Any point in guns for self defence?


PDA






sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 11:02 AM
Really what is the point in home defence guns or concealed carry. None whatsoever.

the two reasons being 1/ burgulars and 2/ terrorists

1/ why? its higly unlikely if u find a burgular in ur house he is going to increase his crime to murder, assult maby but hardly murder. (that is if you are actually burgaled and meet the burgular)

2/ this is probally the most stupied reason i've ever heard im my life...i mean the thought that people can be so stupied to think a terrorist is going to pay them a personal visit is insanity, i mean really, can you really hear yourself saying that? who would go to the bother to go to americans homes to kill them for terrorisum, or that you are going to see them in the street about to shoot people! stay vigilant...for what! it is really, so,so laughable. has the been any terrorist shootings after 9/11- masacures in the streets? i bet some of the people here got loaded up after the washington sniper, haha, the thought of it! i mean come on ppl are you really thing an apocolypse with therrorist is someing, you look out to the ocean and a D-Day II armada on the beaches?

If you enjoyed reading about "Any point in guns for self defence?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ACP230
December 13, 2003, 11:09 AM
Please refer to the thread above on Islamic propaganda films featuring Westerners kidnapped and killed to order.

Car jackings are another reason to carry concealed. There have been several foiled lately by armed Americans, including one in my own state.

From the tone of your post you appear to be among the intellectually unarmed, but perhaps there is still some slim hope.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 11:15 AM
yea, i did read it which was what promted me to start this post. In your own state you say, oh my god, are you ok, i mean that could of been so easliy you! you should really get better armed after that near miss.

stay vigilant!

Beren
December 13, 2003, 11:20 AM
Let's try to keep this friendly. :)

Sasnofear: are you genuinely interested in a discussion on whether or not one's life is worth defending, or are you throwing mud?

I carry a firearm because it's the third most-effective means of defense available to me. What are the first two means?

1. Situational awareness - stay out of trouble or leave before it starts, if you can.

2. Running shoes - get away from a bad situation, if you can.

Sometimes, though, you're stuck in a bad spot and running away either isn't possible or is sure to get you badly hurt - possibly even killed. Do you feel that you have a duty to allow another person to seriously injure you, or even kill you, if they want to do so? Do you feel that you have a duty to "wait and see" if the person threatening you with a deadly weapon really will smack you over the head with the tire iron?

I don't. I value my life, and I'm willing to defend it against unwarranted aggression. You may not feel the same as I do, and that's fine - whether to use force in self-defense is, as with many things, a very personal decision.

Kamicosmos
December 13, 2003, 11:23 AM
Are you actually in North Ireland? And you honestly don't think things like terror attacks and military invasion/occupation will happen and will impact a 'civilians' life?


You must live a very different life over there than what the world has seen of N I in the past 30ish years....

And, you're first comment is just bizarre. You must not be reading any type of news from the States. Home invasions of multiple perpetrators are increasing, not only inthe US but in the UK and Austrailia as well. Many of the cases, the home owners are killed first thing as the intruders enter the home.


Born yesterday, or living under a rock?

TallPine
December 13, 2003, 11:25 AM
sasno, did you read about the two guys who burst into a house in Wichita KS and ended up murdering all but one of the residents? (all were shot in the head but one survived, and she managed to make it bleeding and naked in the snow to a nearby house) All had completely cooperated to the point of withdrawing money from their ATMs and being raped.

That's just one example.

Maybe your burglars are more polite over there? Do you leave milk and cookies out for them?

Sportcat
December 13, 2003, 11:29 AM
I bet if there were more concealed carrying residents in Israel, the homicide bombers over there might not be as succesful in killing innocent people as they have.

I don't think a terrorist is going to knock on my door, but he may have plans for my local shopping mall or restaurant. Quite possibly my concealed wepaon might be able to save my life, my wife's, or some of those around me.

I hope I never have to use it, but I'm glad it is there.

armoredman
December 13, 2003, 11:31 AM
Sir, I work in a supermax lockdown prison, where I deal with the worst of the worst. Criminals do not fear cops or prison - they fear armed citizens who will kill them. This happens. Many crimes, up to two million a year according to some numbers, are thwarted per year by the simple display of a firearm. I note your home of record is Ireland, where firearms ownership is severely restricted, but terrorism is rampant. Whoops.
If crime is unaffected by firearms ownership, explain the severe drop in Kennesaw, GA, crime rate after they passed a city ordinance requiring the ownership of a firearm and ammuntion, with exceptions to prohibited possessors and conscientous objectors. Thier rate of home invasion, robbery and other home and street assault style crime dropped by a staggering 80+%, and has remained at that low level while surrounding Atlanta has risen dramatically.
I reccomend you read any of the Granpa Jack pamphlets from http://www.jpfo.org/ , as well as watch thier movie Innocents Betrayed.
Does you handle state your previous or current employment, because no special forces types I have ever met would ever state such absurdity.
If you believe you have no need of a firearm, then more power to you, especaily living in a place where terrorism is the norm, but don't spit on my sidewalk and tell me it's good for the grass.
:fire:

Khornet
December 13, 2003, 11:39 AM
I suspect that you have your own domestic enemies, to wit SAS. Odd, then, that you don't see a need to be armed.

AS for terrorists, I have no concern that they'd bother with my little rural NH town. But they would bother with Boston and New York, and if they do something which causes mass destruction there those people will flee.....to NH. And most of them will be perfectly nice folks who we'll be happy to help. But with them will come the scum: the drug gangs, the rapists, robbers, etc. And I will be armed against them.

As for burglary: my weapon is for preservation of my life, and that of my loved ones. Not my property, because deadly force is inappropriate to keep someone from stealing your TV--IF that's all he's doing. But 'hot' burglaries do happen--by accident over here, by design in your UK--and the kind of person who will do that is often the kind who will murder inhabitants. I will be ready for them.

As for other assaults, they happen everywhere. Not far form me, an innocent, well-loved couple, college teachers, were brutally murdered in their home...with knives. A few years ago, a madman on a rampage in an even more remote part of my state killed several people before being hunted down. He walked into an office and started shooting, and if a few people like me had been there he'd have been stopped before he could kill more.

I can go on and on, but suffice it to say that it's your life. You may depend on the Constabulary if you wish, and I would do nothing to stop you. The difference is that you would force me to do so as well--but you'll have to be armed to do it. Good luck with the SAS!

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 11:39 AM
thnks 4 replys, just first point- Beren: im not just throwing mud, i do want a real civil conversation on the subject because it is interesting.

the crucial point here is went your talking about murders that happen is "did you read about " "what the world has seen" "if" this is stuff thats hyped up in the news that is unlikley to happen to 'you', i know your going to say well im preventing it, but the truth is it's 1,000,000 to 1 that your going to be in the situation to prevent it, never mind actually stopping it. i think that in american the media has a lot to answer to, i and a friend actually laughed when we watched fox, its beefed up and dramatised and some artistic licence, where as news in 'unaffected' countrys is bla,bla so and so was killed today. fox is: it's raining fire theres bodies everywhere.

Kamicosmos - "Are you actually in North Ireland? And you honestly don't think things like terror attacks and military invasion/occupation will happen and will impact a 'civilians' life?"

it dosen't to be quite honest with you, there are so many examples of people being told in a place that there may be a bomb there and to evacuate, do they..no not always. if theres a 'suspicious' package in a car if the cop knows what he's doing he may just smash window and see whats inside where as in american it seems that half the state police would be called in.

"You must live a very different life over there than what the world has seen of N I in the past 30ish years...."

exactly im sure a lot of americans think this is some sort of warzone , media again!

greyhound
December 13, 2003, 11:40 AM
I am not up to date on firearms laws in N. Ireland, but wouldn't it be sort of the same as the UK (since technically it is, though try telling that to the "boys down south".)?

We also don't know how long this person has lived in N. Ireland, I sense some Michael Moore-ish "minority fearing Americans" cant in the original post.

Things like 9/11 and the sniper shooting do prompt more people to arm themselves. Not because they think they are going to be the direct target of terrorists or are personally going to shoot it out withthe DC snipers.
Its because incidents like that remind us of just how the unexpected can happen at any time, and rather than rely only on 911 or the government to protect them (notice I said "only", there are circumstances where dialing 911 or relying on the police are important) they want to be able to take personal responsibility for defending them and their loved ones, should the need arise.

9/11 and the DC snipers cause us to examine such things, and self defense is a natural part of our culture, one that has been eroded somewhat in the last 50 years but is making a comeback.

Thats the difference between us and much of the rest of the world. The concept of a citizen being responsible for self defense has completely gone away; they stare in horror at what they call those "cowboy Americans", not even realizing that being called a "cowboy" is a good thing to Americans.

Sure, I am making generalizations here, but it seems like every month or so we get a poster here (usually from Europe) who wants to debate self defense, and is completely baffled by the concept.

Jeeper
December 13, 2003, 11:48 AM
sanofear,

There are a few previous posts here that had polls about anyone here having drawn a gun in self defense. Do a search and it might change your mind. I personally have drawn my carry piece twice to protect myself. Neither time did I have to fire a shot. The act itself since the scum running the other way. once was even in my backyard. I think you have the typical victim mentality of "it will never happen to me". I do agree with you that justyfing carying because of terrorism is generally stupid. Having a gun because of terrorism isnt stupid. Say one day(which I think will eventually come) a terrorist sets off a nuke or some large bomb in a city. There will be total chaos. Gangs will rule the streets with mob violence(It already happened in LA). Being able to protect yourself will be very important. Of course you come from a place where this type of violence never happens, right?

greyhound
December 13, 2003, 11:51 AM
By the way, you are spot on about how our media hypes crime (and really anything sensational.)

Not just Fox, but all the outlets.

That does lead some people to believe that danger is around every corner.

I don't think it describes the minset of gun owners, though. I'd say we are calm, confident, and prepared.

To look at it from another angle, yes our media hypes everything, but world opinion about America is drawn largely from exposure to our television shows and movies, which is ridiculous.

Example: my girlfriends church sponsored a refugee family from Afghanistan (who had been living in India for 10 years) and when they got here they burst into tears when they found out you didn't automatically get a big house and a car upon arriving. (Whoever over there prepared them to emigrate oughta be fired, but that another story).

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 11:55 AM
firearms are (due to stuff im not going to bother to go into) quite good and very different to rest of UK, we're allowed pistols, SLR's though actually getting them is tight. firearms toughness to get isn't going to restrict terrorisum....coz they are bought ILLEGALLY from the good old US of A (not solely but quite a few)

trust me i'd rather have lot laxer firearms laws but i dont think everyone should have an automatic right for one, if you have a criminal record or mentally unstable then no.carrying weapons will in no way snuff out terrorisum i mean we have soldiers with assult rifles and that dosen't stop anything coz they're not going to advertise their presence, they'll wait untill a soldier is off duty get a girl in a pub to lead him out and when he's had a few and he will end up tortured and murdered. so being vigilant dosen't work with these ppl, they may just decide to sit up on a hill with a barnett .50BMg and take ur ??? out.

P95Carry
December 13, 2003, 11:56 AM
Hmmmm ........... well, each to his own I guess.

