NationStates Jolt Archive

Who should have firearms?

Ducks. They seem trustworthy. *nod*

Edit: This thread is mine! I hereby declare this thread New Duckia! Bow before your new duck masters! AHHH HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.signs-up.com/prod_images/Attack%20Duck_attack_640.jpg

Who should have firearms?

Answer: Everyone, but limits for civilians (Why the hell does your overweight suburbanite neighbor who supposedly is so law-abiding need an automatic?) However, those who say 'all guns are bad, let's get rid of them" are crazy too.

The right people who actually need them, since there lethal weapons.

The right people who actually need them, since there lethal weapons.

That's everyone barring the insane and convicted criminals.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
Therefore, no guns cept where it's as sure as can possibly be that they can't be misused- police (only specialised firearms units!), military. If people want their 'right' to use guns they can go to a regulated gun club or whatever and shoot some targets, or clay pigeons. No problem. But taking them wherever they want? as a defensive weapon?
madness....

If someone starts getting aggresive at me here in England, I get paranoid because I know that if I react to defend myself I might get stabbed. I'd much much prefer that to being shot. No, the fact that I could, or maybe would be, carrying a gun myself, would not reasure me in the slightest.

edit- can't believe we've already got 3 people who think it's a good idea for anyone to have a gun...

would you like to explain?

It might be interesting if everyone that comments also informs us what the law is in the country they currently live in.

Ah, Christ, not another of these threads.

People can, so long as it's fairly heavily regulated.

And ain't crap that was essentially designed to kill just people.

Ah, Christ, not another of these threads.

People can, so long as it's fairly heavily regulated.

And ain't crap that was essentially designed to kill just people.

agree

cept i'd say very heavily regulated lol

The problem with the regulation of firearms is that first and foremost, it targets ordinary law abiding citizens on the assumption that a fraction of them may become not-so-law abiding.

Criminals, meanwhile, will always... ALWAYS have access to firearms. It can't be regulated. That kind of control is impossible. When one can go to Home Depot and buy the materials and tools necessary to build fully automatic machine guns, there will always be a supply of firearms for those with disregard for the law.

That is why I hang out with ducks. *nod*

Who should have firearms?

people who's arms are on fire. but keepig those flaming arms is really up to the person burning.

*watches as LG gets down with the ducks*

The most important thing to know about firearms is when to duck. *nod*

That is why I hang out with ducks. *nod*

*watches as LG gets down with the ducks*

Here's the list of restrictions/regulations I can live with (I may not like them, but I can tolerate them).

Background check for every retail purchase
No firearms for convicted felons or people adjudicated mentally defective
Full Auto/Select Fire weapons restricted via NFA act
Pistol permits/CCW permits (with NRA safety course required for permit)
Suppressors, SBRs, and SBS restricted via NFA act

So basically, I think the restrictions/regulations we have now are something I can deal with, with the exception of the AWB several states (including mine) still have.

where is the every household should be required to keep a fire arm option.

The right to bear arms is not for hunting nor for personal protection-the government is there to protect you from your fellow citizens, the right to bear arms is there to protect you from the government. Thus, any civilian should be able to possess any weaponry the government might hold as to combat them better. I know this sounds dangerous as any lunatic could conceivably own a nuke, but anyone who trades Liberty for Freedom deserves neither.

Who should have firearms?

In the US? Everybody.
In Africa? Nobody.
Elsewhere? Only police and military.

if i ever get rich i will try my hardest to purchase an F-22

There's not an option I like, to be honest.

The military probably needs to have guns, unless you only deal with other nations that are very polite, and have a 'let's not fuss' agreement with everyone else.

But, I'm not sure about the wisdom of police with guns - certainly not as a uniform piece. Specially trained firearms officers that can be called upion under certain circumstances? Maybe not so bad, But I'm kinda off the idea of every cop should have one.

Other than that, pretty much no one NEEDS a gun. Special exceptions for farmers for the purpose of predator/pest control, maybe?

I don't trust most people to respect my 'rights', or my life, even without a gun. I certainly won't trust them armed.

if i ever get rich i will try my hardest to purchase an F-22

You'd probably need to hit Powerball (or equivalent large payout lottery), and even then, you might not be able to get one.

Unless this is what you were talking about: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRybDfCLYc

I don't trust most people to respect my 'rights', or my life, even without a gun. I certainly won't trust them armed.

thats exactly why you are armed so you don't have to trust them to respect your life, you can defend it yourself.

Ducks. They seem trustworthy. *nod*

Edit: This thread is mine! I hereby declare this thread New Duckia! Bow before your new duck masters! AHHH HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

http://www.signs-up.com/prod_images/Attack%20Duck_attack_640.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6281/motivator5597065qt1.jpg

The right to bear arms is not for hunting nor for personal protection-the government is there to protect you from your fellow citizens, the right to bear arms is there to protect you from the government. Thus, any civilian should be able to possess any weaponry the government might hold as to combat them better. I know this sounds dangerous as any lunatic could conceivably own a nuke, but anyone who trades Liberty for Freedom deserves neither.

The government is bigger than you. It doesn't matter if you have guns, bombs and helicopters, the government is still bigger than you. War against the government, individually, is just elaborate suicide. The idea that government should be regulated (or could?) by the threat of violence seems incongruous with an appeal to liberty...

In fact, this kind of argument is probably one of the strongest reasons why random people should NOT be allowed guns.

You'd probably need to hit Powerball (or equivalent large payout lottery), and even then, you might not be able to get one.

Unless this is what you were talking about: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRybDfCLYc

or go to law school and become a big shot lawyer.

thats exactly why you are armed so you don't have to trust them to respect your life, you can defend it yourself.

I can 'defend myself' without a gun. I am much less able to 'defend myself' against someone ELSE who is armed WITH a gun, however.

The idea of needing a gun to defend yourself against other people is circular. If you have a gun, they have a gun - all you've done is escalated the violence... adn the potential for innocent bystanders to get hurt.

The government is bigger than you. It doesn't matter if you have guns, bombs and helicopters, the government is still bigger than you.

lol whut? The government is people. Fighting any government is just plain combat. So yes, it would matter if you had guns. Revolutions happen. Government is not magical.

lol whut? The government is people. Fighting any government is just plain combat. So yes, it would matter if you had guns. Revolutions happen. Government is not magical.

Government is people, yes. But, fighting the government is not 'just plain combat', whatever you mean by that (it sounds pretty nonsensical).

Fighting the government is asymmetrical, no matter which way you look at it they've got a paid, trained military with effectively unlimited resources... you've got maybe a couple of AK's and a shotgun.

Sure, revolutions happen. But - first - should we be advocating revolution when we are allowed to just vote our governments in and out??? And - secondly - a military coup isn't what the majority wants right now.

You're basically arguing that we need guns so that a self imposed militant junta can seize power.

A gun is, no matter how you look at it (full auto, semi-auto, single or double-action, bolt action, pump, lever, etc.,etc...), is still merely a tool. It can be used, or misused at the users discretion.
...I'm not in the habit of banning tools...

...incidentally, this is why we have law enforcement personell to begin with. For the people that "misuse". (Don't like the terms of employment? QUIT!).

The 2nd amendment is the right that makes all the others possible, when push comes right down to shove, so when I see legislation that tries to restrict my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I start to wonder why MY employee (re; Sen., Rep., Pres., et al.), is trying to take away the very concept(s) that I (likely) hired them to protect in the 1st place.

A gun is, no matter how you look at it (full auto, semi-auto, single or double-action, bolt action, pump, lever, etc.,etc...), is still merely a tool. It can be used, or misused at the users discretion.
...I'm not in the habit of banning tools...

...incidentally, this is why we have law enforcement personell to begin with. For the people that "misuse". (Don't like the terms of employment? QUIT!).

The 2nd amendment is the right that makes all the others possible, when push comes right down to shove, so when I see legislation that tries to restrict my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I start to wonder why MY employee (re; Sen., Rep., Pres., et al.), is trying to take away the very concept(s) that I (likely) hired them to protect in the 1st place.

A gun is a tool, but it's not like a hammer or a screwdriver. While those tools can be used as weapons, the gun is purely and specifically designed JUST for that purpose - it has no non-violent method of employment (unless you're about to argue you use the butt of them to hammer nails...)

I don't necessarily think we should illegalise tools. We should, perhaps, illegalise tools that can ONLY be employed for harm, though.

The Constitution gives you the right to carry a lethal weapon (we could argue about what it means), but it doesn't give you any 'rights' to kill people. The whole 2nd amendment argument is ridiculous, because people argue that they 'need' their guns to do something they're not allowed to do.

Or, are you arguing that the ONLY reason you need a gun, is to regulate the government?

The 2nd amendment is not "the right that makes all the others possible". Otherwise, people wouldn't have other civil rights in nations that lack the 'right' to carry a gun. Fail.

Government is people, yes. But, fighting the government is not 'just plain combat', whatever you mean by that (it sounds pretty nonsensical).

Fighting the government is asymmetrical, no matter which way you look at it they've got a paid, trained military with effectively unlimited resources... you've got maybe a couple of AK's and a shotgun.

Sure, revolutions happen. But - first - should we be advocating revolution when we are allowed to just vote our governments in and out??? And - secondly - a military coup isn't what the majority wants right now.

You're basically arguing that we need guns so that a self imposed militant junta can seize power.

Often the point is to make it very difficult for the government to control the people which can be an effective tool. An example would be the 1905 Russian revolution where the Tsar was forced to make concessions because the continual bloodshed when trying to control the riots were just unacceptably high, not because he was actually under any threat.

We call this 'terrorism', and most people on this forum would piss their pants if they were talking about anyone but themselves demanding the 'right'.

Actually the bloodshed was mainly from the government killing peasants in that case.

or go to law school and become a big shot lawyer.

The unit cost is over $100 million each (I've read up to $144 million each). You'd have to work until you were an old man to afford one (and by that point, you'd probably be too old to be able to fly it).

Anti-gun laws will only work when criminals obey the law. But, since that is inpossible so is a true 100% gun ban. Give me 50 bucks and drop me off at home depot and I'll make a very deadly shotgun with PVC pipe, some butane, and pipe glue.

Often the point is to make it very difficult for the government to control the people which can be an effective tool. An example would be the 1905 Russian revolution where the Tsar was forced to make concessions because the continual bloodshed when trying to control the riots were just unacceptably high, not because he was actually under any threat.

We call this 'terrorism', and most people on this forum would piss their pants if they were talking about anyone but themselves demanding the 'right'.

But, I'm not sure about the wisdom of police with guns - certainly not as a uniform piece. Specially trained firearms officers that can be called upion under certain circumstances? Maybe not so bad, But I'm kinda off the idea of every cop should have one.


That's fine places like the UK where it is small and densely populated for the most part, so back up is always readily available and not very far away. (Even then, rural constabulary often has access to firearms, they just rarely if ever carry them). The US is different though. What do you do in places like Pisqataquis county Maine, where a handful of officers are responsible for thousands of square miles of territory? It only makes sense for them to go armed, because its not as if they can pop back to the station if the need for a gun arises.

And I'm not sure it make all that much difference anyway. Look at Rome. Traffic wardens have guns. Yet I've found, in general, Roman police to be less assholey than the unarmed british bobby from the met.

Anti-gun laws will only work when criminals obey the law. But, since that is inpossible so is a true 100% gun ban. Give me 50 bucks and drop me off at home depot and I'll make a very deadly shotgun with PVC pipe, some butane, and pipe glue.

What the hell do you need butane for. A slam fire shotdun doesn't need it.

Anti-gun laws will only work when criminals obey the law. But, since that is inpossible so is a true 100% gun ban. Give me 50 bucks and drop me off at home depot and I'll make a very deadly shotgun with PVC pipe, some butane, and pipe glue.

Anti-gun laws don't have to equate to a 100% ban. That was your first mistake.

The argument that 'if guns are criminal, only criminals have guns' is a cute one. While it is based on a truth, the 'truth' is irrelevent. If you crimisalise guns, far fewer people have them - so the risks of accidental/spontaneous harm are reduced. If you criminalise guns, mere ownership of them can be enough reason to detain/incarcerate someone - thereby reducing the risk further. All you have to do is see a gun in someone's house, and you know they're a criminal... sounds like a good thing.

Now, of course, the point is - only a criminal will USE the gun in anger (or, at least, that's the idea) - but, whether guns are criminalised or not, that's the same in both circumstances... and that's why that argument falls down. The 'criminal' has to reveal his gun to act with it. Criminalising the mere ownership of gun means you don't have to WAIT until someone attacks someone - you can identify them as criminal before anyone gets hurt.

That's fine places like the UK where it is small and densely populated for the most part, so back up is always readily available and not very far away. (Even then, rural constabulary often has access to firearms, they just rarely if ever carry them). The US is different though. What do you do in places like Pisqataquis county Maine, where a handful of officers are responsible for thousands of square miles of territory? It only makes sense for them to go armed, because its not as if they can pop back to the station if the need for a gun arises.

And I'm not sure it make all that much difference anyway. Look at Rome. Traffic wardens have guns. Yet I've found, in general, Roman police to be less assholey than the unarmed british bobby from the met.

I've never has a bobby b anything but polite to me. On the other hand, I work for a municipality in the US, and - in my everyday dealings - it's my experience that American cops are assholes who like the gun and the badge because it gives them a feeling of power, and let's them throw their weight around.

That's the funny thing about anedotal evidence, eh?

