quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Then one of us left it in the oven (who knows?), and Mom flambeed it when she started dinner that night.

---

quote:

---

When we are forbidden a thing, that we desireth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I grew up in a house full of guns. Real guns. They weren't locked up. There was a pistol in my dad's night table. A shotgun in the coat closet. The rifles were in my dad's bedroom closet. Ammo was in boxes in the basement.

We had no toy guns in the house. None. Well, except for the neon-colored plastic water pistols. And I think those were a concession to my mother: I am sure my dad would have preferred we not have the water pistols. If you want to have a water fight, you can use an empty dish soap bottle -- they squirt really well.

Dad taught us all to shoot as soon as we were able to hold a gun. And he taught us, from before the time we could walk, I think, his Three Rules for Guns:

1. All guns are real.

2. All guns are loaded.

3. You never point a gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot (and kill, if it's alive).

The problem with toy guns is that they violate the first rule for guns. Guns are not toys. Never.

Toy guns are tragedies waiting to happen. Children hiding in the bushes playing cops and robbers have been killed by cops who saw the shadowy movement of a person and a very real-looking toy gun. Children have killed their friends when they found a real gun and thought it was a toy.

My children don't have toy guns. If they want to point their finger or a stick at someone and go "bang! bang! you're dead!" they can do so. But anything that looks like a gun *is* a gun, and must be treated accordingly.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Thank you, Josephine, that was a very sobering post.

Never ever let your gun
pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
matters not the least to me.

I may have changed my mind on toy guns after your post.

Cheers,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by 'Lurker' (# 1384) on :
 
[Tangent]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

...
I dont think you did anything wrong, but the kid is going to be pretty bored not being able to point the gun at anyone or use the caps. Maybe you could buy him a remote control car and withhold the batteries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Space Monkey, I think it comes under the general concept that if you have guns in the home (and, from my perspective I can't see any reason to do so ... but I do know that many people think this is a perfectly reasonable thing) then they must be kept in a responsible manner. That would include making sure any children know that they are not toys, and having toy guns around is a potential source of confusion. Such confusion does happen, for example, how many kids have taken medicines thinking they were sweets?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Lurker':
[Tangent]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

The gun makes it a lot easier though.

[/Tangent]

For me, the question wouldn't be "Is owning a toy gun going to make someone more likely to get a real gun?" but "Can they tell the difference?"

I think it is better to tell children to avoid guns altogether.

---

Yes. Its also better to tell children to avoid sex until they are emotionally and financially stable enough to deal with consequences. Perhaps this works in Europe, but American children tend to ignore parental wisdom.

A gun is an inanimate object that has no will of its own and cannot shoulder the blame for the misuse and abuse it suffers from careless or evil users. It is a tool, like a car or a knife or a television.

...and if your kid is stupid enough to face down a cop in a darkened alley (the ONLY case like this I have heard of) with a toy gun then there are significantly more problems in the household than whether or not a toy gun is going to turn him into a psychopath.
 

---

Posted by MarkE (# 4660) on :
 
I played with toy guns as a kid. I shot air rifles at targets under supervision while in the Scouts. I have once tried clay pigeon shooting and I really enjoyed it. Non of this seemed to do me any harm. I'm a pretty non-violent guy in general.

However, Josephine's post made me think about how I would feel if I lived in a society where guns are common. It sounds to me like Josephine's dad took a very sensible line. If you're going to have real guns lying around then no gun should be considered safe.

Fortunately, I live in a country where you just don't see guns. Private ownership of hand guns is banned. Shotguns have to be licensed and kept in locked safes if you keep them at home. The police don't rountinely carry guns (in fact, it's rare to see a police officer with a gun.)

I like it like this!
 

---

Posted by MarkE (# 4660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
A gun is an inanimate object that has no will of its own and cannot shoulder the blame for the misuse and abuse it suffers from careless or evil users. It is a tool, like a car or a knife or a television.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
...and if your kid is stupid enough to face down a cop in a darkened alley (the ONLY case like this I have heard of) with a toy gun then there are significantly more problems in the household than whether or not a toy gun is going to turn him into a psychopath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

So what I want to know is, how come no one ever says this about nuclear weapons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
people are the problem. Guns might be perfectly OK in the hands of some other species, but we aren't to be trusted with them.

---

Well done.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

---

So what I want to know is, how come no one ever says this about nuclear weapons?

---

quote:

---

"All the pheasants ever bred
Won't repay for one man dead."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
There are also still places where bears and cougars pose a real danger to human beings and to livestock.

---

I do love living in a country where I'm top of the food chain.
 

---

Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I was raised with guns and toy guns, and have no urge to hurt fellow citizens in the slightest. Hurt criminals? Absolutely. IF required. But not fellow citizens.

As for guns and kids, California and many other states here have laws that say if a kid hurts themselves or someone else with your gun and you did not take reasonable precautions, you go to jail. A very good thing IMHO.

I realize our bretheren over the pond have different values, even some of our bretheren on this side of the pond. And some slogans do not help a whole lot. For those that wish to take the U.K. and say "See it works Here", please realize that America is as similar to you as Antarctica in many ways, which is to say not....at.....all

So here's a longer form of why guns are not going away any time soon in America, if some of us have something to say about it:

We want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in our homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, we want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

One of the most important protections we Americans have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.

But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.

The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.

I agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.


Source

[ 08. January 2004, 00:46: Message edited by: BarkingMad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Oh, goody. The ever-predictable quarterly manifesto from the gun enthusiasts among us. To save us all the effort, may I just draw ditto marks under whatever I said the last time they came out to bay at the moon?

Let me just add my shopworn observations:

1) True, guns don't kill people. But neither do people kill people. It's the morons who own guns who kill people.

2) You wanna play bang-bang-bang? Go join your friendly neighborhood well-ordered militia. Reasonable handgun laws don't "discriminate" against gun owners any more than drug laws "discriminate" against stoners.

3) For 36 years and in three wars my father killed people for a living and did a damn fine job of it, if you'll allow me a little daughterly kvelling. And yet he refused to have a firearm of any kind on the house and never once touched a gun for "fun" -- be it for hunting or target shooting or what have you. It's a rare member of the military who does, actually. Once you've seen what they can do to people, they just don't seem all that enjoyable.

4) Certainly people in rural areas may need a long-barreled firearm to hunt or deal with dangerous animals. But you don't need a readily concealable handgun with cop-killer bullets in the chamber to sneak up on Bambi.

5) That's why who really bothers me aren't gun owners as much as people who derive that much enjoyment from owning guns. You want a hobby? Try stamp collecting.

The problem with BMG's approach:

quote:

---

But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
I guess in the US this would be so ho-hum that no one would blink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
That's fascinating, Left at the Altar. One of the arguments always made in the US is that the rigors of rural life make gun ownership a necessity. But everything I've read (OK, it was just Bill Bryson's In a Sunburned Country)suggests that rural life in Australia poses vastly more natural hazards than the US and yet gun ownership is highly regulated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
Apart from humans, I can't think of a single thing that would kill you. Except snakes. And its illegal to shoot them anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
What fast-moving animal would they need to shoot? Kangaroos? Bunnies? Fast criminals?

---

quote:

---

The second reason I am a gun owner is that I enjoy them. I find stamp collecting to be insanely boring, but as long as the philatelist is not being unsafe by forcing me to watch him soak stamps, it's his business. As I have never given anyone reason to believe that I pursue my hobby in an irresponsible or unsafe manner, I do not see that I need to justify it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aj:
Is there a discussion on armed sky marshals taking place somewhere?

What kind of guns will they have?

---

Hopefully, guns that are not capable of putting a hole in the side of a plane. Even better, some form of non-lethal weapon such as plastic bullets
(well, they can kill, but have a lot less chance of doing so than a real bullet) or those little bags of lead shot like miniature beanbags that hurt but don't kill. Given the amount of civilians around when these have to be used, it seems prudent.