Tell ya what SAS ........ and these are boring old examples but .... why do many people wear seat belts? because they just might be in a wreck and it just might save their necks .. better than being without .. their decision tho.

Why do many people carry insurance?? Not just because the law or mortgage Co says they should ..... but because they might have an event which needs help to put right.

Why carry a spare tire? Cos one of the others might puncture.

Insurance (and that's what HD and carry are about) is all based on risk .. yeah?! So - even if the risk is almost infinitesimally small .. better prepared than not IMO. The ''odds'' have to be assessed .... and in many cases risk is very small .... so on occasions I do not insure something because I personally see the risk as worth taking, for me. Equally - when it comes down to defence of the self ..... an innate right ... risk needs assessed.

I could argue that cos my area is overall pretty safe - why should I bother with the incumbrance of a weapon .. but Murphy proves that even when seeming unlikely s**t happens! Furthermore, as has already been stated ... the mere knowlege by BG's that a percentage of the population carries ... sure as hell makes em think hard ... VERY hard - before trying anything on ..... not to mention the hazards to a BG breaking into a house with guns.

So - two big things here .. deterance and the opportunity to defend ....... and the latter, for most of us who carry will never happen .. we all hope as much.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 12:01 PM
Sasnofear:

For what it's worth, as an American, I don't generally bother watching most entertainment television. The only show I even really miss is South Park. :) I also try to obtain my news from multiple sources, as a composite view is the only way to minimize media bias and distortion.

The chances that I'll need to defend my life with a firearm are small. I might never be involved in another auto accident again, either. That said, the investment in protection, averaged over my expected lifespan, is miniscule. Add in the enjoyment I derive from target shooting and the other fringe benefits I enjoy as a shooting hobbyist, and it adds measurable pleasure to my life without causing any additional risk to others.

My ownership of firearms enables me to more effectively defend myself should I need to do so, makes my life more enjoyable, and does so without causing harm or risk to third parties. Why, then, would anyone see fit to question my firearms ownership?

Your original question was: "What is the point in home defense guns or concealed carry?"

The answer, I think, would be: "No more effective means of self-protection exists today, and firearms ownership is one of many, many things a responsible individual can engage in to help ensure a long, happy, free life."

ossie
December 13, 2003, 12:17 PM
just a few points here from another northern irish person.

1) Northern Ireland is no warzone, in 1998 there was a peace agreement and since then there has been a time of peace. the only paramilitary violence since then has been related to drug dealing or even punishment beatings. yes, there have been a few minor "dissident paramilitary" bomb attacks, but if i remember correctly, no real damage or any death was caused.

2) the terrorists in palestine/israel don't go about advertising their presence, and they don't care if they die or not. a concealed weapon will do nothing to prevent some random person walking down the street detonating his "martyr's shroud". moving that to the situation as it was in Northern Ireland, if i was allowed to walk down the streets of Belfast carrying an MP5 i would be powerless to prevent a bomb attack by any of the paramilitary organisations. What can a gun do to a truck filled with explosives? Nothing.
and on a recent visit of mine to Moscow I walked past the local police and army members carrying fully automatic weapons all over the streets. It hasn't stopped the Chechens, has it?

3) while it may be a common occurence in the good ol' USA for a group of armed men bursting into peoples houses and gunning down the occupants such as in Wichita, KS, just doesn't happen here or in the UK or when it does it happens very rarely.


In conclusion, I can accept people having weapons in their houses for protection of their family and property, but i can not understand the need for people to carry concealed weapons around in their daily lives. in my opinion, if in a carjacking situation, and you have a gun pulled on you. the fact you have a gun could cause your death, all it takes is one trigger happy criminal and you're gone. Concealed weapons cause more problems than they prevent.

Mark Tyson
December 13, 2003, 12:31 PM
I seriously doubt that most of us in the US need guns to defend ourselves from terrorists. The exception would be a prominent or wealthy individual; he/she can afford a security staff anyway.

But home defense, that's another matter. There are plenty of cases of home invasion robberies where the criminals come in armed with the intent of taking the family temporarily hostage. These are not uncommon here in the US. Robberies on the street, carjackings and the like are also quite common. While a criminal could get the drop on you, alert victims can usually see the warning signs of an impending attack and prepare a defense. There is significant evidence that concealed weapons in the hands of citizens reduce crime, though this is a source of controversy.

The Chechen example is a poor analogy by the way. The Russian army is causing more terrorism through its incompotence and brutality than it is preventing. I would imagine that ordinary Chechen citizens probably do need guns to protect themselves from widespread banditry in the area.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 12:38 PM
The Chechen example is a poor analogy by the way.

it's not meant to be an analogy, it's just telling it how it is.

armed men in moscow can't stop terrorists bombing the city, therefore what good would it be for me to carry a gun? i wouldn't be able to stop a bomb either.

and i'm not talking about chechens in chechnya, i'm talking about Russians in their capital city. Think, Afghans or Iraqis (yes, i know Russia in Chechnya is acting worse than US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan), in Washington, DC.

P95Carry
December 13, 2003, 12:40 PM
Concealed weapons cause more problems than they prevent. I guess there will be some need to ''agree to disagree'' on this one in particular. It is something I have heard so many times ...... as if the carrying of a piece is some sorta ''invite'' for trouble!!

let us remind ourselves that .. bad guys will always have and obtain guns ....... is there any doubt about that? By definition, a bad guy is one who refutes the law .. and is little concerned at all with upholding same. The legit carry individual however is the opposite .. someone who is law abiding, responsible .. and sure as hell never lookin for a fight .. far from it. So how that seems likely to "cause more problems than they prevent" - I don't follow.

The deterance aspect too is all too easily forgotten ..... but oh well ..... as I said ... we have to agree to disagree because on some of these aspects we reach an ''impasse'' ....

You NI guys could do worse than read a very long thread on here about the right to keep and bear arms, started last June ... sadly I cannot personally find the link right now (anyone??) .... but many erudite members added contributions there and it would be worth your while to try and read it all.

Pebcac
December 13, 2003, 12:50 PM
firearms toughness to get isn't going to restrict terrorisum....coz they are bought ILLEGALLY from the good old US of A (not solely but quite a few)

This actually made me laugh out loud. Where do you get your information? I would venture to say that this is a case of either your own media blowing something out of proportion, or you've been exposed to a little too much Michael Moore-type hype. I don't think that the IRA and its spin-offs have been getting many of their fully-automatic Eastern-bloc weapons from the USA. Communist countries virtually handed the things out for free to their oppressed ideological "brethren." If you are actually living in Northern Ireland, I'd think you would know that.

As for me, I'll not take advice from a subject of a country which no longer recognizes the right to self-defense. Submit, indeed. If you think that home-invasion robbery happens more in the US on a percentage basis, perhaps you should take your local paper more often. Rural areas, Yorkshire for example, have seen an explosion of home invasions over the last couple of years. Violent crime is way, way up in the UK. An internet news search would be enlightening.

A pistol won't protect me from terrorist attack. But it can help me ward off an armed robbery, whether it's in my home or at the ATM. I think Europeans have the idea that all Americans are swaggering John Wayne types with hero complexes. Not so. Most of us are just trying to live our lives, but many of us are not willing to submit to some thug with a knife or cheap pistol in the hopes that we won't be harmed.

Watchman
December 13, 2003, 12:51 PM
Any point in guns for self defence?

Yep. Try to rob me and find out.

I carry because I can. Most citizens in this world cant legally carry or own the so called dreaded "assault" rifle. I can and do.

One of the few things that makes America a great place to live.

In truth though, I wouldnt expect a foreigner to understand the logic behind being able to defend oneself as the principle of self defense has been pretty much outlawed in most countires.

riverdog
December 13, 2003, 12:55 PM
sasnofear said: ...this is stuff thats hyped up in the news that is unlikley to happen to 'you', i know your going to say well im preventing it, but the truth is it's 1,000,000 to 1 that your going to be in the situation to prevent it... But the more good people who are armed, the better those odds become. While it's true that the odds of terrorists deciding to go one-on-one with a regular guy are fairly small, you gotta do what you can to change the odds.

As for the much more likely home invasion problem: more and more these are "leave no witnesses behind" type crimes. They can break-in, rob you and kill you, or they can break-in and be met with four rounds of 00 Buck followed by .45 cal rounds. I see myself as a very unlikely target, generally low profile, good locks and doors with a tough approach. Still, there is no point in not being prepared for a worse case scenario. I own the firearms and shoot; why not keep a couple at the ready?
ossie said: Concealed weapons cause more problems than they prevent. Do you have any facts to back up that statement. I see concealed weapons as tilting the odds away from the bad guy, forcing him to accept a higher risk or move on. In some carjackings they take the occupants as well as the car. This is a bad situation because once removed from a crowd, you are in trouble.

With an armed public, the odds are higher that the BG will find someone who is armed; this is not a good thing for him. The BG can't accept a shoot-out because any serious injury gets him arrested (or dead). OTOH, if I was shot in a carjacking shootout, I could dial 911, get help and talk to LE at the hospital. Sure, by taking the initiative and starting the shoot-out, I increase my odds of being shot, but I might get killed anyway. May as well fight it out in a public place where help is a lot closer.

Or you can acquiesce and hope for the best, putting you life and hopes in the hands of a felon, a carjacker in need of a fix.

RikWriter
December 13, 2003, 12:57 PM
Really what is the point in home defence guns or concealed carry. None whatsoever.



Wow, really? I guess the time my father and I backed off a guy trying to break down our front door by pointing rifles at him didn't occur then. And I will be sure to tell my best friend that the time he scared off those carjackers with his concealed-carry handgun didn't actually happen either.
:rolleyes:

Beren
December 13, 2003, 12:58 PM
Concealed weapons cause more problems than they prevent.

Concealed weapons don't cause anything, my friend. Trust me on this, I've concealed handguns on my person and in my home for years, and not once has a single handgun jumped out and tried to bite me or a guest.

Concealed weapons in the hands of criminals cause more problems than they prevent, and concealed weapons in the hands of reasonable men solve more problems than they cause.

Desert Eagle
December 13, 2003, 12:59 PM
.

Walosi
December 13, 2003, 12:59 PM
sasnofear -
I've finally reached the age of 70. Handguns, for sport and recreation, have been my hobby since I was 8. I've carried for the past 48 years almost constantly, using "just in case" as my main rational. Before then, occasional carry on trips, hunting, etc., was sufficient.

There is an old saying amongst statisticians, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure". Applying actuarial statistics to concealed carry has little basis in reality. In my time, I've had three incidents which required me to draw in self defense - two resulted in immediate retreat by the agressor, one in his demise. Statistically, I am "over the top", but I still can't see the application of percentages to these events. To me, the chances that I need a gun are 50/50 - Either I will, or I won't. If I need it, and am successful, I'm ahead. If I never again need it, I'm further ahead, except for the tender spot on my hip from years of carry.

fiVe
December 13, 2003, 01:07 PM
Sansnofear & Ossie,

Try to understand that the number of burglaries, muggings, car-jackings, etc. have dropped in some areas of the U.S. because of concealed carry. As a previous post stated, criminals are most scared of armed private citizens. If a bad guy doesn't know who may or may not be armed, it provides the additional benefit of the halo effect. Thus, the public at large is better protected.