The 'big country' argument is lame. A cop in a vast empty almost never needs a gun... and when he does, it's because some other asshole has a gun. Circular.

Government is people, yes. But, fighting the government is not 'just plain combat', whatever you mean by that (it sounds pretty nonsensical).

Fighting the government is asymmetrical, no matter which way you look at it they've got a paid, trained military with effectively unlimited resources...

It's plain combat by which I mean, not subject to the awesome, indefeatable force that you seem to think governments, but to the rules of warfare. "Unlimited resources?" Really? And who says the military personnel are going to be siding with the government in any rebellion?

Sure, revolutions happen. But - first - should we be advocating revolution when we are allowed to just vote our governments in and out???

Well, whether they should happen is irrelevant to the fact that they do happen, and governments are brought down, by armed citizens.

And - secondly - a military coup isn't what the majority wants right now.

Well no, what the majority wants is to sleep all day, get laid and get paid.

You're basically arguing that we need guns so that a self imposed militant junta can seize power.

You're basically arguing that the militant junta that currently has power is hopelessly powerful and no one should think of ever taking up arms against it.

Well no, what the majority wants is to sleep all day, get laid and get paid.

Yay! I'm in the majority! :D

The 'big country' argument is lame. A cop in a vast empty almost never needs a gun... and when he does, it's because some other asshole has a gun. Circular.

Or, you know, rabid dogs and other such eventualities. And yes, rural cops almost never need guns. The point is, that when they do, they'd better already have it with them.

It's plain combat by which I mean, not subject to the awesome, indefeatable force that you seem to think governments, but to the rules of warfare. "Unlimited resources?" Really? And who says the military personnel are going to be siding with the government in any rebellion?


If the military doesn't side with the government, YOU don't need a gun.

If they do, a gun won't help you.


Well, whether they should happen is irrelevant to the fact that they do happen, and governments are brought down, by armed citizens.


It's not irrelevent - if you are arguing that bringing governments down is the reason we need guns. It is absolutely relevent. If you inssist that's why you need a gun, you ARE advocating it, not just 'saying it happens'.


Well no, what the majority wants is to sleep all day, get laid and get paid.


Which is... bad?


You're basically arguing that the militant junta that currently has power is hopelessly powerful and no one should think of ever taking up arms against it.

Not at all. The current establishment is open to attack by ballot boxes even more easily than by bullet boxes. However, if you want to get into a shitkicking fight, they will own your ass.

I've never has a bobby b anything but polite to me. On the other hand, I work for a municipality in the US, and - in my everyday dealings - it's my experience that American cops are assholes who like the gun and the badge because it gives them a feeling of power, and let's them throw their weight around.

That's the funny thing about anedotal evidence, eh?

The 'big country' argument is lame. A cop in a vast empty almost never needs a gun... and when he does, it's because some other asshole has a gun. Circular.

Actually the "big country" argument has merit...If you don't think so then you have never been in the back country with a hungry grizzly bear that has awoken early from it's hibernation with a taste for any thing full of meat...say like, oh, a winter camper, in the back country? JMHO

BTW I live in Vermont where there are few gun restrictions...As long as your intent when you leave the house armed, is not to cause someone harm, yer good...No guns in state buildings, state parks etc...Oh, and if you have a felony conviction you can only own a black powder gun...I feel very, very safe...

If the military doesn't side with the government, YOU don't need a gun.

And if the situation is, you know, more complex, I just might.

If they do, a gun won't help you.

And why not?

It's not irrelevent - if you are arguing that bringing governments down is the reason we need guns. It is absolutely relevent. If you inssist that's why you need a gun, you ARE advocating it, not just 'saying it happens'.

I am supporting this as one reason gun ownership is valid, not "advocating" any kind of action. You're trying to make me out as some sort of right-wing anarcho-nutjob paranoid of the government.

Which is... bad?

Which is one reason why what 'the majority wants' is not a good basis for thinking about this situation. No one WANTS to be in a position where they could die, but it could happen couldn't it.

Not at all. The current establishment is open to attack by ballot boxes even more easily than by bullet boxes.

I'm doubtful about that. But whether the current administration is voteable is largely irrelevant. It might not always be. A revolution might be required.

However, if you want to get into a shitkicking fight, they will own your ass.

Ooh, do they have bullet proof soldiers now?

As a Cop, who also happens to be military, I am getting many chuckles out of many of these posts. :rolleyes:

I don't plan to denigrate any of the posters, call their masculinity into question, or even question their sanity.

What I will do is request that you pick a payday weekend, preferably a Friday or Sat night, and sign up for your local police ride along program. You’ll show up a bit early before the assigned shift, watch as the cops go through their weapons prep routines before shift, attend the pre-shift briefing where all the local threats are discussed and get assigned to a patrol.

Then you will spend the night rolling in your city, seeing sights that you, in all likelihood, have never seen or paid attention to. The cop(s) with you will point out all the local miscreants in your area. They’ll point out what they are looking for. They’ll explain what they are doing during each response.

If the night goes as most Fri/Sat nights go, you’ll see the “unpolite” part of society that cops must confront and deal with. People filled with anger, despair and often alcohol and/or other intoxicants. People who are often used to bullying their way to what they want in life, either through intimidation or direct violence. People that have zero respect for their fellow citizens and have never even dreamed of the Utopian vision of “Let’s just talk things out and all get along”.

If at the end of the night your eyes haven’t been opened to a new light about your community and the men that risk their lives to defend you from certain parts of it, it can mean only one thing… They’ve already done such a good job locally that the evil elements have moved on to safer hunting grounds.

Firearms are tools that are a part of that equation. Tools that in the hands of criminals cause harm and fear. Tools that in the hands of the Law provide peace and control of that evil. And tools in the hands of law abiding citizens that also provide that peace and control when Law is streched thin by reduced numbers, geography or even involvement in other incidents.

Knowledge and opinion should be based on more than just thought and info gained by reading other’s thoughts. Experience itself provides true wisdom.

As a Cop, who also happens to be military, I am getting many chuckles out of many of these posts. :rolleyes:

I don't plan to denigrate any of the posters, call their masculinity into question, or even question their sanity.

What I will do is request that you pick a payday weekend, preferably a Friday or Sat night, and sign up for your local police ride along program. You’ll show up a bit early before the assigned shift, watch as the cops go through their weapons prep routines before shift, attend the pre-shift briefing where all the local threats are discussed and get assigned to a patrol.

Then you will spend the night rolling in your city, seeing sights that you, in all likelihood, have never seen or paid attention to. The cop(s) with you will point out all the local miscreants in your area. They’ll point out what they are looking for. They’ll explain what they are doing during each response.

If the night goes as most Fri/Sat nights go, you’ll see the “unpolite” part of society that cops must confront and deal with. People filled with anger, despair and often alcohol and/or other intoxicants. People who are often used to bullying their way to what they want in life, either through intimidation or direct violence. People that have zero respect for their fellow citizens and have never even dreamed of the Utopian vision of “Let’s just talk things out and all get along”.

If at the end of the night your eyes haven’t been opened to a new light about your community and the men that risk their lives to defend you from certain parts of it, it can mean only one thing… They’ve already done such a good job locally that the evil elements have moved on to safer hunting grounds.

Firearms are tools that are a part of that equation. Tools that in the hands of criminals cause harm and fear. Tools that in the hands of the Law provide peace and control of that evil. And tools in the hands of law abiding citizens that also provide that peace and control when Law is streched thin by reduced numbers, geography or even involvement in other incidents.

Knowledge and opinion should be based on more than just thought and info gained by reading other’s thoughts. Experience itself provides true wisdom.

The ducks like you. You can stay. :)

On the whole revolution thing:

People should be able to have guns so when the government does sieze power, they'll be ready. If the people don't have guns, the government at that point is under no threat of revolution and can do whatever they want.

Also, if the movement is widespread enough, the people can take down the corrupt government, as has been shown in many places.

Overall, I'm not saying the climate for revolution is ready now, but it could be at any time, and I think it'll be a lot harder to get a gun by that point.

I still believe in gun registration, restriction etc, just not an all out ban.

The problem with the regulation of firearms is that first and foremost, it targets ordinary law abiding citizens on the assumption that a fraction of them may become not-so-law abiding.

Criminals, meanwhile, will always... ALWAYS have access to firearms. It can't be regulated. That kind of control is impossible. When one can go to Home Depot and buy the materials and tools necessary to build fully automatic machine guns, there will always be a supply of firearms for those with disregard for the law.

That is why I hang out with ducks. *nod*

That, and it's way cheaper to invest in a few loaves of Orowheat. As long as you keep them close around you, any would-be mugger is gonna take one look at those ducks and decide to find an easier target.

The right to bear arms is not for hunting nor for personal protection-the government is there to protect you from your fellow citizens, the right to bear arms is there to protect you from the government. Thus, any civilian should be able to possess any weaponry the government might hold as to combat them better. I know this sounds dangerous as any lunatic could conceivably own a nuke, but anyone who trades Liberty for Freedom deserves neither.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the quote goes.

Join the Freedom and Liberty party and have both!

Anyone who thinks they need a gun for protection where I live either knows the kind of people who would kill someone (ie they are deeply involved in organized crime) or is so paranoid they need a shrink. People only murder (or rape or beat up beyond repair) people they know pretty well. An ex might literally stab you in the back or something but things like that usually doesn't come out of the blue without prior warning sings. Random maniacs are too rare to worry about even though it doesn't seem that way since they make news every time. The worst you'll get from a stranger is robbery but just hand the stuff over and nobody gets hurt.

Our government can't strike down a revolution with violence. Our military consists almost entirely of young people who only go through training and then become civilians again without having seen any combat, those wouldn't turn on their own people. The cops can battle the 0.1% of the population who are stupid enough to riot and they can defend government buildings from being stormed. However if say 10% of the population surrounds government buildings instead of trying to storm them then there are far too few cops to even try to break the siege.

With this in mind my opinions are...

Anyone who doesn't have a history of violent crimes and does have a gun license should be allowed to own guns. Everyone who passes a short course in firearm safety, proper maintenance and such should be given a license.

I don't want to draw a line on how powerful weapons to allow.

One restriction is a must though, it should only be legal to assemble weapons at the locations where they will be used such as firing ranges and hunting grounds. In safe places like weapon stores or at home you can put it together temporarily if you take it apart again before putting it down or going anywhere. In all other locations the weapons must be dissassembled or otherwise unusable.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to have whatever guns they like. (Barring Things like RPG's of course). Think about it, if you were a robber or a murderer, wouldn't you be a little discouraged if someone might be carrying a gun bigger than yours?

That's fine places like the UK where it is small and densely populated for the most part, so back up is always readily available and not very far away. (Even then, rural constabulary often has access to firearms, they just rarely if ever carry them). The US is different though. What do you do in places like Pisqataquis county Maine, where a handful of officers are responsible for thousands of square miles of territory? It only makes sense for them to go armed, because its not as if they can pop back to the station if the need for a gun arises.

And I'm not sure it make all that much difference anyway. Look at Rome. Traffic wardens have guns. Yet I've found, in general, Roman police to be less assholey than the unarmed british bobby from the met.

That's not the POINT! the point is to keep guns out of the hands of people who you can't be as near as absolutely sure won't mis-use them. The normal police officer does not have enough training to be trusted to carry a gun. And you're wrong, it's nothing to do with the fact that they can just 'pop back and get their guns'. No policeperson in England other than specially trained firearms units carry guns :/ nor do they have access to guns.
Ever heard of non-lethal weapons? :/ can take down armed criminals without killing them.....

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to have whatever guns they like. (Barring Things like RPG's of course). Think about it, if you were a robber or a murderer, wouldn't you be a little discouraged if someone might be carrying a gun bigger than yours?

Given that successful killing or robbery has more to do with stealth and surprise it wouldn't particularly influence my decisions.

I'm tired of this argument.

The problem with the regulation of firearms is that first and foremost, it targets ordinary law abiding citizens on the assumption that a fraction of them may become not-so-law abiding.

Criminals, meanwhile, will always... ALWAYS have access to firearms. It can't be regulated. That kind of control is impossible. When one can go to Home Depot and buy the materials and tools necessary to build fully automatic machine guns, there will always be a supply of firearms for those with disregard for the law.

That is why I hang out with ducks. *nod*

Yeeeesss....... but that doesn't mean they're ALL gonna have one. Which they would.... if it were legal.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that with the situation as it is in England, if you piss off someone who's far enough into the criminal world to own a gun, enough that they want you dead, your chances of survival are practically the same whether they actually have a gun or not.

On the ooooottthhheeerrr hand, the guy that's being a dickhead to my girlfriend and I really want to go tell to f**k off, most likely ISN'T going to be carrying a gun. Neither is the kid vandalising my car. Neither is the .. whatever! oh this is just scary :( i mean that people can think it's safer if they've got a gun too. I mean....... I understand that it's a reassurance. but it's a false one....
hell, I live in a reasonably rough city. I'm reasonably worried that anyone being aggresive towards me might have a knife. Doesn't cross my mind that they might have a gun. :/ because they're unlikely to. Because they're illegal.
Sure, you can still get guns. But they're expensive, and they're gonna get you in SERIOUS trouble if you get caught. So only 'hardcore' criminals are going to have them.

Which to me is a far preferable situation to 'everyone' having them. You will notice that the average person doesn't, on an average day, provoke a serious criminal into wanting to kill them.

Oh, you will also notice, if you read any national UK newspaper, frequent articles about stabbings, and very few articles about shootings.
I find it unlikely that this ratio is similar in, merely for instance, america.

erm?

