I haven't read this whole thread as it seemed to go nutso political real quick, but to answer the original question:
quote:What do you guys use for home/vehicle defense? Do any of you have a CCW permit?
I have:
a .22 Beretta Neos (league pistol)
a 9mm Beretta 92FS (soon to be league pistol)
a .45 Colt 1070XSE Gov't Model (home defense and hobby gun, eventual league pistol once I start reloading for it and I get another gun for home defense)
a .22 Rugar (NRA anniversary collector's type gun that doesn't get shot)
a .22 rifle (competition/plinking gun)
a SxS 12 ga, English stock, matte finish (beautimous )
And yes, I have my CHL.
...I'll have to come back when I have some more time and actually read this thread I think
--
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
I also agree with the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That should be part of your gun safety thinking. Keeping your finger off the trigger would prevent many if not all negligent discharge deaths and the ones it didn't the rule of not pointing the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy would take care of the rest. I wished every one believed in gun safety the way I do.
edit: Gosh we're on page two already? This was in reply to JKMabry's pic.
Most anti-gun stats are from the anti-gun side of things. In every U.S. state where it became easier to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun, violent crime went down. WAY down.
In countries where guns have been outlawed (or seriously restricted), crimes have gone up. WAY up.
Coincidence? I think not (although I'm sure the Brady Bill folks will say something to the contrary).
As most of you know, I have a law enforcement background. That includes nearly 15 years as a firearms instructor, and at least 10 as a defensive tactics instructor.
Do I RELY on a handgun? No. Like a mechanic, I have a box full of "tools". Some of those tools are "awareness", some are "training", and some are sharpened cold steel, and some are, well, just plain old projectile firing steel. Like others who've posted here, I've studied martial arts.
Folks - it's all mental. The last place you want to be "without a plan", is hip deep in sh!t. And you can get hip deep in it while minding your own business. It has a way of finding you.
And I'll leave you with this: Hitler instituted gun control. 'nuff said?
[edit: Not trying to take a shot at anyone, but I just ran across this quote:
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud
Gotta love Freud
--
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
Being in the UK, where hand guns are now banned, and it's bloody hard to get a license for anything else that one might possibly be able tyo keep around the home, and where it is a dire offence to even have a screwdriver to hand in one's car, I have to rely on my inability to restrain my psychosis when under threat...
To be honest, I have nothing of value that I would risk life or limb for either, but you've surely heard the phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle"?
I don't care about my possessions, but with a two year-old child in the house, if some scumbag was unfortunate enough to choose my humble abode as a target for invasion and robbery, I can almost guarantee that I would be defending myself against a charge of manslaughter/murder pretty soon afterward. I wouldn't bother with weapons - I think ripping a man's head off with one's bare hands is more defensible than stabbing him repeatedly.
Guns don't beget violence - that's like saying every man is a rapist because he's got an offensive weapon in his underwear. Since ownership of a handgun was made illegal in the UK, there are more illegally held guns in the country than ever in history - and every one of them owned by a reprehensible scumbag with no qualms about using them. Law-abiding citizens dutifully handed their own guns in - a friend of mine, sad to let his go at a fraction of the price he paid, made up a few thousand rounds to sell on to the police with his chromed, long-barrel Magnum .357. At ten pence a round, he managed to make up his losses on the weapon.
Of course, he still has his semi-auto Remme (legally owned too, of course), so he isn't too badly broken up about it all.
Well I guess if you're ok with someone coming in to your home killing your family and raping your dog and feel like you can somehow rationalize with an armed psychopath then you don't need a gun.
So, I tell you I have no use for a gun and you begin to tell me that I'm ok with someone killing my family and raping my dog? Yea ... I guess we can add you to the "ignorant little pissant" list.
Illegally owned guns were once legally owned by someone and somehow along the line they have become illegal or illegally owned.
So does that mean that, since handguns are illegal in the UK (if I understand correctly), that there are none there? <g>
Just for the record - I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. It is unlikely that I will ever own a gun.