Actually, why can't people who want guns to defend their homes use these sort of weapons?
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Getting back to the OP, as it were, I'd be interested to know if Scot lets his kids play with toy guns.

I'm somewhat unusual in liberal left parenthood circles in not totally banning toy weapons of any sort, along with all manner of other 'unsuitable' toys such as ones based on TV shows with no educational content, computer games not designed to teach key skills etc. In fact, I avoid the kind of shops that boast that all their toys complement the national curriculum and produce instant geniuses.

I take the dangerous, radical view that playing is something kids do for enjoyment and relaxation, not yet more education thinly disguised as fun. I suppose that's why BC has yet to compose his first symphony or get his degree in maths...
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
They say that people (except for US of course) can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Non-propheteer is right. Gunsd don;t kill people, people kill people. So if we want fewer people to be killed, we must prevent people from having guns because people are the problem. The plain fact is that the more guns there are around, the more people get killed.

---

quote:

---

• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
I was raised with guns and toy guns, and have no urge to hurt fellow citizens in the slightest. Hurt criminals? Absolutely. IF required. But not fellow citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Murder rates in England and Canada were already low when gun control legislation was introduced, however, violent crimes such as mugging, rape and assault went up and stayed up after the common citizen was relieved of their right to a means of self defense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
1) True, guns don't kill people. But neither do people kill people. It's the morons who own guns who kill people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:

The problem with BMG's approach is that by the time we're able to separate the responsible owners from the irresponsible ones, somebody's four-year-old child or eighty-year-old mother or 59-year-old lead singer is maimed or killed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So criminals aren't citizens?

At what point do they cease to be citizens, and which of their rights as citizens do they lose?

Can they be detained indefinately as enemy combatants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If someone broke into my house, I'd have no hesitation in smacking him/her around the head with a cricket bat. Shouldn't have been breaking in, should they?

If guns were legal here, I'd use one to defend my property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
I sleep with the windows open in summer (even when Mr A is interstate, which is often) and don't really worry too much about locking doors. In reality, the chances of anyone breaking in are so small, they are not worth worrying about. I'd be more likely to die of the associated stress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Murder rates in England and Canada were already low when gun control legislation was introduced, however, violent crimes such as mugging, rape and assault went up and stayed up after the common citizen was relieved of their right to a means of self defense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
What interests me in the difference in level of fear of attack on each side of the Atlantic. I live on the outskirts of London, and am sitting here quite undefended in a house it would be possible to break into with brick. I am completely unafraid. So, whilst I respect your desire to defend yourself, I am happier to live where I've never felt the need!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So far no problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
I am very happy to waive any right to bear arms.

---

quote:

---

Scot: We've been around the block on the number of people accidentally killed by handguns in the home vs. the number of people who have defended themselves against home invaders threatening imminent bodily harm and haven't seemed to convince one another,..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I currently waive that right for myself (as in, I do not own a gun). I do not, however, believe that I have the right to waive anyone else's rights on their behalf. That's a rather selfish point of view.

---

That is true. But there is a point at which the community can 'selfishly' abrogate somebody's right to do something if it is in the interests of the whole community - as happens all the time.

The question is if gun ownership falls into this category. I don't think the answer is clear-cut. Canada has lots of guns and a low level of gun deaths. Similarly, rural areas the UK have a comparatively high level of gun ownership by UK standards (shotguns and rifles). Yet gun crime in these areas is low, it is a few innercity areas that have any level of gun crime at all. So I don't think there is a simple 'more guns = more gun crime' equation. There must be other (cultural perhaps?) reasons for the level of gun deaths in the US.

On a practical level, I don't think it would be possible to reduce gun-ownership in the US to UK or Australian levels - it is too engrained in the culture and the whole 'right to bear arms' thing. As somebody already said (I thought it was on this thread but can't find it now) its an apples and oranges thing, the attitudes of the 2 countries to guns are so different that it's pointless to think we could make one like the other.

Rat
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
To be absolutely fair, I did get the lock on the front door changed when we moved in here, but that was because the old one didn't always latch securely, and I just knew BC would leave the door wide open one day when he left after I did for the day (he'd already done it twice whilst I was in). Whereas we probably wouldn't have been burgled, if we had, the insurance company would have been very sniffy about a wide-open door. Besides, the house would have been freezing!

I also found the situation in Canada interesting - much the most interesting point in the Bowling for Columbine film, most of which struck me as rather unfair to the normal well-balanced Americans I've met on the ship. I bet you could dredge up paranoid loonies in any country if you went looking for them. In fact, I once had an acquaintance who kept a shot gun and all manner of supplies for when 'bandits' took over his part of south London. That was 20 years ago, and I suppose he's still waiting for the rioting to start. And my own 10 year old is walking about these days with a 'survival kit', in a part of the world where there are 24 hour shops supplying his every need. Still, in his mind he's in a jungle...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Similarly, rural areas the UK have a comparatively high level of gun ownership by UK standards (shotguns and rifles).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's a point that the right-to-bear-arms loonies often miss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's a point that the right-to-bear-arms loonies often miss.

---

Explain, please, who the "right-to-bear-arms loonies" are, and what differentiates them from right-to-bear-arms sane people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That's a point that the right-to-bear-arms loonies often miss.

---

Explain, please, who the "right-to-bear-arms loonies" are, and what differentiates them from right-to-bear-arms sane people.

---

It is rather a redundancy, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Along the lines of Orthodox nutjob, then.

(rim shot)
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm intrigued by Scot's aside that he has an emergency food supply in the pantry. I often overdo the food shopping, but don't think anyone I know has a serious emergency food supply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Scot's priorities are straight. Good God, a man, in his first responsibility, ought to take care of his own family. For you to imply he really ought to show a rather heartless detatchment from them in a time of crisis is, well, plain stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Presleyterian, are you equally concerned about the local ruffians stealing my circular saw? Our cutlery? How about the minivan? Those are all dangerous tools that I store in my house where they could be stolen.

---

If you can carry a concealed circular saw and kill people at a distance with it, color me impressed.

Otherwise I have trouble seeing how it's so similar to a gun, which is surely the most compact and efficient killing tool available to the general public.
 

---

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
P.S. to IBP: Handguns and submachine guns are categorically neither "fantastically powerful" nor long range weapons. Also, I've never heard Heston say what you claim. I suspect that your fervor is exceeding your knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
IbP, you have to realize that not all of us live in a climate that is as boring as yours. Some of us get natural disasters on a regular basis. Hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados all can knock out power for days or even weeks (I think Andrew knocked it out for MONTHS in south Florida). That means that you can't cook, you can't go to a restaurant and buy things, you can't go to a store and buy things -- you're pretty much screwed. And when Jax finally does take the hurricane bullet, I am going to be packing heat in preparation for the looters.

---

Fair point, in England people get excited and take days off work when there's 2 inches of snow.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Hatless: I'm with Scot and Rat on the emergency supplies issue. Even I have a small supply of bottled water and non-perishables squirreled away and I would hardly categorize myself as a militia-joining survivalist nutjob. (Nor would I categorize Scot in that fashion, much to his chagrin. ) In the past few years in my very urban area, groceries stores have been shut down due to 24 inches of snow, hurricanes, and the attack on the Pentagon. It's just common sense that one should be as self-reliant as possible in time of emergency and allow the government to devoted its limited resources to helping those who can't help themselves. But I think our difference of opinion on that point may reflect a fairly deep disagreement about our basic political philosophies.

Moo: The slaughter at Appalachian State Law School struck close to home for both of us. I knew Dean Sutin, almost went to work for him, and had spoken to him just weeks before his murder. Yes, the quick actions of students who had firearms in their cars saved lives. The irony, however, is that there wouldn't have been a need for them to defend themselves and others had the despondent and deranged perp not had easy access to a murder weapon.