Guns are like lawyers and nuclear weapons -- they're only needed because other people have them, but if any get used the world goes to hell.

Everyone who isn't:

A: A proven Psycho.

B: Someone who's had a recent violent criminal history.

C: Too young to hold a gun.

D: Can't pass a simple safety test
OR
E: Any combination of the above.

Here is the reason I have a gun right now.

My Ex GF lived next door. We broke up because while I was out of town working for the summer (college kid here), she got into Drugs. By drugs I don't mean pot, I mean pills, Crack, meth,(though i think/hope the crack and meth were being sold not used by her) all sorts of shit.
She had 5 or 6 druggies living with her and constant traffic in and out of her apartment. The druggies were utterly hostile they dumped a gallon of cigarette butts on my door step, loosened the lug nuts on my tires and so on.
At this point I bought a 9 mm.
I began working with the police calling them when they were loud, or it looked like there was a drug deal going on.
Also I worked with the apartment management to get them evicted.

They finally broke into my apartment the night my Ex got the eviction notice.
I shot two of them the other three ran away they were all armed with base ball bats. I then called the police and applied first aid to those I had shot.

If i had not had a fire arm I would have been killed. neither a knife or a bat would have protected me 5 people armed with a bat. a 9mm is a pistol it is not made for hunting, it is a tool to kill people.

I would gladly support the right of all people to own such a tool as it has saved my life.

Guns are like lawyers and nuclear weapons -- they're only needed because other people have them, but if any get used the world goes to hell.

Replace "Guns" with "Violence" and I agree.

The worst you'll get from a stranger is robbery but just hand the stuff over and nobody gets hurt.
Don't you know property is worth more than a life?!?!?! :p

Though, your idea is bit faulty: A stranger can come up and just beat you up just because he or she can. People aren't rational and while most people act rationally most of the time it doesn't mean everyone behaves rationally all the time.

The problem of idolizing the gun as a necessity, as an item of must have power, is that when that person acting irrationally is you then what's stopping you from shooting everyone on sight....because with the gun you certainly can try?


Now, I'm not one for denying gun ownership or such as the maxim - guns don't kill people.... - is in my opinion pretty much correct. However, if you are incapabable of giving your gun away then you're not in my opinion fit to own one because you're most likely holding on to it for the wrong reasons.

Heck, I'd reprhase the maxim to something like this: It's not guns that kill people, it's the culture behind the gun that kills people - When a gun is used solely for utilitaristic or recrational purposes and is explicitly valued only as a tool or toy, like a paint brush or a Monopoly game, that can be effectively given away when the legitimate use ends then I have absolutely no qualms about responsible gun ownership.

Don't you know property is worth more than a life?!?!?! :p

Though, your idea is bit faulty: A stranger can come up and just beat you up just because he or she can. People aren't rational and while most people act rationally most of the time it doesn't mean everyone behaves rationally all the time.

The problem of idolizing the gun as a necessity, as an item of must have power, is that when that person acting irrationally is you then what's stopping you from shooting everyone on sight....because with the gun you certainly can try?


Now, I'm not one for denying gun ownership or such as the maxim - guns don't kill people.... - is in my opinion pretty much correct. However, if you are incapabable of giving your gun away then you're not in my opinion fit to own one because you're most likely holding on to it for the wrong reasons.

Heck, I'd reprhase the maxim to something like this: It's not guns that kill people, it's the culture behind the gun that kills people - When a gun is used solely for utilitaristic or recrational purposes and is explicitly valued only as a tool or toy, like a paint brush or a Monopoly game, that can be effectively given away when the legitimate use ends then I have absolutely no qualms about responsible gun ownership.

I'm incapable of giving my rifle away because I paid good money for it. Now, if someone were to make me an offer I couldn't refuse (more than I paid for it, a trade for a rare and/or preban firearm, a trade for a decent car, etc), then I could be persuaded to let it go. Does that make me (in your opinion) unfit to own a firearm?

I'm incapable of giving my rifle away because I paid good money for it. Now, if someone were to make me an offer I couldn't refuse (more than I paid for it, a trade for a rare and/or preban firearm, a trade for a decent car, etc), then I could be persuaded to let it go. Does that make me (in your opinion) unfit to own a firearm?

And we wonder how criminals get guns.

No, any person who would sell their gun without a license is unfit to own a gun.

Click Stand;13751135']And we wonder how criminals get guns.

No, any person who would sell their gun without a license is unfit to own a gun.

you ever hear of a gun show ???
they check people at the door to weed out those unfit for firearm ownership so people can trade or wheel and deal for firearms.

otherwise if it is someone you know you likely have a clue if they are fit or unfit for fire arm ownership. (how would they know you have the gun if they didn't know you)

Actually the "big country" argument has merit...If you don't think so then you have never been in the back country with a hungry grizzly bear that has awoken early from it's hibernation with a taste for any thing full of meat...say like, oh, a winter camper, in the back country? JMHO

And what... when you see an enraged bear you call for Canada's finest?

Click Stand;13751135']And we wonder how criminals get guns.

No, any person who would sell their gun without a license is unfit to own a gun.

What the hell are you talking about? You don't need a license to do a face to face firearms sale (FFL's are only for retail sales). I can sell my rifle to my brother in law if I so choose. I could sell it to my roommate, or one of my friends as well. Also, I'm not just going to sell it to someone I've never met before. I'm not going to pull my truck up to a back alley in Hartford, New York, etc and offer my rifle up to the first person I see.

I am supporting this as one reason gun ownership is valid, not "advocating" any kind of action. You're trying to make me out as some sort of right-wing anarcho-nutjob paranoid of the government.


You know that bit in Clue where Tim Curry tells the General he doesn't need anyhelp making himself look stupid?


Which is one reason why what 'the majority wants' is not a good basis for thinking about this situation. No one WANTS to be in a position where they could die, but it could happen couldn't it.


You're so right. I can't believe I didn't see it before. YOU need guns, because you know better than the majority what is good for us.

I've been so blind!


I'm doubtful about that. But whether the current administration is voteable is largely irrelevant. It might not always be. A revolution might be required.


Advocating again?


Ooh, do they have bullet proof soldiers now?

Yes.

What the hell are you talking about? You don't need a license to do a face to face firearms sale (FFL's are only for retail sales). I can sell my rifle to my brother in law if I so choose. I could sell it to my roommate, or one of my friends as well. Also, I'm not just going to sell it to someone I've never met before. I'm not going to pull my truck up to a back alley in Hartford, New York, etc and offer my rifle up to the first person I see.

Maybe everyone isn't as responsible as you. Requiring a license to sell a firearm in any situation might not be a bad idea.

I'm incapable of giving my rifle away because I paid good money for it. Now, if someone were to make me an offer I couldn't refuse (more than I paid for it, a trade for a rare and/or preban firearm, a trade for a decent car, etc), then I could be persuaded to let it go. Does that make me (in your opinion) unfit to own a firearm?I left the reasonable compensation, due to legislation or for other reasons parts out as I thought those were...well...IMO obvious considering the context. Though, I'm pretty sure you got that.

What I meant in my post was more owning a gun for the sake of gun ownership and/or for feeling of empowerment - When a gun is valued as a investment, tool or toy, even a precious toy, it's IMO completely ok. :cool:

As a Cop... Then you will spend the night rolling in your city, seeing sights that you, in all likelihood, have never seen or paid attention to. The cop(s) with you will point out all the local miscreants in your area. They’ll point out what they are looking for. They’ll explain what they are doing during each response... If the night goes as most Fri/Sat nights go, you’ll see the “unpolite” part of society that cops must confront and deal with. People filled with anger, despair and often alcohol and/or other intoxicants.


Been there, seen that. Both sides of the pond.


People who are often used to bullying their way to what they want in life, either through intimidation or direct violence. People that have zero respect for their fellow citizens and have never even dreamed of the Utopian vision of “Let’s just talk things out and all get along”.


Around here, those people are called 'cops'.


Firearms are tools that are a part of that equation. Tools that in the hands of criminals cause harm and fear. Tools that in the hands of the Law provide peace and control of that evil.

Funnily enough, the 'tools' are only part of the equation if you put them there. I've seen English cops deal with the same issues... but, for some reason, not need to shoot anyone.

What's the difference, I wonder.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to have whatever guns they like. (Barring Things like RPG's of course). Think about it, if you were a robber or a murderer, wouldn't you be a little discouraged if someone might be carrying a gun bigger than yours?

Errr... no. If I were a robber or murderer (especially murderer, think about it) I'd just make sure I capped them before they had a chance to shoot back. Guns would just escalate the damage.

Errr... no. If I were a robber or murderer (especially murderer, think about it) I'd just make sure I capped them before they had a chance to shoot back. Guns would just escalate the damage.

1. So robbers and murderers have super-human reflexes and can shoot faster then any other people?

2. They're human too, you don't just "Cap" someone without thinking about it. It's called a conscience.

Click Stand;13750812']
Also, if the movement is widespread enough, the people can take down the corrupt government, as has been shown in many places.


I'm not sure I believe this. How often does an armed revolution without the backing of the military actually succeed?

I'm not sure I believe this. How often does an armed revolution without the backing of the military actually succeed?

The American Revolution for one. Then again, we didn't really HAVE an army to speak of...

1. So robbers and murderers have super-human reflexes and can shoot faster then any other people?


Personally, I would have thought the fact that they KNOW they're about to jack you, and you're unaware till it's about too late... would be enough advantage.

Plus, of course, murderers don't always feel the need to play fair. If I wanted to kill someone, I sure as hell wouldn't let them see me coming.


2. They're human too, you don't just "Cap" someone without thinking about it. It's called a conscience.

Bullshit.

First - the other poster said 'murderers', who - I assume - don't have too much in the way of qualms about the sanctity of life... no?

Secondly - invoking the conscience is nonsensical. Clearly these people do not have a conscience in the way I would identify with... or they wouldn't be trying to rob and/or murder me... no?

Maybe everyone isn't as responsible as you. Requiring a license to sell a firearm in any situation might not be a bad idea.

What would a piece of paper do to decrease the chance of selling a firearm to a criminal?

The American Revolution for one. Then again, we didn't really HAVE an army to speak of...

Still an exception, rather than the rule.

And, of course, the government in question was a nice safe 3000 miles away... an armed uprising against a few thousand redcoats is definitely the exceptioin this scenario.

1. So robbers and murderers have super-human reflexes and can shoot faster then any other people?

2. They're human too, you don't just "Cap" someone without thinking about it. It's called a conscience.

Wouldn't those apply to the person owning a gun for protection too?

Especially part 2 in comparison to a person who already has 'sold' off part of his or her conscience in order to commit the crime?

I'm not sure I believe this. How often does an armed revolution without the backing of the military actually succeed?

Ah, so Iraq is no doubt going to end up being a swimming success then.

What would a piece of paper do to decrease the chance of selling a firearm to a criminal?

It would mean that the person you were selling to would have to take a background check. If they have a record then you can't sell to them.

Ah, so Iraq is no doubt going to end up being a swimming success then.

Does Iraq have well funded and organized military? Let alone the most expensive army in the world a la USA?

Ah, so Iraq is no doubt going to end up being a swimming success then.

Hard to see the relevence. We basically screwed their military for them. Hell, their militias are probably better trained and equipped than their army now.

Iraq's just not a good example. It's basically a nation with several armies.

Does Iraq have well funded and organized military? Let alone the most expensive army in the world a la USA?

Yeah, because the most expensive army in the world isn't presently in Iraq. My mistake.

Yeah, because the most expensive army in the world isn't presently in Iraq. My mistake.

Missing the point. An 'armed revolution' in Iraq now isn't going to topple the American government. Hell, it's not going to topple the Iraq government, while WE'RE there.

Once we leave, of course...

(Hence - no such thing as a 'win in Iraq').

Personally, I would have thought the fact that they KNOW they're about to jack you, and you're unaware till it's about too late... would be enough advantage.

Plus, of course, murderers don't always feel the need to play fair. If I wanted to kill someone, I sure as hell wouldn't let them see me coming.


What if the soon to be murdered heard them, and surprised THEM? Having a gun would help a lot more then a butter-knife at that point :p.



Bullshit.

First - the other poster said 'murderers', who - I assume - don't have too much in the way of qualms about the sanctity of life... no?

First, it was you who I replied to, not another poster. But, you do have a point there.

Secondly - invoking the conscience is nonsensical. Clearly these people do not have a conscience in the way I would identify with... or they wouldn't be trying to rob and/or murder me... no?
If it's a matter of life or death, robbing someone might not seem as horrible. Let me put it this way:

You're in a recently devastated city. When I say devastated, I mean worse then New Orleans after Katrina. Aid won't be arriving for another two days. There's a house with food still in it, and was almost untouched by the disaster. You haven't eaten in days, but you have a gun. Could you honestly say you WOULDN'T break into the guys house? Would you have reservations about shooting him?

How do you know that said robbers aren't, well, robbing you for the same reason? Life or death, a loan from a drug dealer who's threatened you, desperation can make people do things they normally wouldn't do.

It would mean that the person you were selling to would have to take a background check. If they have a record then you can't sell to them.

And that's going to stop most wannabe criminals how?

It would mean that the person you were selling to would have to take a background check. If they have a record then you can't sell to them.

An FFL requires a storefront (or other place of business where sales can be completed). I seriously doubt people will get a storefront to get an FFL, just so they can sell a firearm or 2 from their collection. Not to mention the $200 fee that's required for an FFL application ($90 for a renewal).