However, it is purely silly to think that laws banning guns will make guns go away. It is purely silly to presume that guns lead to violence.
I also entirely fail to understand how training with and use of one type of weapon is acceptable, but a different type of weapon is not?
So does that mean that, since handguns are illegal in the UK (if I understand correctly), that there are none there? <g>
I don't think he means that at all. I took his statement to be a clear indication that all illegal weapons started off being legal weapons before changing hands into someone who is willing to sell or distribute them to criminals. Although the manufacturers might turn a blind eye, to the best of my knowledge no company is willingly making guns for the purpose of distribution among criminals.
However, it is purely silly to think that laws banning guns will make guns go away.
I disagree. Although I don't support the banning of all guns, if they were banned it would greatly reduce the amount of guns produced. It seems to be common sense that there's no reason to produce guns if people are not permitted to own them. If less guns are being produced it also seems reasonable that less guns will be stolen and sold illegally.
It seems to be common sense that there's no reason to produce guns if people are not permitted to own them.
Until you factor the whole "reality" thing into it
Look around - the proof is abundant that making something illegal does not reduce it's manufacture, sale, or use.
White Hawk, I think you are starting to rant there, perhaps?
quote:and where it is a dire offence to even have a screwdriver to hand in one's car, I have to rely on my inability to restrain my psychosis when under threat..
and
quote:Guns don't beget violence - that's like saying every man is a rapist because he's got an offensive weapon in his underwear
It seems to me from your post that you lament handguns being made illegal, is this so?
Just to remind you, we have recently been marking the tenth anniversary of the murder of sixteen children and one of their teachers in a small Scottish town called Dunblane, see this Guardian Report.
This quote that is being used here "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is almost meaningless. I know guns don't have little arms and legs and run around shooting people. The easier it is for some trigger happy nutter to get a gun, the more likely it is that we will witness further carnage from GUNS carried by people. You just would not get the same amout of harm without a firearm.
Pugzly, it's great to hear your views on this, I respect your experience in this matter. I am having a hard time trying to find reliable sources of statistics for the USA in the area you mention re; carrying guns and level of crime. Any links you could throw my way would be greatly appreciated.
quote: DL-44 said:
quote:Tao said:Illegally owned guns were once legally owned by someone and somehow along the line they have become illegal or illegally owned.So does that mean that, since handguns are illegal in the UK (if I understand correctly), that there are none there? <g>Just for the record - I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. It is unlikely that I will ever own a gun.However, it is purely silly to think that laws banning guns will make guns go away. It is purely silly to presume that guns lead to violence.I also entirely fail to understand how training with and use of one type of weapon is acceptable, but a different type of weapon is not?
Jestah has the correct interpretation of what I was saying
quote:I took his statement to be a clear indication that all illegal weapons started off being legal weapons before changing hands into someone who is willing to sell or distribute them to criminals.
I feel I also detect a <g>rin in the question. I think there are a lot less guns available now than if there had not been a ban.
Guns may not always lead to violence, but they sure as hell don't lead to flower arranging. Guns are made to kill people.
Training with nunchaku in martial art requires a lot of thought, concentration and balance. It is one of the reasons for using them that you [b[must[/b] apply all three or else you whack yourself about the head. Guns, you can just point and shoot and kill dozens of people. This for me is the difference.
I realise that banning guns will not make them go away, but that does not mean that we should carry on selling them. I know it is a different matter in the USA compared to the UK. The UK has always (well in recent history anyway) had stronger laws on firearms
Just before writing this I have been trying find as many reliable sources of facts regarding the ease of firearm ownership and crime (with the use of guns) in the USA UK and Europe. If anyone has any good links please send them to me, or post them up, that would be fab.
quote:I disagree. Although I don't support the banning of all guns, if they were banned it would greatly reduce the amount of guns produced. It seems to be common sense that there's no reason to produce guns if people are not permitted to own them
I'm going to have to disagree here. The drugs in America such as crack, cocaine, LSD, mary jane and many many more are illegal to possess and distribute are still very much being possessed and distributed here. And while some of them are very well cultivated or produced here such as meth or pot, many are imported. This leads me to believe that guns would also be brought in here. After all, not all guns made are made in the usa.
quote:Guns, you can just point and shoot and kill dozens of people.
