Discussion
rohrl said:
Idon't think anyone ought to be suggesting that anyone else ought to buy a gun for self-defence.
Why not? On 13th June myself and my wife collect our CCWs (Florida Concealed Carry license), and have every intention of having a gun (or 4) in the house and the cars.Why is it that we are not allowed to defend ourselves? We're not exactly well built in the first place so I doubt we're a threat to a thug, but why should that rob of us of our desire to defend ourselves? A gun more than evens things up.
The law is one thing that could change, but wondering at what point (if any) people will just decide the risk of getting prosecuted for an illegal weapon is worth it as compared to living in fear of these feral scum.
No doubt I'd get an ASBO for saying so in the UK, but I would seriously consider it if I had to live in a rough area of Britain.
Battering them over the head is all well and good if you're a powerfully built PH type, but most people faced with a gang of chavs, quite possibly with knives and so forth, who know that they'll probably not get above 5 years inside even if they end up kicking you to death, just won't take the chance.
A gun is a great leveller, and the home owner, knowing the property and initiating the fight, has an advantage even if the criminal is armed with a gun as well.
Regarding the house price, I think it's a housing association or council house, but the point still stands. It, and presumably other houses in the area, are no longer protected by the law.
No doubt I'd get an ASBO for saying so in the UK, but I would seriously consider it if I had to live in a rough area of Britain.
Battering them over the head is all well and good if you're a powerfully built PH type, but most people faced with a gang of chavs, quite possibly with knives and so forth, who know that they'll probably not get above 5 years inside even if they end up kicking you to death, just won't take the chance.
A gun is a great leveller, and the home owner, knowing the property and initiating the fight, has an advantage even if the criminal is armed with a gun as well.
Regarding the house price, I think it's a housing association or council house, but the point still stands. It, and presumably other houses in the area, are no longer protected by the law.
Something else that would help would be having elected, accountable judges. So when we hear of cases like chavs committing unprovoked GBH attacks and getting let off with 2 or 3 years (or even non-custodial) because of some sob story defence of how sorry they are and wont do it again, or thieves with 100+ convictions being given "one last chance", we can replace the soft out of touch judges with someone who might actually give a deterrent sentence to the scum.
As for prison overcrowding... simple. We build another. It helps the economy no end (jobs for all the construction workers, and jobs for the wardens) and ends the lame excuse for currently not putting people behind bars.
As for defence currently.. well, anyone who somehow breaks in is likely to meet either my baseball bat (it has an honest use guv, I have the balls and glove to prove it), or my pump-action M47 (it's a pre-UKARA realistic BB replica, but they wont know that)
As for prison overcrowding... simple. We build another. It helps the economy no end (jobs for all the construction workers, and jobs for the wardens) and ends the lame excuse for currently not putting people behind bars.
As for defence currently.. well, anyone who somehow breaks in is likely to meet either my baseball bat (it has an honest use guv, I have the balls and glove to prove it), or my pump-action M47 (it's a pre-UKARA realistic BB replica, but they wont know that)
Outside of the 'family' incidents the sad reality is that almost all 'home invaders' are well known to the police long before they graduate up to this level.
There is no need for private punters to be armed, the solution is to have the right laws and to enforce them rigorously.
The govt needs to use our money to give us a better standard of life, not bankroll and excuse filth.
On the subject of firearms, this is an old subject and those who don't know firearms all that well often live the idea of being armed and a certain percentage of people who like handguns do as well. Sadly, global stats do show that the armed person is far more likely to shoot themselves or a family member without there even being an intruder incident. Introduce the high stress situation of an intruder and it gets worse.
Regardless of the movies and TVs most people will never hot what they are aiming at meaning the intruder is the safest person in the room.
I've shot all manner of weapons over the last 30 years in all manner of disiplines up to serious competition level, some international and there is not a hope in hell of me ever considering the general public being able to carry handguns to be a remotely sensible option, ever.
The vast majority will never do enough high stress training to be remotely competent during a situation.
The simple fact is that we need to sweep the streets clean of the filth not arm ourselves.
In order to do that the majority need to stab up and logically and sensibly counter the militant loonies on the left who want our money to be spent hugging feral filth and then set about crushing them with an almost religious ferver.
There is no need for private punters to be armed, the solution is to have the right laws and to enforce them rigorously.
The govt needs to use our money to give us a better standard of life, not bankroll and excuse filth.
On the subject of firearms, this is an old subject and those who don't know firearms all that well often live the idea of being armed and a certain percentage of people who like handguns do as well. Sadly, global stats do show that the armed person is far more likely to shoot themselves or a family member without there even being an intruder incident. Introduce the high stress situation of an intruder and it gets worse.