A better solution would be to give private sellers the ability to use the NICS system. As it is right now, only dealers can use it.

Missing the point. An 'armed revolution' in Iraq now isn't going to topple the American government. Hell, it's not going to topple the Iraq government, while WE'RE there.

Once we leave, of course...

(Hence - no such thing as a 'win in Iraq').

Well, the stated US objective is not to leave (or at least not in the foreseeable future). Hence the permanent military bases. If the US leaves, the partisans have won.

Moreover, the US military is far to small to enforce a dictatorship in the US. It's the cops you should worry about. And gun ownership will protect you from them.

Yeah, because the most expensive army in the world isn't presently in Iraq. My mistake.
Ah, sorry, I sort of misunderstood your point: I took it as an armed rebellion vs Iraqi army & government when US military has been taken off the picture - A chaotic civil war with no clear winner in sight.

Though, US military isn't really in Iraq - it is true that it has a solid presence but nowhere near the numbers or power it could have if its goal was subjugation and control. On the other hand, even the current US presence is enough to keep some semblance of government in power against armed rebels and I personally think that rebels have no way of winning until US military is out of there.

Translated to US home soil: When that army - tanks, battleships, nuclear subs - blockades, for example, N.Y no amount of small arms is going to harm them.

If it's a matter of life or death, robbing someone might not seem as horrible. Let me put it this way:

You're in a recently devastated city. When I say devastated, I mean worse then New Orleans after Katrina. Aid won't be arriving for another two days. There's a house with food still in it, and was almost untouched by the disaster. You haven't eaten in days, but you have a gun. Could you honestly say you WOULDN'T break into the guys house? Would you have reservations about shooting him?

How do you know that said robbers aren't, well, robbing you for the same reason? Life or death, a loan from a drug dealer who's threatened you, desperation can make people do things they normally wouldn't do.

Personally, I'd knock on the guy's door, and ask for some food. Hell, we could pool our resources, increasing everyone's survival prospects.

Seems to me, going in armed is more likely to cause a problem than cure one.

So - yeah, I wouldn't break into his house. If he wasn't there, I might... but the gun would then be irrelevent, anyway... no?

Personally, I'd knock on the guy's door, and ask for some food. Hell, we could pool our resources, increasing everyone's survival prospects.

Seems to me, going in armed is more likely to cause a problem than cure one.

So - yeah, I wouldn't break into his house. If he wasn't there, I might... but the gun would then be irrelevent, anyway... no?

And if he refused, what would you do? Say "Oh, I'm sorry to bother you sir"? I doubt it.

While it is based on a truth, the 'truth' is irrelevent.

I think that says it all right there.

And if he refused, what would you do? Say "Oh, I'm sorry to bother you sir"? I doubt it.

After a couple of days?

Strange to relate, I've been more than a couple of days without eating, before... and still managed to avoid killing anyone.

After a couple of days?

Strange to relate, I've been more than a couple of days without eating, before... and still managed to avoid killing anyone.

you don't have to kill anyone. just point the gun at him while your wife runs in and grabs the food.

After a couple of days?

Strange to relate, I've been more than a couple of days without eating, before... and still managed to avoid killing anyone.

I didn't say a FEW days, I said days. Meaning something like fifteen or sixteen days. And you still haven't answered my question.

I didn't say a FEW days, I said days. Meaning something like fifteen or sixteen days. And you still haven't answered my question.

would you have the strength to pick up a gun by that point ????

Automatic weapons are retarded. If you can't kill something with one shot, then you don't deserve to shoot.

"A pistol for the bedroom,

A shotgun over the door,

A 30-06 for reaching out;

You don't need any more." - Kurt Saxon

http://www.kurtsaxon.com/

^^^ Click self defense, then click Fantasy and Weaponry. Rather than make it look like I'm plagiarizing, just look at that. My views on weapons exactly.

Full gun rights for all citizens.

If I win the lotto I am going to relive the Ardennes Offensive with an operational Tiger on the local interstate.

Who should have firearms?

Your poll blows. Where is the "gun politics is a stupid issue" button? You could have at least included an "other" option.

Full gun rights for all citizens.

Exactly. I demand to have a fully operational turret with a combat-ready 16" shell diameter naval rifle. Firing nuclear shells.

Automatic weapons are retarded. If you can't kill something with one shot, then you don't deserve to shoot.

"A pistol for the bedroom,

A shotgun over the door,

A 30-06 for reaching out;

You don't need any more." - Kurt Saxon

http://www.kurtsaxon.com/

^^^ Click self defense, then click Fantasy and Weaponry. Rather than make it look like I'm plagiarizing, just look at that. My views on weapons exactly.

Automatic weapons are range toys. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LdzePA3uf5k

As to the site you linked to, it made my spidey sense tingle (and not in a good way).

Automatic weapons are range toys. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LdzePA3uf5k

As to the site you linked to, it made my spidey sense tingle (and not in a good way).

God bless America.

Exactly. I demand to have a fully operational turret with a combat-ready 16" shell diameter naval rifle. Firing nuclear shells.

Let's see a robber get through that! Or that damn door to door salesman.

you don't have to kill anyone. just point the gun at him while your wife runs in and grabs the food.

Why is my wife with me? What's this... god-modding the forum questions?

Why am I starting from the position of threat, in your scenario? The simple fact that so many seem to be suggesting you go in guns-drawn is a good enough recommendation for me that most people are too irresponsible to be allowed guns. Or maybe butter-knives.

I didn't say a FEW days, I said days. Meaning something like fifteen or sixteen days. And you still haven't answered my question.

You said 'days'. WHy does 'haven't eaten in days' equate to more than two weeks? I think you're changing the parameters to try to force the answer you want.

As for not answering the question - how does one answer a moving target?

Full gun rights for all citizens.

What is a 'full gun right'?

Why is my wife with me? What's this... god-modding the forum questions?

Why am I starting from the position of threat, in your scenario? The simple fact that so many seem to be suggesting you go in guns-drawn is a good enough recommendation for me that most people are too irresponsible to be allowed guns. Or maybe butter-knives.

in your scenario you have me and my family on the verge of starving to death and a family with food but unwilling to share. And me with a gun.
If no other option exist(moving else where ETC) to feed my children Yes I will steal their food to feed my children, I will try to take only what I can foresee needing until rescue And I will try to do so with out killing anyone in that household.

when my back is against the wall and push comes to shove I tend to push.
I don't really see it as irresponsible I see it as emergency resource redistribution in times of great peril.

in your scenario you have me and my family on the verge of starving to death and a family with food but unwilling to share. And me with a gun.
If no other option exist(moving else where ETC) to feed my children Yes I will steal their food to feed my children, I will try to take only what I can foresee needing until rescue And I will try to do so with out killing anyone in that household.

when my back is against the wall and push comes to shove I tend to push.
I don't really see it as irresponsible I see it as emergency resource redistribution in times of great peril.

Not my scenario, skippy. Someone else's acid-trip.

The scenario is incomplete and unrealistic. For some reason we have guns (and, I assume, ammo), and obviously have access to clean water... but haven't managed to contrive access to any kind of food source, and are inexplicably STILL in this ruined environment. City or country? If it's country - why am I threatening neighbours when I can live off the land? If it's city, what kind of a moron do I have to be to be smashing into people's houses when there are warehouses and vending properties?

Hell, if I'm still trawling door-to-door after two weeks (the new amended version, apparently) I'd say it makes a pretty good argument that I'd deserve to starve.

Me toting a gun in that scenario is against the will of the gods of people-not-being-stupid.

Not my scenario, skippy. Someone else's acid-trip.

The scenario is incomplete and unrealistic. For some reason we have guns (and, I assume, ammo), and obviously have access to clean water... but haven't managed to contrive access to any kind of food source, and are inexplicably STILL in this ruined environment. City or country? If it's country - why am I threatening neighbours when I can live off the land? If it's city, what kind of a moron do I have to be to be smashing into people's houses when there are warehouses and vending properties?

Hell, if I'm still trawling door-to-door after two weeks (the new amended version, apparently) I'd say it makes a pretty good argument that I'd deserve to starve.

Me toting a gun in that scenario is against the will of the gods of people-not-being-stupid.

the scenario works if the disaster has a collapse of the goverment
your vending machines and walmarts are normally go in the first 24 hours.
normally the neighbor that still has food two weeks down the road likely does so because they woke up earlier and looted the walmart first. So no qualms stealing from a thief thats hoarding. it is likely the reason when i rob the walmart one of the first things Id steal would be the Ammo.

Given my targets in such an event would be a mode of transportation then food and fuel to get to my uncle farm. Because if infrastructure shuts down i better get to the mode of production.

I believe in the right to bear nukes :)

The right people who actually need them, since there lethal weapons.

Golf Clubs are lethal too. I say we band golf. Except those cool little carts, it would be plain ignorant to get rid of those.

Here's the list of restrictions/regulations I can live with (I may not like them, but I can tolerate them).

Background check for every retail purchase
No firearms for convicted felons or people adjudicated mentally defective
Full Auto/Select Fire weapons restricted via NFA act
Pistol permits/CCW permits (with NRA safety course required for permit)
Suppressors, SBRs, and SBS restricted via NFA act

So basically, I think the restrictions/regulations we have now are something I can deal with, with the exception of the AWB several states (including mine) still have.

+100

And what... when you see an enraged bear you call for Canada's finest?

No, no, you shoot it with the gun you hiked into the back country with...Last resort of course...

Don't we have a canonical set of arguments for and against gun ownership? Can't we make it a requirement to post a link to those arguments in the originating post?

Don't we have a canonical set of arguments for and against gun ownership? Can't we make it a requirement to post a link to those arguments in the originating post?
Good plan, but why stop there?

While we're at it, we could compile parallel lists for Faith vs Atheism, Evolution vs Creationism, Capitalism vs Communism, Republicans vs Democrats, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, Pacifism vs Militarism, Cats vs Dogs, Wet vs Dry, Winter vs Summer, Vanilla vs Chocolate et cetera. Then we can all just go out for a walk in the sunshine :)

Ugh, another thread about guns. (albeit the one I just came from was actually about knife crimes, but hijacked to be about guns also)

Well, my opinion is this...

In Britain, we don't have lions or tigers or bears, oh my! In fact, the most ferocious beast I have ever seen is my mum when my dad is hiding in the garden. I don't want to shoot her, so I see no reason for the general population to ever need a gun.

Sure, someone with a gun might break into my house and rob it, but I am happy to believe that I am less likely to be shot if I do NOT pull out a gun.

The only people that should have guns are police (Armed Response Unit only) and Military.

Good plan, but why stop there?

While we're at it, we could compile parallel lists for Faith vs Atheism, Evolution vs Creationism, Capitalism vs Communism, Republicans vs Democrats, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, Pacifism vs Militarism, Cats vs Dogs, Wet vs Dry, Winter vs Summer, Vanilla vs Chocolate et cetera. Then we can all just go out for a walk in the sunshine :)
I don't think we can leave altogether. Someone will always have an argument that they think is the one that ends the discussion for good. It's our job to make sure they are properly critiqued. Over and over. For days on end.

Until, of course, someone comes up with something that beats my "Because I say so" argument, that is.

I don't think we can leave altogether. Someone will always have an argument that they think is the one that ends the discussion for good. It's our job to make sure they are properly critiqued. Over and over. For days on end.

Until, of course, someone comes up with something that beats my "Because I say so" argument, that is.
Fair points.

I need to ask though, just for my own peace of mind, does "Because I say so" trump "It just is/does/will"?

Fair points.

I need to ask though, just for my own peace of mind, does "Because I say so" trump "It just is/does/will"?
That's a tough one. I think that has to go to the judges for a vote.

Good plan, but why stop there?

While we're at it, we could compile parallel lists for Faith vs Atheism, Evolution vs Creationism, Capitalism vs Communism, Republicans vs Democrats, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, Pacifism vs Militarism, Cats vs Dogs, Wet vs Dry, Winter vs Summer, Vanilla vs Chocolate et cetera. Then we can all just go out for a walk in the sunshine :)

You forgot Star Wars vs Star Trek, pro drugs vs anti drugs, and meat vs veggies. :p

You forgot Star Wars vs Star Trek, pro drugs vs anti drugs, and meat vs veggies. :p
That sure put a quick stop to the thread. Maybe all we need to do is hit it early with a huge does of sarcasm...

Ugh, another thread about guns. (albeit the one I just came from was actually about knife crimes, but hijacked to be about guns also)

Well, my opinion is this...

In Britain, we don't have lions or tigers or bears, oh my! In fact, the most ferocious beast I have ever seen is my mum when my dad is hiding in the garden. I don't want to shoot her, so I see no reason for the general population to ever need a gun.

Sure, someone with a gun might break into my house and rob it, but I am happy to believe that I am less likely to be shot if I do NOT pull out a gun.

The only people that should have guns are police (Armed Response Unit only) and Military.

Well, in America, we do have bears, mountain lions, large wild dogs, etc, etc. We also have something called PCP, which even with a gun, will take many shots to the upper chest, or one from a large caliber pistol or shotgun to take down. We also have a proud hunting tradition. If you have problems with hunting, thats another topic for another time. Do you really want to take away a tradition that had lasted for almost 400 years since the first settlers came from Europe to America?

Well, in America, we do have bears, mountain lions, large wild dogs, etc, etc. We also have something called PCP, which even with a gun, will take many shots to the upper chest, or one from a large caliber pistol or shotgun to take down. We also have a proud hunting tradition. If you have problems with hunting, thats another topic for another time. Do you really want to take away a tradition that had lasted for almost 400 years since the first settlers came from Europe to America?