While this is true in a sense, I'd be more confident in someone like Pugzly or Lord_Fukutoku taking the shot if I were turned into someones body shield rather than the other guy who thought he could just point and kill.
Gun control is a load of shite as could impedes your right to over throw the government should you need to which you all should (go!!), but that shouldn't mean people should be allowed to use guns for domestic protection or for entertainment or anywhere out of some type of governed militia. I don't really know but the NRA seems more like a company, i.e corruptable.
I could go on for ages, but I'd just be repeating stuff i've seen elsewhere.
Here in Ireland the police dont even have guns, only the army, who don't pursue civillian related matters like in the US. Now, it seems very stupid, an officer doesn't have a gun in a sticky situation, but people don't shoot police as they'll be found, and will get daily beatings for the rest of his life in jail should he get caught. Then there is the sort of criminal, the type who'd get guns no problem, need illegal guns for shooting other same level gansteresque criminals. Even in the US these types of criminals wouldn't be taken in in a shoot out, in a movie maybe, but police either leave that be because well, there's no incentive and those types will shoot police regardless of guns and probably go after family should they be taken in and they have to collect a lot of evidence to make a good case.
About the EU vs US crimerates, I think the simple comparison to the US and Canada is the best, the idealistic way to combat such crimes imho would be through sorting out the economy and improving the education system. Or making it impossible to own a gun unless you really really need it somehow, or are in a governed militia, a legal army of the people. (I'm not in anyway referring to the IRA or similar).
Tao - I do not lament the illegalisation of hand-guns for the loss of my freedom to own one, but for the simple fact that all this did was vastly reduce the number of legally held guns - it also increased the number of illegally held guns in this country.
I'm not ranting at all - seeing as the question posed by this topic was "what do you use for home/car defence?", I thought it appropriate to point out that even a small wooden stick will likely get you arrested and charged if you happen to be stopped by a particularly zealous copper in the UK.
As for the Dunblane bollocks - do you bother to watch the news at all? There have been far more then sixteen deaths attributed to illegal firearms in the last six months in the UK than were ever attributed to some delusional fuckwit with legally owned weapons. The major difference is that legally owned weapons could be traced easily to the owner!
With all due respect, Tao, I don't think you addressed my point at all. :P
TAO, Thats what would bridge the gap between a compact projectile weapon and melee, some mad nunchaku skills! Vote for Pedro.
The idea of a flash is a clever notion, until you consider the reaction...
<<< strobe flash >>> Your element of surprise...gone. If the intruders face was uncovered you have now backed them into a corner, fight or flight...but in this case fight, (and snatching that camera from your bloody hands) would ensue that flight would be safer. Knowing police response time sucks, you just started a clock in the intruders brain. Forcing a confrontation by relinquishing surprise and quadrupling the adrenal threat of your assailant, humm.
Go ninja, go ninja go...
The soft caress of a laser dot on center body mass would be a more effective deterrent.
Hugh is right that improving education and altering socioeconomic conditions would lead to an improvment in the crime issue. However, most of our young skulls full of mush here in the US cant seem to find some of our states. If not having a gun works for some of you and covers all possible scenario's imaginable, great...I'll keep my faith in chaos.
Sorry DL-44, I should have known you were tickling the funny bone. I appear to be all out of humour this week.
quote: Hugh said:
Gun control is a load of shite as could impedes your right to over throw the government should you need to which you all should (go!!),
This is a joke, right?
quote: White Hawk said:
Tao - I do not lament the illegalisation of hand-guns for the loss of my freedom to own one, but for the simple fact that all this did was vastly reduce the number of legally held guns - it also increased the number of illegally held guns in this country.
