2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

[Rolfe]

No. He had to kill someone who was trying to kill him. The littering is incidental.

The man was trying to kill him because he lost his temper. If there had been no gun available, the incident would inevitably have been quite low-key, and nobody would have got hurt. The possession and carrying of guns simply leads to trivial incidents escalating into this sort of tragedy.

Me neither. Who are these people of whom you speak?

You appear to care nothing for the man who lost his life over a momentary loss of cool. Which was fatal because he had a gun in his possession. So he was killed, the cop was seriously injured, and the cop had to live with the knowledge that he'd killed someone over a trivial loss of temper.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Unlike the OP I'm not scared as I go about my day that I feel the need to own a gun and I write this as someone who works in an obvious (and former) terrorist target.

What are you so frightened of that you need a gun? Do you not understand the risks? The chances of you being involved in a gun incident, even in the US, is exceptionally small while owning a gun increases other risks like accidental discharge in the home leading to a tragic death.

I've never understood this. I've asked in other threads, and posters have likened keeping a gun under their pillow to keeping a fire extinguisher in the house or in the car. They declare they're not scared, and that they never worry about an armed burglary, but why wouldn't you want to take whatever precautions you could? (Then they often start to rant about what they'd do to anyone who tried to rape their wife.)

To me, they're speaking Martian.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

I've never understood this. I've asked in other threads, and posters have likened keeping a gun under their pillow to keeping a fire extinguisher in the house or in the car. They declare they're not scared, and that they never worry about an armed burglary, but why wouldn't you want to take whatever precautions you could? (Then they often start to rant about what they'd do to anyone who tried to rape their wife.)

To me, they're speaking Martian.

Rolfe.

I think it is not so far from our mindset as it used to be, Rolfe. To me it seems to be a predictable consequence of an individualistic approach (for want of a better shorthand). I think we have been moving in that direction in the UK for quite some time: and that it will accelerate under the incumbent government. We appear to have become more frightened of each other: that is partly because encouraging the idea that there is an "underclass" furthers a political agenda: and when that agenda is put into practice it becomes self fulfillng in a sense. If you break the mutuality embodied and symbolised by a welfare state, you are in fact breaking the social contract, from one point of view. The trouble is that if you break it unilaterally you have to be either stupid enough not to realise that the "other side" will not continue to uphold their end of it: or rich enough to escape the consequences of that.

Without the sense that we have obligations to ourselves as a society, rather than as individuals only, we make ourselves targets for those we do not rate as "us": for that is a two-way street. So we can attack the poor in the name of low tax, or meritocracy, or the work ethic, or trickle down, or whatever other justification we wish to adopt. If we do that then more houses in Bearsden will get tanned. It takes time to do that kind of damage to a society which started where we were in 1948: and it is true that more houses will get tanned in Easterhouse (at least for some period: perhaps always). But relative poverty breeds crime, or so I believe: why would it not? You cannot behave in what to me are utterly immoral (though legal and smug) ways and expect those you deprive to stay upright. You cannot police away the consequences either. You can inculcate fear from not very much if that aids your political purpose: but in the end if we allow it the fear will be more real than it is now. And then these positions will make more sense to the UK ear. When we do then it is perfectly possible we will not even recognise that we live in fear: we will imagine we are responsible and realistic, or something

We are not there yet and I hope we never get there. But I am not confident

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There's also the fact that there are so many measures that work so much better than guns. Alarms you can wear on your person. Locking your doors, or installing iron bar doors inside your house. A panic room. Seriously, all you really need is a heavy door you can shut behind you and lock, and a phone line in there that you can use to call the cops. But instead, people opt for huge assault rifles that are many times more likely to kill a member of a household than a potential rapist, and which requires you to take a life while risking your own in a potential firefight. Boggles the mind.

I once discussed this on a forum with a guy who said he owned a gun for home defense. I suggested that locking your doors might be a better option than keeping a gun handy to take a life. He replied that no, he couldn't lock his door because that would appear unfriendly to the neighbours. Sigh.

It's as if they live in the Wild West with indians behind every bush, while at the same time living in a peaceful paradise where every defensive measure is hysterical.

 

[Rolfe]

About 15 minutes ago my doorbell rang. It was a neighbour, who noticed I'd left the front door ajar. It had been like that sonce about 6 o'clock, when I'd taken in the fish and eggs the fishman had left on the step for me, and intended to go back to greet a new neighbour who is moving in today. I didn't go back, and the door stayed open till 11.30.