Scot: "When Sudafed is outlawed, only outlaws will have Sudafed?" Of course, the hazards that can befall us are multitudinous. All I'm asking is for a cost-benefit analysis to determine what's worth the risk and what isn't. It's a calculus that civilized societies perform all the time. For example, we've decided that the benefits of beagle ownership outweigh the risks that Snoopy will bite someone, but to be on the safe side, we require owners to get Snoopy a rabies shot. The benefits of lion ownership? Well, most municipalities believe the weight of the evidence is in the opposite direction. As for Sudafed, a ban due to the tweaker problem isn't all that far-fetched. Some have argued that there are decongestants on the market just as cheap and effective as Sudafed, but that can't be used to manufacture meth. It wouldn't surprise me to see states ban pseudoephedrine HCl after making exactly that kind of cost-benefit analysis. Some stores already impose voluntary limits on daily sales to discourage the tweaker who comes in a 3 in the morning and attempts to buy 100 boxes at once.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
I'm intigued by this thread.

I can see LATA's dilemma; I'd be the same.

Unfortunately for our kids, we banned guns on the grounds that toys are "pretend real things", so you play "pretend real things", so did they really want to kill the pals?
We also put up the idea that the dogs would be scared to death by cap guns.

So, a couplee of years ago, I came into a room and narrowly missed being skewerd by a foam bolt from a Wookie gun being used to " get the swan in the picture" that the son and his dad were playing.

I honestly do believe that the playing with firearm toys introduces their acceptability to our lives, whereas IMO, IRL, they're not.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Actually this thread has reminded me of the one time I did feel vaguely like I'd quite like a gun in the house. It was during the fuel crisis, when the shops were empty, everything felt wierd, and I was assailed by a feeling that society could break down a lot more easily than I'd previously thought. There was a moment when I thought 'bloody hell, anarchy is coming and here I am on my own - I wonder how I could get hold of a gun'.

I still think I prefer to live in a country were gun ownership doesn't normally feel necessary, though.

Rat
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
I happen to be in my second day of residential water shut-off due to water line problems (even as I post, the jackhammers thunder in the bachground).

As a result, I am suddenly aware of how quickly even large emergency supplies become exhausted. We are three dogs and two people, and we have gone through an astonishing supply of bottled water even though we have not washed dishes and have taken "whore's bahts" and have flushed toilets only when absolutely necessary.

For anyone serious about emergeny water, which is more immediately necessary than food, I now think a minimal stock would be 200 quart size bottles.

Will I now salt away that much water? I doubt it. I suppose I will simply accept the fact that I cannot go beyond a couple of days in a major emergency.

Greta

[ 08. January 2004, 16:03: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

I would hardly categorize myself as a militia-joining survivalist nutjob. (Nor would I categorize Scot in that fashion, much to his chagrin. )

---

I'll have to try harder.

You make a fair point about the cost-benefit analysis, although I still don't agree. I would be much more inclined to support "reasonable" restrictions if I wasn't such a fan of slippery slope-style paranoia.

And they'll get my Sudafed when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. What's next - NyQuil?
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ok, lets get one thing straight. there is no constitutionally protected right for an individual to own a firearm.

check it out.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Ooohh... now we're prooftexting with websites. Here's one just as valid as nicole's:

National Rifle Association
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well, no its not, erin, did you bother to look at it? mine links to the relevent supreme court decisions showing that the supreme court says there isn't any such right, and yours simply links to an organization that, despite all proof to the contrary, claims that there is.

[ 08. January 2004, 16:31: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Scot's priorities are straight. Good God, a man, in his first responsibility, ought to take care of his own family. For you to imply he really ought to show a rather heartless detatchment from them in a time of crisis is, well, plain stupid.

---

quote:

---

The irony, however, is that there wouldn't have been a need for them to defend themselves and others had the despondent and deranged perp not had easy access to a murder weapon.

---

quote:

---

The first point is largely although not entirely irrelevent in the UK - this is *not* IMHO one of those US/UK different thinking things, it's just a consequence of the fact that very few of our kids are likely to encounter a real gun. There are exceptions to this depending on where you live of course. If I lived in the US I would regard it as a very real concern, and I might too in certain UK inner city areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:


Moth, the toy gun thing hasn't come up yet, except with water pistols and those little disk-shooter things. In any case, I am not of the school that believes in cocooning the kids. I see it as one of my primary responsibilities to help my kids explore the world and learn to deal with it at its best and worst. They can't do that if I shelter them from reality. Thus, I don't believe in internet filters (monitoring, but not filters). I expect kids to fall down and get hurt sometimes, I think playing cowboy or soldier is normal, and I am more worried about vapid TV shows that I am about "inappropriate" ones. I haven't taught my children how to handle the real guns yet, but that's only been because of lack of opportunity. It will happen soon.

---

Well, there you go. We have very similar philosophies on child care. My children also have access to unfiltered internet, although I keep an eye on what they're up to and there are logs in the router that they can't delete. I don't censor TV much because I dislike censorship intensely and I think they're bright enough to stop watching vapid shows fairly quickly. Actually, neither of them watch children's shows much at all now - the TV hasn't been on at all today since they got home, they're out playing with friends. I don't censor their reading either, but I'm just waiting for the first girly mag. to make it home! I'd rather make them streetwise than wrap them up in cotton wool.

I won't teach them about guns because I don't have them and don't know anything about them. They have been to airsoft and paintball sessions, and if they want to go clay pigeon shooting when they're old enough, they can.

They know I don't like guns and wouldn't want them to become a part of our culture, but if they feel differently, they're welcome to vote in accordance with their own ideas when they're older.

At the moment, BC's politics are more like yours than mine. He plans to become a doctor and move to the USA where he can make 'real money'. He first told me this after reading the thread where Erin accused me of sacrificing my children on the altar of socialism! He tried to join SoF to tell her he was fighting back valiantly, but discovered he was too young! How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a right-wing child....

So, in conclusion, I should maybe have not let them have toy guns and only let them read the Guardian? BC certainly shows signs of dangerous derangement!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Ken, if you see criminals as citizens...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Actually this thread has reminded me of the one time I did feel vaguely like I'd quite like a gun in the house. It was during the fuel crisis, when the shops were empty, everything felt wierd, and I was assailed by a feeling that society could break down a lot more easily than I'd previously thought.

---

Odd. Where I was the whole thing was a storm in a teacup. It made no difference to anything I did whatsoever. On the last-but-one day of the so-called "crisis" I travelled from Glasgow to London and saw nothing odd at all.

It seemed to be a complete abortion of an act of civil disobedience. Pathetic. If that was the best they could do, forget them.

The time things did nearly break down was way back in 1982. It seemed to have been more or less supressed from the collective political memory, buit things were desperate in many places. Significant riots, a lot of disruption. I think the government came a lot nearer to falling htan they let on.

I was unemployed at the time - as was nbearly everyone I knew of my age, there simply were no jobs. I was getting benefits paid by post, without signing on, because the dole offices were on strike. At one poiunt I was getting giros from the DVLC in Wales, presumably because they were the only government agency

Had the benefits system broken down I think things would have got very bad very fast.

Had the miner's strike happend a little earlier than it did, I suspect Thatcher's government might have fallen. It might have anyway - it was the Falklands that saved them.

But the early 80s were the nearest to social breakdown I've seen here.


I suppose I should be pedantic and remind myself that riots and so on aren't in fact social breackdown, they are a breakdown of the organisations of government. They are still a method by which society, operates collectively.
The Poll Tax riots of the late 80s were much more focused than the early 80s riots and of course they were successful - the British government did give way, and Thatcher was removed, though not her party. That was a part of society imporing its will on another part of society by methods other than the usual ones of commercial and state institutions.