Regardless of the movies and TVs most people will never hot what they are aiming at meaning the intruder is the safest person in the room.
I've shot all manner of weapons over the last 30 years in all manner of disiplines up to serious competition level, some international and there is not a hope in hell of me ever considering the general public being able to carry handguns to be a remotely sensible option, ever.
The vast majority will never do enough high stress training to be remotely competent during a situation.
The simple fact is that we need to sweep the streets clean of the filth not arm ourselves.
In order to do that the majority need to stab up and logically and sensibly counter the militant loonies on the left who want our money to be spent hugging feral filth and then set about crushing them with an almost religious ferver.
I was in America recently and Piers Morgan was being castigated for criticising America's gun laws. He pointed out that in 2010, there were 62 gun related deaths in the UK for a 66m population. About 1 per million. The USA has a population of circa 275m, and in 2010 they had about 19,800 gun related deaths.
So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
It's not just the left though, unless you include CMD and his pals in there, which wouldn't be too far fetched.
I saw a subheading on the article about his rebranding of ASBOs, that said they would implement "three strikes and you're out" - a sensible policy that would actually take the hardcore offenders off the street. What "out" actually means is that after 3 complains the police must investigate anti social behaviour. I bet that's got them quaking in their trainers.
My kind of three strikes and you're out would mean that 3 convictions for crimes against people or property would mean that you are going to prison for 25 years.
I saw a subheading on the article about his rebranding of ASBOs, that said they would implement "three strikes and you're out" - a sensible policy that would actually take the hardcore offenders off the street. What "out" actually means is that after 3 complains the police must investigate anti social behaviour. I bet that's got them quaking in their trainers.
My kind of three strikes and you're out would mean that 3 convictions for crimes against people or property would mean that you are going to prison for 25 years.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I was in America recently and Piers Morgan was being castigated for criticising America's gun laws. He pointed out that in 2010, there were 62 gun related deaths in the UK for a 66m population. About 1 per million. The USA has a population of circa 275m, and in 2010 they had about 19,800 gun related deaths.
So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
Investigate the same statistics along race lines and you get a very different picture.So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
AJS- said:
It's not just the left though, unless you include CMD and his pals in there, which wouldn't be too far fetched.
I saw a subheading on the article about his rebranding of ASBOs, that said they would implement "three strikes and you're out" - a sensible policy that would actually take the hardcore offenders off the street. What "out" actually means is that after 3 complains the police must investigate anti social behaviour. I bet that's got them quaking in their trainers.
My kind of three strikes and you're out would mean that 3 convictions for crimes against people or property would mean that you are going to prison for 25 years.
An offense sees them locked into a windowless, soundproof box for 'x' days. I saw a subheading on the article about his rebranding of ASBOs, that said they would implement "three strikes and you're out" - a sensible policy that would actually take the hardcore offenders off the street. What "out" actually means is that after 3 complains the police must investigate anti social behaviour. I bet that's got them quaking in their trainers.
My kind of three strikes and you're out would mean that 3 convictions for crimes against people or property would mean that you are going to prison for 25 years.
Each subsequent offense increases the value of 'x' on a log scale.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know it must involve genuine fear and not money and stern words.
mat777 said:
Something else that would help would be having elected, accountable judges. So when we hear of cases like chavs committing unprovoked GBH attacks and getting let off with 2 or 3 years (or even non-custodial) because of some sob story defence of how sorry they are and wont do it again, or thieves with 100+ convictions being given "one last chance", we can replace the soft out of touch judges with someone who might actually give a deterrent sentence to the scum.
As for prison overcrowding... simple. We build another. It helps the economy no end (jobs for all the construction workers, and jobs for the wardens) and ends the lame excuse for currently not putting people behind bars.
As for defence currently.. well, anyone who somehow breaks in is likely to meet either my baseball bat (it has an honest use guv, I have the balls and glove to prove it), or my pump-action M47 (it's a pre-UKARA realistic BB replica, but they wont know that)
Outsource prison service to China. As for prison overcrowding... simple. We build another. It helps the economy no end (jobs for all the construction workers, and jobs for the wardens) and ends the lame excuse for currently not putting people behind bars.
As for defence currently.. well, anyone who somehow breaks in is likely to meet either my baseball bat (it has an honest use guv, I have the balls and glove to prove it), or my pump-action M47 (it's a pre-UKARA realistic BB replica, but they wont know that)
Split communities into 'wards' and have a resident judge responsible for keeping each ward clean.
