Gun control out of control, England

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

Would you feel safer if you were in a bad neighborhood and you had a weapon, than if you were in a bad neighborhood and did not? Many potential criminals will leave you alone if they even think you're armed. About 2 million crimes are thwarted yearly by law abiding citizens using firearms, often just by displaying them.

Gangs will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on, true, but does that mean we should not safeguard ourselves against the wolves?

Personally I feel much safer when I roll with the shotgun riding... shotgun.

Then again, when those in bad neighbourhoods get guns, you die because you're wearing a nice pair of shoes.
Guns are the fools toys. You think your safe, but then again, if you have a gun, theres a good chance the person you contemplate shooting has one.
I prefer not having guns because they're not needed, the police here have more control since they don't have to worry about getting blasted by an M-16 purchased from Kmart. When will people learn that the answer to everything that ailes them does not end another persons life?
If i had a gun, i'd be more prone to being trigger happy and shooting an innocent. Lets not have guns and not have to worry about shooting nana who's on the way to buy her cat some food shall we?

[Makaveli]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Then again, when those in bad neighbourhoods get guns, you die because you're wearing a nice pair of shoes.
Guns are the fools toys. You think your safe, but then again, if you have a gun, theres a good chance the person you contemplate shooting has one.
I prefer not having guns because they're not needed, the police here have more control since they don't have to worry about getting blasted by an M-16 purchased from Kmart. When will people learn that the answer to everything that ailes them does not end another persons life?
If i had a gun, i'd be more prone to being trigger happy and shooting an innocent. Lets not have guns and not have to worry about shooting nana who's on the way to buy her cat some food shall we?

A man told me a story once; he was in a somewhat bad area after visiting the shooting range with his girlfriend, and they stopped at a gas station so she could use the bathroom. There were some other people in the parking lot who were gang members, and one of them made a lewd comment to the man's girlfriend, so she told him to F off. The gang member got angry, and the man started laughing; said gang member comes to the man's car, gets in the front seat and pulls a small 5.56mm caliber derringer pistol on him. The man takes out a Glock 10mm pistol, and said gang member instantly leaves the car and minds his own business.

I've heard this argument before, and the people who make it strike me as resoundingly stupid, considering that they advocate that you abandon your equalizer when the other person is similarly armed. If someone had a gun, and you had a gun, would you just abandon it, simply out of fear that he might be a better shot than you? It seems more logical to take your chances with the gun and maybe die, than don't use it at all and die anyway.

If you want to rely on your police for everything, more power to you, but if you're being held up in your own room it usually takes at least ten minutes for an officer to arrive, plenty of time for a criminal to do anything he or she wants. On another note, M16s are highly regulated because they have full automatic capability; perhaps you are speaking of the AR15, the semi-automatic civilian model? Either way, the only people who attack police officers under normal circumstances are criminals, and military style weapons account for a sliver of gun crime here (under 3%).

There are 80 million legitimate gun owners in the United States. There are 1,500 accidents with guns every year. You do the math on how likely you'll be shooting nana.

[Father Heathen]

Women should be able to protect and defend themselves from rapists and such. The police lack psychic awareness and are incapable of instantaneously teleporting to the scene to make a diving block.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

A man told me a story once; he was in a somewhat bad area after visiting the shooting range with his girlfriend, and they stopped at a gas station so she could use the bathroom. There were some other people in the parking lot who were gang members, and one of them made a lewd comment to the man's girlfriend, so she told him to F off. The gang member got angry, and the man started laughing; said gang member comes to the man's car, gets in the front seat and pulls a small 5.56mm caliber derringer pistol on him. The man takes out a Glock 10mm pistol, and said gang member instantly leaves the car and minds his own business.

I've heard this argument before, and the people who make it strike me as resoundingly stupid, considering that they advocate that you abandon your equalizer when the other person is similarly armed. If someone had a gun, and you had a gun, would you just abandon it, simply out of fear that he might be a better shot than you? It seems more logical to take your chances with the gun and maybe die, than don't use it at all and die anyway.

If you want to rely on your police for everything, more power to you, but if you're being held up in your own room it usually takes at least ten minutes for an officer to arrive, plenty of time for a criminal to do anything he or she wants. On another note, M16s are highly regulated because they have full automatic capability; perhaps you are speaking of the AR15, the semi-automatic civilian model? Either way, the only people who attack police officers under normal circumstances are criminals, and military style weapons account for a sliver of gun crime here (under 3%).

