Gun ownership..........right or wrong??

'Twas a thread starter in another forum..........
'Twas suggested that it be moved here........

I am an advocate of gun ownership. I wonder how many Setizens feel it neccessry (or prudent) to keep a gun about the house? I used to carry a .38 special in my boot because some idiot started shouting about the tavern that I was a narc. Had some biatch shooting at me one Saturday morning. Had to back my sorry butt up right proper and quick. Since then (20 years hence), I sold the Browning stainless steel semiautomatic that I substituted for the .38 Smith and Wesson snub nose, and have not felt the need to employ one since then.
Once one's weapons are well known and not a surprise, they cease to be a deterrent, only an instigation.
____________
******

"Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty."

As it is kitten, so shall it be done.

I have been shot at ( many years ago ) but I really don't feel the need to carry a gun.

I have no real problem with people that do carry...as long as they are responsible with it.
____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I don't carry , but i do have them in my home...

Taurus .357 magnum (8 shot Magna Ported - Metal Jacket Hollow Points)
Weatherby 300 Magnum with a Leupold Mark 4 8.5-25x50mm ER/T M1 mounted on it.




____________


http://www.mikesbawx.org/photo/

I'm a UK citizen so the ownership of firearms are not really an issue for me as here they are heavily restricted or just plain illegal.

I have however been in countries where guns were carried as part of everyday life by citizens.

The only times I have ever had a firearm actually pointed at me were by police, army, malicia or political agents. (Outside the UK.)

In all of these situations I doubt having any type of weapon on me would have made a slight difference if it came to a shoot out.

I have also had cannon shells fly over my head and doubt a gun would have helped if one of those shells fell on me.

If all my fellow UK citizens carried guns then I would think it prudent for me to carry some sort of protection (not neccasarily a gun) to disable them from blowing my head off..

As to the 'right' to hold a weapon: No. Never.... The right to use reasonable protection: Yes.... The right to enjoy a sport like shooting: Yes with provisions..

But I live in the UK and guns are available to criminals and fools but not widely so.

If you have a right to own a nuclear bomb then so does everyone else. Logic should tell us that someone at some time might use this... To me it's a fatal logic whichever way you go.

A gun just takes 5 mm of finger movement and someone to be in front of the bullet for it to destroy a life.

As I believe there are more good people than bad in my world then it will be more good people than bad that get hurt.

That's a risk I would not like to take.


But as said if you and your loved ones are in danger then how could I ever question your desire to protect yourselves.

We define and classify murder into different degress here, so yes there is a difference of prospective there. The one case I chose, I did so because I was there in the neighborhood, when it happened. Punks are again a difference in American/English slang.

...and lastly, I wasn't trying to shout you down; nothing personal. I was just stating things the way I saw them, and you did yours which I disagree with, but at the same time I can respect it.

And msattler should be horse whipped for starting this topic, as we've been around this block before, with two diametrically opposed groups of opinion.

...well, maybe horse whipped was a little strong...how about getting his knuckles rapped, or whacked up the side of the head with a wet fish.
____________
Account frozen...

I was actually considering creating a thread like this one a while ago and was kindly asked not to do so.

Msattler chose to ask the question, people can answer or not answer.

It's to be expected that there will be two very different viewpoints. But there is no reason that things have to devolve into nastiness.

Wether one thinks someone's opinion is right or wrong, everyone should try to respect the opposite view.
____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Ya wanta know something...people are people. There are good people, bad people, crazy people, lazy people, indifferent people, etc.

Anywhere you go in the world it is basically the same...the main difference is the culture; that's all.
____________
Account frozen...

I was actually considering creating a thread like this one a while ago and was kindly asked not to do so.

Msattler chose to ask the question, people can answer or not answer.

It's to be expected that there will be two very different viewpoints. But there is no reason that things have to devolve into nastiness.

Wether one thinks someone's opinion is right or wrong, everyone should try to respect the opposite view.

