Gun controll?

[fagin]

Eh? Come again? You have us marrying our cousins now? What are you talking about? If there has been no poll or actual analysis of this narrow issue, which you represent as universal in truth with respect to the UK, how do you know it is true? Maybe you're right; people don't think about it because it is not regarded as a problem or issue. That's not the point. It was represented that everyone in the UK was of singular opinion on the issue. I wonder if that is true? I wonder if a proper poll where conducted, how many might have a contrary opinion once the issue was actually considered. This is not for purposes of advocating a change in your gun laws; it is really just a questioning of the theory that all UK citizens, or a majority exceeding, let's say, 90%, would agree with you and your friends here? If you can get even 85%, I would concede you the point. You say there is no discussion on the matter; perhaps there should be. I just find it amusing that so many skeptically minded people are willing to make bold statements regarding everyone else's opinions without any proffer of some scientific/statistical basis. The mere fact of your legislation is not a qualification; I want to see the universal mind you allege to be at play here on this issue. By the way, I haven't attempted at insults as against the UK, nor would I as I greatly enjoy that country and its people. Appreciate it if you would extend us the same courtesy.

Sorry about the cousins - feeble UK humour.
But seriously - just because you think guns are important, why should we?
Should we poll everything controlled- maybe everyone should have free access to all drugs, why should they have to be prescribed by a doctor?
And I'm sure there a a million other things we could poll - it just isn't an issue, any more than whether we should pay for prescriptions is to you.
How hard is it to understand - it is just not part of the psyche here - excuse spelling?

 

[Rolfe]

Also insurers insure against things that do happen sometimes, as opposed to never happen,....

I don't think you can say it never happens.

Most of the incidents I've come across have concerned victims who were already involved with the criminal fraternity however, and it happening to innocent middle-class householders seems to be very rare.

I did however watch Crimewatch the other night (as the alternative was the egregious Kathy Sykes, who gies me the dry boak). The main presentation concerned an incident of what the US posters would call "home invasion", though we don't actually have a word for it because it's so rare. A very very rich couple living in a huge house in Surrey with a swimming pool and all the trimmings were subjected to a break-in by two armed thugs, who forced the husband to open the safe so they could swipe the expensive watches and jewellery. The thugs knew these things were there because they'd had the couple under observation and seen them wearing them.

I have no idea whether the home-owner could have prevented this if he'd had a gun. Certainly only if the gun were already loaded and beside his bed. Even then, I doubt it, as the thugs burst into the bedroom while the couple were asleep. However, I don't know.

What I do know is first, such incidents are very rare indeed. And second, that nobody ever suggests that arming all householders is a measured way to respond to this threat. Not even in the pages of the most rabid right-wing tabloid is any such suggestion ever made.

Such a response is in no way equivalent to taking out an insurance policy. It would require a complete change in our whole society, and our whole attitude to guns. It is in effect a suggestion that Britain should become like the USA as regards firearms attitudes and firearm prevalence. And I can assure you that the vast majority of people in Britain view that prospect with some horror.

Rolfe.

PS. The main concern with that TV reconstruction was the apparent absence of proper home security. The robbery took quite a bit of time. Quite long enough for the cops to get there, probably before the safe was opened. Why there was no evidence of a burglar alarm I really don't know. When we bought our present house, in a village where there has been no recorded burglary at all for the past 25 years at least, there was a full alarm system fitted which connects to the police station and triggers an alarm at the actual police station if there is a burglary. In addition the system has panic buttons which can be set off by hand if thieves somehow manage to circumvent the automatic system. This was fitted because the previous owner was a golf professional who kept expensive golf equipment in the house and garage. (We had it downgraded to just an ordinary house alarm, because we didn't want the police called by accident and we considered the probability of an actual burglary low enough that we didn't need the high security system.) I have no idea at all why a couple in such an opulent house with so many valuable possessions didn't seem to have such a system.

 

[fagin]

So your position is that deadly attacks/rapes/horrible assaults never happen in the home? If the person becomes a liability, here anyway, the insurance is cancelled, it's that simple.

Occaisionally they do. Whether having a firearm would help is debatable. We don't see as need to debate it or believe me some rag would make a campaign about it.
And here insurance is compulsory for cars - you don't have it you don't drive, simple as that.
I think that's good - want a poll on it.
Maybe the US should poll compulsory insurance - far more sensible than trying to turn aunt May into Rambo.

 

[fagin]

And we have a big brother computer system - all vehicles are on it, with insurance details - police cars have cameras and can recognise vehicles without insurance by the registration. You get a big fine and they crush the car. Problem solved.