The chance of my having an encounter with a BG may be low, but I want it to be further decreased by CCW.

Regards, fiVe

cordex
December 13, 2003, 01:08 PM
the terrorists in palestine/israel don't go about advertising their presence, and they don't care if they die or not. a concealed weapon will do nothing to prevent some random person walking down the street detonating his "martyr's shroud".
I remember not-too long ago seeing several cases in Israel of non-LEO/non-Military individuals using concealed weapons to stop terrorists.

Some examples:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/02/22/News/News.43961.html
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/3/22/114216
http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-21/reg/suicide_bombing_foiled.htm

Don't tell me that a concealed weapon will do nothing against terrorists. Concealed weapons, carried by regular Joes and Janes have been effective in Israel at thwarting suicidal attackers.

I'll let others address the rest of your anti-carry rhetoric.

Frank5
December 13, 2003, 01:14 PM
"Having a weapon could cause your death"???? Unarmed victims who don't resist are never hurt or killed??? What nonsense. We hear this crap all the time from the antis here in the USA. Reality says otherwise.

Legit armed citizens do use guns to defend themselvs. We see it often Carjackings have been thwarted by armed drivers. Armed robberies have been stopped by armed citizens.

Cooperating with a criminal is no guarantee of safety. :banghead:

Here in the USA we have access to news in other countries. We see how crime is on the rise in the UK & Austraila. All the gun restrictions didn't work did they?? :confused: Even the Brady bunch & other antis here have stopped using the UK as an example of a gun control paradise,because of the skyrocketing violent crime there.

I know a British guy who's married to an American woman. They live in PA. He's from the midlands region of England. He has a handgun & a carry permit. :D :cool: He was able to see through all the crap that he was fed by his government in the UK. :neener:

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 01:30 PM
RikWriter - Note: I never said things didn't happen, just not often and did the guy trying to get into your house try to shoot you?

Desert Eagle- I'm very sorry about my spelling and punctuation but im not great at typing so my spelling, punctuation and ablity to put sentances together does suffer when I'm rushing to right back due to amount of replys compared to if it was hand written, so I'll go a bit slower and try to put out better replys for you. You right two sentances I in the space of a very short time have written a LOT more so I hardly think you are in any position to comment on my writing, since you can even add a constructive argument to this discussion.

Just in case people thing I'm commenting here as anti-gun you are very wroung, I have spend a lot of time in 'rifle country' and love shooting, it's just the afore mentioned reasons that I disagree with reasoning behind 'defence' guns.

Concealed weapons- larger chance people are gonna pull a gun in a situation where it really isn't required i.e instead of maby a punch up, you have a dead body. also wearing seatbelts for something that 'might just happen' yea i always wear mine, most people have been actually involved in a car crash where as how many ppl can say they saw a shoot out,were in one, or someone in their family, or a friend, or someone near by, or in their state. It's unlikly you actually know someone who has been in a shooting rather than been or seen an car crash.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 01:42 PM
Frank5 - you really dont have to tell me gun control dosen't stop crime it is madness that the government put on further restrictions to stop gun crime to cover up bad policeing it's got so bad they want to ban REPLICA guns to stop murders!!!!!! reasoning is 5 min with a drill can converte them to leathal wepons, reality is you need a very good gunsmith to do it, with a lot of work! i really could cry with the pain of gov idiocy


cordex - from what i read it still blew up, and i never said all terrorists were master minds, i mean they ones in palistine are blowing themselfs up so the arn't going to be the most logical, but the smart ones... u dont have a chance. so lets arm ppl to blow others away 'just in case' they didnt need to be armed to stop the guy who tried to light shoe bomb on plane.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 01:47 PM
cordex - also your are talking about palastine, that hardly has any relation to america, i dont see constant bombing & shootings by terrorists in america, do you?

ossie
December 13, 2003, 01:50 PM
i'll just address a few points.

P95Carry: we have to agree to disagree because on some of these aspects we reach an ''impasse'' ....

i can't argue with that.


Pebcac: I don't think that the IRA and its spin-offs have been getting many of their fully-automatic Eastern-bloc weapons from the USA

You're right in that, but what about the redeye SAM's the IRA have tried to procure, and the numerous M-16's, at least 2 M-60's, and around 3 Barrett Light .50's. Not to mention the number of Browning pistols that have been seized. Ever heard of NORAID? Ever contribute to it? It is/was an IRA gun fund, in case you really are as naive as you seem.

Concealed weapons cause more problems than they prevent.

No, i don't have any facts to back that up, it's my personal opinion.


Beren: Concealed weapons in the hands of criminals cause more problems than they prevent, and concealed weapons in the hands of reasonable men solve more problems than they cause

There's the difference between you and I, I don't see a separation. A concealed weapon is a concealed weapon. Sadly, I believe criminals cause a lot more problems than reasonable men prevent, and more concealed weapons will do nothing to change that.

DesertEagle: How can you have an intelligent conversation with someone that cannot spell, punctuate or put sentences together? This idiot is no more in Ireland than I am. This troll goes on ignore! AMF!

Just be tolerant, read it and come to an opinion based on opinions rather than on their ability to spell.

cordex: Don't tell me that a concealed weapon will do nothing against terrorists. Concealed weapons, carried by regular Joes and Janes have been effective in Israel at thwarting suicidal attackers.

Ok, i accept your point, but i must maintain that these are the exception to the rule. while CCW may enable an alert carrier to prevent an incident, it is more likely that they'll be unable to prevent it in time.

Frank5:Unarmed victims who don't resist are never hurt or killed

I never said that, I said that if you pull a gun the attacker is more likely to shoot you.

Frank5: I know a British guy who's married to an American woman. They live in PA. He's from the midlands region of England. He has a handgun & a carry permit.

You don't think that's just a reflection on the country he's currently residing in? That he can only feel safe with a handgun and carry permit is a sad reflection on US society.

Headlines for Manchester (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/default.stm), UK. This is the only city in Britain (Britain doesn't include Northern Ireland, just so you know) where police carry guns regularly due to fears for their safety. Not a single gun crime incident. While gun crime may be on the increase, it's nowhere near the American level.

Oh, and just because i'm a nice guy, here's a story you might be interested in from Northern Ireland. Here you go. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3315709.stm)

LifeNRA
December 13, 2003, 01:53 PM
Sasnofear,
You may have no fear as your name implies but my wife has fear. Why should she not be able to defend herself from some rapist or worse? Why should I not be able to protect my family from assault. You say "assault maybe but hardly murder" like its no big deal if my family gets the snot beat out of them. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. With that in mind my wife knows where the gun is and how to use it. Have I ever used a gun to defend myself? No. But I know people who have. Maybe you should ask your questions to the countless families of victims.

12-34hom
December 13, 2003, 01:54 PM
I carry because it's my RIGHT.

I work as a peace officer and encourage anyone who can legally carry CCW to do so.

Even the rural areas i work in there are ALOT of spooky folks who would not think twice about taking whatever they wanted from you or anyone else by wharever means nessacary.

I try and recognize areas that might cause my family or myself to go in harms way, most times i have succeded, but there are times when things go can bad and i might be in the wrong place, no fault of my own.

I have no desire to apply deadly force on another human being, but i also have the right and duty to defend the lives of my family and myself if such an occasion presents itself.

Lifes all about choices, CCW is another choice i choose to exercise.

Welcome to THR.

12-34hom.

Apple a Day
December 13, 2003, 02:11 PM
SASNOFEAR,
I invite you to do some research regarding crime rates in U.S. states before and after they have passed concealed carry laws. You can access most of the data through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's website... go to the section on statistics and look thorugh their annual Uniform Crime Reports. You can check out the violent crime statistics broken down by state. You will notice then crime rates nearly always dip slightly after the citizens are granted the right to carry concealed weapons and have never had anything resembling a significant increase.

That should educate you on the "concealed carry causes more problems than it solves" argument.
As for the " there's only a million to one chance that it'll actually happen to you" argument:
I have, in my lifetime, been shot at, had a knife pulled on me, and been physically attacked by someone I've never met before. At none of those times was I armed. Now I have better sense. Every number you see on a crime report represents a real person who was really injured or killed. It happens to REAL PEOPLE. There's no reason it can't happen to me or any other particular person. That isn't paranoia, it's simple fact.
Crime in the U.S. is as low right now as it's ever been since they've been keeping records. People still die, though. I'd prefer it not be me.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 02:12 PM
yes, it's also your RIGHT to run about naked with a big flag but do you do it just because you 'can'

LifeNRA- of course i fear, if u dont have an ability to be scared there is something wroung with you ( the name really goes for S.A.S - it was the only thing i thought of at the time)

lets face it, is it better to get into a fight or some over jumpey person with a gun, gunning someone down. more likley to be a fatality with a gun. im sure there are homes in which a defence gun is useful but just because it's your RIGHT to own one dosen't mean every single household should own one, just because your a citizen dosen't mean u should be a gun owner there should be good screening and a 'good' reason to own one.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 02:19 PM
Apple a Day - gimmi a link and i'll be happy to have a look.

but im sure theres also going to be figures with increased shootings of innocent people, or instances in which leathal force was not required!

BHPshooter
December 13, 2003, 02:20 PM
There are more holes in the premise of this thread than a block of Swiss cheese.

Sasnofear, you assume that the only bad guys out there are terrorists. In fact, I'd say that terrorists comprise about 1% of the threat to most people in the western world.

The statement that concealed weapons bring more problems to society brought tears of laughter to my eyes. Think about it:

1) "concealed" means anywhere out of sight. In your pocket, in the cupboard, in the gunsafe, on the refrigerator are all concealed.

2) Guns are pieces of metal, plastic and wood. Just like your automobile. Does your car drive on its own? Didn't think so. Does your furniture rearrange itself while you are at work? Neither does mine. Guns are the same way. They are inanimate objects. they have no will of their own. Everything they do is because of their operator, just like a car. Therefore the issue has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with freedom of choice within the general populace.

There is nowhere on the planet where it is legal to murder someone, yet murder happens all the time. So some wiseguy slaps a law on guns to try to outsmart the bad guys, but that hasn't stopped murder, or crime in general, either.

Freedom is a funny thing. People can do what's right, or they can do all kinds of horrible things. But it's the choices that people make that define the people. Without freedom to make good or bad choices, the world turns into a gray, nasty place (much like it is now). Modern-day laws, such as those agains guns, are the arch-nemeses of freedom.

I don't see how this can be so hard for so many to understand, yet it seems to be.

Sasnofear, I sure hope you never are in an encounter where you desperately need a gun, my friend.

Wes

riverdog
December 13, 2003, 02:26 PM
So what is a good reason? You've already been robbed? That's a bit like closing the barn after the horse is gone.

How about if you're rich and famous, is that a good reason? They can hire bodyguards and afford realy good security.

How about if you are just a guy with a wife and kids, not famous or rich and you haven't been robbed ... yet. Yeah, that last one is most of us.

So what is a good reason, oh one without fear.