As a UK citizen, I think I can understand Dennis. We have spoken on this matter a couple of times.

At least the US Law recognises a householder's right to defend their person and property, even to the death of the intruder, without massive legal repercussions on the householder.

Within UK Law, the right to defend oneself is there, but only using reasonable force. It is the definition of reasonable force that has caused the crisis of confidence in the Criminal Justice system here.

In my view the main mistake Tony Martin made was not shooting and killing both burgling intruders to his remote farm property. Remember, he had been burgled several times previously with nil or poor police response.

Tony Martin, I understand owned pigs. So, having killed the intruders, he should have butchered them and disposed of the evidence via his pigs. There would be no evidence of the intruders, and forensics, to do the linking, would be almost impossible. Moreover, there needs to be suspicion to start an investigation. A foreign vehicle in the neighbourhood can easily be removed to a safe location.

My view is the UK, within a UK and European context, has the right approach to gun ownership, but with two major revisions ..

1. Sporting gun ownership should be allowed, in view of the ease with which criminals can get them.

2. The ability to defend oneself and property should be recognised, and the presumption should be to the defender and not the criminal (as now). It must be remembered that if the intruder had not been there then nothing would have occurred.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

I can't understand why anyone would ever want a gun unless for hunting, sport or protection.

In my view the main mistake Tony Martin made was not shooting and killing both burgling intruders to his remote farm property. Remember, he had been burgled several times previously with nil or poor police response.

I think the case of Tony Martin (Court Appeal Transcript Link - 2001) is not really equal to the average case in the UK.

If someone came into my house and had a weapon and refused to flee when I appeared I would pick up the nearest and best weapon I could to disable them.

I personally could never, in a clear mind, aim to kill anyone unless that was the absolute last option.

In an adrenalin or fearful state I am sure I would probably feel like bashing them to nothing.

I know it might be different in a country where guns were easy to get for both criminals and law abiding citizens alike..

I am just so glad I don't have to face that many guns here.

Are we saying that if someone slipped through your window in the US and had no gun or weapon on them it is legally acceptable to shoot them with no warning or hesitation?

What if you warned them and they put up their hands and turned to step back out the window? Would shooting them still be legal?

You know if you look at the 'experienced' crime statistics (not people in prison but the reports of crime) the greatest changes in the UK happen near to major political changes not any changes in gun or other law.

Crime levels as reported by our communities are now as low as they were 25 years ago though they did peak at the end of the last conservative / start of this labour governments rule.

Fear is also a socio-political-cultural thing.

For me the less pointy bangy things we have sitting around means less chance of them being fired.. Is this illogical somehow?

Mind you I have quite a few big staby things lying around in my home... but as long as any intruder is a good runner they probably won't die.

Please do not embed pictures of weapons in this thread.

(Apart from anything else lots of pictures will turn in into a trade catalog which would not be appropriate for this forum.)

Thanks.

'Twas a thread starter in another forum..........
'Twas suggested that it be moved here........

I am an advocate of gun ownership. I wonder how many Setizens feel it neccessry (or prudent) to keep a gun about the house? I used to carry a .38 special in my boot because some idiot started shouting about the tavern that I was a narc. Had some biatch shooting at me one Saturday morning. Had to back my sorry butt up right proper and quick. Since then (20 years hence), I sold the Browning stainless steel semiautomatic that I substituted for the .38 Smith and Wesson snub nose, and have not felt the need to employ one since then.
Once one's weapons are well known and not a surprise, they cease to be a deterrent, only an instigation.

My friend asked me which pistol to recomend for his skinny gorgeous wife. I recomended a .357 2inch Colt Python. It can shoot .38's and .357's and wont ever jam. what u think ? She is about 90 lbs, counting 7 lbs of implants. Yeah, I know. Its a California question

Gun ownership is a matter of where you live.

In modern great counties: NO
In the outback: YES

Protect people, this is the job of the police or the army.
____________