Don't shoot your eye out!

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

It's the age-old concept of deterrant.

I'd better not rob him, in case he has a gun.

Even in these civilised times, the UK is talking about renewing Trident. We'll put a bunch of nukes in a submarine and have them sail around forever just in case, at the cost of several £billion.

Huh? The cold war is over and although the World is not at peace a nuclear submarine against a minbus full of extremists with a slab of semtex feels like overkill.

It didn't help the Trade Centre and it hasn't made the slightest difference in the Gulf war.


I suppose if everyone in the UK was allowed to carry a gun, I'd carry one. I guess that's how it works - no one wants to be the only guy NOT carrying one.

But if a crack addict jumped out of a doorway and shoved his gun in my face, to be honest I don't think mine would be much use. In fact - he'd probably steal that too.

It's a similar scenario - things would have to be pretty bad to launch a nuclear missile, and they'd also have to be pretty bad for me to shoot someone.

The way to do it would be for the crooks to hang out in gangs and wear body armour. Oh - they do over there, don't they.


I really don't think either way is a brilliant solution - and neither do I think there is one.

All I do know is that we don't have drive-by shootings and consider being stabbed with a penknife as being actually quite nasty...

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Oh, and by the way - I'm taking part in this because it is an interesting debate.

I'm NOT trying to campaign for a change in either system and nor am I trying to condemn one as 'wrong'.

Both systems have stability of a sort. And upsetting that would be worse than any of the problems we currently have.

I have to go now.
I mentioned Trident and Semtex in the same post and a black van has just pulled up outside...

 

The thing that worries me is that people who are allowed to use guns seem to be completly trigger happy. There are stories in the press all the time where police both here and in the US are gunning down people with very little provocation. It's the same with capital punishment, if it all turns out to be a terrible mistake, it's a bit too late to rectify the situation.

 

Well, you get two kinds of mentality:

1) Don't shoot - it could be a big mistake and I could get into trouble.

2) Shoot first and let God sort them out.

If you are trained professionally to use a firearm (at least, in the UK) you are trained to shoot first and aim to kill.

Otherwise, there is little point in having a gun.

If you are of the first mentality, then giving you a gun actually makes things worse. You'd be better off with a white flag and saying 'can we talk about this?'.

It is odd - I've seen the odd US reality show, and the Police are careful to use their guns, because they may be up against someone who has one too.
Likewise, US hospitals seem to have a ward for people who have been shot.

Over here, I've seen police who won't even wear a stab vest as it gives out the 'wrong signals' - and our hospitals are more adept at removing small mammals from your back passage than treating a gunshot wound. Apparently...

 

This subject boils down to one thing: safety vs. freedom. If you will notice all the posts that are pro gun control are based on a person's feelings about safety. Safety is the main theme of the post.

Those that are pro gun ownership are about one thing: freedom for the individual. Freedom is the main theme of those posts.

There is no freedom without risk, and there is precious little freedom found in attempting to have total safety. How much of your freedom do you give up by getting a job? A lot. How much security and safety do you give up by working for yourself? A lot. This theme holds true for any aspect of life you want to look at. It boils down to those who value security over freedom thinking guns are evil because they feel they will lose a portion of their security. They are willing to sacrifice freedom for perceived security. The problem is that ultimately there is no personal safety without freedom.

 

Jonny, your argument of a deterrent is based on everyone owning a gun. If everyone owned one what you say would hold true. But not everyone owns a gun and not everyone wants to even in America. How much do guns cost? Can even the very poor afford one? Even people who can afford one don't necessarily want one. This makes it a very unlevel playing field because the ones who don't own guns are at a disadvantage to the ones who do. This is as true in America as it is in the UK because only criminals (excluding farmers and the few armed police) have guns.

 

Also, the argument of freedom over security is a good one if all things were equal. If no-one owned guns, then everyone would have the freedom not to have to worry about being held up at gun-point. If everyone owned a gun, everyone's free to take their chances that they won't get shot if they hold up an old dear. The problem is, as I said above, even in America not everyone owns a gun for one reason or another.

I'm interested, all you pro-gun people, what are your thoughts on criminals being allowed to own guns? Even criminals who have served their sentance and are now free - do you think they should have their rights to own a gun removed because they can't be trusted? Do you not agree there would be less violent crime if guns were not so freely available? Yes criminals would use guns even if they were 100% illegal, but not every criminally minded person would have the contacts or resources to get hold of a gun.

 

Jon if the hospital is big enough, we have floors for different things. Head trauma on one, nuero on another, heart on another. Each with their own Dr's and nurses specially trained in that area.

The police here are trained here only to shoot to kill as a last resort. Other wise they are trained to shoot to disarm someone, and that's after all other resources have been used. Just about every city has a swat team. Highly trained sharp shooters. They do not shoot until all other resources have been used and failed and they do not shoot to kill unless they have to.

I have to admit we do have trophy hunters over here. I will never understand that or approved of it. If your not going to eat it leave it be. Then if there wasn't hunting the herds would over populate and ruin the food crops. In the old days if you hit a deer with a vehicle and killed it and didn't need it, you or the cops could take it to the local orphanage for food. They don't do that anymore either. Now you pass it on to a family who you know is in need. I know growing up, if our family wouldn't have hunted there would have been a lot of empty plates come winter. So as we reached to the age to hunt our parents got us a hunting license. If the freezer happen to be full we passed it on. If no one didn't need any help, then one of us didn't hunt that year. Some states even regulate how many bucks will be killed. My first year out, both my parents drew a doe sticker, mine was for a buck. When word got out I had one for a buck, you wouldn't believe the people that came to our home to try and buy it from me.

