Gun controll?

[Spindrift]

My point was that people insure themselves against things that are never likely to happen all the time and are often required to. Yet, sometimes, these things do happen. To take that form of insurance is not to jump into a pool of water to dry off. The same can be said of a handgun in the house; it is essentially an insurance policy in the event the very unlikely should happen and one's life is threatened by an attacker. In either case, the person is not somehow senseless for taking the precaution.

People buy insurance for things that don't happen too often but happen frequently enough to be worried about it.

I've been in a few automobile accidents, I know lots of other people who have been in accidents. So auto insurance is a good idea. I know several people whose houses have burnt down, had trees fall on them, even been burgled and various other things that are covered by homeowners insurance. These types of things happen often enough that many states require auto insurance and most mortgage holders require homeowners insurance.

On the other hand insurance companies love to sell accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) policies. Why? Because it's almost pure profit, very few people die accidentally and/or get dismembered. For most people it's a waste of money.

I do not know a single person who was ever home when an intruder came in, never mind an armed intruder. The only person I know who was shot, was shot when he pulled a gun on a person already pointing a gun at him (bar fight, I assume alcohol was involved). So much for that insurance. Probably would still be alive without it.

So the handgun is more like AD&D insurance, not homeowners insurance. It's a waste of money and offers little real protection for the vast majority of the population.

 

[richardm]

And what if the one attacking your home is wearing armor and a badge?

If it's just JonathanClement that they've come for, you're screwed. Because it doesn't matter how many cool guns you've got, they've got more.

What if the government starts rounding up your family to be killed? (Yeah, I'm getting paranoid again. Stupid zeitgeist.) Without adequate protection, the government could just walk all over us.

Well, it's best to be prepared for all eventualities but you're already in trouble because while, for example, the insurgents are doing OK against a professional army in Iraq, they've being supplied with some weapons that are already denied you. So unless you've got a helpful ally shipping them over the border to you then you'll screwed again. And don't look at Britain 'cos we won't be sending them - we don't support terrorists who attack their legitimate government

 

[Ranb]

.....What we don't allow, of course, are military grade weapons for which there is no legitimate civilian use. And in this respect we are not particularly different from the rest of Western Europe.

How is "military grade weapons" defined? Or how do you define it?

Ranb

 

[Rolfe]

OK, but Rolfe, as a (rightfully so) anti-homeopathy personality and skeptic, do you see the fallacy in presuming that all UK citizens are of the same opinion on the matter, or even a vast majority for that matter? Are you actually willing to simply agree and accept the offered statement without any critical thought on the issue of justification of deadly force in the home without any proof?

With respect to your security alarm systems: a would-be assailant could get in, kill/beat/rape you, and leave before the police ever show. I'm not at all arguing against these as they might be a useful deterrent. Yet for one who is not deterred, you're right back at square one.

No police-man, etc can be with you at all times. Ultimately, in your own home, the only person who can actually provide for your personal security is you. Even with a private security guard force, one never knows if such guards will themselves turn out to be bad (for instance, the famous actor case, I think it was Sly Stallone). Why delegate that sort of basic human responsiblity (at least while in your own home) to the trust of some other person whose only motivation might be a meager (or lucrative) paycheck? But I digress, and opinions can differ as they should on that point. I simply am looking for actual proof that all UK citizens believe...etc regarding the use of deadly force. I don't think there is any such proof that actually reflects the public opinion on the matter, but if you have some please post it.

Read again what I wrote. I said that the security system we'd inherited with the house was connected to the police station and would call the police directly if triggered. I then said that we'd had this capability disabled and the system rigged as a simple home alarm, because our concern about false alarms vastly outweighed any concern about determined burglars.

If there was sufficient threat to raise genuine concerns, the first thing I'd do would be to get that system returned to full specification. I would expect anyone to take that simple precaution long before they even thought about secreting firearms about their home.