 

[Stout]

Rolfe...would the Columbine Shooters classify as juveniles ( 17 & 18 ) ? I'm curious as I don't know what constitutes a juvenile. I'm unsure how close these guys were to a criminal fraternity, not too close I suspect as the people who did the straw purchases were 1) one of the guy's dates, and 2) some guy they'd just met.

I'll take your word for it that these type of incidents are more prevalent in the US. We've only had one of these incidents in Canada that I can recall ( Taber Alberta ) but foe every 1 in Canada, I'd expect 10 in the US due to the population differences.

The Canadian tactic is to reduce access too. For instance we can't buy any "scary looking guns" but we can buy semi automatic sporting rifles...no LCMs though. When i asked about this in the gun store last year, the guy behind the counter said that the Canadian government's strategy was just this side of idiotic and they should have solicited the opinions of "people who know guns" rather than relying on appearance alone. Australia ( IIRC ) has banned all semi automatic rifles.

I understand the US approach. wasn't in Robert Heinlein who said "An armed society is a polite society" ? I follow the reasoning, I just have a hard time accepting it seeing as how I've never actually lived in the US. From my Canadian perspective I would tend to side with the idea that an armed society is a paranoid society myself.

I agree that gun control in the US is a very sensitive affair and were the US to decide that they, as a society , wanted to disarm, then I figure it would take generations to achieve it

 

[Rasmus55]

Sorry about the cousins - feeble UK humour.
But seriously - just because you think guns are important, why should we?
Should we poll everything controlled- maybe everyone should have free access to all drugs, why should they have to be prescribed by a doctor?
And I'm sure there a a million other things we could poll - it just isn't an issue, any more than whether we should pay for prescriptions is to you.
How hard is it to understand - it is just not part of the psyche here - excuse spelling?

Sort of avoiding the issue here. I am not advocating a change in the UK gun laws. I also did not say I thought UK residents should think guns important. It is your country and society; it is your right to govern yourselves as you wish. I support you in your democracy 100% regardless of whether I agree with any particular laws you may enact.

By the way, self defense using deadly force in the home does not have to be a gun by the way; it could be a knife, a bat, a candlestick, whatever. The fact is that it is deadly force no matter how applied under the fact pattern.

What I am challenging here is the position adopted by some on these boards who exhibit great skepticism in other areas and demand proof, etc yet are willing to take a universal position on this issue without any offer of proof regarding the opinions of all or a very, very large majority of UK citizens. We could poll many things, but it is your position that we are examining here; and that position is that all UK citizens are of a like mind that using a firearm (or really any deadly force for that matter) in the case of personal self defense in the home when faced with the threat of deadly force is never a justified regardless of the circumstances. I think that, unless proof is offered, you have made a guess that aligns with your own opinion on the subject. Do we not criticize others in other areas of the site for the exact same thing?

 

[fagin]

I believe that there are more guns per capita in Switzerland than the US. Every man is a member of the army and has a rifle.
But minimal gun crime.
And they are invariably polite.

But Heinlein said a lot of things, mainly to do with kinky sex. I loved him as a kid.

 

[Garrette]

As I understand it, even in the US if you blow someone away who is not actually aiming a gun at you, it isn't really acceptable?

There is no all-encompassing answer. Self-defense laws are state issues, not federal ones. They are, however, remarkabley similar in that at least most and possibly all allow basically for deadly response (by whatever means) if there were a reasonable expectation of loss of life, limb, or eye. [In Kentucky there is still a law on the books allowing deadly force to prevent arson].

"Reasonable expectation" is left intentionally vague, allowing for interpretation on the facts of the individual case. It might not be reasonable for me to expect loss of life or limb when faced with an unarmed, untrained, hefty man of 6 feet. On the other hand, it might be entirely reasonable for my 74 year old mother who stands less than 5 feet to do so. Hence, in identical circumstances--regardless if the assailant is armed or not--one person might have a successful argument for self defense while the other does not.

 

[Rasmus55]

Occaisionally they do. Whether having a firearm would help is debatable. We don't see as need to debate it or believe me some rag would make a campaign about it.
And here insurance is compulsory for cars - you don't have it you don't drive, simple as that.
I think that's good - want a poll on it.
Maybe the US should poll compulsory insurance - far more sensible than trying to turn aunt May into Rambo.

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.

 

[fagin]

Sort of avoiding the issue here. I am not advocating a change in the UK gun laws. I also did not say I thought UK residents should think guns important. It is your country and society; it is your right to govern yourselves as you wish. I support you in your democracy 100% regardless of whether I agree with any particular laws you may enact.

By the way, self defense using deadly force in the home does not have to be a gun by the way; it could be a knife, a bat, a candlestick, whatever. The fact is that it is deadly force no matter how applied under the fact pattern.