I thanked the neighbour who took the trouble to ring the bell, and we both laughed that I was scarcely likely to receive unwanted visitors, but it had started to rain....

I hope we can go on like this.

Rolfe.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The man was trying to kill him because he lost his temper. If there had been no gun available, the incident would inevitably have been quite low-key, and nobody would have got hurt.

There's no way you could possibly know that. Without knowing why he did what he did, you can't even make an informed guess as to what might have happened. You're taking it completely on faith that the gun made him into an attempted murderer.

You appear to care nothing for the man who lost his life over a momentary loss of cool.

The quote you were responding to was my response to Safe-Keeper's insinuation that I only care about people that follow the law, which is not at all an accurate statement. I don't care whether he was or was not following the law. I care that he was trying to kill another human being.

I've "lost my cool" many times in my life and yet have managed to avoid ever attempting to kill another person. You're seriously downplaying his homicidal intent in your zeal to demonstrate that your way is right and ours is wrong. Someone who can't control their homicidal urges is probably not long for this world, whether they have a gun or not. I'm sorry if I don't lose a whole lot of sleep over it. My sympathies tend to lie with the victims, rather than the aggressors.

Which was fatal because he had a gun in his possession.

It may well have been fatal had he had a knife, a bottle, a pointy stick, or very small rocks, as well. There's no way to know, really. Unlike you, I'm not willing to take such assertions on faith.

So he was killed, the cop was seriously injured, and the cop had to live with the knowledge that he'd killed someone over a trivial loss of temper.

It's not "trivial" when it involves trying to kill another person. Whether he did so with a gun, another weapon, or his bare hands.

 

[ZirconBlue]

But instead, people opt for huge assault rifles that are many times more likely to kill a member of a household than a potential rapist, and which requires you to take a life while risking your own in a potential firefight. Boggles the mind.

As well it should, since it's a complete caricature of actual gun-owners.

 

[Travis]

How big is the black market for guns in the UK? Because in the US the gun black market is HUGE! Some estimate there may be over a hundred million or more undocumented and illegal guns in the US.

 

[zooterkin]

There's no way you could possibly know that. Without knowing why he did what he did, you can't even make an informed guess as to what might have happened.

I think we can guess that he wouldn't have responded by shooting the policeman, for a start.

 

[Baylor]

I think we can guess that he wouldn't have responded by shooting the policeman, for a start.

What might have happened not would not have happened.

 

[zooterkin]

What might have happened not would not have happened.

Welcome back! Are you going to respond to the other, more substantive, replies to your posts?

 

[Architect]

I doubt it.

 

[Fiona]

There's no way you could possibly know that. Without knowing why he did what he did, you can't even make an informed guess as to what might have happened. You're taking it completely on faith that the gun made him into an attempted murderer.

This is really my point, Zircon Blue. That is a default uk assumption:it is not absolutely correct, of course: the guy could have been Mr Bird. But he usually isn't,and so we act as if he is not. And that is the cultural divide which cannot be bridged. You cannot know either what would have happened if he had not had a gun. He did, and he was trying to kill someone. Each instance of that justifies your basic position, in your mind. And each instance of it justifies mine, in my mind. There is nothing at all we can do with that, and so far as I have seen from all the other gun threads nobody is ever going to change their mind. It is a peculiar difference but it is not amenable to argument because we do not even agree about which premises are relevant, so far as I can see

 

[Rolfe]

What might have happened not would not have happened.

Indeed. And yet your basic premise seems based on some wholly imaginary notion of what might have happened if random passers-by had been carrying guns when Derrick Bird went on his rampage.

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

About 15 minutes ago my doorbell rang. It was a neighbour, who noticed I'd left the front door ajar. It had been like that sonce about 6 o'clock, when I'd taken in the fish and eggs the fishman had left on the step for me, and intended to go back to greet a new neighbour who is moving in today. I didn't go back, and the door stayed open till 11.30.

I thanked the neighbour who took the trouble to ring the bell, and we both laughed that I was scarcely likely to receive unwanted visitors, but it had started to rain....

I hope we can go on like this.

Rolfe.

The majority of people in Britain do not I think live in neighbourhoods where it's advisable to leave their doors unlocked. But there is no call to arm the populace either, it's just a different mindset over here.

That said, there is the case of Tony Martin, the farmer who shot and killed a burglar at his farm and which provoked a lot of sympathy at the time.