There are 80 million legitimate gun owners in the United States. There are 1,500 accidents with guns every year. You do the math on how likely you'll be shooting nana.

If Guns were strickly regulated that man would not have been put in that situation in the first place.
Personally i have 3 weapons, a BB Gun, a 22 rifle and Nagant sniper rifle. I had to take tests to get a licence to obtain those weapons. I think its a bad idea to let anyone buy guns, sure its in your constitution, but how old is that?

If there are no guns to shoot with, what are your chances of getting shot then? My weapons are in a safe where no one has access to them, not in the glove-box of my car.
There would be no gun crimes and deaths if there are no guns avaliable to purchase. I'm not completely against guns to make myself clear, im against the availability of deadly fire arms. It took me 3 years to be able to eligable to buy that Nagant, and it was a waste of time since i do not use it. In the USA my father was offered a high powered 30cal. sniper rifle without any licenses or anything, i have a problem with that, anyone with intent for murder could pick up a gun far too easily.
I think it would be a stretch for the USa to remove guns, i'd just like to see them try and regulate the avaliability of guns.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

Yes, you made the point that high security isn't the standard in the rest of the country, but only in airports. This is true, my point was that your government still feels the need to watch people everywhere, to a high degree in London and to a lesser degree everywhere else.

I am not attempting to use one example to prove my point, I am merely giving the example I experienced when entering England. I also went to Bath, Chester, and Stratford-upon-Avon, and another town on the coast whose name I do not recall, all of which had an inordinate amount of cameras compared to even large metropolitan cities in my country.

Of course they don't, that would involve way too much manpower, time and dedication. There are probably numerous that are constantly watched, but a large number of them are silent sentinels. My point is that all these cameras on the street, constantly recording your every move, is disturbing. I don't want to be watched everywhere I go, and thankfully I am not.

You agree that our government doesn't watch our every move by your admission that most CCTV camera footage isn't viewed, and yet you still maintain that we are constantly watches. This is a contradiction.

And I feel safer, knowing that I don't have to rely on the nanny state to safeguard me, when all I need to protect me are the hollowpoints loaded in my .45 caliber pistol. One dead piece of criminal scum makes the world a better place. We obviously are coming from far different mentalities.

Very different mentalities.

The English cities and towns I've visited all had a large amount of cameras, as I've said earlier. I don't remember seeing very many when I went to Cardiff, but then again that was in Wales. My point is that even in small towns, your government still feels the need to watch you.

Again with that contradiction. We have a lot, mostly they go un-viewed.

Well, capital punishment is much too frequent here. If the government must put someone to death, it should be quick, necessary and infrequent.

The government 'must' do no such as take a person's life.

Someone is in your house with a gun, in the middle of the night. You wake up, hear him shuffling through your home looking for things to thieve, and you procure your pistol and quietly approach, zeroed in on the criminal. He sees you, and raises the gun. You now have two options; shoot him dead right then and there, or die yourself.

This example is just not something that occurs in England.

Now, if he saw your gun and ran away, and you shot him in the back, that would be unreasonable force.

If the person was unarmed and not a threat, that would be unreasonable force

It all depends on how much of a threat a person is, and how you determine that threat. If you feel threatened in your sanctum, your home, then you have all the right to kill anyone that threatens you. It's called the Castle Doctrine, and is codified in law.

Your countries laws maybe, not ours.

Yes, that is clearly unreasonable force, because he shot someone in the back as he was fleeing. If the kid didn't flee but started advancing towards the man that would be reasonable force.

Not in our laws. But in the case we're talking about, the only person with a gun was the farmer.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

And the dish by the same name. *rimshot*

my mind boggles

[Makaveli]

Originally Posted by Mike182

You agree that our government doesn't watch our every move by your admission that most CCTV camera footage isn't viewed, and yet you still maintain that we are constantly watches. This is a contradiction.

This example is just not something that occurs in England.

I did not say you are constantly watched, only that the cameras are constantly recording.

That is a scenario that occurs very often in my country, especially in larger cities.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

I did not say you are constantly watched, only that the cameras are constantly recording.

That is a scenario that occurs very often in my country, especially in larger cities.

But the premise that we are constantly being observed and monitored is the basis of your accusation that Britain is a police state, which you substantiated by the fact that we have a lot of CCTV. Surely this admission that we are not at all constantly watched is a rebuttal of your original premise?