What I am challenging here is the position adopted by some on these boards who exhibit great skepticism in other areas and demand proof, etc yet are willing to take a universal position on this issue without any offer of proof regarding the opinions of all or a very, very large majority of UK citizens. We could poll many things, but it is your position that we are examining here; and that position is that all UK citizens are of a like mind that using a firearm (or really any deadly force for that matter) in the case of personal self defense in the home when faced with the threat of deadly force is never a justified regardless of the circumstances. I think that, unless proof is offered, you have made a guess that aligns with your own opinion on the subject. Do we not criticize others in other areas of the site for the exact same thing?

I understand what you are saying, just that it isn't practical or feasible.
We can't categorically state that the majority of UK residents don't want guns, we can just state that it never seems to come up.
Perhaps in our 'circles' only?
If there was any support at all though, I would expect some politician, or newspaper to bring it up and use it. They don't. Nobody seems to care.
(You will note I am now a bit more vague, to satisfy your sceptical nature)
There are more important problems facing us I think.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

As I said, alowing every citizen to keep a loaded gun by the bed would involve such a sea-change in this society that you can't simply compare it to taking out an insurance policy.

Much more comparable would be a high-specification home security system such as I described. Make the house hard to get into, and make sure the alarm directly alerts the local police station if a break-in happens. I certainly think people should be investing in something of that nature if they're concerned, way before any thoughts about guns.

Rolfe.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yes.

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

The Снайперская винтовка Драгунова (Snayperskaya Vintovka Dragunova)


The Smith and Wesson Mode 3, "Schofield"

(Picture courtesy of Uberti Arms.)



Some own them because they're fun.

Cowboy Action Shooting

(Picture, courtesy of Cutter's Raiders of the Single Action Shooting Society)

Bowling Pin Shoots

(Rules. Picture courtesy of the Marion County Fish & Game Association)



Some own them because they're handy.

Woman Shoots Intruder, And It's Recorded On 911 Call
(from KSDK News and Information)

74-year-old Scottsdale woman shoots at persistent intruder
(from The East Valley Tribune)



Some own them because they're rare and valuable.

Orvis Uplanders (very light wt.)- made by AYA in Spain in 1970’s

(from The Ithaca Gun Collection. Price reduced to $12,950)

Metzger-Sanders Gun Collection




Some own them for hunting.

The True Story of the Great Hinchinbrook Bear

(story from Black Bear Heaven, pictures from Snopes)

11-year-old Alabama Boy Bags Wild Hog Bigger Than 'Hogzilla'

(from breitbart.com/)


I don't know anyone that NEEDS one.

If you do NEED a gun, and you don't already have one, you're already too late.

 

[fagin]

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.

I think we have all seen a few too many movies.
Firstly the average person would need to be highly trained to make any difference, and where do you keep it - would have to be holstered at all times - under the pillow is no good if someone breaks in while you are in the lounge. But under the pillow is an excellent place for your child to find it.
Have to practice the quick draw regularly.
In my humble opinion more of a liability than anything else.

 

[richardm]

I believe that there are more guns per capita in Switzerland than the US. Every man is a member of the army and has a rifle.
But minimal gun crime.

Actually I think I'm right in saying that after a spate of Swiss shootings -mostly suicides taking out the rest of their family while they're busy - the army is recalling the ammunition that gets stored at home. Even before that it was stored in a sealed tin that you weren't supposed to open on pain of jail. Someone more knowledgeable can correct me.

By the way, self defense using deadly force in the home does not have to be a gun by the way; it could be a knife, a bat, a candlestick, whatever. The fact is that it is deadly force no matter how applied under the fact pattern.

Much easier with a gun, though, eh?

that position is that all UK citizens are of a like mind that using a firearm (or really any deadly force for that matter) in the case of personal self defense in the home when faced with the threat of deadly force is never a justified regardless of the circumstances. I think that, unless proof is offered, you have made a guess that aligns with your own opinion on the subject. Do we not criticize others in other areas of the site for the exact same thing?

Well, anecdotal evidence ahoy:

On the odd occasions when someone does defend their home with a firearm, they will be investigated by the police to make sure that it was defence and not just a ploy to shoot somebody. What tends to happen during this process is that the (let's face it) right-wing press loudly bemoans the fact that the rights of a homeowner to shoot burglars is being infringed by mincing liberals.

But what I have never ever seen demanded by the press is that gun ownership should be extended so that more homeowners can shoot burglars. And I think that does speak volumes in support of Rolfe's point.

 

[Stout]

I believe that there are more guns per capita in Switzerland than the US. Every man is a member of the army and has a rifle.
But minimal gun crime.