[ 08. January 2004, 17:40: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Ken:

Maybe if I add the word "Convicted" criminal you'll unbunch your drawers and get closer to understanding my meaning. Or maybe not. I do not desire to rob a criminal of their rights before they are tried in a court of law. I would however, deprive them of their life, if they threatened my significant other or myself (myself being very important to my significant other).

quote:

---

I also imagine, or rather fear, that you have an idea of a "criminal" as a person who is morally opr spiritually or psycologically quoite distinct from you, someone who is in a different category from you entirely, and does not deserve the rights taht you accord those you regard as "citizens".

---

quote:

---

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.
-- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Maybe if I add the word "Convicted" criminal you'll unbunch your drawers

---

quote:

---

I would however, deprive them of their life, if they threatened my significant other or myself (myself being very important to my significant other).

---

quote:

---

Ummmm, a criminal IS someone that is morally, and psychologically quite distinct from me and YOU.

---

quote:

---

Even psychologists can agree on what is antisocial behaviour (i.e. Criminal behaviour) versus normal (me and you, presumably).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Maybe if I add the word "Convicted" criminal you'll unbunch your drawers

---

Hard to see how you having a gun helps you against convicted criminals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Ummmm, a criminal IS someone that is morally, and psychologically quite distinct from me and YOU.

---

Absolutely not. You are completly wrong. "There but for the grace of God go I"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:

Even psychologists can agree on what is antisocial behaviour (i.e. Criminal behaviour) versus normal (me and you, presumably).

---

Well, I doubt if they do all agree. Though you'd have to ask them to be sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

But anti-social behaviour is surely not exaclty the same as criminal behaviour. There's a lot of anti-social behviour that isn't criminal, and at least some criminal behaviour that isn't anti-social.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

And neither criminal nor anti-social is exactly, or even approximately, the opposite of psychologically normal. A lot of criminal behaviour is perfectly rational behaviour meant to achieve some end that seems desirable to the criminal. If it wasn't we'd consider treating them rather than punishing them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Look, you guys have a wonderful constitution and all that, all that glorious free speech and stuff, and you keep on telling us that the point of free speech is tested when we let the bad guys speak, which I agree with. Be consistent!

---

I am all in favor of free speech for the criminals, even in jail. But I make no bones that they give up some of their rights to society. If you can't see that, well you must be in the U.K.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

And even in the USA criminals do NOT lose all their rights on conviction. Most cponvicted criminals are not punished by imprisonment or any long-term loss of freedom, only a small subset convicted of serious crimes, as defined (differently) by the various states.

And imprisoned, convicted criminals do not lose ALL their rights, or even most of them, mostly just those involved in locking them up and keeping them there. (Except of course for the removal of the right to vote. Pwersonally I'd vote for prisoners to be allowed to vote, if I wasn't so sure they'd mostly turn out to be consevatives) And they lose the excercise of those rights temporarily, while they are locked up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

As for spiritual equality, there is no remaining question. Jesus answered that one for us, on the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
well, no its not, erin, did you bother to look at it? mine links to the relevent supreme court decisions showing that the supreme court says there isn't any such right, and yours simply links to an organization that, despite all proof to the contrary, claims that there is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joanna Porter:
I was really quite shocked to discover that in the USA ex-convicts can still be denied the right to vote. As I understand it (and I am sure I will be corrected if wrong), in the UK once some-one has come out of prison, the slate is wiped clean as it were and they should not be discriminated against on account of having served a prsion sentence (unless, of course, the crime involved children). Denying them the right to vote is hardly going to help integrate them into society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
*sigh*
_obviously_ the site is biased, erin, however the point was that it provides links to the primary sources, the supreme court decisions themselves.

---

And MY point was that website prooftexting regarding a tangent that hasn't even been really introduced here is .
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joanna Porter:
I was really quite shocked to discover that in the USA ex-convicts can still be denied the right to vote.

---

Over here they still get to sit in the House of Lords.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If someone broke into my house, I'd have no hesitation in smacking him/her around the head with a cricket bat. Shouldn't have been breaking in, should they?

If guns were legal here, I'd use one to defend my property.

---

Why? It surely can't be right to use lethal force (even a cricket bat can cause serious harm when hitting someone on the head) to protect mere things? I could, just about, accept such an argument if we're talking about protecting ourselves or others ... but hitting a burgler who's only interested in your TV with a bat (much less shooting him with a gun) doesn't even come up to the standard of an eye for an eye, much less turning the other cheek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
Intelligence led policing means that they track and interfere with the activities of perpetrators to disrupt criminal activity. They also target crime hotspots to reduce levels of crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Murder rates in the UK ...aren't as high as they were 100 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
If you wake up in the middle of the night to find a man or men in your house, how much time should you spend psychoanalyzing them before determining whether or not they are there to kill you or just rob you? Criminals have been known to come in and kill people with little or no provocation. Not to mention rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
If you wake up in the middle of the night to find a man or men in your house, how much time should you spend psychoanalyzing them before determining whether or not they are there to kill you or just rob you? Criminals have been known to come in and kill people with little or no provocation. Not to mention rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
I am very happy to waive any right to bear arms.

---

I currently waive that right for myself (as in, I do not own a gun). I do not, however, believe that I have the right to waive anyone else's rights on their behalf. That's a rather selfish point of view.

---

 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Tom, do you have any particularly nice or valuable things?
 

---

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Tom, do you have any particularly nice or valuable things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ah well, erin, as has been said many times before, if you thinkits boring, don't read it and just ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
Intelligence led policing means that they track and interfere with the activities of perpetrators to disrupt criminal activity. They also target crime hotspots to reduce levels of crime.

---

We can't do that here due to laws against racial and cultural profiling. Our police have been stripped of a lot of their powers of investigation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
If you can carry a concealed circular saw and kill people at a distance with it, color me impressed.

Otherwise I have trouble seeing how it's so similar to a gun, which is surely the most compact and efficient killing tool available to the general public.

---

quote:

---

Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, 02/27/03
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2003
Vanessa Perrigoue had just taken her 4-year-old terrier, Ethan, out for a morning walk in their Laguna Niguel neighborhood when two large dogs jumped the smaller dog. Perrigoue screamed and attempted to rescue Ethan, but the dogs, a pit bull mix and Labrador mix, continued their vicious attack. Upon hearing his wife's screams, Joseph Perrigoue grabbed his .45-cal. handgun and went to her aid. The Perrigoues' dog, Ethan, had been killed and his attackers had run off. Perrigoue followed the dogs' bloody tracks back to a nearby apartment. When he knocked on the door, both dogs jumped out an open window and attacked him. Perrigoue defended himself, shooting both dogs. Animal-control officers took the wounded dogs away and attempted to contact their owner, whom neighbors said had been out of town for several days.

---

Does the U.K. have dogs?

Here's another:

quote:

---

Press-Telegram, Long Beach, CA 11/01/02
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2003
A man was shot and killed when he broke into his ex-wife's Laguna Hills, Calif., home for the second time in several days and tried to force their 10-year-old daughter to drink an unidentified, caustic liquid. Eric Kiefer had been arrested for violating a restraining order when he broke into his ex-wife's home and assaulted her and their daughter. He broke in again only days later in the early morning and tried to force his daughter to drink the liquid. He then attacked the girl's grandparents with a hatchet when they tried to intervene. That's when the young girl's grandfather fatally shot Kiefer in the neck with a shotgun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
So when the Have-not climbs through the window to take the digital telly, he gets a gun pointed at him. Because it's not his and he has no right to take it.
Never mind that he comes in, not because he wants a digital telly, but because he wants something he can sell (yes, to get drugs, but I'd hazard a guess that no one grows up wanting to become a drug addict) because he is a Have-not. Instead, he gets his head blown off.

---

quote:

---

The almost complete lack of guns in our society is the reason that it is safe here.