Travis McGee
December 13, 2003, 02:28 PM
You know, he's right.
Only the police and military need guns.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/photos/holocaust.jpg

ossie
December 13, 2003, 02:29 PM
i, not sasnofear, made the point about what you call "concealed weapons", i talked about concealed carry. even i, a european lefty liberal type, can see the difference between the two.

LifeNRA
December 13, 2003, 02:38 PM
Sasnofear,
I have a question. If you live in N. Ireland then why do you care about our gun laws? To be honest you sound like a spokesman for the UN. Whenever I hear someone from a country that does not have the freedoms Americans do and tells us why we need to be more like them it reminds me of my sister in law. My sister in law could not have a baby. Every time one of her friends had a baby, instead of being glad for them she would stop being thier friend. She would not be happy for them in the least. My aunt on the other hand could have no children either. But she was outright overjoyed that someone else could have what she wanted so bad. Its okay to ask questions but dont try to bring my nation down to your level to make you feel better.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 02:38 PM
wow, you've got a picture of some nazis killing jews, at least i presume they're jews.

guess what, there was active resistance among jews in Nazi occupied territories in WW2, the Warsaw Ghetto saw some fierce fighting. But how could they hold out against the might of the Nazis?

ever hear of my lai? too bad the vietnamese there didn't have guns to stop the massacre, isn't it? or the koreans at No Gun Ri?

i'm also guessing you're shocked by the attacks on US forces in Baghdad recently, do the people attacking US military forces not have the right to protect their country? Hypocrisy? I think so.

i should add here, that i supported the invasion and regime change in Iraq (although, not for the reasons stated, i.e. WMD), and i don't like seeing US soldiers or anyone else being killed in Iraq.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 02:43 PM
LifeNRA: Its okay to ask questions but dont try to bring my nation down to your level to make you feel better.

yes, he asked a question. yes, people answered.

but i think he was trying to bring your nation up to our level. how can a nation with 11,000+ gun deaths per year, which retains the death penalty as a "deterrent" call itself a civilised, democratic nation?

---

sorry for the troll-like post, but sometimes i think europeans and americans are just too different to ever understand each other.

even tony blair, your greatest ally is far more left wing than your most left wing politicians. in europe, he's basically considered centre right.

Frank5
December 13, 2003, 02:48 PM
sasnofear...........Legit carry types are not likely to pull steel at the drop of a hat. These incidents/shootings for the most part are not being commtted by legit permit holders. Someone who will go thru a class, be fingerprinted,photographed,background checked & fill out all the forms........just to be legal is not the type of person who is likely to do something stupid. In the US cops get into trouble at a higher rate than permit holder civilians. I'll say it again...............what you're saying is not supported by reality/history. Permit holders ARE NOT shooting people over minor slights.

Ossie....My British pal lives in a very low crime area. "Sad reflection on US society"............I lived in the UK for 2 years in East Anglia. Your society is FAR from perfect. You live in a socialist welfare state where the government does not allow a subject to resist a criminal. I've never seen so many able bodied people on welfare in my life being supported by outragous taxes on productive persons. I thought the US was bad for that untill I went to the UK.

So...getting back on topic.......how have your gun laws affected your crime rate?? Has violent crime or gun related crime gone down since any new gun restrictions have become law??

Any posters from Austraila are also asked to answer the above question. I would like your input.

mod12
December 13, 2003, 02:52 PM
i realise debating you on an intellectual basis is impossible. i suggest you post before going to the pub not after. your spelling, composition and syntax is atrocious. try as i might i couldn't make heads nor tails of what you were attempting to say. was it your brogue that befuddled me? regardless, top o the morning old chap. may your bloomers always be orange!

ossie
December 13, 2003, 02:58 PM
Frank5: My British pal lives in a very low crime area. "Sad reflection on US society"............I lived in the UK for 2 years in East Anglia. Your society is FAR from perfect. You live in a socialist welfare state where the government does not allow a subject to resist a criminal. I've never seen so many able bodied people on welfare in my life being supported by outragous taxes on productive persons. I thought the US was bad for that untill I went to the UK.

What the does the fact I live in part of a "socialist welfare state" have to do with the right to carry a concealed weapon?

I do have the right to resist a criminal, i do not have the right to kill the criminal. Self-defence is fine, murder/manslaughter is never ok.

I agree on the "so many able bodied people on welfare" part, people who can work and don't, should not, in my opinion, be supported on welfare. However, that is for the elected government of this democratic country.

nico
December 13, 2003, 03:01 PM
I do have the right to resist a criminal, i do not have the right to kill the criminal. Self-defence is fine, murder/manslaughter is never ok.
so you can honestly say that you'd rather be killed than kill a person who's trying to murder you? I'm glad you're on the other side of an ocean.:rolleyes:

Hazwaste
December 13, 2003, 03:13 PM
"...if in a carjacking situation, and you have a gun pulled on you. the fact you have a gun could cause your death, all it takes is one trigger happy criminal and you're gone."

So just bend over and take it huh? Sorry, but my momma raised a man, not a sheep.

Is cowering to an armed criminal going to keep him from shooting his victim? Or the next victim? Are you willing to bet that the criminal hasn't already decided to kill the witnesses? I'm not.

Or perhaps, it could be that each person has the natural right and duty to provide protection for themselves and their families. I subscribe to this, just as I subscribe to the notion that my family and I should be buckled in when we ride in a car, or that we should have a fire extinguisher on hand in the house in case of a small fire.

Here in the U.S., carjackings, home invasions, kidnappings, murders, and assaults are not things that happen to everybody else. I live in a sleepy little town of 25,000 in southwest Louisiana. A place that you would not think would have crime. Yet, each week, it seems, there is another violent crime in the area. Am I or my wife willing to surrender our family to this when we have the ability to protect each other? That would be unimaginable to us.

Just last week three very large "scruffy" looking men came to our front door while I was at work and my wife was at home with the kids. One of these men kept yelling something unintelligible through the door in an attempt to get my wife to open it. When she pulled the curtain back in the window next to the door revealing her .357 magnum snubbie in her hand and my son holding my AK while standing next to her, the men took off. She had called the police before she went to the door because of her suspicions. The police showed up exactly ONE HOUR LATER!!! And they did nothing, because, of course, the men had long since left the neighborhood.

N3rday
December 13, 2003, 03:20 PM
The "it won't happen to me" approach is a big problem in this country. Not just gun-wise, I'm talking drunk driving, overuse of drugs, and illegal/dangerous stuff like that.

"It probably won't happen to me" just isn't good enough.

Hazwaste
December 13, 2003, 03:23 PM
"...I never said things didn't happen, just not often and did the guy trying to get into your house try to shoot you?"

OK, I have to speak up again. Just last week in Sugarland, Texas, which is considered an upper-scale town southwest of Houston, a family of four entered their home to find someone ransacking their home. The intruder opened fire on the family, shooting all four. Two of them (the mom and youngest son) are dead. The other two (dad and oldest son) survived.

The family was completely unarmed and helpless. The father should be ashamed.

This is but one example of many cases of home invaders killing their victims.

I recommend that if you wish to read about instances when people successfully defended themselves with firearms, go to

Self Defense Stories (http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm)

mod12
December 13, 2003, 03:27 PM
are you two the celtic incarnation of stan & ollie? methinks your potatoes are too long in the pot.:D :D

P95Carry
December 13, 2003, 03:33 PM
Let me add this small caveat for you NI guys ... this notion that having a gun will only escalate a situation or result in a shooting .... when having no gun will not......... (and a BG with nothing to lose .. {read Armoredman's post again re criminals and recidovists} ..... will NOT be in the least influenced by someone being unarmed ... and think - ''oh, better not shoot this guy cos he's defenceless''!!!) .....

Stop and think a moment .... and I am talking about the legit, sensible and responsible carry person. It is NOT a good idea to shoot anyone ... period!! We are all too well aware that the consequences can be dire ... and even if a shooting is actually justified and an ''in extremis'' survival measure ... the carrier is answerable ...... that in and of itself is a VERY good disuader, for use of lethal force, believe me.

Instead you will find - and I think pretty well all here to a person, if carriers ... will back me up. We try EVEN harder to stay away from trouble ... we are MORE likely to swallow pride and back off from a confrontation ..... we would rather run than shoot.

Can you not see that this is far from being an encouragement for any CCW to want to use his/her piece. Carry is not by and large taken lightly - it is IMO an awesome responsibility .... but it is there against that freak occurrence when ... a BG has a gun .. and you might just need to stop him ... before you are just another mortuary slab statistic.

Hazwaste
December 13, 2003, 03:36 PM
"...just because it's your RIGHT to own one dosen't mean every single household should own one, just because your a citizen dosen't mean u should be a gun owner there should be good screening and a 'good' reason to own one"

1. Just because you think that not every household should own one is not a reason that I should NOT be allowed to have one.

2. Good reason to own one??? And who makes that decision pray tell? The all-powerful all-knowing all-benevolent masters in your government? They're just PEOPLE SAS, people who are just as susceptible to the temptations of power and corruption as anybody would be (see World History for some good examples). People who have exactly the same natural rights as you have. What gives THEM the right to take away YOUR natural rights or MINE based upon their perception of our "good reason"?

What has happened to you and the rest of the UK? Y'all were once such a proud and powerful people.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 03:44 PM
mod12: are you two the celtic incarnation of stan & ollie? methinks your potatoes are too long in the pot.

there was me thinking i'd found some intelligent rational people, and all of a sudden you come along and reaffirm my belief in the idiocy of mankind with a nice, happy, all-american racist comment.

thanks.

---

nico: so you can honestly say that you'd rather be killed than kill a person who's trying to murder you? I'm glad you're on the other side of an ocean.

kill or be killed? that's the american way, right. paranoia doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

---

to clarify my carjacking point, if a criminal has a gun pointed at you when you stop at traffic lights or a stop sign etc. you're pretty screwed either way, pull your gun out, perpetrator will in all probability panic and shoot straight into your head, you're relying a lot on luck. if you cooperate, at least in europe, you stand a much greater chance of not leaving a mighty big red stain on your cars upholstery.

i would much rather live in this "troubled land" than in the Land of the American Dream.

Thank you, and goodnight.

mod12
December 13, 2003, 03:44 PM
why are we responding to these "SUBJECTS"? they live in a society that has always been governed by a smarter and wiser people. trying to instill a desire for freedom and self determination is akin to trying to break a dog from licking himself. if either of these "SUBJECTS" had to make a decision he'd soil his pants!:banghead:

Hazwaste
December 13, 2003, 03:50 PM
"Why are we responding to these subjects?"

Because the original poster asked legitimate questions. And I'm happy to have an opportunity to attempt to reach someone who doesn't agree with me, rather than preaching to the choir. Makes for a much more interesting discussion. :)

mod12
December 13, 2003, 04:01 PM
haz, i'm going to have to add "sarcasm" to the things they don't understand too.........:uhoh:

LifeNRA
December 13, 2003, 04:04 PM
This sentence by Sasnofear should have told everyone what kind of person he is.
== "i bet some of the people here got loaded up after the washington sniper, haha, the thought of it."==
I dont remember it being a laughing matter.