True...But the situation is different with the Swiss. These guys are issued sealed boxes of ammunition which are subject to random inspections by military personnel. Of course, this has no bearing on whether the weapon is used in a suicide, and I find myself wondering whether these weapons are used in domestic assaults ( or other crimes of passion )

Suffice to say, the Swiss aren't walking around with loaded weapons that they can access and discharge within a matter of seconds and given the way they're stored, they wouldn't be useful for home defense either.

I wonder how many of these weapons end up stolen in burglaries?

I figure the Swiss weapons are more comparable to sporting weapons than 2nd Amendment weapons.

 

[Rolfe]

If there was any support at all though, I would expect some politician, or newspaper to bring it up and use it. They don't. Nobody seems to care.

Exactly. There are plenty rabid right-wing tabloids about whom I would expect to be hammering that one for all it was worth if they thought there was a constituency to support the position. Nary a syllable. They do occasionally mouth off about restoring the death penalty, because they know there are people who would support that move, however never a word about gun ownership.

They did try to whip up support for Tony Martin as I recall, the farmer who killed a burglar with his shotgun. Mr. Martin had been persecuted by local youths breaking into his house (and I note that the fact he had a gun didn't seem to be putting them off). He lay in wait for them one night and shot and killed one of them.

It came out in court that if the gun had been legally stored, and he'd managed to get his hands on it in the heat of the moment and had shot the guy while he was being physically attacked, he would have been acquitted. However, the fact that he'd boasted in the pub the week before about how he was going to shoot the guys if they came back was strong evidence of premeditation. And the fact that the young man who was killed was shot in the back while running away completely killed his case.

At the time there was a great deal said about the right of home-owners to defend themselves, some of it quite inflammatory. But still, not one single voice raised to promote the cause of universal bedside gun-toting. Not a syllable.

I think it may be difficult for someone living in a culture where guns and the "right" to carry them are worshipped as they seem to be in the USA to appreciate how it is here, and how certain we are that this, of all things, just isn't an issue.

Rolfe.

 

[JonathanClement]

That's been my experience with the Canadian ( urban at least ) attitude. We fail to see the wisdom of allowing our citizens to own guns like TEC9s and AR-15s when we all know their sole purpose is to put as many holes in as many people as fast as possible.

You gotta wonder why people feel a need for weapons like this. really if home defense is your thing, then a simple shotgun would do the trick quite nicely and it's my opinion that people who do own assault rifles and pistols are just itching to use them for their intended purpose.

Am I wrong on this ? Do people own offensive anti-personnel weapons with large capacity magazines just because they think they're "cool" ?

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.

 

[Gagglegnash]

... snip ... What tends to happen during this process is that the (let's face it) right-wing press loudly bemoans the fact that the rights of a homeowner to shoot burglars is being infringed by mincing liberals.

But what I have never ever seen demanded by the press is that gun ownership should be extended so that more homeowners can shoot burglars. And I think that does speak volumes in support of Rolfe's point.

Mincing liberal press, possibly?

 

[Rasmus55]

As I said, alowing every citizen to keep a loaded gun by the bed would involve such a sea-change in this society that you can't simply compare it to taking out an insurance policy.

Much more comparable would be a high-specification home security system such as I described. Make the house hard to get into, and make sure the alarm directly alerts the local police station if a break-in happens. I certainly think people should be investing in something of that nature if they're concerned, way before any thoughts about guns.

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.

 

[Rolfe]

I believe that there are more guns per capita in Switzerland than the US. Every man is a member of the army and has a rifle.
But minimal gun crime.
And they are invariably polite.

But Heinlein said a lot of things, mainly to do with kinky sex. I loved him as a kid.

As I recall, there was quite a bit of information in an earlier thread about Switzerland, including the fact that "minimal gun crime" isn't the case now, if it ever was. There seems to be quite some concern about the number of guns about and their accessibility.

There was also more information about the situation. It's not every man, it's men between certain ages. And they have to keep the guns unloaded and secure, with only the statutory state issue of ammunition, which must be kept in a sealed packet and not opened. This is inspected regularly. Nevertheless, concern about escaping guns, and the use of army guns in suicides, is currently an issue.

I haven't noticed the Swiss any more polite than any other nation really, except that they obviously welcome tourists. However, given the very tight restrictions on these army guns, I don't think the guns are to be credited with any excess politeness there may be.

I read a lot of Heinlein as a teenager. I thought he was a dirty old man. I treated the "armed society" stuff as imaginative fiction, I had no idea he was portraying his idealised version of US society. I found it abhorrent. The false, insincere "politeness" of someone who is genuinely afraid that you might pull a gun and kill or maim him if you think he's "disrespected" you is something I can live without.

Rolfe.