[snip]

He saw his friend's father's brains splattered all over the windscreen of his car.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

I have been shot at on two occassions (by the same person), but I am convinced the misses were on purpose and I know I was in the wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
So when the Have-not climbs through the window to take the digital telly, he gets a gun pointed at him. Because it's not his and he has no right to take it.
Never mind that he comes in, not because he wants a digital telly, but because he wants something he can sell (yes, to get drugs, but I'd hazard a guess that no one grows up wanting to become a drug addict) because he is a Have-not. Instead, he gets his head blown off.

---

I'm not advocating arming yourself to deal with this, but I must say this isn't a very strong argument. If you really believed this, you'd give away all your stuff to the "have nots."

And see if you can spot the contradiction:

quote:

---

The almost complete lack of guns in our society is the reason that it is safe here.

[snip]

He saw his friend's father's brains splattered all over the windscreen of his car.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, lets get one thing straight. there is no constitutionally protected right for an individual to own a firearm.

check it out.

---

quote:

---

Justice Thomas [June 27, 1997]

" The Second Amendment similarly appears to
contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment."

---

quote:

---

from the same source:
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Odd. Where I was the whole thing was a storm in a teacup. It made no difference to anything I did whatsoever. On the last-but-one day of the so-called "crisis" I travelled from Glasgow to London and saw nothing odd at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:

Here's a few interesting examples:

quote:

---

Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, 02/27/03
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2003
...Upon hearing his wife's screams, Joseph Perrigoue grabbed his .45-cal. handgun and went to her aid. The Perrigoues' dog, Ethan, had been killed and his attackers had run off. Perrigoue followed the dogs' bloody tracks back to a nearby apartment. When he knocked on the door, both dogs jumped out an open window and attacked him. Perrigoue defended himself, shooting both dogs. Animal-control officers took the wounded dogs away and attempted to contact their owner, whom neighbors said had been out of town for several days.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Maybe YOU can become a criminal, please speak for yourself there. I am under no such obligation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Here I'd guess the best courses of action would either be to make a lot of noise, turn on lights etc to scare them off, or pretend to still be asleep and let them leave with the mere possessions they came for.

But then again, as I said, a mere burgler is almost certainly not armed here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And if you wake up, with your wife in bed next to you, and your children in the next room, and he's standing in the middle of your bedroom with a butcher knife in his hand?

What then? Hide under the bed?

---

quote:

---

I own them so that if, God forbid, my person or my family is threatened with criminal violence, I will have some defensive recourse beyond using harsh language. This is not entirely dissimilar to the reason I have an emergency supply of food in the pantry, tools in my car, first aid kits, and health insurance. It is a hedge against the unexpected hazards of life.

---

Scot,MadGeo, & gun-lovers of the world, I believe you’re deluding yourself (which you have a perfect right to do).
But, I think your position is non-defensible.

A gun in the home is many times more likely to kill a family member, than an intruder (say the police,& they should know).
Here's my experience (& I do have experience in the area):
* I personally know no one who has shot an intruder with a handgun.

*I personally know a family who kept guns, & one son shot the other during a family argument.

*I have a cousin who accidentally killed himself, while as a teenager, while cleaning a hunting gun.

*I personally know another woman (my mother, actually) who kept a loaded gun by her bedside, after her home was broken into while she was there. (Naturally,she was very frightened by that).
However, the closest it ever came to being used, was by my 4-year old daughter. My family was staying with my mother for a 2-day visit, & my mother forgot about the loaded gun in the drawer by her bed.
Not having any idea that there was a gun in the house, I let my daughter watch movies in there, & she was alone in the room for periods of time.
When I learned about it, later in the day, after my mom came home, I was so horrified, that I guess my mother had an inkling of her foolishness.
So she said, “Well, the safety was on”. As if that made it all OK.

People can justify anything to themselves.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
So your anecdotal evidence is the trump card of the argument, eh? Well, boys, we can just give up now, because Gracia has shown us the light!

Just in case my point isn't clear:


 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Shit that's a scary story. An angry man running around the streets with a handgun? Approaching a house? Blazing away at two running animals in the street, with a .45 caliber pistol, and only wounding them!?

---

Speaking from personal experience....

When I was 12 my mother was attacked (on our property) by our neighbors retired police dogs that had gotten out of their pen. My grandfather came out of the house with a revolver and killed both of them. Since they had been police dogs and the owner was a cop, my grandfather was arrested and charged with a crime. I'm pretty certain it never went to trial, or if it did nothing significant happened. I do remember him being happy when they finally returned his pistol.

I suppose he could have killed them both with a knife or a bat, or we could have just forked over the burial expenses for my mom and been done with it - but I'm pretty satisfied with the way things came out. Of course, people still refer to him (only half joking) as a 'cop killer.'
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
No,Erin, I never think my argument is a trump card, but it is my experience,& it is the reason I believe what I do.
Do you have a problem with that??

 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I have a problem with you trotting out a handful of extremely limited experiences and then concluding your post with the laughable assertion of "people can justify anything to themselves" as being the sole province of gun-owners.

Physician, heal thyself.
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
Well, I've seen so much distortion done by manipulating statistics,that using my own experiences, instead of citing another "biased website" (to quote you), is just my feeble attempt to not "go beyond my own light".

I'm so sorry that bothers you.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
So in other words, people -- even those against guns! -- can justify anything to themselves.

My anecdote is that my boss's gun saved my life one night as he protected me from the nut who was waiting outside my work and telling me that I had nothing to worry about since Jesus and himself had chased Satan off the planet not 24 hours previously.

So according to my experience, which has as much validity as yours, guns are good.

What makes your experience authoritative enough to make such bald assertions? Why is it more authoritative than mine?
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracia:
Well, I've seen so much distortion done by manipulating statistics,that using my own experiences, instead of citing another "biased website" (to quote you), is just my feeble attempt to not "go beyond my own light".

I'm so sorry that bothers you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Well first off, how do you know he wasn't a skilled shooter? "Blazing away", where does it say that in the article exactly?

---

quote:

---

Also maybe you missed the little San Fransisco tale of a lady that was mauled to death by two pitbulls in her complex last year?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And if you wake up, with your wife in bed next to you, and your children in the next room, and he's standing in the middle of your bedroom with a butcher knife in his hand?

What then? Hide under the bed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
You don't have to load it.

Grab and point and scream you'll blow his brains out and for him/her to get the heck out.

He'll/She'll go. Ever look long down the barrel of a gun?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
This whole thread is giving my neck cramps, watching the volleys bounce back and forth. The entrenched sides don't seem to even realize just how foolish their stance seems to their opponents.

Before I offer my opinions, I can't help but take a potshot at this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Maybe YOU can become a criminal, please speak for yourself there. I am under no such obligation.

---

It's clearly foolish. The definition of "criminal" just means "one who breaks a law". If someone were to pass a law stating that it was illegal to post on the Ship-of-Fools, this poster would be eating their words.

This foolishness abounds, on both sides of the argument. Comparing the heightened self-defense paranoia climate in the US to anywhere else just isn't sensible. It's like beekeepers in the UK telling their counterparts in South America that if they find themselves amongst a swarm, if you leave the bees alone they'll leave you alone. The truth is that the United States has an armed population, and in times of crisis they out-compete those that are unarmed. Conversely, to deny that it's completely possible to achieve self-defense with a simple rifle is idiotic - there's no way you can defend the "right" to have concealed weapons or assault weapons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I have been shot at on two occassions (by the same person), but I am convinced the misses were on purpose and I know I was in the wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If someone broke into my house, I'd have no hesitation in smacking him/her around the head with a cricket bat. Shouldn't have been breaking in, should they?

If guns were legal here, I'd use one to defend my property.