Hazwaste
December 13, 2003, 04:06 PM
Yeah, the old "racist" accusation is sort of meaningless nowadays what with how many times it's thrown around. Guess the mention of potatoes is now considered an insult. :rolleyes:

BHPshooter
December 13, 2003, 04:12 PM
but i think he was trying to bring your nation up to our level. how can a nation with 11,000+ gun deaths per year, which retains the death penalty as a "deterrent" call itself a civilised, democratic nation?

Answer a question for me: why, when someone is asked where they live, do they answer "Oregon," or "Chile," or "Germany;" rather than "Earth?" The answer, my dear subjects of the crown, is that there are other nations for a reason. You Europeans can do whatever you want to, and we Americans can do whatever we want to, and we should both leave each other the hell alone. You want to punish someone more harshly for defending his own home than the criminals who were ransacking it? Fine. Whatever. If we want to shoot an intruder dead on sight in our homes, then that's none of your business.

Do you want to release dangerous criminals back into society to resume their crime streaks after 5 years of time? Fine. If we want to give a psychotic killer the chair to ensure that he never kills again, then that's none of your damn business.

See where I'm going with this? Two nations, two philosophies. Peace comes not from trying to make everyone like you are, but to accept the customs of others and to come to and understanding with them.

...just because it's your RIGHT to own one dosen't mean every single household should own one, just because your a citizen dosen't mean u should be a gun owner there should be good screening and a 'good' reason to own one

Please read the United States Declaration of Independence. This pretty much explains everything, but I will sum up: We believe in Rights. Rights are bestowed upon us by (and ONLY by) God. These rights are many. One of these rights is to defend yourself. Now, logically, since we don't have fangs with venom, or claws, it's only LOGICAL that we should carry a sidearm with us to defend our bodily integrity. God is who decides who has "good reason" to own a gun, and as far as I'm concerned, a bolt of lightning would hit anyone that shouldn't. Does that mean bad guys could get guns? You bet. But they can get guns now -- even easier than we can! But hey, that's what freedom's supposed to be like.

Now I know that's hard to swallow, but this is the way we live here (or would like to), and we'll go ahead and let you live the way you want to there.

kill or be killed? that's the american way, right. That's right. The fact that you don't get that to begin with means that you probably never will. That's sad.

Cheers,
Wes

Justin
December 13, 2003, 04:17 PM
If you want to keep this thread open, the tone of the messages being posted here had better remain civil.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 05:17 PM
There's the difference between you and I, I don't see a separation. A concealed weapon is a concealed weapon. Sadly, I believe criminals cause a lot more problems than reasonable men prevent, and more concealed weapons will do nothing to change that.

Let's back up a step: do you see a separation between a criminal and a "reasonable man?" Do you believe your life is worth protecting, or would you allow an assailant to kill you so that you don't need to risk killing somebody? Would you even want to /risk/ death at an assailant's hands, knowing them to be armed (with a rock, a club, a knife, a gun, or otherwise)? Would you rather women submit to rape or fight back against their attacker? (Stats here in the U.S. indicate a woman is LEAST likely to be injured if she employs armed resistence against a would-be rapist.)

You might find this hard to digest, but I'm a pacifist - right up until the point at which my life is reasonably endangered. I will not use force to settle a dispute, but I have no qualms using force to preserve my life against unwarranted aggression. We're not the ones you have to worry about, and our firearms only speak out of utmost need. (Or, I admit, at the range - but that's more along the lines of barking. :) )

Guns in our hands constitute a net /benefit/ to society.

Concealed weapons won't prevent idiots and scum from causing problems. They will, however, better enable to protect myself in case they decide to try to make me another victim. A concealed handgun in my hand does nothing to help you, and nothing to harm you - but it might well help me, and you have no right to deny me that protection.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 05:20 PM
ok there seems to be some misunderstanding. Me nor ossie EVER said it's better to just be killed. umm, human beings...want to survive, the point that is being made is that CCW will mean people are going to grab a gun in situations that deadly force can be avoided. someone said that the CCW gun is an inatimate object it dosen't cause any more deaths it wont jump out and bite anyone it dosen't have a mind of its own.....correct but the person it is attached to does and if there is potential trouble and you have a CCW you are just going to leave it in your belt? of course not, your going to draw. i fear jumpey ppl with firearms a lot more than criminals, the was i thing on TV with a minor car crash that turned out into a shoot out because the woman drew her pistol and kept it at her side for what ever reason, so the other guy got into his car and got his then people were shot, if these idiots didn't have these weapons the worst that could of happened was raised tempers. lets face it if you want to have a microcosm of how jumpey people cause the loss of life instead of retraint.....just take iraq, at the start of the war more allies were killed by americans than iraq soldiers. if it moved they shot it.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 05:25 PM
the bottom line is people are more likly to die as result of jumpey CCW holders than being attacked my criminal.

p.s, someone said earlier that i was going on about terrorists and that is only 1% of the problem (mabey frank?) well i think terorists are 0% of the problem if you bothered to read the forum i am saying america individuals have very little/nothing to fear of personally being attacked in a way that they can prevent it witha a CCW

ossie
December 13, 2003, 05:29 PM
sorry, let me change where i said racism.

perhaps i should have said, "anti-irish comments", i think every intelligent person here knows that millions of irish people died in a famine in the 19th century due to the potato blight. potato isn't an insult, except when used in the context of insulting an irish person.

---

TheFumegator: The answer, my dear subjects of the crown, is that there are other nations for a reason

1) i'm one of the residents of Northern Ireland opposed to British rule over N. Ireland. I believe in the right to self-determination of N. Ireland's people and am opposed to the use of force to gain a united Ireland. I am also a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

2) when/where did i say that we should all be one global unified utopia? i fully agree that can't happen. especially, as the US govt. can't seem to understand, with the Sword of Damocles (read threat of US Force) hanging over its head.


--


mod12: if either of these "SUBJECTS" had to make a decision he'd soil his pants!

oh we're "SUBJECTS" now? "SUBJECTS" of the Crown, I presume you mean... too bad as i've already mentioned, I'm a citizen of an independent Republic isn't it. Also, unfortunately for you, the nation i currently live in is not run by a monarchy any more . It is the longest running democratic system in the world, and is run by an elected Parliament.:banghead:


TheFumegator: Rights are bestowed upon us by (and ONLY by) God

If you remember your US Constitution you'll surely know that you live in a secular nation. I could get into the whole 2nd Amendment thing, but I've heard both sides of the argument more than enough. We learn US politics here, you know :rolleyes:

---

one final point, someone earlier, probably mod12 said "maybe i can't understand your brogue" or similar, to sasnofear. fact is, only people who live in the South of Ireland have a brogue. minor point, just ensure you get your facts right next time, or i'll have to assume all americans are gun-wielding cowboys.

P95Carry
December 13, 2003, 05:32 PM
SAS ...... you may well not have managed to catch up on the (not inconsiderable!!) number of posts but let me reiterate what I said a while ago .......

Overall - you will find - that a CCW individual is gonna do almost anything possible to keep away from trouble ... way more than an unarmed person IMO ..... anyone using a gun is ANSWERABLE - CCW carries no special legal protection. Use a weapon and expect to be arrested .... expect weeks or months of legal hassles - even if perhaps a justified shooting.

We do NOT take carry lightly ... and it is NOT an excuse to use on a whim .... best choices are ... talk way out ...... avoid in first place - or just plain RUN!!

Ask any here .. you'll get about same answer .. the armed citizen is by and large a VERY polite person ... doing about anything to avoid trouble .... not look for it. That means that a gun will only be used IN EXTREMIS - if it is a case of ''him or me''.

Yeah . sometimes things do go wrong - people screw up - but this is statistically infinitesimally small ....... when compared with the cumulative benefits.

Well as we see them - but you guys don't.:)

ACP230
December 13, 2003, 05:32 PM
Europe, a good place to be from!

Thank God my ancestors got out of there over 100 years ago.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 05:33 PM
the bottom line is people are more likly to die as result of jumpey CCW holders than being attacked my criminal.

I'm sorry. At least in the United States, the facts simply do not support your supposition. Especially not in Pennsylvania. I can't speak for other countries, but I can't even find a single instance in the past year of a CCW holder using force illegitimately. You are, in fact, more likely to suffer injury or death at the hands of the police than a CCW holder.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 05:34 PM
i must say i find it amusing the way europe and america have this special relationship, yet are so vastly different.

beren: i see where you're coming from and understand what you mean. to be honest, i find you to be the most rational and intelligent person to reply to me in this thread.

however, perhaps because of my different world view coming from being brought up in a relatively "safe" environment, i can't see the need to carry concealed weapons for defence purposes.

if europe ever becomes as violent as the US, then perhaps i'll be more encouraged to carry, but i just don't know.

in my opinion "the old world" still has some things to teach "the new" :D

ossie
December 13, 2003, 05:36 PM
quick clarification:

when i say concealed weapon carrier, i don't mean someone with a CCW license, i mean anyone with a concealed weapon.

sorry if i didn't make it clear in the first place.

mod12
December 13, 2003, 05:39 PM
i've never been more thankful that my maternal grandparents, christian and nancy sullivan came to america. :neener:

ossie
December 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
sullivan, that's an irish name you know.

guess why most irish people emigrated to america, the potato famine.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
when i say concealed weapon carrier, i don't mean someone with a CCW license, i mean anyone with a concealed weapon.

You may find this shocking, but there are some states where no license is required for legal concealed carry: Vermont and Alaska, I believe. It's a beautiful thing, and you are /far/ more safe in those two states than in areas like New York City or Washington, D.C.

In Vermont, you can stick it under your coat and go. The law does not care, so long as you act responsibly. There has not been a problem with "jumpy people" pulling out guns needlessly. It's an oft-cited concern among political groups interested in prohibiting carry, but in reality, it is extremely unlikely.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 05:52 PM
"This sentence by Sasnofear should have told everyone what kind of person he is.
== "i bet some of the people here got loaded up after the washington sniper, haha, the thought of it."==
I dont remember it being a laughing matter."



I never said the actions of the WS was funny, however what is funny is that Americans would deam a good idea is to get CCW seeing as the whole princable was that he was remaining unseen, so what would be the point of a CCW when you are dead against an unseen criminal. like i also mentioned whats the point of arming up against these 'imaginary' terrorists that would seek out individual americans?

but i see your point how europe is so rubbish, wait didn't england take over america for many, many years until it was economically unwise to stay there? what use was americans with guns then. they finally do their war of independance thing, and then what do they do....the american civil war....and americans are happily ever after killing each other till this day. what a nice storie.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 05:59 PM
however, perhaps because of my different world view coming from being brought up in a relatively "safe" environment, i can't see the need to carry concealed weapons for defence purposes.

Ossie,

The beautiful thing is, noone else needs to recognize or acknowledge the need. I used to get the question alot when people would find out I support the right of others to carry a firearm for self-defense: "Why do you need a gun?"

My usual response has been: "Who said anything about need? I have the right to defend my life, a right to carry a weapon for self-defense, and a constitutional right to do so - both at the federal and state level."

(Pennsylvania has a more explicit "right to keep and bear arms" clause in its state constitution, to the effect of "the right of an individual to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned." The U.S Constitution's 2nd Amendment is contested by some quarters.)