I think the illegalisation of hand guns was meant to reduce the number of guns held in this country. That was its main objective. So it is obvious that those that were still in circulation after the law was passed were then illegal. Gun club members or thugs.
quote: White Hawk also said
I'm not ranting at all - seeing as the question posed by this topic was "what do you use for home/car defence?", I thought it appropriate to point out that even a small wooden stick will likely get you arrested and charged if you happen to be stopped by a particularly zealous copper in the UK.
Yeah, the jails are heaving with "small stick" offenders.
There was also the "and where it is a dire offence to even have a screwdriver to hand in one's car," Oh really, not even a little rant?
quote:As for the Dunblane bollocks
So sixteen children murdered by the legally owned guns of a idiot is just bollocks for me to mention is it?
Listen, I know there is a lot more to this question of gun ownership legal or otherwise, and I'm trying to understand it as best I can. You say White Hawk, "I don't think you addressed my point at all. :P" What point?
moaiz, I'm really sorry I mentioned the nunchaku now. I knew (after I had posted) that I would get some riducule somehow for that, and you duly stepped up.
The senario you outline;
quote:The idea of a flash is a clever notion, until you consider the reaction...
<<< strobe flash >>> Your element of surprise...gone. If the intruders face was uncovered you have now backed them into a corner, fight or flight...but in this case fight, (and snatching that camera from your bloody hands) would ensue that flight would be safer. Knowing police response time sucks, you just started a clock in the intruders brain. Forcing a confrontation by relinquishing surprise and quadrupling the adrenal threat of your assailant, humm.
is a creation in your imagination, designed to mock me and make you feel good.
I should not have posted that suggestion, it has worked well for me in the past, it does not mean it would work for other people.
I really an sorry I posted in this thread at all, there are a lot of vicious minds out there who look for the worst in people.
I have already said what I think about guns. Guns are made to kill people, not sport not some innocent pastime. The fewer we have in our society the better. Just because it would be difficult to enforce is no reason not to have a ban. We can only make this world a better place if we try. It will take time and a lot of effort but it is not impossible.
Or is the human race so f***** up that violence and war is our means and our end? sigh
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-11-2006 08:53
Humans are a violent species. Just examine our past history.
We are violent with and without weapons, as history has shown.
Guns are just tools.
Humans tend to use available tools.
To achieve the best results, one should be taught how to use a tool properly. Having natural talent is also helpful. Having respect for ones tools and working hard to master them is a worthwhile endeavor.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Tao, i'm just busting your oysters over the issue...you pulled out the 'chuks twice in one thread and the jerk in me went for it. Besides, gun threads always go south. I know my views are askew but the underlying forces that would cause someone to put a gun in someone's mouth as a form of persuasion would do the same with a knife or a baseball bat. The difficulty for me is to see the issue of interpersonal violence being limited by or exclusive to guns when I have seen it expressed more often in other forms.
Tao: Not really a joke no, Americans are allowed guns primarily for that purpose.
While that was the original intent of the constitutiona; ammendment, it is hardly apt to describe the the present day.
I'm pretty sure an arsenal of handguns will do little to duisuade the airforce from dropping bombs on a revolutionary force, or the tanks from running them down
quote:I think the illegalisation of hand guns was meant to reduce the number of guns held in this country. That was its main objective. So it is obvious that those that were still in circulation after the law was passed were then illegal. Gun club members or thugs.
No - the moment it was no longer legal to own a hand-gun (which was always a pretty hard thing to achieve with the regulations that were in place anyway), it encouraged a massive increase in the black-market trade in illegal hand guns, while also making it harder to regulate gun ownership (harder... uh, yeah, it's f***ing illegal, so "impossible" would be apt). This isn't a surprise. This is not hard to understand either. I'm sure I can re-word this in several different ways for you, or find the official statistics. If you're still having trouble understanding what I've said, then I have no trouble going into greater depth...
quote:There was also the "and where it is a dire offence to even have a screwdriver to hand in one's car," Oh really, not even a little rant?