---

Why? It surely can't be right to use lethal force (even a cricket bat can cause serious harm when hitting someone on the head) to protect mere things? I could, just about, accept such an argument if we're talking about protecting ourselves or others ... but hitting a burgler who's only interested in your TV with a bat (much less shooting him with a gun) doesn't even come up to the standard of an eye for an eye, much less turning the other cheek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, one should allow the scumbag to just stroll off with one's TV/Video/Stereo/Computer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:
If the alternative is taking a shot at them (which is what we're talking about) then yes, absolutely. Your TV/Video/Stereo/Computer are not worth the life of a human being. Any human being. Even the one who is trying to rob your house. Get some perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, one should allow the scumbag to just stroll off with one's TV/Video/Stereo/Computer? Hey, why not hand him the contents of your wallet too? Or the keys to your car?

If anybody tries to rob me, I consider them fair game. If they value their life above "mere things" (as you're saying I should) then they are more than welcome to keep the fuck out of my house.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How does defending one's property not count as self-defense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When people spend more time protecting the criminals than the victims, something has gone very wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
Defending your TV does not, and never will, constitute self-defence. At least not here. It's murder to kill even a scumbag burglar. As it should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It strikes me that some people are coming rather close to saying burglary is OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It strikes me that some people are coming rather close to saying burglary is OK. It's not.

Some people have to work very hard to be able to afford nice things. Sometimes they can't afford insurance as well. Yet they are morally worse for defending what they have than the little shit who doesn't want to work, and just robs people for a living?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK, let's say for a second that killing the scumbag outright is wrong...

What about shooting (and/or hitting with bat) him in the leg? It has the dual advantage of being non-fatal, and effectively incapacitating the slime until the police arrive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK, let's say for a second that killing the scumbag outright is wrong...

What about shooting (and/or hitting with bat) him in the leg? It has the dual advantage of being non-fatal, and effectively incapacitating the slime until the police arrive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, one should allow the scumbag to just stroll off with one's TV/Video/Stereo/Computer?

---

If the alternative is taking a shot at them (which is what we're talking about) then yes, absolutely. Your TV/Video/Stereo/Computer are not worth the life of a human being. Any human being. Even the one who is trying to rob your house. Get some perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, one should allow the scumbag to just stroll off with one's TV/Video/Stereo/Computer?

---

If the alternative is taking a shot at them (which is what we're talking about) then yes, absolutely. Your TV/Video/Stereo/Computer are not worth the life of a human being. Any human being. Even the one who is trying to rob your house. Get some perspective.

---

As I understand it, people who use guns to defend their property rarely find it necessary to shoot. They just point the gun at the burglar and tell him to get out of there fast. Sometimes the gun isn't loaded, but the burglar doesn't want to find out whether it is or not.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You don't know that a burglar is only there to rob you until he vacates your house.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You don't know that a burglar is only there to rob you until he vacates your house.

---

True, but I think the debate was about whether or not to leap out and confront burglars when you have a choice.

If a burglar came in to my house and confronted me, I'd feel quite justified in assuming he wasn't after my TV and jewelry, but up to something worse. I'm not sure what I'd be able to do about it, but if I did happen to kill him in a shoe-throwing frenzy or something, I'm fairly sure the courts would be reasonably lenient with me - and even if not I'd feel reasonably satisfied that my conscience was clear.

---

quote:

---

If however, just as an example, the burglar was running away and I whipped out the illegal gun which I was banned from owning because I was a well known nutter, and which I had told people beforehand I'd got with the specific intention of shooting people, and I shot him in the back - then I suspect the courts might take a dimmer view of the situation.

---

quote:

---

In general, if you don't confront a burglar they'll likely steal your stuff and go. It's probably the safer option, they're probably a better fighter than you and just as scared. In the unlikely event that they are a psychopath come into your house with the express intention of killing or damaging you, you're probably screwed anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

If however, just as an example, the burglar was running away and I whipped out the illegal gun ...shot him in the back - then I suspect the courts might take a dimmer view of the situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I'm of the (apparantly not very reasonable) opinion that I don't want my stuff stolen in the first place, and so want to defend it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I'm of the (apparantly not very reasonable) opinion that I don't want my stuff stolen in the first place, and so want to defend it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Lurker':

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I'm of the (apparantly not very reasonable) opinion that I don't want my stuff stolen in the first place, and so want to defend it...

---

Who is saying that not wanting your stuff stolen is unreasonable. We are saying that it is not worth killing another human being over. Please stop putting words in the mouth of those who disagree with you on this point, no-one is saying burglarly is ok.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If he's running away he's not trying to rob you.

---

Even if he's carrying your DVD player?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Of course, I'm of the (apparantly not very reasonable) opinion that I don't want my stuff stolen in the first place, and so want to defend it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It was the "defending it" part that I got the impression was unreasonable. If you think it is reasonable to defend one's own property, perhaps you could outline exactly how far one is allowed to go in order to foil the burglar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If he's running away he's not trying to rob you.

---

Even if he's carrying your DVD player?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Just curious, but in Britain do you not have what are known over here as "home invasions"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aj:
I don't mean this rhetorically. Do many people have training with firearms to make it worth having a gun under the pillow for such situations? Surely firearm skill is at least half the story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
No it does not. Self defence only operates when your own life is threatened.
And no, you can't use your bat (assault) to defend your shirt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Just curious, but in Britain do you not have what are known over here as "home invasions"?

---

Since nobody else seems to know either - I've never heard of them so I suspect not. What are they?

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Install an alarm. Phone the police if there is an intruder. Security mark your property to make it easier to recover and trace it back to the thief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If he's running away he's not trying to rob you.

---

Even if he's carrying your DVD player?

---

If he's carrying off your DVD player, he's not trying to rob you, he's succeeded.

---

• Party A loudly announced his intention to kill party B
• Party A then demonstrated his actual intention by chopping through Party B's door (apartment, single exit only) with an axe, still making loud threats
• Party B, on the phone with 911 emergency dispatch shoots Party A stone dead
• Party B is then charged with a variety of offenses from 2nd degree murder on down
• after some time in custody, found not guilty on all but the illegal possession of a restricted firearm

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I'm getting the impression you've never been robbed. If you have stuff valuable enough to fence, it'll never be recovered. The lowest thief knows not to take items with serial numbers to pawn shops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
A home invasion is when someone breaks into your house knowing full well you're at home and awake.

An interesting link.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
A home invasion is when someone breaks into your house knowing full well you're at home and awake.


An interesting link.

---

quote:

---

Cooperate with the intruder (s). This will have a calming effect and lessen the chance of being injured. Remember. It's better to give up your possessions than your life!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interesting that the first rule it gives under the heading "should the unthinkable happen" is

quote:

---

Cooperate with the intruder (s). This will have a calming effect and lessen the chance of being injured. Remember. It's better to give up your possessions than your life!

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
But I'm curious. What if we leave out the possibility that the burglar is after more than TVs by saying you are not in the house. You come home, find the door open and hear noises inside that suggest the burglars are still in there. Would you go in and defend your stuff, or sneak away and phone the police from a safe distance? (I'd be off like a rat out of an aqueduct, but then I care about not dying way more than I do about TVs).

If you go in, would you feel entitled to shoot/batter the burglar in defense of your stuff? Would you be legally entitled to? (I doubt you would in this country, but don't actually know).

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
But I'm curious. What if we leave out the possibility that the burglar is after more than TVs by saying you are not in the house. You come home, find the door open and hear noises inside that suggest the burglars are still in there. Would you go in and defend your stuff, or sneak away and phone the police from a safe distance? (I'd be off like a rat out of an aqueduct, but then I care about not dying way more than I do about TVs).

---

quote:

---

If you go in, would you feel entitled to shoot/batter the burglar in defense of your stuff? Would you be legally entitled to? (I doubt you would in this country, but don't actually know).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Maybe it goes back to when Evil King George tried to quarter his hired guns in our houses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Just curious, but in Britain do you not have what are known over here as "home invasions"?

---

Since nobody else seems to know either - I've never heard of them so I suspect not. What are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
We certainly don't have the jargon.