This argument that we should be prepared for even the remotest, improbable danger is in my opinion nothing but rationalisation. People fail to take quite sensible precautions all the time, because they can't be bothered, or they don't see the threat as imminent. Deciding to keep a loaded firearm in my house is so far out of my world I can't even imagine circumstances where I'd consider it. Listening to people who advocate this as an "insurance policy" against something about as likely as a meteorite falling on the house just sounds to me like someone looking for an excuse to have a gun because they want one.

Rolfe.

PS. And you call me a "skeptic" (any spelling) over my cold dead body.

 

[Stout]

And what if the one attacking your home is wearing armor and a badge? What if the government starts rounding up your family to be killed? (Yeah, I'm getting paranoid again. Stupid zeitgeist.) Without adequate protection, the government could just walk all over us.

I won't say that's impossible...but...I do consider it improbable enough that i don't let the idea enter my head outside of threads like this. I've got to figure, that there's be lots of "them" and any scenario regarding the outcome of a situation like this sucks hard.

I'd probably go peacefully with the hopes that I'd get out of wherever they were taking me rather than scream " From my cold dead hands !! " as I fell in a cloud of bullets and blood.

It's an odds thing, and no, I don't buy lottery tickets either.

 

[Ranb]

No, not in my opinion.

Before you ask, however, the law allows me to take reasonable steps to protect myself whether attacked or in the house. This is generally taken to mean walloping the person back, rather than gunning them down.

Owning a gun for the purposes of self defense does not have to mean "gunning them down" I am not saying that you are limiting self defense gun uses to gunning people down, but it seems that some people on this forum think gun use is simply killing. A gun can be used to deter a criminal merely by brandishing it.

Ranb

 

[Rolfe]

And what if the one attacking your home is wearing armor and a badge? What if the government starts rounding up your family to be killed? (Yeah, I'm getting paranoid again. Stupid zeitgeist.) Without adequate protection, the government could just walk all over us.

Jonathan, if you've been reading the whole thread, do you understand now that firearms were not "taken away" from the British people in the way you seemed to think they were?

Do you realise that the video you saw completely misrepresented the situation - these people were protesting hotly about being required to use guns if they had foxes which were being a nuisance, instead of chasing them across country with dogs and horses, and encouraging the dogs to tear the fox limb from limb?

Do you understand that the people here do not want to go around with guns the way people do in the USA, and so it is simply incorrect to put forward any suggesting that we are being "denied" such a right?

If you really want a society where everyone is either carrying a gun or is hoarding guns at home in case the government sets the armed forces on its citizens, I despair for you. Your government is the people you elect, and your armed forces are your neighbours who have chosen to enlist. What sort of paranoia does it take to imagine your scenario?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Some people own firearms just because they're, cool.
....

Some own them because they're fun.
....

Some own them because they're handy.

etc....

Thank you for that fine demonstration of the US gun culture. You come out with that on this side of the pond you are liable to be regarded as a dangerous nutter at best, if not an all-out psychopath.

Just saying.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Owning a gun for the purposes of self defense does not have to mean "gunning them down" I am not saying that you are limiting self defense gun uses to gunning people down, but it seems that some people on this forum think gun use is simply killing. A gun can be used to deter a criminal merely by brandishing it.

Well then, I'm not in the slightest in favour of owning a gun for the purpose of self-defence, even if all I was intending to do was brandish it.

This is because given the choice between the society I live in, where guns are something only criminals have and not even most of them, where my neighbour's angst-ridden teenager doesn't have one and the boyfriend of the woman I asked to stop shouting outside my house at midnight doesn't have one and the driver I accidentally cut up at a roundabout doesn't have one, and the situation in the US, I unhesitatingly choose the ills I have.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Mincing liberal press, possibly?

I think I already explained that we have quite our fair share of rabid right-wing tabloids. If there was any suggestion of even a smidgin of support for gun ownership they would be giving voice to it. Especially while they were rabidly defending Tony Martin after he shot that kid in the back.

Not a syllable.

Rolfe.

 

[JonathanClement]

Jonathan, if you've been reading the whole thread, do you understand now that firearms were not "taken away" from the British people in the way you seemed to think they were?

Do you realise that the video you saw completely misrepresented the situation - these people were protesting hotly about being required to use guns if they had foxes which were being a nuisance, instead of chasing them across country with dogs and horses, and encouraging the dogs to tear the fox limb from limb?