Uhhhh... are you in the habit of declaring people liars? I explained the intent of that statement already, but again, I can re-word this repeatedly until you understand...
...or, on second thoughts, forget it. I've got a migraine and a long, tough day under way, so I'm just feeling contrary. As far as I'm concerned, you can call me a liar, and you can deliberately misinterpret everything I say; it's something I've grown used-to in the Asylum, so it comes as no major surprise- even from you, Tao.
quote:Not trying to take a shot at anyone, but I just ran across this quote:
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud
That used to be my signature on forums!
quote:However, it is purely silly to think that laws banning guns will make guns go away.
Same thing happened with prohibition
quote:Although I don't support the banning of all guns, if they were banned it would greatly reduce the amount of guns produced.
I'm sure if we banned alcohol, there would be less drunk-driving. But that won't make the weekend BBQ drinkers any happier. You can't penalize the law abiding for the actions of the law breaking.
quote:Look around - the proof is abundant that making something illegal does not reduce it's manufacture, sale, or use.
Exactly. Look at the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban). It didn't reduce the number of weapons on the street. It merely made them more expensive. People paid a lot more for something. Dealers got rich.
quote:Guns, you can just point and shoot and kill dozens of people. This for me is the difference.
You could also drive your car into a crowd of people and have the same result. You can't blame the tool for the actions of the user. Doing so means you should put Budweiser out of business. And Ford. The misuse of their products kills a HECK of a lot of people (not picking on either company - just making an example). However, the PROPER use of their products is generally not hazardous. Handguns have their place, too. Competitive shooting, hunting, and self defense are all examples. And competitive shooting and hunting are BIG business.
User education goes a long way. First, I'm a firm believer in requiring education before purchasing a firearm. Now - I'm not saying you have to go through a class every time you want to buy one, but you should before you get your first one. In my state, you have to go through training in order to get a permit to carry a concealed pistol. But you don't have to go through training to buy one. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree with gun owners not being prosecuted for not reporting a gun theft. That's just wrong. And I'm all for the gun owner being held responsible for damages caused by his/her firearm - REGARDLESS of if they are the ones that did it (your son goes out and shoots someone, you're also responsible). Make sure that gun owners are properly storing firearms and thefts of firearms will plummet.
Many gun laws just don't make sense. The state of California outlawed the 50 caliber rifle. Yet, there is not a SINGLE reported crime involving one. NOT ONE!
quote:While this is true in a sense, I'd be more confident in someone like Pugzly or Lord_Fukutoku taking the shot if I were turned into someones body shield rather than the other guy who thought he could just point and kill.
Thanks for the confidence. Like I said above - training should be mandatory. I can't count the number of people I've talked to who apply for a CCW, and say they've owned a gun for years, have never fired it, and now want to carry it. And, when I get them on the range, they couldn't hit ground if they tried. Yes, that's scarey. But it doesn't warrant outlawing guns. It should warrant (more) required training.
quote:So sixteen children murdered by the legally owned guns of a idiot is just bollocks for me to mention is it?
No, it's not bullocks. It's truly tragic when those things happen. But let's look at WHY those people were killed, and the person who did it. Not how. Take away the "how", and the subject will just find another way. It won't preclude him/her from committing a crime.
quote:Forcing a confrontation by relinquishing surprise and quadrupling the adrenal threat of your assailant, humm.
Not only that, but in some jurisdictions, you might be crossing the line from victim to attacker. I won't go into legal issues like that here.
White Hawk, I'm sorry that you think I am calling you a liar:
quote:Uhhhh... are you in the habit of declaring people liars? I explained the intent of that statement already, but again, I can re-word this repeatedly until you understand...