Whether we have the phenomenon, I don't know. It's never happened to anyone I know, or not that they told me about anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I might get inventive, like letting down the tyres on their car to prevent an easy escape

---

So you're planning to hang around and annoy the burglars! Good heavens, you are certainly braver than me, I'll give you that.

Rat
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Maybe it goes back to when Evil King George tried to quarter his hired guns in our houses

---

As recent as that Mel Gibson film?

I thought the US obsession with firearms went back at least to the time when citizens had to have them to keep their slaves in line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I apologize, ken. I know how upsetting you find any disrespectful reference to the monarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
We certainly don't have the jargon.

Whether we have the phenomenon, I don't know. It's never happened to anyone I know, or not that they told me about anyway.

---

To me it sounds like the sort of thing that if it were to happen in the UK would make the news. Particularly if there were firearms involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Robbery is actually worse than burglary, as it involves a threat of violence to the person. Not so sure I'd be proud of that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:
I think waving a gun around is a bad idea. If he's got one, then he'll start using it at that point. If he hasn't (much, much more likely where I'm from) then I don't need one either thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Though the general point is, I suspect, true - the social function of guns in most times and most places is to reinforce the existing order of society, within households as much as between them.

It woudl be interesting to see, of the people killed or injured by guns held by members of their own family or household, what proportion are adults, and what children, and how many men as opposed to women.

---

quote:

---

We now know, for example, that the defensive uses of firearms by lawful citizens, at up to 2.5 million per year, dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25 and 75 lives are saved by a gun for every one life lost to a gun, whether by an unintentional shooting, homicide or suicide.

The number of guns in the civilian U.S. population has been increasing steadily for decades, and yet the number of fatal gun accidents has been falling for as long as statistics have been compiled (since 1903). In 1945, there were 350,000 firearms and 18 fatal gun accidents per million Americans. By 1995, although the number of guns in the U.S. had more than doubled, incredibly, there were 850,000 firearms with only 6 fatalities per million Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The teflon coating has nothing to do with penetration of body armor, and I am not aware of any testing which showed it to have effect on penetration. It was a technical feature which was deliberately misrepresented and demonized in order to create hysteria, sell copy, and score political points.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
In the US, you have to demsonstrate competence with firearms before you can get a license to carry one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The number of guns in the civilian U.S. population has been increasing steadily for decades, and yet the number of fatal gun accidents has been falling for as long as statistics have been compiled (since 1903). In 1945, there were 350,000 firearms and 18 fatal gun accidents per million Americans. By 1995, although the number of guns in the U.S. had more than doubled, incredibly, there were 850,000 firearms with only 6 fatalities per million Americans.

---

quote:

---

Still, I don't see how this effectively stops anyone from buying a gun and toting around however they want - these rules are only of use for pressing charges after something attracts the attention of the authorities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
But that's true of most laws, including the laws against burglary and murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
We certainly don't have the jargon.

Whether we have the phenomenon, I don't know. It's never happened to anyone I know, or not that they told me about anyway.

---

To me it sounds like the sort of thing that if it were to happen in the UK would make the news. Particularly if there were firearms involved.

---

Believe me, it makes the news when it happens in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Home invasions:

Dec Houston
Dec Cincinnati
North Carolina
New Orleans
Oklahoma
Florida

In 1999 there were almost 2000 home invasion(what they call "Target Specific") robberies in the state of Florida alone. These robberies are frequently violent and the intentions of the criminal often change during the course of the robbery. According to my research, these types have been growing since the 60s.

---

---

Surely one of these statements has to be untrue. If RuthW is right and it makes the news when this kind of thing happens then its a rare event. On the other hand I don't call 2000 occurrences in the state of Florida alone a rare event and that's what np's stats say.

Just confused now.

I think I remember this being reported once in the UK. It made the national news headlines for a couple of days. I believe, therefore, that over here it's an extremely rare occurrence.

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 10. January 2004, 03:57: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Home invasions may be rare in Ruth's neck of the US, but they aren't all that rare here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
The model of defence I have always admired is Tai Chi - don't counter violence with equal violence: go with it, absorb it, turn it against the attacker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The teflon coating has nothing to do with penetration of body armor, and I am not aware of any testing which showed it to have effect on penetration. It was a technical feature which was deliberately misrepresented and demonized in order to create hysteria, sell copy, and score political points.

---

No kidding. What's the teflon for, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Like Alan and Sine, I am enlisted in the 1st Bt Rational Pacifists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Home invasions:

Dec Houston
Dec Cincinnati
North Carolina
New Orleans
Oklahoma
Florida

---

Surely one of these statements has to be untrue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Home invasions may be rare in Ruth's neck of the US, but they aren't all that rare here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
The model of defence I have always admired is Tai Chi - don't counter violence with equal violence: go with it, absorb it, turn it against the attacker.

---

Out of idle curiosity, how are you going to turn the knife that just severed your aorta against your attacker?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I had this mental image of Firenze dodging bullets ala Matrix, perhaps deflecting them with his chi and redirecting them back at the shooter.

---

Of course, given that Firenze lives in Scotland, it is vanishly unlikely that anybody will shoot at her\him, so s\he won't need to use the matrix moves of which s\he is doubtless capable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK
For all the martial arts I know, if there's somebody in my house that I mean to attack, I'm using Mister Axe from behind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I mostly meant to refute the statement that a license is required to carry a gun in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK in every state you must have a license to carry a concealed handgun legally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Handguns, simply put, scare the fucking shit out of me - personally and systemically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Handguns, simply put, scare the fucking shit out of me - personally and systemically.

---

Interesting. While I have a healthy respect for handguns, I am not scared of them. I suspect this is the real root of the different points of view I see on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Being able to punish people caught with weapons in their pockets does nothing to reassure me that there aren't people walking around with weapons in their pockets. It's that fear that is the root of many problems. Handguns, simply put, scare the fucking shit out of me - personally and systemically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Handguns, simply put, scare the fucking shit out of me - personally and systemically.

---

Interesting. While I have a healthy respect for handguns, I am not scared of them. I suspect this is the real root of the different points of view I see on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I can wander down to the local pawn shop and obtain a legal glock... what am I supposed to do with it then? Carry it over my head as I walk home? Being able to punish people caught with weapons in their pockets does nothing to reassure me that there aren't people walking around with weapons in their pockets. It's that fear that is the root of many problems. Handguns, simply put, scare the fucking shit out of me - personally and systemically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Erin, it may surprise you to know that I own four pistols and three rifles. I know how to use all of them. When I was 12 years old I could field strip and reassemble a Colt 45 service automatic while blindfolded within 1 minute.

And it is still a bad idea to point a gun at someone to protect your stuff.

---

• I lack the ability to read an intruder's mind;
• if someone ONLY wants stuff they can break into a closed store; and,
• if they have invaded my home via breaking a window or a door lock, I WILL believe that they are there to do personal harm to me, and I will react accordingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I would tend to agree. That then seems to lead to the question - is the fear unjustified, or is the lack of fear foolish?

... the compactness of the weapon, and the tactical ramifications thereof, sit forefront in my regard for handguns. I guess you could say that I respect that cowardly advantage, but other than that I think rifles are more honourable and respectable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
First, not all weapons are guns. Some people carry knives with criminal intent. Some people, fortunately very few, carry corrosive substances with criminal intent. For some reason the thought of being shot does not terrify me nearly as much as the thought of having acid thrown in my face.

---

quote:

---

Second, the protection the law provides against criminals is primarily the threat of their being caught and prosecuted. I don't understand how carrying a gun is different from burglary in this respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin

Most Americans (myself included) believe that being able to defend yourself with a gun is a right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
The more I read these boards, the more I realise that our respectives cultures are not nearly as identical as some people make out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

Americans have a visceral antagonism to government. They really do. And I couldn't tell you where it comes from. I don't remember learning it. Most of us just know it somehow. Governments are not to be trusted.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by me

We see Americans on telly saying the government are evil and saying they need protection from government and most Brits probably find that a bit strange

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The thought of corrosive-acid beaker-wielding violent criminals doesn't scare me - it makes me laugh.