The vast majority of gun owners are sane, rational folks. The ones you hear about in the news causing problems should also not be allowed to drive vehicles, own pointy sticks, vote, or breed - but their failures are not justification to strip the vast majority of their firearms.

I really feel bad for people in the UK. Your government has a jealous hold on the use of force and seems unwilling to recognize your legitimate right to self-defense. That said, praise God for Irish women and drinks!

ossie
December 13, 2003, 05:59 PM
Beren: You may find this shocking, but there are some states where no license is required for legal concealed carry: Vermont and Alaska, I believe. It's a beautiful thing, and you are /far/ more safe in those two states than in areas like New York City or Washington, D.C.

being "/far/ more safe" in those two states is your opinion, but i assume that you'd be able to back that up with statistics. i also imagine that their is less inclination for violent crime in alaska compared to the vibrant city that is new york, big cities attract violent crime. sure, there's violent crime in alaska, and other non-city places, but i'm sure there's a lot less.

Mal H
December 13, 2003, 06:00 PM
wait didn't england take over america for many, many years until it was economically unwise to stay there?

sasnofear - Either you've been reading a revised form of history or you need to find an unbiased version of early American history. You make it sound like they chose to leave. The English didn't take over America, in essence they founded it in large part. Not fighting tooth and nail to keep America under the crown, was the most serious economical blunder England ever committed, and they committed quite a few.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 06:02 PM
Beren: That said, praise God for Irish women and drinks!

You got that right :D


Beren: The ones you hear about in the news causing problems should also not be allowed to drive vehicles, own pointy sticks, vote, or breed

and that.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 06:03 PM
i dont know about Vermont but your quoteing alaska as safe due to CCW who is there to rob!!!! you compare Alaska to most other state i hardly think you can compare due to population difference and the actuall oppertunitys to crime

"There has not been a problem with "jumpy people" pulling out guns needlessly. " ha good one. do we need to talk about iraq and supposedly well trained american, civilian and allie killers ,'cough' i mean soldiers

Beren
December 13, 2003, 06:04 PM
sure, there's violent crime in alaska, and other non-city places, but i'm sure there's a lot less.

It's true, crime as a whole is lower in Alaska and Vermont. Violent crime and ownership of firearms is not directly related. However, my point was that uncontrolled concealed carry of firearms has not /harmed/ the situation any.

Beren
December 13, 2003, 06:07 PM
"There has not been a problem with "jumpy people" pulling out guns needlessly. " ha good one. do we need to talk about iraq and supposedly well trained american, civilian and allie killers ,'cough' i mean soldiers

It would be equally relevant to wonder why I cannot find an orange that tastes like an apple. The conduct of civilian gun owners going about their daily lives of commerce and socializing bears little in common with the activities of a soldier conducting patrols in a hostile area. Soldiers go /looking/ for trouble. That's their job - find trouble, and make sure it won't cause trouble for anyone else.

The role of a civilian gun owner is far different. We /avoid/ trouble and only employ lethal force when we absolutely must to protect our lives, or those of innocents.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 06:10 PM
Mal H - yea your right there but what a great country it was to be able to found and take over countries and having vast colonies in comparison to its small size and the fact that it was actually in a position to make so many blunders and yet remain be the most powerful nation in the world

Mal H
December 13, 2003, 06:14 PM
"remain" the most powerful nation in the world?

Mama06
December 13, 2003, 06:16 PM
sasnofear, you asked RikWriter, (BTW, hi Rik...), RikWriter - Note: I never said things didn't happen, just not often and did the guy trying to get into your house try to shoot you?

These sort of things happen more often than you realize...and happen in 'nice', 'safe' neighborhoods.

I have also foiled an attempted break in at my home. I was alone in the house with our 6 children as my husband was out of state working at the time.

I did not have to fire a shot, and for that I am thankful. Harshly spoken words out a window and the sound of a 12ga being racked was all it took to make the bad guys go away.

However, I would not want to wait to find out the intentions of uninvited visitors at that ungodly hour (2:30am) with the lives of my children in potential danger. What loving mother would?

I did not loose my cool and just start shooting...heck, I didn't even break a sweat.

Another story I am personally aware of is one where my friend prevented an armed stalker from kidnapping her. She was not 'jumpy' in her quick response to her would be assailant. No shots were fired and the BG was caught less than a mile away. (The only reason he got away at all was that he slid down a hill as soon as she drew her pistol and she wasn't about to shoot a fleeing man.)

These two stories are not isolated incidents. There are far more real stories of legally owned firearms saving lives than there are of them taking them. Unfortunately, these stories aren't as glamorous as the stories of the BGs with the 'guns'...the stories where the 'good guy' wins just don't seem to sell...pity.

Have you ever been to the States? If not, I would suggest, if it is at all possible, that you come for a visit and stay long enough to really experience life here. Spend some time with responsible firearm owners. Spend some time in some of our larger cities as well as our rural areas. Otherwise, you may never be able to really appreciate why it is we cherish our RKBA in this country.

Best to you...

Mary

Beren
December 13, 2003, 06:16 PM
Guys, could we please not allow this thread to turn into a debate on the relative merits of the UK v. the USA or the proper usage of potatoes? ;)

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 06:17 PM
american soldiers come from all of american society so representing civilians after all the only differance between a soldier and civilian is training, the mental make up remains the same. theres a difference for looking for other soldiers to kill (no, no you kill iraqi solders not british) their jumpyness and willingness to shoot anything that move reflects on american civilians

marvl
December 13, 2003, 06:17 PM
Mal H - yea your right there but what a great country it was to be able to found and take over countrys and having vast coloneys in comparisance to its small size and the fact that it was actually in a position to make so many blunders and yet remain be the most powerful nation in the world



Can we keep it on-topic, please? :rolleyes:

Justin
December 13, 2003, 06:20 PM
http://www.census.gov/

Per the US Census, Vermont has a violent crime rate of 105 incidents per 100,000 citizens or 0.1%.

Of the 50 states in the USA, that gives them a ranking of 49/50.

Alaska's rate is much higher, at 588 incidents per 100,000, or 0.58%.

However, these statistics are taken from the 2001 Census. Vermont's open policy towards concealed carry has been in effect for quite some time.

Alaska's law, however, was just instituted a little over 4 months ago, so it is not yet possible to determine if the new law has had an effect on violent crime one way or the other.

However, there has been a trend in the last decade or two of states liberalizing their concealed carry laws.

Interestingly enough, even though gun ownership levels are at an all-time high in the United States, both violent crime and negligent/accidental deaths involving firearms have been dramatically declining.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 06:23 PM
Mal H - hey sorry but england is the most successfull country of all time and produces the best fighting soldier in the world, though going to beren's point lets not let this slide to UK vr's USA

marvl- you have written one post from what i can see i have written so many tonight so that is rubbish and I am actually dyslexic so couple the two together and you are certianly going to get bad spelling from me tonight so live with it.

ossie
December 13, 2003, 06:25 PM
Marvl: True, so very true. What a shame though, that you didn't take a greater interest in spelling and dentistry

what is it with this myth that people from over here have bad teeth? i just don't understand it.

i have had no brace/retainer or fillings for cavities and my teeth are in perfect condition. absolutely no problems.

how many americans can say they've never had a retainer or fillings?

Beav
December 13, 2003, 06:52 PM
Better to have and not need, then to need and not have. Sure the chances may be slim but ask the same questions to victims or their loved ones and see how they felt about playing the odds. I agree a concealed carry is no guarantee, but when it comes to safety, where do you compromise?

riverdog
December 13, 2003, 06:56 PM
You guys (both sides of the pond) need to define your frames of reference and start speaking the same language. sasnofear and ossie really need to research the facts before making statements which are blatantly wrong. I'm done here.

TonyB
December 13, 2003, 06:56 PM
I for one am glad we're not part of the UK anymore.......I am proud and happy to live in a country where we have the God given right to defend ourselves.......I carry because I have a family.Their safety is my job.I hope I never have to use it........but what if I did and didn't have it??????
Maybe we're seen as a bunch of yahoos...good...just don't pi$$ us off...:cool:

BHPshooter
December 13, 2003, 07:04 PM
Firstly: Sasnofear and Ossie -- I get the distinct impression that I've offended you with my previous posts, and that was not my intention. I have been suffering BAD migraine headaches non-stop for the last few weeks (including today), and it tends to put me in a bad mood. Forgive me, please. I mean no malice.

if europe ever becomes as violent as the US, then perhaps i'll be more encouraged to carry, but i just don't know.

in my opinion "the old world" still has some things to teach "the new"

Well, keep in mind that statistics can be misleading. What a person experiences in an area, whether it is a "good area" or a "bad area" can be starkly different depending on the person. For instance, Washington D.C. has (and has had for a long time) one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. I have been there, and I might as well have been on a deserted island as far as crime went. My hometown has about 30,000 people, and I have seen a lot more happen in a day in my town that I have in the 2 weeks I spent in Wash-DC. I know it's a rough analogy, but do you see what I mean?

One person could walk through D.C. and it'd be like a stroll in the park, but another person in the same situation may have his life in danger. But what's more, the first person may be in danger the next day, but the second person may not. Can you see how both people could benefit by having a concealed pistol with them? In something like 70% of all encounters, the mere sight of a firearm is enough to make the cretins tuck tail and run.

Can I suggest something? I don't mean this in any sort of degrading way, either: Tomorrow, try judging people for what they DO, not what they COULD do.

Aside from those points, I think I can kind of see what your views are and where they come from, but please understand that you are pretty much preaching to the choir. We at THR are generally a very safe, very peaceful, very polite bunch. The ones you take issue with are the ones that don't bother even learning safety.

...their jumpyness and willingness to shoot anything that move reflects on american civilians.

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this go. I don't know where you're getting this all from, but it is a war. People tend to get jumpy when they're being shot at and having human bombs run at them. And yes, wars tend to cause people to die. That's a rock hard fact.

Let me set it straight for you right here, right now: Americans, whether they be soldiers or civilians, are not trigger happy hillbillies. The things you see on the news represent a fraction of a fraction of us. I can guarantee you that if you were to come shooting with my friends and I, it would be uneventful as far as "accidents" go. Generally it is the new shooter that presents the hazard anyway, and I would perform a full-on football tackle on the new shooter if I saw them do anything to endanger the other shooters. Safety is something I take seriously. I am also proud of the fact that I've never killed anybody, and that I don't shoot anything that moves... and neither has/does anyone that I know.

FWIW,
Wes

P.S. -- up until I year ago, I never had a filling in my life. I have one now. I also have "perfect bite," which means that I will never need braces, to answer your question. :D

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 07:20 PM
ok I'll accept in war there are 'special' circumstances compared to civilian life however maby your media has sheilded you from just how much American soldiers have blown away civilian and british troops.