...or, on second thoughts, forget it. I've got a migraine and a long, tough day under way, so I'm just feeling contrary. As far as I'm concerned, you can call me a liar, and you can deliberately misinterpret everything I say; it's something I've grown used-to in the Asylum, so it comes as no major surprise- even from you, Tao.
Here's the deal, you show me where I have called/declared you a liar, and I will beat myself about the head (and oysters) with my now infamous nunchaku, until I see the error of my ways agreed?
Pugzly, you said in response to my saying "So sixteen children murdered by the legally owned guns of a idiot is just bollocks for me to mention is it?"
quote:You could also drive your car into a crowd of people and have the same result. You can't blame the tool for the actions of the user. Doing so means you should put Budweiser out of business. And Ford. The misuse of their products kills a HECK of a lot of people (not picking on either company - just making an example). However, the PROPER use of their products is generally not hazardous. Handguns have their place, too. Competitive shooting, hunting, and self defense are all examples. And competitive shooting and hunting are BIG business.
Of course people can be killed my any number of things, I realise this. The difference is that cars are made for driving, alcohol for drinking, guns are made for the express purpose of killing (and perhaps, maiming).
I can only speak from an Englishmans point of view. I have not grown up in the USA in an environment where seemingly, guns are endemic. Our two cultures in this matter are vastly different, as far as I can see.
Guns for self defence?
Self defence from other people with guns I imagine. I am not mocking here, I really am trying to understand (in case there is any misinterpretation of my motives)
Competitive shooting and hunting? I feel like I am handing you a big bag of amunition here
Wouldn't you know it, Tao's a big vegetarian hippy fella and has been one for over thirty years. I cannot understand why people would want to kill a beautiful defenceless creature for pleasure. It does not just mystify me, it disgusts me.
OK, I know I have no right to take that "pleasure" away from other people just because I happen not to agree, but if those guns used for hunting were also regularly used in crime to kill or injure other people. I think it would be a small price to pay to forgo the hobby of killing little creatures, or popping holes in targets, if it meant making life for the rest of the population safer.
I know I am being idealistic. That is no reason to dismiss me. The laws of your country and mine at some point started off as ideals.
DL-44 and WebShaman, I think perhaps you are right. Our (Human) history shows what a bloodthirsty and malevolent species we are. Thanks for being gentle. I know I need to get myself back into the wilderness for a while. I've been spending too much time in the city.
Pugzly, you said in response to my saying "So sixteen children murdered by the legally owned guns of a idiot is just bollocks for me to mention is it?" quote:You could also drive your car into a crowd of people and have the same result. You can't blame the tool for the actions of the user. Doing so means you should put Budweiser out of business. And Ford. The misuse of their products kills a HECK of a lot of people (not picking on either company - just making an example). However, the PROPER use of their products is generally not hazardous. Handguns have their place, too. Competitive shooting, hunting, and self defense are all examples. And competitive shooting and hunting are BIG business.Of course people can be killed my any number of things, I realise this. The difference is that cars are made for driving, alcohol for drinking, guns are made for the express purpose of killing (and perhaps, maiming).
I take offense to that. Ever go skeet shooting? Target shooting? Competitive shooting? No killing and maiming there. And while hunting might technically fit the "killing" comment, I would think that the food it creates offsets that.