Of course! Guns are teh ebilz! You can hunt with just bows, it'll only take a few years of practice to get half the distance and power of a gun! :p

Of course! Guns are teh ebilz! You can hunt with just bows, it'll only take a few years of practice to get half the distance and power of a gun! :p

duh.

Also, I'm just noticing this, but you do know that conservative is spelled wrong in your name, right?

duh.

Also, I'm just noticing this, but you do know that conservative is spelled wrong in your name, right?

Took ya long enough :p But yeah, I know that.

Took ya long enough :p But yeah, I know that.

Sorry for not going through the jolt membership list with a spell checker:rolleyes:

Sorry for not going through the jolt membership list with a spell checker:rolleyes:

*Shames. Gets out spell checker* It's not too late to start...

*Shames. Gets out spell checker* It's not too late to start...

Yes it is.

the last thing in hell anyone, or this world either one, needs, is to empair their judgement, or to go arround killing each other. that being said, banning anything only creates a market for organized crime, and practically insures that unreasonable searches and ceasures remain inevitable.

the only real practical solution to keeping anything out of hands you don't, can't reasonably, trust with it, is to simply not make any in the first place. not to tell anyone what they can or can't possess, but simply at the very least to avoid its mass procuction.

i know i've said it before and i'll keep on saying it, that is the one sensible approach to gun control, to simply not manufacture them commercially, at all.

this whole bussiness of i, or we, or our side need this, that or the other, to control someone else's side, someone 'else' who can't be trusted with it/them, is just nuts, because in relation to each and every everyone, everyone else IS the other.

i don't trust chambers of commerce any more then i trust governments and i don't trust governments any more then i can trust my neighbors to have a conscience and think about what they're doing and the kind of world their example and the markets they are creating by doing it, is creating.

on the other paw, someone who creates something themselves, that isn't mass produced, but actually learns the skills neccessary and so forth, well i think there's always at least a little something positive in that. at least as long as they don't get into the bussiness of mass producing all over again things we'd all be better of not to have.

notice i'm not saying, or even suggesting eliminating anything, that's not the idea, but rather to statistically reduce the likelyhood, and do so dramatically, of people comming INTO possession of potentially harmful things they can't or haven't created themselves.

no this doesn't insure everyone will be responsible, but it does improve the odds, dramatically more then trying to control who may possess what has already been mass produced ever can.

=^^=
.../\...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amur Panthera Tigris
Firearms are tools that are a part of that equation. Tools that in the hands of criminals cause harm and fear. Tools that in the hands of the Law provide peace and control of that evil.

Funnily enough, the 'tools' are only part of the equation if you put them there. I've seen English cops deal with the same issues... but, for some reason, not need to shoot anyone.

What's the difference, I wonder.

Fair question and I can give you an easy answer, in a few parts.

Direct initial answer: The difference is that American cops are able to continue escalation within the use of force continuum all the way to Lethal Force, when lethal force is offered to them.

Sadly, within the United Kingdom, most Law Officers are restricted by desk jockey originated legislation to top out at the Defensive Measures level of the continuum. Essensially, if an average UK cop is dealing with a criminal that offers lethal force the cop has two choices... attempt to heroically disarm the perp at great risk to himself and any bystanders... or run away like a California Homeowner.

Part 2: That said, unlike Hollywood and TV, 95% of American cops have NEVER shot anyone. Most have never even "cleared leather".

It's an accepted fact here that WE do not turn a blind eye to, that criminals will ignore the law and aquire weaponry illegally. We provide our officers a method.. a tool... with which to deal with that reality. MOST encounters are dealt with by our very Presence alone though.

Part 3: The UK has been getting better though, and many portions of the UK police force are now routinely armed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hmmm.. that rambles a bit, but will have to do. Just finished a 14 hour mid shift and it's time to hit the hay.

Fair question and I can give you an easy answer, in a few parts.

Direct initial answer: The difference is that American cops are able to continue escalation within the use of force continuum all the way to Lethal Force, when lethal force is offered to them.

Sadly, within the United Kingdom, most Law Officers are restricted by desk jockey originated legislation to top out at the Defensive Measures level of the continuum. Essensially, if an average UK cop is dealing with a criminal that offers lethal force the cop has two choices... attempt to heroically disarm the perp at great risk to himself and any bystanders... or run away like a California Homeowner.
Or they use their radios to call for backup? And that where he deems necessary an officer of a certain rank or above can dispense weapons from the armoury to suitably trained officers?

Just greater precautions really. But the development of an arms race between police and criminals is also something that must be taken into consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amur Panthera Tigris
Firearms are tools that are a part of that equation. Tools that in the hands of criminals cause harm and fear. Tools that in the hands of the Law provide peace and control of that evil.



Fair question and I can give you an easy answer, in a few parts.

Direct initial answer: The difference is that American cops are able to continue escalation within the use of force continuum all the way to Lethal Force, when lethal force is offered to them.

Sadly, within the United Kingdom, most Law Officers are restricted by desk jockey originated legislation to top out at the Defensive Measures level of the continuum. Essensially, if an average UK cop is dealing with a criminal that offers lethal force the cop has two choices... attempt to heroically disarm the perp at great risk to himself and any bystanders... or run away like a California Homeowner.

Part 2: That said, unlike Hollywood and TV, 95% of American cops have NEVER shot anyone. Most have never even "cleared leather".

It's an accepted fact here that WE do not turn a blind eye to, that criminals will ignore the law and aquire weaponry illegally. We provide our officers a method.. a tool... with which to deal with that reality. MOST encounters are dealt with by our very Presence alone though.

Part 3: The UK has been getting better though, and many portions of the UK police force are now routinely armed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hmmm.. that rambles a bit, but will have to do. Just finished a 14 hour mid shift and it's time to hit the hay.

I don't think that source says what you think it says.

It seems we have a difference of opinion. You seem to think being able to escalate to lethal force is a good thing. You seem to think it is 'sad' that the UK doesn't have a similar presence of armed police. Having lived both sides of the pond, and having close friends in the boys in blue both sides of that divide, I know which system I prefer.

The argument that American cops basically need that extra level of force... well, perhaps it wouldn't be as essential if the US didn't have such an armed population?

Automatic weapons are range toys. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LdzePA3uf5k

As to the site you linked to, it made my spidey sense tingle (and not in a good way).

The site does have some rather questionable logic on it, such as muslims being homosexuals from mars, but the piece on weaponry I do have to agree with. Other than that you are free to raise your eyebrows and maintain a safe distance as you wish.

Even weird fucked up freak people have interesting and sometimes intelligent things to say on occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amur Panthera Tigris

Fair question and I can give you an easy answer, in a few parts.

Direct initial answer: The difference is that American cops are able to continue escalation within the use of force continuum all the way to Lethal Force, when lethal force is offered to them.

Sadly, within the United Kingdom, most Law Officers are restricted by desk jockey originated legislation to top out at the Defensive Measures level of the continuum. Essensially, if an average UK cop is dealing with a criminal that offers lethal force the cop has two choices... attempt to heroically disarm the perp at great risk to himself and any bystanders... or run away like a California Homeowner.

Or they use their radios to call for backup? And that where he deems necessary an officer of a certain rank or above can dispense weapons from the armoury to suitably trained officers?

Just greater precautions really. But the development of an arms race between police and criminals is also something that must be taken into consideration.

If hazard situations were only encountered with prewarning, then yes you would be right.

The problem with that Idea is that Law Officers quite often find themselves in these conflict situations directly, not from a distance. Calling for backup is not of much immediate help when a perp has drawn a weapon on you from 5 feet away. Also... ALL Law Officers should be suitably trained. There is no logical reason not to do so.

My position is that the right to possess firearms proceeds from one's autonomy and legitimate rights of self-defense and the collective right of revolution.

I believe that people should be able to own whatever firearms they can afford to buy. People should be able to purchase automatic weapons freely. They should also be able to stockpile weapons. My justification for this proceeds mainly from the collective right of revolution: law enforcement and the military should not be allowed to arm themselves better than the general population.

But if a person does something evil with guns, like murder someone, you throw the fucking book at the person.

It seems we have a difference of opinion. You seem to think being able to escalate to lethal force is a good thing. You seem to think it is 'sad' that the UK doesn't have a similar presence of armed police. Having lived both sides of the pond, and having close friends in the boys in blue both sides of that divide, I know which system I prefer.

The argument that American cops basically need that extra level of force... well, perhaps it wouldn't be as essential if the US didn't have such an armed population?

You are correct in that we differ in opinion. Mine is based on experience as a US Law Officer, as I previously stated. I am one of those few cops who HAS had to draw my weapon and offer lethal force. Happily, I did not need to complete the offer as the subject realized the error of his ways and decided that the machete would be better off on the ground than in his hand. All my other top level encounters ended similarly.

If we could transform the world to that magical Utopia where criminals never had any tools of damage beyond their bare hands, I'd right at your side saying cops have no need for weapons.

I assist in training my team and I have a 5'1" female team member that I would confidently wager large sums of cash on in a bare handed contest with a perp up to 3 times her mass. I know my team can relitively easily handle less than lethal encounters without reverting to lethal force.

Sadly, criminals (those who do not obey laws) don't follow the rules. They always will aquire weapons of SOME sort. Even if we were able to ban all weapons, that would be done by LAWS, which as we know are not obeyed by criminals. To hamstring those who defend you by removing the lethal option, full well knowing they may ecounter it presented against them, is in my mind almost criminal itself...

As for the US and our history of self sufficiency entwined with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms? That is part of what makes our nation so great. The govornment, as it was conceived, TRUSTS the average citizen to be law abiding.

What does that say about countries that disarm their entire population, sometimes all the way down to barely allowing them to own steak knives? (See timeline of Iraq taking over Kuwait for the results of that line of thought)

You are correct in that we differ in opinion. Mine is based on experience as a US Law Officer, as I previously stated. I am one of those few cops who HAS had to draw my weapon and offer lethal force. Happily, I did not need to complete the offer as the subject realized the error of his ways and decided that the machete would be better off on the ground than in his hand. All my other top level encounters ended similarly.

If we could transform the world to that magical Utopia where criminals never had any tools of damage beyond their bare hands, I'd right at your side saying cops have no need for weapons.

I assist in training my team and I have a 5'1" female team member that I would confidently wager large sums of cash on in a bare handed contest with a perp up to 3 times her mass. I know my team can relitively easily handle less than lethal encounters without reverting to lethal force.

Sadly, criminals (those who do not obey laws) don't follow the rules. They always will aquire weapons of SOME sort. Even if we were able to ban all weapons, that would be done by LAWS, which as we know are not obeyed by criminals. To hamstring those who defend you by removing the lethal option, full well knowing they may ecounter it presented against them, is in my mind almost criminal itself...

As for the US and our history of self sufficiency entwined with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms? That is part of what makes our nation so great. The govornment, as it was conceived, TRUSTS the average citizen to be law abiding.

What does that say about countries that disarm their entire population, sometimes all the way down to barely allowing them to own steak knives? (See timeline of Iraq taking over Kuwait for the results of that line of thought)
Can we be as well armed as you?

Can we be as well armed as you?

Personally, I'm happy with armed, Law Abiding Citizens. The stories that float about that cops are opposed to armed citizens leave out the defining detail that the cops in question are usually the Top ELECTED leadership... ie, those who attempt to often curry favor with the media.

Most "Joe on the Street" cops have zero problems with armed citizens, and often encourage it.

If we could transform the world to that magical Utopia where criminals never had any tools of damage beyond their bare hands, I'd right at your side saying cops have no need for weapons.


No one said anything about 'no need for weapons'. The problem is, non-lethal weapon technology offers a number of options that are more servicable, less likely to injure/kill innocents, and that can reduce a threat as well as, or better than, conventional lethal weapons.

We don't need lethal weaponry. Why do you insist on it?



Sadly, criminals (those who do not obey laws) don't follow the rules. They always will aquire weapons of SOME sort.


They will, huh?

Is there like a contract you have to sign? "Villain's Guild" membership... something like that?


Even if we were able to ban all weapons, that would be done by LAWS, which as we know are not obeyed by criminals.


Stealing bread is illegal. By your logic, someone who steals bread disobeys traffic rules, and rapes people... yes?


To hamstring those who defend you by removing the lethal option, full well knowing they may ecounter it presented against them, is in my mind almost criminal itself...


Nice.

Anyone who says you don't need to shoot and kill people is a criminal?

You just wore out your 'worth listening to' welcome.


As for the US and our history of self sufficiency entwined with law abiding citizens being able to own firearms? That is part of what makes our nation so great. The govornment, as it was conceived, TRUSTS the average citizen to be law abiding.


Then this nation, as it was conceived, is stupid.

Not to mention, this nation doesn't even agree with you. (You might want to look into things like no-charge incarceration).


What does that say about countries that disarm their entire population, sometimes all the way down to barely allowing them to own steak knives? (See timeline of Iraq taking over Kuwait for the results of that line of thought)

Like the UK? Which fell years ago to a tyrannical militaristic rule? No wait.. it didn't, did it. Not only do you invoke a slippery slope, you employed an easily refutable one, and cited as an example one nation invading another - completely ignoring the big picture, by the way.

No one said anything about 'no need for weapons'. The problem is, non-lethal weapon technology offers a number of options that are more servicable, less likely to injure/kill innocents, and that can reduce a threat as well as, or better than, conventional lethal weapons.