---

quote:

---

Carrying a gun is different because it's possible to keep ready access of handguns away from people.

---

quote:

---

if one of the subway passengers in NY had been armed when the guy went through killing white people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The links I provided were all news paper articles from December. The fact is, these types of crimes are not reported on a national level often enough. Probably because the liberal media doesn't want to raise public awareness as to how dangerous it really is out there.

---

quote:

---

secondly, yes, i suppose if _one_ person had been armed, assuming they were a good shot, lives could have been saved.

but suppose _everyone_ had been armed... or even just _half_ the train car. there could have been an absolute bloodbath with everyone firing from different point, richocheting, people not realizing who shot first, and taking on the wrong person...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

Americans have a visceral antagonism to government. They really do. And I couldn't tell you where it comes from. I don't remember learning it. Most of us just know it somehow. Governments are not to be trusted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Lurker':
You're saying there's not enough crime reported in the U.S Media? Are there many Americans who share your views (who don't work in news media)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin

Most Americans (myself included) believe that being able to defend yourself with a gun is a right.

---

That's interesting. Without intending a value judgement (sincerely) I honestly don't know a single Brit who holds that view. Not one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
was wondering if someone would bring that up. first off, it wasn't the subway, it was the long island railway, the north hempstead line

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
secondly, yes, i suppose if _one_ person had been armed, assuming they were a good shot, lives could have been saved.

but suppose _everyone_ had been armed... or even just _half_ the train car. there could have been an absolute bloodbath with everyone firing from different point, richocheting, people not realizing who shot first, and taking on the wrong person...

besides. all of this stiff (incuding the acid throwing moo mentions above) is rather rare. statistically i'm sure i'm more likely to fall down my stairs and kill myself. much more likely. yet you'd probably think i was a bit odd if i decided to wear a helmet every time i left the house and went down the stairs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

Americans have a visceral antagonism to government. They really do. And I couldn't tell you where it comes from. I don't remember learning it. Most of us just know it somehow. Governments are not to be trusted.

---

Interesting: I've heard a lot of US citizens say stuff like this. How does it actually translate into action? This is probably a subjective impression, but I have the idea that UK citizens take to the streets far more readily than Americans...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You don't have to take a six-hour flight across country to get to London like a shitload of Americans do to get to DC.

---

quote:

---

Not to derail this thread, but the tendency of the media to be biased really slammed home for me during the Matthew Shepherd thing. While the front pages of newspapers across America blared the news about his death and the last hour of his life, the only people mentioning a similar event in Texas were the KKK. The event in Texas I speak of was the death-by-sodomy/asphixiation of a bound 14 year old boy. He was spending the night with a homosexual couple who were friends of the family. I still don't think they've ever had a newspaper article on what happened to those perverts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I'm not about to let that little gem from nonpropheteer slip by.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
I'm not about to let that little gem from nonpropheteer slip by. What precisely is your point? And has it occurred to you that anyone who engages in murder by sexual torture is -- to use your charming turn of phrase -- a "pervert," regardless of the sex of the perpetrator and the victim. If I'm understanding your point, how in heaven's name does prove media bias? Matthew Shepherd was murdered because of his sexual orientation. The sexual orientation of the couple to whom you refer is irrelevant to the fact that they're murderers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:


How do other big countries like Australia feel? I don't sense a similar attitude to that of the US, Australia seems more similar to the UK in that respect?

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the altar:
We have compulsory voting. You don't vote, you get fined. So you can bitch about who's in power, as long as you voted.
So far as taking up arms to defend ourselves against governments, that is a joke. And not even a good one. It's paranoia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The function of the right to bear arms in America is to empower people to protect themselves from criminals and governments. That was the original intent "...to ensure a free state."

A pity that it doesn't work then. Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan more or less for ever, Serbia under Communism, even Armenia during the Soviet period were all countries where private ownership of arms was far higher than in most Western nations.

There is no general correlation between how many guns there are in private ownership and how politically free a country is. Some relatively free nations, like the US, have high gun ownership, others, like many western European countries have low gun oiwnership. Some of the unfreest places in the world have had very high gun ownership.

quote:

---

In 1945, there were 350,000 firearms and 18 fatal gun accidents per million Americans. By 1995, although the number of guns in the U.S. had more than doubled, incredibly, there were 850,000 firearms with only 6 fatalities per million Americans.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Americans have a visceral antagonism to government. They really do. And I couldn't tell you where it comes from. I don't remember learning it. Most of us just know it somehow. Governments are not to be trusted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkE:
If RuthW is right and it makes the news when this kind of thing happens then its a rare event. On the other hand I don't call 2000 occurrences in the state of Florida alone a rare event and that's what np's stats say.

---

quote:

---

we have more burglaries than you do but the burglars are much less likely to carry guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Are they less likely to carry any weapon? I would feel extremely threatened if someone broke into my house carrying a knife or a baseball bat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Sounds like "home invasion" is, at least in some Florida news media, just a newly fashionable jargon term for armed burglary.

In which case if goes on everywhere, though seems to be a lot rarer here than there - we have more burglaries than you do but the burglars are much less likely to carry guns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Are they less likely to carry any weapon? I would feel extremely threatened if someone broke into my house carrying a knife or a baseball bat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

'Professional' burglars don't carry weapons because they see jail-time as a risk of the trade and know that going armed will get them a way, way bigger sentence. Also, they would rarely need to, having planned quite well beforehand.

Paradoxically perhaps, the fact that a burglar is unlikely to encounter armed resistance means that he is less likely to feel he needs a weapon to protect himself!

Rat

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You don't have to take a six-hour flight across country to get to London like a shitload of Americans do to get to DC.

---

OK, I see. It's really only the Federal government you feel so suspicious of? Have I got that right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The teflon coating has nothing to do with penetration of body armor, and I am not aware of any testing which showed it to have effect on penetration. It was a technical feature which was deliberately misrepresented and demonized in order to create hysteria, sell copy, and score political points.

---

No kidding. What's the teflon for, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hermit:
Forgive me if the point has already been made (I've only read the first and last pages), but hasn't there been a tremendous increase in crime in both the UK and Australia since the institution of exceptionally strict gun control laws?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, in the UK there has been a tremendous increase in crime. It's mostly been due to the rise in the number of mobile phones in use, and kids nicking them off other kids, which is totally unconnected to gun control legislation. There has been no increase in violent crime.

---

I actually thought overall crime was falling, even including the mobile phone thefts which are counted as robbery.
 

---

Posted by Left at the altar (# 5077) on :
 
To the best of my knowledge, crime is falling here in Australia.
If we could just stop the criminal underworld shooting each other every second day (it's become a bit of a trend in Melbourne) and bouncers at clubs assualting and killing people (as happened last night), it would be better, but generally, we're fairly safe.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sorry, I must have accidentally read the Daily Mail or something

BBC report on 2002 crime figures for England and Wales (I guess 2003 won't be available yet) shows that levels of crime are falling (The trends on the "facts and figures" pop up link are interesting). Scottish Executive figures show a similar trend here.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, in the UK there has been a tremendous increase in crime. It's mostly been due to the rise in the number of mobile phones in use, and kids nicking them off other kids, which is totally unconnected to gun control legislation. There has been no increase in violent crime.

---

I actually thought overall crime was falling, even including the mobile phone thefts which are counted as robbery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
However, if we are talking about a period from when gun controls came in - when was that, early last century? - then Alan may be correct that crime has risen over that period. If so, I don't think gun control has much to do with it - UK society has changed out of all recognition during that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hermit:
Sorry for the double post, but it looks like I was hoaxed concerning the "increase" in Australian crime: Snopes on Australian guns.

[Edited for link UBB.]

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0