quote: Tao said:
I can only speak from an Englishmans point of view. I have not grown up in the USA in an environment where seemingly, guns are endemic. Our two cultures in this matter are vastly different, as far as I can see.Guns for self defence?Self defence from other people with guns I imagine. I am not mocking here, I really am trying to understand (in case there is any misinterpretation of my motives)Competitive shooting and hunting? I feel like I am handing you a big bag of amunition here Wouldn't you know it, Tao's a big vegetarian hippy fella and has been one for over thirty years. I cannot understand why people would want to kill a beautiful defenceless creature for pleasure. It does not just mystify me, it disgusts me.OK, I know I have no right to take that "pleasure" away from other people just because I happen not to agree, but if those guns used for hunting were also regularly used in crime to kill or injure other people. I think it would be a small price to pay to forgo the hobby of killing little creatures, or popping holes in targets, if it meant making life for the rest of the population safer.I know I am being idealistic. That is no reason to dismiss me. The laws of your country and mine at some point started off as ideals. DL-44 and WebShaman, I think perhaps you are right. Our (Human) history shows what a bloodthirsty and malevolent species we are. Thanks for being gentle. I know I need to get myself back into the wilderness for a while. I've been spending too much time in the city.::tao:::: ::cell::
Self defense often involves weapons other than firearms. Or no weapons at all. I certainly wouldn't bring a knife to a knife fight. I bring the tools to get the job done with the least amount of potential for harm for myself and those I choose to protect. Sometimes, those are words, sometimes they are my Nike Air tennis shoes. And sometimes, they are large bore jacketed hollowpoints travelling well in excess of 800 feet per second.
You see, I'm not naive enough to think that the local law guys are going to always be there exactly when I need them. And the same for the man upstairs. Sometimes, good people are placed in bad situations through no fault of their own. Removing the basic human right of self defense - the right that every living being has, doesn't make sense.
While I won't argue the vegetarian angle, keep in mind that hunting is often FAR more humane than the slaughter house that some animals face before hitting the dinner table. And the appreciation and enjoyment of a meal gathered through hunting is quite extraordinary.
And, while you're on the "wrong" side of the pond, this country (U.S.) was built and defended by people who carried guns. And still is. And the founding documents of our government are rife with proof. And statistically, giving law abiding people more freedom with firearms makes the world a safer place. I can provide many stories to prove this theory.
Pugzly, I would like to answer your comments first.
quote:I take offense to that. Ever go skeet shooting? Target shooting? Competitive shooting? No killing and maiming there. And while hunting might technically fit the "killing" comment, I would think that the food it creates offsets that.
It matters a lot to me that you have taken offence Pugzly, that was not my intention. I accept that shooting at targets is not "killing and maiming", and I want to come back to this in a moment.
As it happens, I have never heard of skeet shooting so I searched online and found the National Skeet Shooting Association. On the first page I noticed this;
quote:?Stolen Shotguns. The following shotguns where stolen from a vehicle off the National Shooting Complex during the South Western Grand.
Browning XT, 30 inch barrels SN: 10583MV131.
Browning XT, 32 inch barrels SN: 01313MV131.
Both shotguns had adjustable combs and were in a black heavy duty travel case.
This is an example of what I mentioned earlier about legally owned guns quickly becoming illegal and getting into the wrong hands.
quote:Self defense often involves weapons other than firearms. Or no weapons at all. I certainly wouldn't bring a knife to a knife fight. I bring the tools to get the job done with the least amount of potential for harm for myself and those I choose to protect. Sometimes, those are words, sometimes they are my Nike Air tennis shoes. And sometimes, they are large bore jacketed hollowpoints travelling well in excess of 800 feet per second.
I agree with all but the last sentence about the hollowpoints.
quote:You see, I'm not naive enough to think that the local law guys are going to always be there exactly when I need them. And the same for the man upstairs. Sometimes, good people are placed in bad situations through no fault of their own. Removing the basic human right of self defense - the right that every living being has, doesn't make sense
I did not say anything about removing the basic human right of self defence. I used to teach self defence with martial arts.
quote:While I won't argue the vegetarian angle, keep in mind that hunting is often FAR more humane than the slaughter house that some animals face before hitting the dinner table. And the appreciation and enjoyment of a meal gathered through hunting is quite extraordinary.
I agree that animals kept and bred for the slaughter house in factory farms have a horrific life and death. That is one of the main reasons I am vegetarian.