We don't need lethal weaponry. Why do you insist on it?



They will, huh?

Is there like a contract you have to sign? "Villain's Guild" membership... something like that?



Stealing bread is illegal. By your logic, someone who steals bread disobeys traffic rules, and rapes people... yes?



Nice.

Anyone who says you don't need to shoot and kill people is a criminal?

You just wore out your 'worth listening to' welcome.



Then this nation, as it was conceived, is stupid.

Not to mention, this nation doesn't even agree with you. (You might want to look into things like no-charge incarceration).



Like the UK? Which fell years ago to a tyrannical militaristic rule? No wait.. it didn't, did it. Not only do you invoke a slippery slope, you employed an easily refutable one, and cited as an example one nation invading another - completely ignoring the big picture, by the way.
He's not saying that a bread thief will break those laws. he's saying that criminals, violent or otherwise, disregard laws, so they'll disregard laws banning weapons because that's what criminals do. They break the law.

Actually, most Americans believe in a Right to Carry. The Media doesn't, and neither does California, New York, or D.C., and its really helped there, hasn't it?


And yes, violent criminals will get weapons. Its not a "contract", its what they'll do. They'll get the tools they want to complete the crime.

Less-than-lethal doesn't always work. I think you should respect this man's thoughts more, because he happens to be a cop...who is on the street and has had situations when lethal weapons have saved someone or other.

Innocents are injured more by criminals than they are by cops. I think we should go for them, not the police.

Also, its not people who say killing is wrong that are criminal, its those who are saying that self-defense is wrong that are almost criminal.

People have the right to defenf themselvs. To take it away would be immorralbecause guns are a human right.
:

He's not saying that a bread thief will break those laws. he's saying that criminals, violent or otherwise, disregard laws, so they'll disregard laws banning weapons because that's what criminals do. They break the law.


And, breaking ONE law, means you'll break all of them, obviously?

See the problem?

So - if gay sex is illegal, anyone that has a same-sex lover must also be an armed murderer?


Actually, most Americans believe in a Right to Carry. The Media doesn't, and neither does California, New York, or D.C., and its really helped there, hasn't it?


Most Americans believe whatever they are told to believe last, and forget it within a month.

You may have noticed, by the way, that all those places are still in the US, and - as such - prone to an influx of criminals (and, for example - illegal weapons) from elsewhere.


And yes, violent criminals will get weapons. Its not a "contract", its what they'll do. They'll get the tools they want to complete the crime.


What he said was "criminals (those who do not obey laws) don't follow the rules. They always will aquire weapons of SOME sort. "

So - we are presented with an imaginary homogenous criminal-culture, all of whom are armed as lethally as they can get.


Less-than-lethal doesn't always work. I think you should respect this man's thoughts more, because he happens to be a cop...who is on the street and has had situations when lethal weapons have saved someone or other.


First - because a random internet body says he or she is a cop, doesn't make it fact. Second - I respect thoughts based on the quality of the thought, not on the job description someone claims. Third - although I'm not a cop (and have never claimed to be) I have close friends in law enforcement both sides of the pond. I've even ended up riding along with my Chief of Police friend, because his second job was also my second job.

So - appeals to authority pushed aside, I can address the meat of the argument... non-lethal doesn't work? Based on what? How is it any less workable than using lethal weaponry? Have you ever actually looked into the cutting edge of non-lethal law enforcement equipment?


Innocents are injured more by criminals than they are by cops. I think we should go for them, not the police.


Part and parcel of the same problem.

And, you're allowing the line to be blurred. The argument about armed police doesn't have to stand or fall alongside the argument for armed citizens.


Also, its not people who say killing is wrong that are criminal, its those who are saying that self-defense is wrong that are almost criminal.

That's not what he said.

People have the right to defenf themselvs. To take it away would be immorralbecause guns are a human right.
:

There are no 'human rights'.

And, breaking ONE law, means you'll break all of them, obviously?

See the problem?

So - if gay sex is illegal, anyone that has a same-sex lover must also be an armed murderer?



Most Americans believe whatever they are told to believe last, and forget it within a month.

You may have noticed, by the way, that all those places are still in the US, and - as such - prone to an influx of criminals (and, for example - illegal weapons) from elsewhere.



What he said was "criminals (those who do not obey laws) don't follow the rules. They always will aquire weapons of SOME sort. "

So - we are presented with an imaginary homogenous criminal-culture, all of whom are armed as lethally as they can get.



First - because a random internet body says he or she is a cop, doesn't make it fact. Second - I respect thoughts based on the quality of the thought, not on the job description someone claims. Third - although I'm not a cop (and have never claimed to be) I have close friends in law enforcement both sides of the pond. I've even ended up riding along with my Chief of Police friend, because his second job was also my second job.

So - appeals to authority pushed aside, I can address the meat of the argument... non-lethal doesn't work? Based on what? How is it any less workable than using lethal weaponry? Have you ever actually looked into the cutting edge of non-lethal law enforcement equipment?



Part and parcel of the same problem.

And, you're allowing the line to be blurred. The argument about armed police doesn't have to stand or fall alongside the argument for armed citizens.



That's not what he said.
Bud, he said that those who would hinder the citizen's right to defend himself is almost criminal
To hamstring those who defend you by removing the lethal option, full well knowing they may ecounter it presented against them, is in my mind almost criminal itself..

It seems to me that hes saying those who would limit the police in their options(IE, not allowing them to respond with the same force as the criminal) is almost criminal.

And as for the criminal comment...I mean, how ridiculous do you have to get? You're picking it apart. This isn't a courtroom. I think its quite clear that he meant "criminals who use weapons now will use them when they're banned".

And from what I've seen, a tazer, cattle prod, extending baton, nightstick, pepperball gun, and even the FN Herstal Less-than-Lethal system have lesser range and body stopping power than a lethal weapon.

He's not saying that a bread thief will break those laws. he's saying that criminals, violent or otherwise, disregard laws, so they'll disregard laws banning weapons because that's what criminals do. They break the law.

Actually, most Americans believe in a Right to Carry. The Media doesn't, and neither does California, New York, or D.C., and its really helped there, hasn't it?


And yes, violent criminals will get weapons. Its not a "contract", its what they'll do. They'll get the tools they want to complete the crime.

Less-than-lethal doesn't always work. I think you should respect this man's thoughts more, because he happens to be a cop...who is on the street and has had situations when lethal weapons have saved someone or other.

Innocents are injured more by criminals than they are by cops. I think we should go for them, not the police.

Also, its not people who say killing is wrong that are criminal, its those who are saying that self-defense is wrong that are almost criminal.

Thanks! :) I was beginning to wonder if I had somehow written in something other than english somehow. Glad to see It was understandable.

This topic though, like many in the realm of opinion, will have die-hard (excuse the pun ;) ) Supporters/Opponents that will not be swayed, no matter what data is presented. They know they are "right" and anyone that opposes them is "wrong". :headbang: I'm just glad we have open forums to present both sides...

So - appeals to authority pushed aside, I can address the meat of the argument... non-lethal doesn't work? Based on what? How is it any less workable than using lethal weaponry? Have you ever actually looked into the cutting edge of non-lethal law enforcement equipment?

The majority of your post was picking at strings and bluring words, so I'll focus on answering your one real question, quoted above.

Non-lethal works VERY well... in the correct situation.

My agency works within what is defined as our "Use of Force Continuum". Officer actions are based on the threat level perceived based on the subject's actions. Officer actions fall into one of 5 increasing catagories.

Level one is presence. Mearly being present as Law Officers encourages compliant behavior on the part of the subject. About 95% of all police/civilian encounters fall in this catagory.

Level two is Providing direct Orders in reaction to a subject becoming Passive Resistant.

Level three is using Contact controls to deal with a subject becoming Active resistant

Level four is use of defensive tactics to deal with dangerous acts on the subjects behalf that the officer perceives to be Less than Lethal

Level five is use of Lethal Force in responce to offender offering lethal force.

You question concerns use of Less than Lethal force... that force which falls in level 4. For my agency the reaction by an officer in this catagory would involve potential use of Physical Strikes (We practice a mixture of Krav Maga and Kempo), use of the Asp Baton, and the use of OC Pepper Spray. Our agency is also currently looking into the posibility of adding Tasers to our available options. And yes we all look like Batman with all this stuff crammed on our belts. :p

Our job is to Control situations we deal with. To do this we make judgement calls based on training and experience. In my experience, I've used my less than lethal tools several times. It has balanced and reduced the situation every time.

As I've said before though, the criminals in question provide the actions we react to. We do not follow each step in order, but immediatly assume the posture in reaction to the subject action offered.

If a perp is trying shove another officer, I will place him in a contact control hold, removing his ability to continue the action. On the other hand, if I see a perp attempting to stab another officer within reaching distance, I am not going to reach for my pepper spray in hopes it's effects will be swift enough to stop his actions. I will advance to lethal force and terminate his actions.

Less than lethal force has it's place in our world of duty. Sometimes though, the perps actions take us beyond that threshhold.

On a side note, as part of my training, I have been intentionally sprayed full in the face with pepper spray, intentionally Tasered, and accidentally struck full on with an Asp strike (guy still has to buy me free drinks anytime we are out in groups together :p ).

I'll happily take a Tazering over either of the other two. The current controversies out in the media about their use never seems to take into account what their removal would leave the cops with as options. Tazer is 5-9 seconds of compliance pain. Getting sprayed really sucks. 15-20 minutes of blindness, 45 minutes of reduced breathing and a few hours of skin pain like the worst sunburn you've ever gotten. Asp? Imagine a buddy hitting you as hard as he can with an aluminum baseball bat. Yep, that's about it.

There are other, better LtL techs out there, but the guys in the cars don't get the toys till the Bean counters and the politicians approve them.

Maybe when we get hand portable sonic disruptors that scramble the targets inner ear and make them fall down from lask of balance and nausea (coming in 15ish years hopefully), or maybe even plasma based energy disruptors that completely short circuit the human body's muscle control for controlled periods (set it on "stun" Scotty)... then we can put away the need for guns for Law enforcement.

Until then, doing so is mearly wishing for peace in troubled times.

Bud, he said that those who would hinder the citizen's right to defend himself is almost criminal


Read it again:

"To hamstring those who would defend you...."

Clearly not self-defence.

Read it again:

"To hamstring those who would defend you...."

Clearly not self-defence.

So they're wrong in defending other people?

You're just digging yourself deeper.

If someone were in trouble, I would shoot the perp in defense of them, if that was my only option and they couldn't do it themselves

So they're wrong in defending other people?

You're just digging yourself deeper.

If someone were in trouble, I would shoot the perp in defense of them, if that was my only option and they couldn't do it themselves

How am I digging myself deeper?

In context, the other poster clearly was referring to armed police. In-or-out of context, there is no way to read what was written as 'self-defence', anyway.

How am I digging myself deeper?

In context, the other poster clearly was referring to armed police. In-or-out of context, there is no way to read what was written as 'self-defence', anyway.

You're right. You're also saying its wrong to defend another human being if they can't do it themselves, because the entire point you're trying to argue is that its wrong for police to have lethal force options in case they should need them. Wish all you want, but a tazer doesn't stack up against a 1911.

You're right.


I know.


You're also saying its wrong to defend another human being if they can't do it themselves,


No, I'm not.


...because the entire point you're trying to argue is that its wrong for police to have lethal force options in case they should need them.


No, It's not. I've already pointed out: "The argument about armed police doesn't have to stand or fall alongside the argument for armed citizens."


...Wish all you want, but a tazer doesn't stack up against a 1911.

Okay. Rather depends what you mean by "stack up", how you measure it... and rather brings us back to the matter of why lethal weapons should be available to citizens in the first place.

I know.



No, I'm not.



No, It's not. I've already pointed out: "The argument about armed police doesn't have to stand or fall alongside the argument for armed citizens."



Okay. Rather depends what you mean by "stack up", how you measure it... and rather brings us back to the matter of why lethal weapons should be available to citizens in the first place.

It doesn't have the same power. I dunno if you realized this, but most people who carry a gun do so because the whole damn cop is too heavy. As the US Supreme Court has ruled countless times, the police are NOT there to defend you. That is not their primary goal. That's your own job. That's why citizens should be allowed the same force to defend themselves as what could and would be used against them.

And again, by stack up I mean has less effective range, less incapacitation capability, and less of an ability to save your life or someone else's.

You said that its almost criminal to allow someone to shoot and kill another, even if it was in the express purpose of defending someone, so yes, you did say it was wrong to defend other people.

I still don't see how you'd plan to, as a civilian, plan to stop a firearm-wielding criminal bent on some violent act or other against you with nothing but less-than-lethal options. A pistol has an effective range, roughly of fifty yards. A tazer? 75 feet. If that. Pepperball gun? 100/125 feet. Closest you can get is a beanbag round for a shotgun, and shotguns aren't too concealable and would be disruptive for every day carry.

It doesn't have the same power.


Of course not. It's not that kind of weapon. Apples and oranges.


I dunno if you realized this, but most people who carry a gun do so because the whole damn cop is too heavy. As the US Supreme Court has ruled countless times, the police are NOT there to defend you. That is not their primary goal. That's your own job. That's why citizens should be allowed the same force to defend themselves as what could and would be used against them.