TonyB- america never invaded by the 'United Kingdom' it an 'English' invasion, read a few more history books. Also if people did piss americans of what would happen, would america send their 3rd rate army on them? I seriously doubt US army could stand up to any modern army like UK, germany etc

TonyB
December 13, 2003, 07:23 PM
I know one time we definatly killed a lot of British troops........the Revolutionary War...........I know I'm the fat dumb American...sorry:rolleyes:

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 07:31 PM
TonyB- yea, it took you long enough and all! not to mention the fact that america was invaded for a substantial amount of time before anything was done about it, not to mention that america was so far from the UK as regard to getting supplys/ reinforcments over and they were using sailing boats to get there quite an achivment that they were there in the first place not to mention keep it for the time they did while having control of many many more colonies elsewhere, which is why they decided it was in their best interests to leave for colonies closer to home

cordex
December 13, 2003, 07:32 PM
Wow. I go out shooting and come back to this.

Okay, sasnofear:
from what i read it still blew up
And how many people died? How many might have?
also your are talking about palastine, that hardly has any relation to america, i dont see constant bombing & shootings by terrorists in america, do you?
You brought up Israel. My post was in reply to:
the terrorists in palestine/israel don't go about advertising their presence, and they don't care if they die or not. a concealed weapon will do nothing to prevent some random person walking down the street detonating his "martyr's shroud".
Now, you go on to claim:
Concealed weapons- larger chance people are gonna pull a gun in a situation where it really isn't required i.e instead of maby a punch up, you have a dead body.
Prove it.
lets face it, is it better to get into a fight or some over jumpey person with a gun, gunning someone down. more likley to be a fatality with a gun.
What? It is better to not get in fights in the first place. If you like to pick fights with people then I suppose I can see why you wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves.
CCW will mean people are going to grab a gun in situations that deadly force can be avoided.
The possibility exists. They might also crack someone's skull with a nearby piece of lumber when it could have been avoided. What's your point?
people are more likly to die as result of jumpey CCW holders than being attacked my criminal.
Sorry, but that is an outright lie. Total fiction.

Ossie:
while CCW may enable an alert carrier to prevent an incident, it is more likely that they'll be unable to prevent it in time.
And police aren't terribly likely to prevent crimes. Should they be abolished?

CCW isn't 100% always the answer to everything. No one claims it is.
There's the difference between you and I, I don't see a separation. A concealed weapon is a concealed weapon.
Do you really not see a difference between a crim carrying a concealed weapon and me carrying a concealed weapon? That is incredible.

10mmshooter
December 13, 2003, 07:33 PM
Perhaps I can explain why many Americans feel the need to be armed.
I know a man who is now in his 80's. He lives in south Texas, about 5 miles from the Mexican border.
In the 1970's he was at home, and his wife was going to the beauty parlor to have her hair cut. Shortly after she walked out of their front door...he heard a commotion in the driveway.
As he walked out onto the front porch of their home...he saw a young man who was a neighbor of theirs...arguing with his wife.They had been in constant feuds with these neighbors over property boundaries for a few months.
As he approached the neighbor...the young man drew a .22 pistol from his waistband, and fired several shots. The wife was killed on the spot, and the old man was hit 3 times in the arm, and abdomen.
The old man ran back into his home,and locked the door behind him. He watched the young neighbor fire another shot into his wife through a front window, then saw the gunman approach the front door of his home.
The gunman began kicking the door, and the old man armed himself with a double barreled shotgun that he used to shoot birds with, as they lived in a rural area.
As the door came crashing down...the old man fired both barrels into the gunmans' chest from a distance of about 6 feet...killing him instantly.
All of this took place in a matter of only a couple of minutes, and the old man was cleared of any wrong doing.His wounds have healed. He still lives in the same home, and he has since,re-married....to my wifes' grandmother.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 07:41 PM
some quotes arn't mine so kindly differentiate between different peoples quotes.


I'm not going to bother to reply to points that are ossies unless they are brough up as general points and not brough up as mine (even though they are completly correct)

#And how many people died? How many might have?

well the same :S isolated incident anyway, you dont see that happening much in US do you?

#Now, you go on to claim: / What? It is better to not get in fights in the first place. If you like to pick fights with people then I suppose I can see why you wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves. / The possibility exists. They might also crack someone's skull with a nearby piece of lumber when it could have been avoided. What's your point?

have you actually read all the posts since you were away, im sure you'll find your answers there

Beav
December 13, 2003, 07:54 PM
Sasnofear, so if you don't believe in guns for self defense what do you believe they are for? I'm mostly a collector and target shooter, but I certainly don't look down on those that have guns for self defence.

sasnofear
December 13, 2003, 07:56 PM
well im certianly not anti-gun, i love target shooting and hunting but query the use of them with CCW though i do concede in some instances a home defence gun is a good idea if you are particulary at risk

bokchoi
December 13, 2003, 08:10 PM
... but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyways.

I'm a Canadian citizen, I was born and I have lived here uninterruptedly for 22 years.

I wholeheartedly believe that ordinary citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms for the purpose of self-protection, and I stand by those Americans who choose to exercise their right to do so, even though I don't have those same rights.

Why do I take such a stand in a country where I supposedly don't have to worry about crime or terrorism?

I believe in the autonomy of my own life. It's my choice whether or not I am prudent or I take risks in my everyday activities, and my personal well-being is ultimately my responsibility. I have dreams, a future, loved ones, and personal belongings that all constitute important aspects of my life. I, like the vast majority of other people, do not choose to throw away our lives or do stupid things when we feel the need to have fun or out of despair when we are overcome by stress.

I'm not about to allow my dreams to be taken away from me unjustly, remote as that possibility may be. My dreams are dependent on my life, and this is the only life I have.

The probability of me becoming a victim means nothing; the government can keep on telling me that violent crime is going down, but I still hear and know women who have been sexually assaulted, personally know people whose homes have been broken into, and have been a victim of property crime. You can say it happens to 1 out of a million people, but someone still wins the lottery. It could be me.

If someone decides to show no absolutely no respect to my property, how can I trust him to show any respect to my life? If he decides to take my TV, fine. But if he decides to come back to take my life, do I have to ask him to wait for me to dial 911, wait for the police to arrive, and plead with him not to kill me so he won't have any witnesses?

The ordinary citizen isn't by definition required to be a sheep to every single force of nature, government, or crime. The ordinary citizen has his or her own dreams, property, and family to care about. It's their responsibility to protect what's theirs to the fullest extent of the law.

The ordinary citizen deserves to have at his disposal the most effective means of defending him or herself. In our world, that means is a firearm, and consequently deadly force. He or she deserves every right to use as much force as neccessary on that person whom decides to violate the social contract and present themselves as a threat to that person who is defending themselves. No philosopher has ever claimed self-defense to be a violation of morality.

You might argue that the vast majority of people are not qualified to own guns. My own personal ability and responsibility of owning firearms is not for you to decide upon; the vast majority of those whom own firearms are not the ignorant, racist, bigoted, or criminal types that television so indiscriminately portrays them as. We are ordinary people who have taken responsibility to protect ourselves in the event that law enforcement can't. We are students, doctors, chefs, lawyers, shopkeepers, welders, and members of almost any other profession you can imagine. We refuse to be held responsible for the actions of the few, as almost every aspect of human technology stands to be destroyed should we follow this rationale; cars cause accidents and kill people, computer viruses cause massive chaos, and electricty electrocutes, yet we don't attempt to blame and ban any of these technologies over the loss of human life, even when those using these technologies may have specific intent on using them for the purpose of causing harm to others. If you examine statistics, you will find that automobile ownership is a far more life-threatening aspect of society than firearms ownership; the fact is, most gun owners are not the types of people you might assume them to be from watching television. Cars have a purpose: to transport people and goods. Guns have a purpose: to protect human life and property.

If you don't want to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, it is your complete and unalienable right to do so. No one in the government will persecute you for that decision, but the criminal who does is under no obligation to practice such civility.

From a statistical point of view, an armed citizenry makes sense. It has been proven that it is not the punishment of a crime that deters criminal behavior, but the certainty and speed with which that criminal is caught following the comission of a criminal act. Even if we decided to put everyone who was caught for even the most minor offense on death row, we would not deter crime if those who committed crimes thought they would escape capture. By allowing the ordinary citizen to be armed, we dramatically increase the risk of certainty and speed with which this criminal will be punished for his behavior, and thus provide real and tangible deterrence to future criminal acts.

Again, I own guns not because I have visions of going out and shooting schoolchildren or robbing banks, or shooting shoplifters or drug users. I am not so stupid as to attach meaningful importance to trivial things like someone stealing a few quarters out of my piggybank, or even someone walking out of my house with my television set. The vast majority of gun owners aren't.

But if someone decides my life isn't important, then I will use whatever means neccessary to protect myself. My body is my temple; everything in my life depends on my well-being, my safety, and my ability to protect that which is important to me, and to continue living to achieve these goals in my life. No one should be allowed to take that from me, and it is my responsibility to defend against this, whether or not the odds of such incidents happening to me are miniscule or not, and especially if the good men and women of law enforcement cannot do so in time, a sad truth of today's world.

cordex
December 13, 2003, 08:12 PM
Some quotes arn't mine so kindly differentiate between different peoples quotes.
I did. I was careful to do that. Notice the "Ossie:" part way down? Cute way of avoiding some of the issues that you brought up, though.
well the same
You didn't read the articles I posted, then.
anyway, you dont see that happening much in US do you?
Hey, you brought Israel up in the first place, bud.

Still ... you're right. Mostly a different sort of crimminal here. Much more suited to being warded off using lawfully carried, concealed handguns. Wouldn't you agree?

cordex
December 13, 2003, 08:13 PM
i do concede in some instances a home defence gun is a good idea if you are particulary at risk
Why should one be able to defend their lives at home and not elsewhere?

Jack19
December 13, 2003, 08:26 PM
You want to know why the UK and NI restricts the right of the subjects to carry weapons?

Soccer matches.

Surely no one in this area would ever want to protect themselves...
http://loyalulster.150m.com/shankill1r.jpg

And this guy is living proof that "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns."http://loyalulster.150m.com/adair.jpg

Isn't his family hiding out in Scotland now? Whatever for? Surely there's no danger of an armed attack? I'm sure their poor neighbors wish for a few weapons.

Yeah, I was born in the UK...I thank God my parents saw the light. :rolleyes:

BluesBear
December 13, 2003, 08:33 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-12/540255/troll.jpg

greyhound
December 13, 2003, 08:38 PM
These debates are civil and for that I am thankful. One of the numerous posters here stated that we are close allies, yet far away with our European friends on many issues, gun control/self defense being a biggie.

Do a search for "White Wolf", I think it was, a young man from Norway who stopped by a couple months ago. The result was the same, 4+ pages of almost the exact thread.

We all have different laws. I think I have finally come to see why our UK friends like Agricola get a little hot about us Americans railing about British gun laws. Yes, self defense is a basic human right and should not be subject to restrictive laws.

But, in the real world, different nations and regions will interpret things differently. It is our Constitution that shapes the way we live, just like many Europeans are shaped by their history, which is much different from ours.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - we shouldn't project American values and beliefs on Europe, and they shouldn't do the same to us. In any case, there is lots that we have in common, but the right to self defense is not one of them.

We are not going to convince them, and they are not going to convince us. I think it is because we share some common ground that these threads are for the most part civil.

Just my humble opinion.

tyme
December 13, 2003, 08:49 PM
Minor edits to make a point...
"I guess what I'm trying to say is - we shouldn't project American values and beliefs on [the Middle East], and they shouldn't do the same to us. In any case, there is lots that we have in common, but the right to [religious and gender-based equality] is not one of them."