While I'm sure the meat "gathered through hunting is quite extraordinary", my belief is to only kill what you need in order to live, and no more. As the shelves in most shops and supermarkets are heaving with produce, there is no need to kill a wild animal, no need at all.
quote:And, while you're on the "wrong" side of the pond, this country (U.S.) was built and defended by people who carried guns. And still is. And the founding documents of our government are rife with proof. And statistically, giving law abiding people more freedom with firearms makes the world a safer place. I can provide many stories to prove this theory.
That was then and this is now, the world has changed.
A great part of the wealth of the USA and the UK was made with and through slavery. It took a long time for that barbarism to be outlawed but through time and effort it was. It was with guns that the native American was almost wiped out and the British Empire spread, stomping on the cultures it invaded.
Things change in the world and the times and tides of man. I don't believe firearms make the world a safer place. If they did, we should be living in a kind of paradise now.
I have tried over the past few days to research statistics relating to firearms and crime, but as you know, people can bend stats for their own advantage and I have not yet been astute enough to sift the wheat from the chaff. I still intend to read more on the matter but for now I can not devote any more time to it.
Perhaps in the USA firearms will make your part of the world a safer place. As I have said I don't know, I can only ask questions, read the opinions, study the stats and listen to people who know more about these things than I.
I believe the fewer firearms in circulation the better it will be for society. We will still need the military and law enforcement agencies to be well armed for a long time yet, I am not that idealistic. If that means a small proportion of our population are going to have to find something else to do on their days off so be it, it is a small price to pay. Just because someting is hard to do does not mean we should not do it.
I hope no-one takes offence at my words, there should be no reason to. I am not anti-American or anti-British. I am just trying to understand and offer what I think is the best solution.
I believe the fewer firearms in circulation the better it will be for society.
That statement on its own, I agree with 100%.
However, the basic fact remains that making guns illegal only removes them from law abiding citizens. The criminals will always have a way to get the guns, plain and simple. This fact will not go away. History proves this.
From: 100101010011 <-- right about here Insane since: Mar 2000
posted 05-12-2006 23:03
quote:
Look around - the proof is abundant that making something illegal does not reduce it's manufacture, sale, or use.
This I think refers mainly to drugs and is a bit disengenous, it would be a bit harder to get across the border with $10K in AK-47s wrapped in a condom and shoved up your backside.
This I think refers mainly to drugs and is a bit disengenous
Not at all.
Are drugs the only things that are illegal? Hardly. Are they the only illegal things that people still end up owning? hardly.
I'm fairly certain there are plenty of weapons out there right now that made there way into the country illegally.
Did vats of moonshine go across the border up someone's ass? Hardly
Drug smuggling may be what you equate with my statement, but it is only one small example, confined to one small aspect of the present day. There's a whole bigger picture to look at
I've got to respect your stance, Tao, but I still think that banning legally held guns in the UK made no difference to- or even adversely influenced gun crime in the UK. If the issue of illegal firearms was to be addressed properly, then something much grander than simply restricting the use of legally held hand guns would have to be in order.
I'm always harping on about less enlightened eras of man-kind, and I thoroughly believe we have a bloody long way to go before we even begin to figure things out. Firearms will be a part of human society, in warfare and in peace-time, just as any other type of weapon, while certain drives and inequities continue to exist.
In a way; to ban weapons of any sort (let alone hand guns) and reasonably expect this to make a substantial difference to weapons/violence-related crimes, one might presume to change something fundamental in human nature (and perhaps nature itself) in the process.
When it comes down to it, I can make a weapon of each of my limbs, my head, my hands and feet, my teeth, nails, elbows and knees, and practically anything that can be picked-up, shoved, swung, or jabbed with. If I was intent on a violent act, whether criminally or in defence, then weapons bans are unlikely going to make a difference.
Of course, I'm not addressing the issue of ease. To kill a man with my hands would require passion (hate, fear, motivation), courage (or audacity), the physical capacity to achieve it, and no small amount of effort...
posted 05-09-2006 00:59
::cell::
)