 

Baba,

Your arguement simply isn't true. Here's an analogy that shows why.

Let's say you there are a pair of bare electrical wires that you know do not have any power applied to them. Would you be leery of touching them?

Now let's say you have another pair of bare wires that you believe have a very good chance of having power applied to them even though you know there are times when they will not have power applied to them. Would be more or less leery of touching them than you would the pair that you know will never have power applied to them?

If you are far more leery of touching the second pair of wires even though know that second pair of wires will not always be powered you will understand how a high level of gun ownership among law abiding citizens does not put someone who is unarmed at a disadvantage.

 

It is against the law for a criminal to own a gun here baba. when they abused their rights with the gun they lost their right for life to bear arms. Yes, I do agree with this. Not that it stops them but they are going back to jail if they get caught with one. And not all criminals use guns. They why knifes are consider deadly weapons over here too. A cop will even get hostile over a little pocket knife here. So is a baseball bat and so on. And no I don't agree that it would be safer if guns were illegal, since most of them do use guns that are illegal for anyone to own and bullets that are illegal. So that theory does not work over here.

As for the poor owning guns, we have stores here called pawn shops. I love these places. It where someone takes something and pawns it to the owner for a certain amount of time for money. If you can't pay back what your borrowed plus a little bit of interest they then own your property and resell it in that store. You can go to one of those stores and buy a pistol or something for 25 dollars and up. Most do not reprice the stuff at full price. Great store to get good deals at. If someone feels a need to own a gun they will get one. Might not be the one they want but they will get something.

 

Absolutely.
That's the whole problem.
Safety vs freedom.

As I understand it - the right to carry a gun in the US is considered more important because it is a freedom - you are entitled to do so - rather than a safety issue - I'd better carry a gun or I might be killed.

Is it really safer to have a gun in every home than not?

I think we are looking at two very different cultures here, but you are quite right.

Mitzs - I can't speak for the police here, but for the forces deployed in northern Ireland, they are told to kill. The reason being that a shot to the body - the heart - is less risky.

Trying to shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot them in the leg is likely to a) miss and b) injure someone behind them.

If you've got to shoot someone - you've really only got one thing in mind...

 

Well over here it's different again. All police carry guns and they are trained to shoot to kill. My nephew recently joined the police, he is 20 and after a few weeks training he was given a gun. Do I advocate giving this particular young man a lethal weapon? Hell no, not in a million years, I would be leery of giving him a pea shooter!

Amongst a plethora of other things we are not allowed to do, civilians are not allowed to carry guns, even air rifles are heavily controlled.

The police are allowed to harass civillians / motorists and pull them over for no reason at all.

Daggy pubs have teams of radio linked gestapo like bouncers stealthily lording all over the place, supposedly keeping the peace.

You can't have a beer on the beach - this s against the law!

You can't walk you dog on the beach - against the law!

Like Freddy said, we have already lost our freedom, replaced with security but hopefully all the fools feel nice and safe these days.

 

Oi! what the hell is this thread about?

eh?

was not surpose to be about playing some game?

let's get back to the topic

 

I keep forgetting your not in england blue, but in aussie.

Yeah, we are slowly losing our rights. I guess that why we fight so hard to keep what we have. Our forefathers fought for us to have these rights, and we will fight to retain them.

 

The topic has changed, call it conversation evolution if you will. The original topic still is relevant but we are now discussing the pros and cons of gun ownership amongst other things. A subject which is generally avoided on Internet forums - the fact that we can discuss this without getting into a heated debate is appreciated by me and should be applauded. It shows that this forum and it's members are mature enough to want to learn from each other and not patronise each other or allow the discussion to deteriorate into a slanging match.

Long live CF

 

As far as I can remember it's been illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun, go to a bar, run around with other convicted felons, etc... since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed. Convicted felons lose a lot of rights, and that's how it should be. There must be consequences for that kind of behavior.

 

As Freddy has stated, many criminals aren't "allowed" to have guns after they've been convicted. But "allowed" doesn't mean "can't get illegally". It's quite easy to get hold of a gun, even for people who aren't allowed to have them. And if they're outlawed, you said it best yourself - only the criminals will have guns, leaving the average person relatively unprotected. Until I can have an armed policeman sitting inside my house every night, I'm glad that I've got the ability to purchase a gun to protect me and my family.

 

Well, that's what it's all about.

If I needed a gun to keep my family safe, I would be furious if the government told me that I wasn't allowed one.

I may even consider getting one illegally. But then, if I was caught, I would be in more trouble than the guy who set out with the intention of doing us harm.

As it stands though - at least in most parts of the UK - we don't consider it necessary for our protection to have a gun.

Mind you, the way things are going...

 

That is true... however,
How many of those Thugs got the balls to pull the trigger?
How many of these victims got the balls to wait and see if the Thug can pull the Trigger...

 

I don't know about there, but here they had on the news a few weeks ago about a 62 old woman purse being nab while walking down the street. She gave chase, caught him and then beat him in the head with her pruse till someone helped her till the cops got there. Not that she needed it, mind you. you are starting to hear more and more of these stories. People are getting tired of all the thugs and not feeling safe. Looks like we might just take our streets back someday.