The argument that he was defending himself against a crimewave which was failing to be tackled by the police was somewhat tempered by the fact he'd shot the intruder in the back and then bolted.

It seems to be pretty much the exception, as I can't recall too many cases since then, the only once recently we had a fairly long thread about was the burglar who was chased from the house he'd entered and beaten so badly he suffered permanent brain damage.

 

[GlennB]

This is really my point, Zircon Blue. That is a default uk assumption:it is not absolutely correct, of course: the guy could have been Mr Bird. But he usually isn't,and so we act as if he is not. And that is the cultural divide which cannot be bridged. You cannot know either what would have happened if he had not had a gun. He did, and he was trying to kill someone. Each instance of that justifies your basic position, in your mind. And each instance of it justifies mine, in my mind. There is nothing at all we can do with that, and so far as I have seen from all the other gun threads nobody is ever going to change their mind. It is a peculiar difference but it is not amenable to argument because we do not even agree about which premises are relevant, so far as I can see

Agreed. But it's that bolded part that bemuses me when arguing against popular gun ownership. The premise that "if you don't own a gun, you can't shoot anyone" seems spectacularly difficult to deny, imo.

 

[ZirconBlue]

This is really my point, Zircon Blue. That is a default uk assumption:it is not absolutely correct, of course: the guy could have been Mr Bird. But he usually isn't,and so we act as if he is not.

I agree that people usually do not attack police officers in such situations where they are unarmed. But, in the USA, people do not usually attack police officers in such situations, even if they are armed. It might be a reasonable assumption that he would have been less likely to attack had he not had a gun. Or that he would have been less likely to have been killed. But to extend that thinking to "the incident would inevitably have been quite low-key, and nobody would have got hurt," is absurd.

Do people in the UK never attack police officers? Do UK police officers never kill people? Even if the answers to both these questions were "yes, that never happens", it would not be logical to extend that as an absolute belief to this situation. Americans, both armed and undarmed, do occassionally attack police officers, and some of them end up dead as a result. Unless the assumption is that this guy was a UK citizen on holiday? Then, of course, he would never have gotten violent had the demon gun not made him do it.

And that is the cultural divide which cannot be bridged.

I disagree. I don't believe your position and mine are actually so far apart.

You cannot know either what would have happened if he had not had a gun. He did, and he was trying to kill someone. Each instance of that justifies your basic position, in your mind. And each instance of it justifies mine, in my mind.

I'm curious what you think my "basic position" is. I think you may be surprised at what has been assumed to be my position vs what my actual position is, and what position I've expressed in this thread.

There is nothing at all we can do with that, and so far as I have seen from all the other gun threads nobody is ever going to change their mind. It is a peculiar difference but it is not amenable to argument because we do not even agree about which premises are relevant, so far as I can see

Is one of your premises the belief that the mere possetion of a gun will turn otherwise normal, non-violent people into homicidal maniacs?

Indeed. And yet your basic premise seems based on some wholly imaginary notion of what might have happened if random passers-by had been carrying guns when Derrick Bird went on his rampage.

Which is also an absurd premise, btw.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Agreed. But it's that bolded part that bemuses me when arguing against popular gun ownership. The premise that "if you don't own a gun, you can't shoot anyone" seems spectacularly difficult to deny, imo.

Impossible to deny. (Well, unless you have another projectile weapon, like a bow.) But, just because you can't shoot anyone, doesn't mean you can't hurt or kill anyone:

. . . recently we had a fairly long thread about was the burglar who was chased from the house he'd entered and beaten so badly he suffered permanent brain damage.

And, yes, in anticipation of your response, I will concede that having a gun makes killing easier.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

As well it should, since it's a complete caricature of actual gun-owners.

"Actual gun-owners" is a fairly large demographic. Doesn't change the fact that there are nutcases who think this way.

 

[gtm]

Much like oral hygiene, the Brits haven't got a clue about gun rights. After that crazy taxi cab mother ****er shot a bunch of unarmed civilians, it's about time the U.K. thought about adopting its own 2nd Amendment-type gun rights legislation. How many more people have to die before the Brits start carrying guns?

We're generally drunker & more pugnacious that Americans & allowing us to get 'tooled up' would inevitably lead to every town centre being turned into the equivalent of Tombstone' every friday & saturday night.

In any case I'd rather stick with the once every 15 years rampage rather than have anything approaching the horrific gun related homicide rate you 'septics' have.