Does anyone agree with that statement? What makes the "right" of equality different from the RKBA?

Moparmike
December 13, 2003, 08:57 PM
but I have something I want to add (and hopefully I am not repeating anyone...)
lets face it, is it better to get into a fight or some over jumpey person with a gun, gunning someone down. more likley to be a fatality with a gun. im sure there are homes in which a defence gun is useful but just because it's your RIGHT to own one dosen't mean every single household should own one, just because your a citizen dosen't mean u should be a gun owner there should be good screening and a 'good' reason to own one.Citizens are not screened and required to have a 'reason' to exercise a right. Subjects do not have the ablitity to exercise rights, they have to ask permission to perform a revokable act. Rights are NOT REVOKABLE.

but i think he was trying to bring your nation up to our level. how can a nation with 11,000+ gun deaths per year, which retains the death penalty as a "deterrent" call itself a civilised, democratic nation?First of all, we dont call ourselves a democratic nation. We are a REPUBLIC. Democracies have no elected officials in government. The society IS the government. Now that we have that out of the way...

Gun deaths? I didnt know that many guns were being melted down. Odd. Did you mean "deaths at the hands of assailants using firearms as their instrument of death?" BTW, a "civilised society" doesnt give the criminals more power than the "citizenry." Criminals are a scourge of a society, and is an occupation that should be hazardous to the perp's health.

mod12
December 13, 2003, 08:57 PM
stan and ollie. tell ya what. i really think you guys oughtta stop shootin and drillin people in the knee cap. after that dies down, quit rollin ale bottles filled with petrol and burning rags into the pubs. next it would be appreciated by the brits if you would stop backshooting their troops on patrol in your quaint scenic villages. try to keep the racket down to a roar when you're digging up those ak 47's you bought with money you scammed from generous americans under humanitarian guise. continue to isolate men and women who marry across faiths. above all, don't come over here asking for help when you get your behind in a sling as you've done in the past. do you suppose the real people in ireland could conduct themselves with a little more orderliness while they're standing in line to get on the boat to sail west.it's rather unseemly to be so happy when they're leaving the auld sod.

Ryder
December 13, 2003, 08:58 PM
sasnofear,

My life has been threatened by criminals at least a half dozen times over a 30 year span. They do this because they think that they are strong and I am weak, because they have a weapon and I don't, or because I am alone and they are many.

Considering my past experience this may well be expected to happen again within the next 5 years. I can't pretend my past did not happen and I will not pretend that other's misfortunes read about in the newspapers can't happen to me. My experiences never made it into any newspaper.

Does the lion attack a tiger? I see them in cages together all the time here. There is a deterent effect when both are predators. Criminals are predators doing what comes natural to them, I need teeth to fight back.

George Hill
December 13, 2003, 09:12 PM
I think something needs to be addressed...

"Jumpy"

What makes you Royal Subjects think that all Americans with guns are "Jumpy"?
This is not the case at all.
Should you come to the States for a visit and end up out here in the Utah area... I invite you to come shooting with us. You will find that we are the least "jumpy" people around.
We do not hope for the chance or excuse to shoot someone. Far from it.
I've been attacked twice in the last 4 years... I didn't fire my handgun in either case.
Although I could have.
Human life is valuable, and taking it is no light matter. However regardless of that value, my own life value is just as important and deserving of preservation.
I invite you to check out the following website:
http://www.a-human-right.com/
The author is the owner of this forum. He came to the US from Russia, and has an interesting perspective. I suggest you read through that site carefully, page by page. It is time consuming, but I think it will give your our collective perspective.


I have to say that I am pleased to see you guys here discussing things... Many times people who are "Anti-Gun" just throw out blanket insults and have no desire to "talk". Talk is good... talk is valuable... but for talk to be anything like real communication there must be at least the attempt for both parties to try to understand the other side.
I'm part Scottish and part Irish... I take pride in my geneology. One day I hope to visit the area where my family comes from... "Skipness" is the place, in Scotland.
I also admire your cars... I would love to have a chance to drive a TVR Griffon... It seems American car makers no longer have to desire to put balls in our cars anymore.

Am I off the subject? I am. Forgive me.

My point is this - For this thread to continue to have any value - we need to keep the backhanded complements and vielled insults out of our posts... on both sides.

RikWriter
December 13, 2003, 10:06 PM
RikWriter - Note: I never said things didn't happen, just not often and did the guy trying to get into your house try to shoot you?

First off, they only have to happen once to kill you, so that's a stupid argument.
Second, the guy didn't have a gun...he was just 6 foot 5, 270lbs, drunk off his rocker and had a tire iron. He was convinced that our house was his friend's house and decided that we were lying to him so he was going to bust in our door and beat us up until we admitted it. The sight of my father and myself pointing rifles at him sobered him up enough that he ran back to his truck and sped away before the sheriff's deputy arrived.

BluesBear
December 13, 2003, 10:19 PM
Just remember that if our forefathers had not owned firearms, then all of us over here would still be spelling it defence as well, not just the current "subjects" over there.



By the term forefathers, I didn't not mean neccessarily our direct ancestors. Instead I meant the good men & women from all over the world who founded and settled this violence ridden country where it seems today everyone wants to live.

Don Gwinn
December 13, 2003, 10:45 PM
I can spell the words "principle," "deem," and "you." I find it unsporting to engage in debate with anyone who can't.

hops
December 13, 2003, 11:47 PM
Yes. Humans, afterall, invented them for self-defence. Often the best defense is a good offense. They come in handy for getting food - sort of like self-defense against starvation, in case of a potato famine.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 14, 2003, 12:37 AM
Ossie wrote:

You don't think that's just a reflection on the country he's currently residing in? That he can only feel safe with a handgun and carry permit is a sad reflection on US society.

That the people of the UK are forced by their government to face serious and violent crime defenselessly, is an even sadder coment on UK society.

ever hear of my lai? too bad the vietnamese there didn't have guns to stop the massacre, isn't it? or the koreans at No Gun Ri?

Ever heard of the Boston Massacre?

BHPshooter
December 14, 2003, 12:48 AM
Well, for the record, let it be known that these threads CAN serve a purpose -- they should be a reminder, however unpleasant, than culture boundaries are very real and very difficult to overcome.

Wes

Lumpy196
December 14, 2003, 01:15 AM
OK, Im ready to vomit.

MicroBalrog
December 14, 2003, 08:50 AM
this is probally the most stupied reason i've ever heard im my life..

ROFLMAO!

Tell me, is your location a real one? Because here, LOTS of terrorists have been shot by civilians.

MicroBalrog
December 14, 2003, 08:58 AM
That he can only feel safe with a handgun and carry permit is a sad reflection on US society.

It is in fact a sad reflection on modern society that a person needs a permit to carry or own a handgun.

Ryder
December 14, 2003, 09:15 AM
OK, Im ready to vomit.

Ahaha, yeah, I can only stomach so much of one of these type threads myself. Just have to learn to read them a little bit at a time is all.

sasnofear
December 14, 2003, 09:23 AM
wowa, ok a lot of stupidity to get threw here. First of I’m just going to have to comment on the one post idiots here who comment on my spelling. I have written nearly 20 long replies in a VERY short space of time and I’m going to have a lot of typos (sorry I just don’t spend the amount of time on a computer as you do) so if that’s the only way you can counter the argument go back to your caves, your not welcome here.

Mod12- sorry I just couldn’t let this stupidity go


‘digging up those ak 47's you bought with money you scammed from generous americans under humanitarian guise. continue to isolate men and women who marry across faiths’

People were very aware that the money was for guns (ossie made a point about this earlier if you scroll back and look) in which caused a lot of people to die because of americans giving money to the IRA (what did you think the money was being spent on, flowers?)

‘continue to isolate men and women who marry across faiths’ – i’m sorry didn’t you inslave black people for hundreds of years, deny them civil rights and murder them like flies? I’d much rather be ‘oppressed’ here than live as a black man in america. Also the peace agreement since 1998? Ever heard of it ?

MicroBalrog -

"It is in fact a sad reflection on modern society that a person needs a permit to carry or own a handgun."

- so you think people shouldn'y need drivers licences? wow what a great idea!


"Tell me, is your location a real one? Because here, LOTS of terrorists have been shot by civilians."

REALLY? ahemm, well at least you addd light humor to the conversation.


Jack19- " You want to know why the UK and NI restricts the right of the subjects to carry weapons?

Soccer matches.

Surely no one in this area would ever want to protect themselves...


And this guy is living proof that "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns."

Isn't his family hiding out in Scotland now? Whatever for? Surely there's no danger of an armed attack? I'm sure their poor neighbors wish for a few weapons. "

1/umm, stupid government legistration to stop guns being given to terrorists when they can just as easily buy the illegally frm america?

2/well no, i own guns

3/ do a google search and give me his name dummy :) it is the least you could of bothered to do, and if you read right he was trying to take over paramilitary forces/ drugs involved etc, so read around a bit he was a paramilitary leader, he may of had mor ereason to flee than those of us here who arn't terrorists!

MicroBalrog
December 14, 2003, 09:30 AM
- so you think people shouldn'y need drivers licences? wow what a great idea!

You know, driver's licenses and gun licenses are different in a zillion different ways. Here's some:

1.You don't need a license to OWN a car or transport it. Similarly, you shouldn't need a license to own and transport a gun.

2.The right to defend yourself is just that, a right, and guns are pretty much the only efficient means of self-defense out there (there are many alternatives to cars).

3.There's no proof that gun licensing reduces crime.

4. With a car, you have to be rather qualified to avoid accidents, and even then it's not sure. With a gun, all you need is to follow the four rules.

5.Car licenses are there to ensure you're qualified, gun license try to check if you're a criminal. You should be ASSUMED not to be a criminal.

REALLY? ahemm, well at least you addd light humor to the conversation.

Yes, REALLY. I LIVE in Israel. I'm a soldier here. Please don't tell me how much training you need to take down a terrorist.

RikWriter
December 14, 2003, 09:33 AM
sasnofear, yes, there is a lot of stupidity to get through here...but we're stubborn so we'll keep trying to break through your stupidity and educate you.

MicroBalrog
December 14, 2003, 09:35 AM
RikWriter, that is so NOT the HighRoad.

sasnofear
December 14, 2003, 09:43 AM
MicroBalrog- yes im sure as a 'conscripted' soldier you obviously know so much, but in truth i really cant see how you just being a soldier has any relevance to being able to stop a terrorist, i seriously doubt that your terrorists go about with signs on them, and if i dont need to tell you how much training is required to take down a terrorist then how come where soldiers occupy a place to stop it it still carrys on...like for 30 years

yea, but you should need a licence to shoot one!

hey, im the first to say that gun restrictions dont prevent crime as they are easily illegally gotten so ur preaching to the converted there what i am saying is that accidental or unesssisary shootings occur more frequently

Don Gwinn
December 14, 2003, 09:43 AM
All right, that's enough. Lights out. Personal attacks, trolling, etc. etc. etc. You all know what's allowed and what isn't, so this should come as no surprise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any point in guns for self defence?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!