Do you understand that the people here do not want to go around with guns the way people do in the USA, and so it is simply incorrect to put forward any suggesting that we are being "denied" such a right?

If you really want a society where everyone is either carrying a gun or is hoarding guns at home in case the government sets the armed forces on its citizens, I despair for you. Your government is the people you elect, and your armed forces are your neighbours who have chosen to enlist. What sort of paranoia does it take to imagine your scenario?

Rolfe.

I dunno... It's that piece of **** movie that destroyed such a wonderful summer. I was enjoying my freedom from religion and then I fell into that horrible trap... I'm gonna do a dissection of it on youtube later on... But I'm haunted for life.

 

[Architect]

And what if the one attacking your home is wearing armor and a badge? What if the government starts rounding up your family to be killed? (Yeah, I'm getting paranoid again. Stupid zeitgeist.) Without adequate protection, the government could just walk all over us.

[sigh]

1. I've not noticed the government coming around to arrest us all and trample over our civil rights here, and we don't have guns. Ditto France, Italy, post-war Germany, etc. You live in a democracy, and it looks like it's going to remain a democracy. No sign of a right-wing coup d'etat looming. No sign of a police state. So yes, it is paranoia.

2. If the US government decides to take military action against you, it's not going to be a doughnut eating pally cop, it's going to be guys in kevlar, pilling out of APCs, with real weapons. They may just bomb the house. From miles away. Do you really think your crappy handguns are going to defend yourself against that? What do you want next - the right to own Apache attack helicopters? Tanks? Landmines?

 

[Architect]

How is "military grade weapons" defined? Or how do you define it?

Ranb

Usually by type of weapon and whether it has any reasonable civilian use. For example plenty of people need shotguns and hunting rifles for what are considered to be reasonable and lawful hunting. There is no form of hunting which requires an AK 47.

Legislation doubltess employs a more thorough definition.

 

[Architect]

I do not know a single person who was ever home when an intruder came in, never mind an armed intruder. The .

In all fairness, I once returned to the house whilst it was being burgled (not "burglarised", which isn't a real word) and ended up chasing the cuplrits out the back door, down the garden, over the wall, and into the park (where I lost them).

This being Britain, if I'd caught them there probably would have been a good kicking (I was intending to be the kicker, not the kicked). A very slim chance one of them might have a knife and I'd have had to leg it. But absolutely ◊◊◊◊ all chance anyone - on either side - would have a gun.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... snip ...

I do not know a single person who was ever home when an intruder came in, never mind an armed intruder. The only person I know who was shot, was shot when he pulled a gun on a person already pointing a gun at him (bar fight, I assume alcohol was involved). So much for that insurance. Probably would still be alive without it.

... snip ...

Man in court over woman's death
Children found mother 'beaten to death in her home by drunken burglar'
Burglars 'kicked woman to death'
Widow beaten for shoe money
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1955000/images/_1957517_olive300.jpg[/url]
Woman, 85, attacked in her home
Woman, 92, robbed in her hallway
Elderly woman viciously assaulted
'Horrendous' attack on pensioner
[url]http://newsurl.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44133000/jpg/_44133382_assault203.jpg[/url]
'Appalling' attack on 97-year-old
[url]http://newsurl.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39550000/jpg/_39550818_evelynjackson220.jpg[/url]
Pensioner attack suspect released
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38323000/jpg/_38323863_dorismarr300.jpg[/url]

There. Now you know 10.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There were a lot of furious protest marches orchestrated by a small but vocal minority who objected to having their pet pastime of setting dogs to rip apart foxes interfered with. They really did manage a very big splash, for such a small number of people (relatively speaking). I think being rich and well-organised and knowing how to play the system had a lot to do with it. There were a lot of posters as well, reading "Fight prejudice - fight the ban!"

...snip...

Please Rolfe these people also wanted to save all the hounds... since the moment the ban went into affect they would all have to shot (funny how they never mentioned how there never seems to be that many old pack hounds...). Also don't forget they wanted to save the rural economy which would collapse once the ban was passed as hunting with dogs was the only thing keeping the countryside going.