They're there to 'protect and serve', aren't they? ;)

However, your assertion doesn't follow logically. You say: "the police are NOT there to defend you", then you say "That's why citizens should be allowed the same force to defend themselves as what could and would be used against them". How does that follow? Nurses aren't there to defend me either, so does that mean I need a gun? No - because the two points do not logically lead one-to-the-other.

Indeed, is it worth pointing out that - logically - citizens being allowed the same force as what could be used against them... doesn't ahve to include lethal force, at all?

Blame gun culture.


And again, by stack up I mean has less effective range, less incapacitation capability, and less of an ability to save your life or someone else's.


The first and second are statistical, perhaps... if not necessarily relevent. The third is opinion.


You said that its almost criminal to allow someone to shoot and kill another, even if it was in the express purpose of defending someone, so yes, you did say it was wrong to defend other people.


I didn't say either of those things.

Quote me.


I still don't see how you'd plan to, as a civilian, plan to stop a firearm-wielding criminal bent on some violent act or other against you with nothing but less-than-lethal options. A pistol has an effective range, roughly of fifty yards. A tazer? 75 feet. If that. Pepperball gun? 100/125 feet. Closest you can get is a beanbag round for a shotgun, and shotguns aren't too concealable and would be disruptive for every day carry.

I don't plan to... blah blah, whatever. I've been shot at before, on two separate occassions. On both occassions I have done what any sensible person would do - got the fuck out of dodge. I don't carry a gun, and have no inetrest in doing so... I guess I'm just not as paranoid as some.

And, I have to say... I'm not too worried about what someone FIFTY YARDS away is doing. At that range, they're more likely to hit me by accident, than by aiming. To be honest, I'm not scared at 125, 100 or 75 feet either - and you've already explained that non-lethal weapons would be enough to protect me at those ranges, so I still see no reason for a lethal weapon.

Of course not. It's not that kind of weapon. Apples and oranges.



They're there to 'protect and serve', aren't they? ;)

However, your assertion doesn't follow logically. You say: "the police are NOT there to defend you", then you say "That's why citizens should be allowed the same force to defend themselves as what could and would be used against them". How does that follow? Nurses aren't there to defend me either, so does that mean I need a gun? No - because the two points do not logically lead one-to-the-other.

Indeed, is it worth pointing out that - logically - citizens being allowed the same force as what could be used against them... doesn't ahve to include lethal force, at all?

Blame gun culture.



The first and second are statistical, perhaps... if not necessarily relevent. The third is opinion.



I didn't say either of those things.

Quote me.



I don't plan to... blah blah, whatever. I've been shot at before, on two separate occassions. On both occassions I have done what any sensible person would do - got the fuck out of dodge. I don't carry a gun, and have no inetrest in doing so... I guess I'm just not as paranoid as some.

And, I have to say... I'm not too worried about what someone FIFTY YARDS away is doing. At that range, they're more likely to hit me by accident, than by aiming. To be honest, I'm not scared at 125, 100 or 75 feet either - and you've already explained that non-lethal weapons would be enough to protect me at those ranges, so I still see no reason for a lethal weapon.

The police situation. They may be here to "protect and serve", but the I have a feeling that's just a little inspirational quip. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that civilian defense is in the hands of civilians. Who's going to defend you? The two go hand in hand because both deal with crime and protection of your person. And mayhap I'm paranoid, but I DO worry about what that man is doing at fifty yards with a pistol pointed in my direction. Also, call it dumb, but I'm not going to have gunshot wounds in my back from running way, not if there are still innocent people around. They get out first.

As with the comparison of the two(lethal vs less-than-lethal), all those factors determine which option is better compared to the other, and all of them lean towards the hangun(the 1911 is just what I carry)

On another note entirely, why and when were you shot at?

Have you dropped the "quoting things I didn't say" argument, then?

The police situation. They may be here to "protect and serve", but the I have a feeling that's just a little inspirational quip. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that civilian defense is in the hands of civilians. Who's going to defend you? The two go hand in hand because both deal with crime and protection of your person. And mayhap I'm paranoid, but I DO worry about what that man is doing at fifty yards with a pistol pointed in my direction.


Why is there a man 50 yards from you pointing a gun at you?

Apart from anythign else, that sounds like a good reason for people not to have guns.


Also, call it dumb, but I'm not going to have gunshot wounds in my back from running way, not if there are still innocent people around. They get out first.


I don't call it dumb. You do what you gotta do. Me, I'm audi.

I don't see the problem with presenting a moving target, to be honest... a figure moving away from a shooter is presenting an increasingly hard to hit target... and bullet-in-the-front or bullet-in-the-back is an aesthetic decision that doesn;t bother me... I don't want any bullets in me, no matter if they come from a 'favourable' direction.


As with the comparison of the two(lethal vs less-than-lethal), all those factors determine which option is better compared to the other, and all of them lean towards the hangun(the 1911 is just what I carry)


Not at all. The handgun has increased range and throw-weight... but is more likely to kill an innocent bystander. in my book, that makes a taser a better choice. In the case of 'ability to save life'... incapacitated because you can't move... versus incapacitated because you're dead... both of them are incapacitated, but only one of them has a margin for error if you hit the wrong person.


On another note entirely, why and when were you shot at?

Brixton - I assume for no real reason. Lincolnshire - I assume, because I annoyed someone.

I dunno if you realized this, but most people who carry a gun do so because the whole damn cop is too heavy.

:p Love that Quote! Never heard it before, gonna borrow it. :p

Meanwhile, yes... SCOTUS has stated several times that we as cops do not HAVE to defend the average citizen. With the average 911 call response time being a smidge over 5 minutes, It would really suck for us to be held accountable for every time we arrive about 30 seconds to late to save someone. You wouldn't be able to convince a sane person to take the job as a cop if you knew dang well you'd be getting sued within the first week on the job.

The citizenry within MOST of the US is expected to defend themselves as needed until we can arrive... Hence the "Self-Defence" standard for use of lethal force.

Happily, within our great nation, private ownership of firearms most places is just like hearing a radio celebrity you like or don't like. You want them... get and keep them. You don't like them? Don't buy any and change the channel.

Without the Second Amendment in out country, none of the others would have stood the test of time.

And just to Godwin the thread to prove my point:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." ~~~ Adolph Hitler

Without the Second Amendment in out country, none of the others would have stood the test of time.


Based on what? The fact that all nations without positive gun laws have worse rights records on every other issue too?

No, wait... that's just not true, is it.

edit- can't believe we've already got 3 people who think it's a good idea for anyone to have a gun...

would you like to explain?

It might be interesting if everyone that comments also informs us what the law is in the country they currently live in.

To answer your first question, because the 2nd Amendment says I can.

To answer your second question, I reiterate, "The 2nd Amendment". It's plain and clear.

Based on what? The fact that all nations without positive gun laws have worse rights records on every other issue too?

No, wait... that's just not true, is it.

All Nations? Nope. Quite a few? Yes. The following is a short list of recent govornments that started out with disarming their citizenry, then followed that up with "civil rights" violations of one sort or another... You do consider genocide a "rights violation" correct?

Ottoman Empire, Turkey, 1915-1917, 1.5 Million Armenians.

Soviet Union, 1929-1953, 20 Million Anti-Stalinists/Anti-Communists.

Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe, 1933-1945, 13 Million Jews, Gypsies, Christians, Gays, and Anti-Nazis.

China, 1949-1976, Anti-Communists, 20 Million Rural Populations, Pro- Reform Groups, 20 million, 1935.

Guatemala, 1960-1981, Maya Indians 100,000.

Uganda, 1971-1979, Christians and Political Rivals, 300,000.

Cambodia, 1975-1979, Educated Persons, 1 million.

Rwanda, 1994, Tutsi men, women, and children, nearly 1 million.

I dunno if you realized this, but most people who carry a gun do so because the whole damn cop is too heavy.

Too many doughnuts.

The police situation. They may be here to "protect and serve", but the I have a feeling that's just a little inspirational quip. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that civilian defense is in the hands of civilians. Who's going to defend you? The two go hand in hand because both deal with crime and protection of your person. And mayhap I'm paranoid, but I DO worry about what that man is doing at fifty yards with a pistol pointed in my direction. Also, call it dumb, but I'm not going to have gunshot wounds in my back from running way, not if there are still innocent people around. They get out first.

And does no one feel that somewhere along the line someone has got the whole point of a police force wrong? The police force should be about protecting citizens as much as it is about enforcing civil order.

And does no one feel that somewhere along the line someone has got the whole point of a police force wrong? The police force should be about protecting citizens as much as it is about enforcing civil order.

there aren't enough of them to go around. Even if you went one officer to every five people, you'd still not have enough. Besides the fact that most people wouldn't want a cop hanging around them all the time anyway, at least not while on duty.

And I don't know why that guy is pointing a gun at me. If he is though, its probably an illegally obtained firearm, and he could have gotten it even if all guns were banned because its already illegally obtained.

Besides, a Tazer doesn't incapacitate for that long. If someone's got a gun with intent to do harm, I'm going to incapacitate him in the one sure way that will stop him from harming anyone(or anyone else). I'm going to shoot him.

A person with a CCL ought to regularly train, and most do. Did you know police, on average, kill more innocent bystanders during shootouts than those with CCLs? And I don't trust most of the cops I know when it comes to there accuracy; I'd rather have a civilian shooter.

From what I've seen, its not CCLs and those that carry that are the problem, its bad people getting a hold of guns. But since those who would commit a violent, firearm-related crime will get them anyway, taking the Right to Carry away isn't helping the problem at all, especially when people with CCLs are credited quite often with stopping shooters. Just because you don't want to carry doesn't mean that no one else should be allowed to.

And glad to see you made it out ok. Were they shooting specifically at you or in your area?

All Nations? Nope. Quite a few? Yes. The following is a short list of recent govornments that started out with disarming their citizenry, then followed that up with "civil rights" violations of one sort or another... You do consider genocide a "rights violation" correct?

Ottoman Empire, Turkey, 1915-1917, 1.5 Million Armenians.

Soviet Union, 1929-1953, 20 Million Anti-Stalinists/Anti-Communists.

Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe, 1933-1945, 13 Million Jews, Gypsies, Christians, Gays, and Anti-Nazis.

China, 1949-1976, Anti-Communists, 20 Million Rural Populations, Pro- Reform Groups, 20 million, 1935.

Guatemala, 1960-1981, Maya Indians 100,000.

Uganda, 1971-1979, Christians and Political Rivals, 300,000.

Cambodia, 1975-1979, Educated Persons, 1 million.

Rwanda, 1994, Tutsi men, women, and children, nearly 1 million.

So, your claim was not true, then?

Sorry to point out you were wasting your time, but - when you claim something absolute, you should know that you're going to have to prove it applies in every case.

The fact that the UK, for example, has 'negative' gun laws, but very progressive civil rights, makes a lie of your argument. The 2nd amendment does nothing to assure your other rights, except for allowing that you can carry a gun WHILE you have free speech, or free religion.

there aren't enough of them to go around. Even if you went one officer to every five people, you'd still not have enough. Besides the fact that most people wouldn't want a cop hanging around them all the time anyway, at least not while on duty.

And I don't know why that guy is pointing a gun at me. If he is though, its probably an illegally obtained firearm, and he could have gotten it even if all guns were banned because its already illegally obtained.


Surprisingly enough most people are actually in favour of having local police patrols, as long as it's done it the sort of way which will build ties with the community rather than as a punitive authority figure, but that's neither here nor there. With the exception of certain areas, as a rule violence is actually very low and in an ideal world the police should have a response time which will actually make a difference. Things get different out in the countryside, I'll admit, especially somewhere as big as the US, but in the towns/suburbs this should not an unreasonable aim. Does this mean more police, certainly, but no where near as many as you talk about.

As to illegally obtained firearms, if there is a blanket ban on firearms getting said firearm is very very difficult. I saw a statistic recently that the vast majority of illegal firearms in the US had been purchased legally somewhere along the line (then either sold on or stolen). In contrast most firearm related crimes in somewhere like the UK are committed with replicas and the number is tiny. Why? Because they can't get the guns into the country. You may not be able to completely stop criminals from having weapons, yes, but you will stop the vast, vast, majority from having one, be it the random mugger, burglarer or drug addict.

Edit: One thing I have noticed in this thread is that the may pro/anti gun division tends to be between Europeans and Americans and I think this is entirely culturally. Self-defence has not, for a very long time, been considered a legitimate reason to own a gun in this country and we feel safer for it. Owning a gun for self-defence has always been a fundamental part of your society and as a rule you feel safer for it. I seriously doubt either side of the continently divide is going to convince the other that their way is better because we simply do not have the same cultural background or indeed social situation/environment.

Eofaerwic, I actually agree with you on most of the points you made.

Mayhap decreasing response time would be a better idea, but like you said, that's not as effective in the countryside.

Honestly, while many are legally obtained at some point, I don't think a blanket ban would work because its still easy enough to get them into the country (America), especially with the coastline that the United States has, as well as land borders.
I also believe that laws forcing firearms owners to report stolen guns can cut down on the opportunity to use it or at least raise the alert that there is a hot weapon in the area, which is obviously a good thing

And yes, a lot of the time it seems to be a cultural difference.

It doesn't have the same power. I dunno if you realized this, but most people who carry a gun do so because the whole damn cop is too heavy. As the US Supreme Court has ruled countless times, the police are NOT there to defend you. That is not their primary goal. That's your own job. That's why citizens should be allowed the same force to defend themselves as what could and would be used against them.

And off we go on the wagon train to the Wild Wild West.

And off we go on the wagon train to the Wild Wild West.



Because that's what happens when citizens are permitted to carry?

I haven't seen much of an issue with vigilantism in the last few decades...and most of our "outlaws", if we'll call them that, use weapons that are often already illegal, so again preventing legal carry doesn't do anything to curb the crime.

Because that's what happens when citizens are permitted to carry?

I haven't seen much of an issue with vigilantism in the last few decades...and most of our "outlaws", if we'll call them that, use weapons that are often already illegal, so again preventing legal carry doesn't do anything to curb the crime.

This man speaks the truth!

The fact that the UK, for example, has 'negative' gun laws, but very progressive civil rights, makes a lie of your argument. The 2nd amendment does nothing to assure your other rights, except for allowing that you can carry a gun WHILE you have free speech, or free religion.

One thing you may not realize is that many in the US do not view the fact that the UK is being forced to have very progressive civil rights as a "good" thing. The term "Nanny State" is something of a pejorative here... leading to the view of shaking heads and tsk, tsking about the poor citizenry that has a govoernment deciding everything for them.

As for the "abuse" end of civil rights violations, the waters aren't crystal clean in the UK, especially when you look to your Northern border and the treatment of the Irish. Happily the troubles have calmed, but a lot of the grumpiness remains. Then you have the issues of the huge numbers of migrants in your nation and their refusal to assimilate into your nation (similar problems here), and the path your nation is taking... internal appeasement currently, but that's not working out so well... What path will the country take when large portions of major cities start demanding implementation of Sharia Law?

I hear President Kennedy thought about bringing in gun control just before he died.

I hear President Kennedy thought about bringing in gun control just before he died.

Well that thought went right out of his head.

Well that thought went right out of his head.

That was a terrible pun.

So what if I chuckled.

An additional factor to consider:

Criminals will be criminals. Sadly that is a fact of human nature. Many criminals will commit violent crime, and many will use a tool of some sort to assist them in their endevours.

From a British newspaper:

Knife violence in London is now running as high as gun warfare in some US cities, it is claimed today.

One of Britain's leading trauma surgeons has told how one in three of his trauma patients is now a stabbing victim.

Karim Brohi, a consultant surgeon at the Royal London Hospital, said the proportion of injuries from knives and guns was now on a level with - if not greater than - cities such as Los Angeles or Chicago.

It goes on to detail tens of thousands of blade related crimes.

Strangely, in the US, blades aren't as much of a problem. Used to be, every kid had a pocket knife of some kind. That tradition died out a while ago. We still see quite a few in crime situations, but not in the fashion of the explosion of knife crime in the UK. Happily, the UK hasn't quite reached the levels of Russia or Jamacia, where guns are totally outlawed to the citizenry, yet knife related homicides per capita exceed the total of homicides per capita in the USA.

Here is where the American view comes into play. The majority of firearms related offences occur within 3-5 feet. The same can be said of Knife crimes. Both can be equally deadly. The major difference is, you won't see many a 65 year old lady able to defend themselves from a criminal with a blade in hand. In nations with severe gun laws, the small, the aged, the infirm... they all look like easy targets for criminals. Here in the US, those same criminals look at the little old lady walking down the street, see the slight smile on her face, and pause... wondering if it's because she's thinking about church tommorow, or if it's because she already has her reactionary gap planned for use of the Glock 39 in her purse...

An additional factor to consider:

Criminals will be criminals. Sadly that is a fact of human nature. Many criminals will commit violent crime, and many will use a tool of some sort to assist them in their endevours.

From a British newspaper:

Knife violence in London is now running as high as gun warfare in some US cities, it is claimed today.

One of Britain's leading trauma surgeons has told how one in three of his trauma patients is now a stabbing victim.

Karim Brohi, a consultant surgeon at the Royal London Hospital, said the proportion of injuries from knives and guns was now on a level with - if not greater than - cities such as Los Angeles or Chicago.

It goes on to detail tens of thousands of blade related crimes.

Strangely, in the US, blades aren't as much of a problem. Used to be, every kid had a pocket knife of some kind. That tradition died out a while ago. We still see quite a few in crime situations, but not in the fashion of the explosion of knife crime in the UK. Happily, the UK hasn't quite reached the levels of Russia or Jamacia, where guns are totally outlawed to the citizenry, yet knife related homicides per capita exceed the total of homicides per capita in the USA.

Here is where the American view comes into play. The majority of firearms related offences occur within 3-5 feet. The same can be said of Knife crimes. Both can be equally deadly. The major difference is, you won't see many a 65 year old lady able to defend themselves from a criminal with a blade in hand. In nations with severe gun laws, the small, the aged, the infirm... they all look like easy targets for criminals. Here in the US, those same criminals look at the little old lady walking down the street, see the slight smile on her face, and pause... wondering if it's because she's thinking about church tommorow, or if it's because she already has her reactionary gap planned for use of the Glock 39 in her purse...

According to the Evening Standard (which seems to be the source you quoted, but chose not to cite), somewhere in the close ballpark of 15% of the stabbing injuries attended (so - not including any 'stabbing' injuries that didn't call for on-scene attendence) were fatal.

I'd like to see comparative figures for gunshot wounds, wouldn't you?

One thing you may not realize is that many in the US do not view the fact that the UK is being forced


Being forced? Allowing people to 'have freedom to' is forcing them to... what?


...to have very progressive civil rights as a "good" thing.


I don't get it. A page ago, the civil rights allowed to you by your constitution were a commendable thing worth protecting - at gunpoint, apparently. Now, apparently - you are arguing that freedom is a bad thing?

So what is it? You don't like any form of freedom that doesn't include lethal weapons?


The term "Nanny State" is something of a pejorative here... leading to the view of shaking heads and tsk, tsking about the poor citizenry that has a govoernment deciding everything for them.


Nice. Irrelevent.


As for the "abuse" end of civil rights violations, the waters aren't crystal clean in the UK, especially when you look to your Northern border and the treatment of the Irish.


Ireland isn't on the Northern border. Or any border.

What was the point you were pretending to make anyway?


Happily the troubles have calmed, but a lot of the grumpiness remains.


Ah - so you did mean Northern Ireland. Connection?

Is this going to be something to do with the IRA?


Then you have the issues of the huge numbers of migrants in your nation and their refusal to assimilate into your nation (similar problems here), and the path your nation is taking... internal appeasement currently, but that's not working out so well... What path will the country take when large portions of major cities start demanding implementation of Sharia Law?

'My nation'? You are talking to me from 'my nation'.

The problems of ghetto culture... have what, exactly, to do with civil rights?

According to the Evening Standard (which seems to be the source you quoted, but chose not to cite), somewhere in the close ballpark of 15% of the stabbing injuries attended (so - not including any 'stabbing' injuries that didn't call for on-scene attendence) were fatal.

I'd like to see comparative figures for gunshot wounds, wouldn't you?
But I think its agreed that most of those gunshot wounds to innocents are caused by illegally owned weapons, so legal civilian carry still isn't the problem

But I think its agreed that most of those gunshot wounds to innocents are caused by illegally owned weapons, so CCLs still aren't the problem

Okay. I didn't (ever?) say they were.

I think you're having a different debate to me...

But I think its agreed that most of those gunshot wounds to innocents are caused by illegally owned weapons, so legal civilian carry still isn't the problem

Even with an edit, this makes no sense. The knives used in the stabbings are also illegal - the parallel is direct. And, under the same circumstance (illegal weapon used in crime of violence) I'm thinking that the knife proves to be the lesser of two evils.

Okay. I didn't (ever?) say they were.

I think you're having a different debate to me...

Well, I thought the entire point of this thread was to debate the value of gun politics, IE: Pro-gun control or Anti-gun control. Civilian carry falls under anti-gun control, and I assumed you were pro-gun control through the discussion we've had up to this point, so I also assumed you were against civilian carry.

That was my mistake, sorry.

And about the England Vs. America....Well, I live in America, and I have first hand experience with America...However, I do not live in England, and I don't have first hand experience with England. Therefore, its not my place to say which country's laws are better, because I haven't lived or even visited England. On paper, I like America's laws better, when it comes to firearms laws.

Well, I thought the entire point of this thread was to debate the value of gun politics, IE: Pro-gun control or Anti-gun control. Civilian carry falls under anti-gun control, and I assumed you were pro-gun control through the discussion we've had up to this point, so I also assumed you were against civilian carry.

That was my mistake, sorry.

And about the England Vs. America....Well, I live in America, and I have first hand experience with America...However, I do not live in England, and I don't have first hand experience with England. Therefore, its not my place to say which country's laws are better, because I haven't lived or even visited England. On paper, I like America's laws better, when it comes to firearms laws.

I've lived in both - but that's irrelevent. The point is that the UK is a refutation of 2nd-amendmentist claims of such fantasy as 'the other amendments only exist because of the 2nd amendment'. It's an example of a state with negative gun laws, and progressive civil rights. It turns out the question of being allowed to kill people doesn't really impact free speech, free religion, etc. So, when it comes down to it, ti turns out that the '2nd amendment'a rgument is really about nothing except whether people should be toting lethal weapons.

On the other hand, I've lived in both - and the Brits are much less paranoid than their American cousins.

Because that's what happens when citizens are permitted to carry?
That isn't what you said. You said because people carry them illegally, everyone should be able to have them. Keeping up with the Evil Joneses is not, nor should it be accepted as, a valid reason for allowing everyone to carry whatever firearms they want.

"Hey, some one might rob me with an Uzi, I should have an Uzi too!"

That isn't what you said. You said because people carry them illegally, everyone should be able to have them. Keeping up with the Evil Joneses is not, nor should it be accepted as, a valid reason for allowing everyone to carry whatever firearms they want.

"Hey, some one might rob me with an Uzi, I should have an Uzi too!"

I've never advocated allowing people to carry whatever they wish. I should have elaborated when I said "to defend themselves with the same force that might be used against them", I meant something usable.

Yeah, I should have been more clear on that. I meant in regards to Lethal versus Less-Than-Lethal systems. A submachine gun is not good for self-defense, especially if you don't know how to use it. A concealable, semi-automatic pistol or double action revolver should be more than adequate for self-defense needs.

An automatic weapon is much more of a danger to innocent bystanders than a semi-auto one, because the nature of firearms makes them difficult to control while firing in fully automatic. Not to mention the fact that an Uzi is difficult to conceal for every day carry, even the mini-Uzi or an M11, just like its impractical to carry an IMI Desert Eagle in .50AE.

I honestly agree with the NFA and most of the BATFE Act of 1986(I wish manufacture was still permitted for the civilian market, so price would come down...but of course, that would make them less of an investment piece. As of now, legal Class III weapons dealing is probably a better investment than the 401K plan of many Americans.) I don't agree with the tax stamp for sound suppressors and SBRs, because I don't like wearing ear protection.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do fo - OH GOD! My Brains!

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do fo - OH GOD! My Brains!

I honestly lol'd

You win a few internets.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do fo - OH GOD! My Brains!

I laughed too.

you ever hear of a gun show ???
they check people at the door to weed out those unfit for firearm ownership so people can trade or wheel and deal for firearms.

As if showing up at a gun show wasn't in itself a pretty good indication that one's unbalanced.

Gun shows are so last century, anyway. When are we going to have bio warfare shows? "Omg, look, it's the new small pox strain!"

Well, in America, we do have bears, mountain lions, large wild dogs, etc, etc.

I don't know why people keep picking on bears in this thread. I've gone backpacking and seen plenty of bears. A few tried to climb the tree was my pack was tied up in and eat my ramen, but otherwise you bang a few pots together and they leave you alone.

We also have something called PCP, which even with a gun, will take many shots to the upper chest, or one from a large caliber pistol or shotgun to take down.

What city do you live in that has a rampant PCP freak problem?

We also have a proud hunting tradition. If you have problems with hunting, thats another topic for another time. Do you really want to take away a tradition that had lasted for almost 400 years since the first settlers came from Europe to America?

You know, someone probably made that argument for slavery, too. That's why appeals to tradition don't work.

I don't know why people keep picking on bears in this thread. I've gone backpacking and seen plenty of bears. A few tried to climb the tree was my pack was tied up in and eat my ramen, but otherwise you bang a few pots together and they leave you alone.



What city do you live in that has a rampant PCP freak problem?



You know, someone probably made that argument for slavery, too. That's why appeals to tradition don't work.

What kind of bears the small little black bears or were they grizzlies?

Also, what I meant is that outlawing guns because they are used in crimes is like outlawing golf clubs or baseball bats because they were used in muggings. Hunting is a sport that millions of Americans take part in every year, my self included. In fact I'll go eat some Deer jerky.

I don't know why people keep picking on bears in this thread. I've gone backpacking and seen plenty of bears. A few tried to climb the tree was my pack was tied up in and eat my ramen, but otherwise you bang a few pots together and they leave you alone.

Hahaha, that made me laugh. I don't know why they pick on bears.



What city do you live in that has a rampant PCP freak problem?

Its the "just in case" thing. If I ever DO happen to be attacked by a PCP freak, I want to win. Cause I'd like to live.



You know, someone probably made that argument for slavery, too. That's why appeals to tradition don't work.

You know guys, he has a good point. Of course, hunting animals is a little different than forcing other people to work for you for no pay.

Plus, gun shows are amazing. How many shooting incidents have taken place at gun shows?

though I did lol at the bio-warfare shows joke.

Oh, and about hunting....the hunting is wonderful, but the Second Amendment isn't about hunting, its about ensuring that the citizens can properly defend themselves if they ever need to against domestic and foreign threats.