this logic applies to criminals as well.

You can get shot in this country for carrying a replica fire arms, yet still criminals carry them because it gives them the advantage over people who would generally be a superior force.

Again you've proved my point, superior or equal force, a firearm can be an equalizer.



And criminals never target soft targets do they, again you're being too black and white.


Not at all. I’m just illustrating possibilities. At the end of the day, unless burglars do (extensive) research on the places they target they don’t know what reception they could meet. In the states, they could bump into the less than 30% of the population with guns, sounds like pretty good odds to me.

But they do not know who is carrying and who is not, sometime all it takes is just thinking a potential victim could be armed.


If anyone is being to black and white here it’s you to suggest that only the weak, vulnerable and sincere will take advantage of mainstream gun ownership.

Again, please explain this "mainstream" what does this mean?

Are you talking about going into a gun store filling out form 4473, having the store phone in an instant check to the FBI and then sellign the firearm to you if you get a Proceed???


Chances are burglars are less lightly to enter a home when the occupants are at home for fear of being shot, they do not have to worry about that over there.

But there’s plenty of deterrents over here to stop people burgling homes while people are at home. The threat of deadly force for example.

It doesn't work, just recently there was a public uproar because the law abiding wanted more rights when dealing with criminals in their homes. And just so you know they did not authorize the use of deadly force, they said you could fight back.


Are you seriously under the impression that it’s common for burglars to commit crimes over here while people are in there homes?

Yes, I'm fully aware of what people are capable of, trust me I knocked around Ladbroke Grove long enough. JUst where abouts in South London are you from?


And as far as crims ditching knives for guns, you sound like that top cop, his reaosn for not arming more Police was becuase this would force the crims to get bigger and better guns.

Yes, I support that view. More coppers carrying guns means more criminals carrying guns.

So you are telling me the only thing stopping more crims from carrying firearms at the moment is the fact the majority of LE over there is unarmed.
Well, if that's the case they need to do away with ARVs, shoot do away with arming all the Police that way the crims will turn their arms in.


The door was unlocked.

Well there you have it.

Yep, the guy entered the house thinking it was his ex-girlfriends, who just so happened to have a restraining order against him, but that piece of paper didn't do a thing to stop him from entering this house uninvited.


Ex-girlfiend, and I guess I'm as dangerous as the Eaton LEO who told my friend he would have shot him.

Eaton LEO? I assume that some sort of police officer. Police officers are not the bastions of moral decency. Over here there’s endless cases of police officers abusing their power. There’s many reasons for people to join the police force. Some do it out of genuine decency, but some do it because they like causing trouble safe in the knowledge that there’s not much chance of repercussions. The case of the Guildford four is an example of police corruption.

Eaton, Ohio, it's a town just outside of Richmond, Indiana, where I used to live when I firat moved here.

Please don't use that brush again where you paint the majority.


All the more reason to fear people like me then!

But I don’t fear people like you. In all honesty, and with all due respect, you seem a lot more sacred and confused of crime then I do. And sacred and confused people in times of emergency cannot be relied on.

Trust me, I'm not scared or confused, I've seen allot in my life and have allot of experiences to go off of.


I did not say I was interested in shooting people, please show me where I said this? I am prepared to shoot someone if I have to. Prepared and interested are two different things entirely.


This is from the conversation about the man entering your friends flat and that you, in that circumstance would have shot the intruder. Your very argument relies around the fact that you seem very at ease to admit that given the opportunity you would or be prepared to shoot someone.

Not flat, house, but if I were to come down stairs to find a stranger standing over my 10yr old son, then yes I probably would shoot them. But you mentioned the key word, "PREPARED". Would I be at ease with the decision, I would be at ease knowing that no harm came to a family member, this is the way I would deal with it.


Drugs and firearms do not mix, assault and firearms do not mix, spousal abuse and firearms do not mix. A speeding ticket and firearms to me is not a problem.

Just because you use drugs does not make you an irresponsible person.

Do drink and firearms mix? Drinking and driving don’t mix, but separate they are both considered acceptable.

The same as heavy machinery, anything that alte