This is why the whole of the UK countryside is nowadays completely uninhabited and we all live in cities and towns and no one now dares venture out into the countryside now overrun overrun by packs of foxes.

 

[fagin]

Owning a gun for the purposes of self defense does not have to mean "gunning them down" I am not saying that you are limiting self defense gun uses to gunning people down, but it seems that some people on this forum think gun use is simply killing. A gun can be used to deter a criminal merely by brandishing it.

Ranb

I take issue with you on the idea of using a gun as a deterrent. Any professional handgun training will stress not drawing until you are ready to shoot, and not to shoot unless you are ready to kill. Unlike movies, in real life short barrelled guns are very very inaccurate. You don't aim for a hand or leg or head. You aim for the easy bit, the torso, and pump as many shells as possible as quickly as possible.

 

[fagin]

Hi


Man in court over woman's death
Children found mother 'beaten to death in her home by drunken burglar'
Burglars 'kicked woman to death'
Widow beaten for shoe money
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1955000/images/_1957517_olive300.jpg
Woman, 85, attacked in her home
Woman, 92, robbed in her hallway
Elderly woman viciously assaulted
'Horrendous' attack on pensioner
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44133000/jpg/_44133382_assault203.jpg
'Appalling' attack on 97-year-old
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39550000/jpg/_39550818_evelynjackson220.jpg
Pensioner attack suspect released
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38323000/jpg/_38323863_dorismarr300.jpg

There. Now you know 10.

Disingenuous. He meant personally. Not exactly a matter to get flippant over though.
And although I didn't read the links, a number seem old or very old. Hardly likely to get involved in gunfights.
These are tragedies, but how many would, or would not have happened if guns were common. How to tell?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Disingenuous. He meant personally. Not exactly a matter to get flippant over though.
And although I didn't read the links, a number seem old or very old. Hardly likely to get involved in gunfights.
These are tragedies, but how many would, or would not have happened if guns were common. How to tell?

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. He has one. I had 10. Anecdotes.

...and if you think for one moment that I'm being flippant about what happens during a home invasion, you haven't read many of my posts.

I notice that the PTB have taken down the pictures of what happened to a few of those poor old ladies.

Those particular anecdotes are too disturbing, I guess.

I intend to take steps if someone comes into my house intending to add me or my attractive, petite female house mates to that, "too disturbing anecdotes," list.

More anecdotes:

Woman Fends Off Home Intruder
Pistol-Packing Grandma Stops Would-Be Burglars
Babysitting grandma pulls gun on robber
Pistol-Packing Grandmother Shoots Intruder
Granny's Got a Gun ... and Uses It

There may be some duplication. It's pretty hard to find one of these things that hasn't been spun to cotton candy by both sides of the argument.

 

[fagin]

Hi




Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. He has one. I had 10. Anecdotes.

...and if you think for one moment that I'm being flippant about what happens during a home invasion, you haven't read many of my posts.

I notice that the PTB have taken down the pictures of what happened to a few of those poor old ladies.

Those particular anecdotes are too disturbing, I guess.

I intend to take steps if someone comes into my house intending to add me or my attractive, petite female house mates to that, "too disturbing anecdotes," list.

Apologies then - seemed a bit flippant to me, but I don't do smilies neither.
What actually happens is an escalation.
When I was very young, crime was a problem and we had bars on opening windows.
Fixed windows would be broken, and then we barred all windows, and doors.
Burglars started using crowbars and jacks to bend bars, so we installed alarms.
However as crime was quite high, and frequently violent, neighbours just ignored (and cursed) the noise, so we got radio alarms, with armed response services.
And electric fences, and immobilisers in our cars.
So instead thieves hi jack cars, and often as not shoot the occupants.
And either wait outside your house and hold you up when you open your gate. Get electric gates and they simply follow you in when you drive in.
And so on.
Sorry long point but I grew up with this.
And a 38 special.
Now in the UK I don't miss it a bit.
Your chances of being attacked etc are extremely remote - your solution paranoid and drastic. In my opinion.