JDRoest said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I was in America recently and Piers Morgan was being castigated for criticising America's gun laws. He pointed out that in 2010, there were 62 gun related deaths in the UK for a 66m population. About 1 per million. The USA has a population of circa 275m, and in 2010 they had about 19,800 gun related deaths.
So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
Investigate the same statistics along race lines and you get a very different picture.So on the face of it a proliferation of guns appears not to have made life safer.
A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
JDRoest said:
Investigate the same statistics along race lines and you get a very different picture.
A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
How fascinating.A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
How is this in any way relevant to the discussion at hand?
Do your statistics include mixed-race Americans?
What, to you, constitutes "black"?
Is gun crime more closely aligned with skin colour or educational attainment?
Do you assign a direct causal link between melanin concentration and gun crime?
The comparison with the US is simply not valid. It is a vastly different country. Comparing the US with Brazil would probably make about as much sense, and doesn't put restrictive gun laws in such a favourable light. As mentioned above, if you look at the comparisons between various states or districts with differing gun laws it often seems to show gun laws and high crime go together. Though whether cause or effect is harder to tell.
For the UK, Germany or Canada are more useful comparisons, in terms of the demographics of the country and the general crime rate. Canada recently deregulated the ownership of firearms, and I will be very interested to see how that impacts the figures in coming years.
Anyway, I'm not talking about any of those countries, I'm talking about the UK, and as gun laws have become increasingly restrictive crime has gone up. Again it's not very clear cause and effect. The overriding point though is that you are completely unable to protect yourself effectively in the (quite likely) circumstances that the homeowner is outnumbered or overpowered by the intruders, and then quite likely to be prosecuted if he manages to do so successfully.
For the UK, Germany or Canada are more useful comparisons, in terms of the demographics of the country and the general crime rate. Canada recently deregulated the ownership of firearms, and I will be very interested to see how that impacts the figures in coming years.
Anyway, I'm not talking about any of those countries, I'm talking about the UK, and as gun laws have become increasingly restrictive crime has gone up. Again it's not very clear cause and effect. The overriding point though is that you are completely unable to protect yourself effectively in the (quite likely) circumstances that the homeowner is outnumbered or overpowered by the intruders, and then quite likely to be prosecuted if he manages to do so successfully.
I'm no expert in this. I've never even held a real gun, not do I want to, I have no interest at all in guns.
But it seems to me that the more guns that are in a society, the more guns will get stolen or bought by weirdos (who may well pass whatever criteria for ownership the state imposes), and in a few years, more guns will be in the possession of scumbags.
More people like me who do not want a gun will feel more compelled to have one, even more will be stolen, and even more scumbags will get them. Eventually you're awash with guns, and that isn't a recipe for less gun crime in my view.
But it seems to me that the more guns that are in a society, the more guns will get stolen or bought by weirdos (who may well pass whatever criteria for ownership the state imposes), and in a few years, more guns will be in the possession of scumbags.
More people like me who do not want a gun will feel more compelled to have one, even more will be stolen, and even more scumbags will get them. Eventually you're awash with guns, and that isn't a recipe for less gun crime in my view.
smegmore said:
Anybody who decided to take action and defend themselves against these scumbags would find themselves in a cell in short order. The police spout platitudes to the press and are useless in protecting the general public from this type of behaviour.
Welcome to Great Britain.
It because they dont want to - they know who the perpetrators are, but they are unable/unwilling to act. I don't know how we've got to this situation, but I do know that local bobbies know the worst crims and know that when they are locked up, crime goes down. Thats a fact.Welcome to Great Britain.
Why we have police who are scared to act, I have no idea - all I know is that I had an "event" that really required police intervention, but I was told that I had to make an appointment to see someone ans that the police wouldn't attend as it "might put my officers in danger". Sod that fact that I was going to be in danger. Its a strange world we've allowed the politicians and lawyers to create for us - is it time to take it back I wonder?
rohrl said:
JDRoest said:
Investigate the same statistics along race lines and you get a very different picture.
A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
How fascinating.A very large proportion of gun crime is black on black. Remove that statistic and the average white American is no more likely to be involved in a gun death than the average Finn or Swiss.
How is this in any way relevant to the discussion at hand?
Do your statistics include mixed-race Americans?
What, to you, constitutes "black"?
Is gun crime more closely aligned with skin colour or educational attainment?
Do you assign a direct causal link between melanin concentration and gun crime?
Take out all the gangster 'respek' and gang shootings, and then have a discussion on meaningful statistics.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff