I actually have worked with colleagues in the UK with family members who had (and I think possibly still have) pistols in the UK for self defence.
Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)
- Thread starter tyr_13
- Start date
- Status
I actually have worked with colleagues in the UK with family members who had (and I think possibly still have) pistols in the UK for self defence.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Northern Ireland?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Using the article cited by smartcooky for examples of self-defense against bears using a pistol (which ignores instances of using a rifle in self-defense against bears unless a pistol was also involved), there were
- 12 incidents in Alaska
- 8 in Montana
- 7 in Wyoming
- 2 in Arizona
- 2 in Idaho
- 1 in Colorado
- 1 in West Springfield, Massachusetts
- 1 in Zanesville, Ohio
- 1 in Oregon
I have had two close (about 5m) encounters with bears, once in New Mexico and once in Oregon, and several other encounters within the 50m range mentioned by sarge.
After making the list above, I realized it would have been better to summarize the locations of fatal bear attacks. It turns out that, in the United States, fatal bear attacks (with at least one victim) are almost but not quite as common as mass shootings (with at least four victims).
It seems, therefore, that I have more to fear from mass shootings than from bears.
Thermal
August Member
And I can accept it as a valid reason, if and only if the "defender' has spent, say, 10x the amount of time and expense of firearm ownership in other defensive measures first.
If a gun is the first and only method of 'defense', it ain't defense we are talkin' about.
Yes, lots of other measures - for certain using a mirror to look under the car for IEDs.
See below
Yes - the colleague I'm thinking about had his driving test rerouted because of reports of a sniper.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,948
Not in the UK. You can't give self defence as a reason for wanting to own a firearm.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,948
Not in the UK. Self Defence is not a reason for wanting to own a firearm.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,948
Then it was a special circumstance for people in a special position and not obtained through the regular means.
You can't give self defence as a reason for wanting to own a firearm in the UK.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
From wiki: "A firearm certificate for a personal protection weapon will only be authorised where the Police Service of Northern Ireland deems there is a "verifiable specific risk" to the life of an individual and that the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect their life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pistols
That could pretty easily be interpreted as "self defence". That passage links to a source, but its paywalled.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,948
But it is a special circumstance in a specific location for specific people. It's a hangover from the 'Troubles'.
Most of those that have them were connected to, or part of the police, prison or justice system.
You try getting a FAC by saying you want a firearm for self defence.
You won't even be allowed to apply for a pistol for any other purpose.
There are however specially modified pistols used as 'humane killers' for large animals.
I know the Master of the Cleveland Hunt has one, It's a Browning modified as a single shot device for shooting horses that are injured in the course of a hunt.
Last edited:
In this post I'm not taking a side on whether or not to have another ban. But saying that a crime rate went down during an AWB, when the number of semi-auto weapons kept on increasing the entire time does not make any sense to me at all.
An assault weapons ban that does not require confiscation of existing weapons and allows future manufacture and sale of new and nearly identical weapons, should not have any affect on the number of shootings except to make them go up. Guns are durable goods and will outlast any ban unless they are confiscated.
From 1994 to 2004, the number of semi-auto rifles and pistols increased, why would this be associated with a decrease in shootings other than by coincidence? Banning features like flash hiders and bayonet lugs does not hinder a shooter at any distance and should not reduce the number of deaths.
While an AR-15 without a flash hider and an M1A without a bayonet lug were not assault rifles between 1994 and 2004, they were just as lethal as the pre-ban versions.
Surely it was some other provision of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was responsible for the change in the number of shootings. But as far as I know, the AWB portion was the only part that sunset.
An assault weapons ban that does not require confiscation of existing weapons and allows future manufacture and sale of new and nearly identical weapons, should not have any affect on the number of shootings except to make them go up. Guns are durable goods and will outlast any ban unless they are confiscated.
From 1994 to 2004, the number of semi-auto rifles and pistols increased, why would this be associated with a decrease in shootings other than by coincidence? Banning features like flash hiders and bayonet lugs does not hinder a shooter at any distance and should not reduce the number of deaths.
While an AR-15 without a flash hider and an M1A without a bayonet lug were not assault rifles between 1994 and 2004, they were just as lethal as the pre-ban versions.
Surely it was some other provision of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was responsible for the change in the number of shootings. But as far as I know, the AWB portion was the only part that sunset.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...s-reported-in-mass-shooting-in-maryland-town/
Multiple victims reported in ‘mass shooting’ in Maryland town
Officials reported there were multiple victims following what one lawmaker described as a “mass shooting” in the Maryland town of Smithsburg on Thursday.
“We are actively monitoring the mass shooting in #Smithsburg right now, and our office is in contact with officials on the ground. If you’re local, please stay away from the area as law enforcement responds,” Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) tweeted shortly before 4 p.m.
Multiple victims reported in ‘mass shooting’ in Maryland town
Officials reported there were multiple victims following what one lawmaker described as a “mass shooting” in the Maryland town of Smithsburg on Thursday.
“We are actively monitoring the mass shooting in #Smithsburg right now, and our office is in contact with officials on the ground. If you’re local, please stay away from the area as law enforcement responds,” Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) tweeted shortly before 4 p.m.
Thermal
August Member
At least three dead and shooter "no longer a threat", says the Md 5-0
I get that. The U.S. is the only country in the world that has anything like the Second Amendment. No one else has debates like ours about guns.
3 Killed in Shooting at Maryland Manufacturing Facility
I wonder if this one will just be classified as "workplace violence"? I think that is what happens when you shoot and kill up to 13 people at work, if we go by the Fort Hood incident. Sometimes it is just so hard to classify these darn things.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Well, most communities in the US have by now unfortunately backed themselves into a Catch-22 situation when it comes to the whole issue of firearms and self-defence.
See.... if there are plenty of armed criminals around - as indeed there now are in the US, to the point of it being very likely wrt many crimes of violence and intrusion - then there's obviously a cogent argument to be made that the only feasible way of defending oneself is by displaying or using a firearm oneself.
The genie is out of the bottle. The underlying - and at this point intractable - problem is the easy (and cheap) availability of firearms to people who intend to use them in the commissioning of a criminal offence. The reason why in general no law-abiding citizen in the UK (mainland UK at least) needs to own a firearm in precisely because the likelihood of that person being confronted by a criminal brandishing a firearm is relatively extremely low. This in turn means that the use of a firearm in self-defence is extremely unlikely to be justifiable and proportionate.
The only way the US would/could ever even hope to fix the situation properly would be to a) repeal the 2nd Amendment; b) make the ownership of firearms broadly illegal at a federal level; c) carry out huge firearms amnesty programmes (probably with financial inducements); d) beef up law enforcement programmes to prosecute those owning/using firearms illegally, with stiff sentences upon conviction; e) wait for probably at least a generation for a cultural shift away from firearms ownership and usage.
Anything else is tail-chasing. And since the above will almost certainly never, ever happen, the US is now forever stuck with a continuous, never-ending litany of tens of thousands of firearms suicides and homicides per year (45,000 in 2020....), including multiple spree atrocities. Pandora's Box cannot now be closed up again.
See.... if there are plenty of armed criminals around - as indeed there now are in the US, to the point of it being very likely wrt many crimes of violence and intrusion - then there's obviously a cogent argument to be made that the only feasible way of defending oneself is by displaying or using a firearm oneself.
The genie is out of the bottle. The underlying - and at this point intractable - problem is the easy (and cheap) availability of firearms to people who intend to use them in the commissioning of a criminal offence. The reason why in general no law-abiding citizen in the UK (mainland UK at least) needs to own a firearm in precisely because the likelihood of that person being confronted by a criminal brandishing a firearm is relatively extremely low. This in turn means that the use of a firearm in self-defence is extremely unlikely to be justifiable and proportionate.
The only way the US would/could ever even hope to fix the situation properly would be to a) repeal the 2nd Amendment; b) make the ownership of firearms broadly illegal at a federal level; c) carry out huge firearms amnesty programmes (probably with financial inducements); d) beef up law enforcement programmes to prosecute those owning/using firearms illegally, with stiff sentences upon conviction; e) wait for probably at least a generation for a cultural shift away from firearms ownership and usage.
Anything else is tail-chasing. And since the above will almost certainly never, ever happen, the US is now forever stuck with a continuous, never-ending litany of tens of thousands of firearms suicides and homicides per year (45,000 in 2020....), including multiple spree atrocities. Pandora's Box cannot now be closed up again.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
But, the highlighted is all tail-chasing. Two thirds of states would be needed to repeal 2A, amnesty with financial inducements would never pass the senate, and d would rely on Federal police doing so, with state and local police perhaps forbidden by their state by law from complying (in red states I mean).
The best that could be hoped for, on a national level that is realistic, is a federal red-flag law and a law upping the age requirement for semi-auto long guns to 21. And I'd give the odds of either of those happening as quite low.
ETA: and now that I read your last paragraph I see you agree... If you've ever played the game Cyberpunk 2077 I've become pretty confident that its an accurate prediction of the US in 50 odd years.
Last edited:
Cain
Straussian
Just when I thought this thread jumped the bear, someone writes something substantive...
It's called an arms race, and competition brings out the best in people.
The Heller decision is not even 15 years old. In the United States, it's extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, which justifies a loose interpretation. Conservatives have for decades been pushing the idea that the Second Amendment somehow justifies individual private gun ownership for self-defense. They've been pushing a living Constitution interpretation but called it "Originalism." The Court resurrected the First Amendment in the 20th century, and the Second Amendment in the 21st century.
A concerted effort the other way could see Heller overturned (just as conservatives overturned pro-gun control decisions, and will probably soon overturn abortion rights). Another flip on guns might seem unlikely, but it's more likely than securing a two-thirds vote in Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures. The difference is that a newly constructed High Court will, even theoretically, take a long time, whereas a repeal could theoretically happen within months. Nevertheless, the former is much more realistic than the latter. It's just going to take a lot of time, and many people will needlessly die.
It's called an arms race, and competition brings out the best in people.
The Heller decision is not even 15 years old. In the United States, it's extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, which justifies a loose interpretation. Conservatives have for decades been pushing the idea that the Second Amendment somehow justifies individual private gun ownership for self-defense. They've been pushing a living Constitution interpretation but called it "Originalism." The Court resurrected the First Amendment in the 20th century, and the Second Amendment in the 21st century.
A concerted effort the other way could see Heller overturned (just as conservatives overturned pro-gun control decisions, and will probably soon overturn abortion rights). Another flip on guns might seem unlikely, but it's more likely than securing a two-thirds vote in Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures. The difference is that a newly constructed High Court will, even theoretically, take a long time, whereas a repeal could theoretically happen within months. Nevertheless, the former is much more realistic than the latter. It's just going to take a lot of time, and many people will needlessly die.
Excellent post, thank you.
I’m guessing Heller was all about the meaning of “well armed militia”?
- Status