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


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Gun ownership..........right or wrong??

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 8 · Next
Author Message
Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 7
United States
Message 584264 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 4:48:19 UTC

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

Profile Michael Buckingham
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4508
Credit: 2,676,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584278 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 5:26:15 UTC

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/

Profile cRunchy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1127
Credit: 425,709
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584280 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 5:29:00 UTC


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.







____________

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584283 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 5:51:06 UTC - in response to Message 584280.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 6:25:18 UTC


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.







I VOTE RIGHT. But also in the UK, if someone breaks into your home, rapes your spouse and children at knife point, and you use equal force with a knife and kill him, you are had for murder...there are no self defense laws in the UK. The last time I was in England was last December, and I was staying with a copper friend (Greater Manchester Police) and his wife and child. One block away, a punk broke into an 83 year old veterans flat, robbed him, and beat him so bad he almost died. If that old man had used a firearm, or anything else to defend himself, he'd be in jail right now.

Anyone who breaks into my home is going to be on the receiving end of a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with five 3' 00 magnum rounds. I am allowed by law to assume that my life is in mortal danger, and can act according to save my life within the confines of my abode. I live in any area rife with drug dealers and narcotics, and they know not to mess with me because the worst nightmare of a hardened criminal is an armed victim.

Look at the statistics after Australia disarmed their civilian population.

In England your laws are a mess. Just last year a man took his girlfriends infant son, and killed him by holding the childs face on the gas burner of a lit stove. He got a 12 year tariff by your courts (in reality only serving 8 years). Here in Nevada the minimum he would have received would have been 40 years to life, life without parole, or the death penalty. IMO, British law is more concerned with the hurt feelings of a murderous sociopath than the victims of his crimes.

In the UK, the only people who are armed are special police units, and the criminals. There is a thriving business there in the illegal importation and sales of firearms, and guess who the buyers are...hoodies, punks, yobbs, and psychopaths, and even if they are caught, they get a comparitive slap on the wrist. In the US, a convicted felon in the possession of a firearm is going to spend quite some time behind bars, and in Nevada anyone using a firearm in the commission of a felony get his sentence doubled on conviction; any lesser crime becomes a felony as well.

If it's my life or theirs, I know which I am going to chose.
____________
Account frozen...

Profile cRunchy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1127
Credit: 425,709
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584286 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:17:48 UTC - in response to Message 584283.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 6:20:57 UTC


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.

SNIP MY BLAH BLAH....

RIGHT. But also in the UK, if someone breaks into your home, rapes your spouse and children at knife point, and you use equal force with a knife and kill him, you are had for murder...there are no self defense laws in the UK.

The last time I was in England was last December, and I was staying with a copper friend (Greater Manchester Police) and his wife and child. One block away, a punk broke into an 83 year old veterans flat, robbed him, and beat him so bad he almost died. If that old man had used a firearm, or anything else to defend himself, he'd be in jail right now.

Anyone who breaks into my home is going to be on the receiving end of a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 3' 00 magnum rounds. I am allowed by law to assume that my life is in mortal danger, and can act according to save my life. I live in any area rife with drug dealers and narcotics, and they know not to mess with me because the worst nightmare of a hardened criminal is an armed victim.

Look at the statistics after Australia disarmed their civilian population.


Firstly you would not be done for murder. That's an absolute misunderstanding of UK law.

Murder requires some level of pre-meditaion (similar in the US I believe.)

The UK has a self defence law but not all laws are specifically written for good reason. The presidence is that you can use "reasonable" force.

"Equal force" is easily misenterpreted:

. We are asked by law to think about what we do not simply react in the same bad manner!

Secondly a single story (anacdote) even if about an old person makes a very bad example given there are 60 million people in the UK not just the one you heard about. (Oh.. and very few 'punks' since the 1970s..)

I agree it can get damn crazy in the UK sometimes but I live here and have lived in what some would say are the worst inner city areas...

If the UK scares people then all I can say is that the US must be a palace in comparison.

I am not arguing against peoples belief they should own a firearm as part of their human or citizen rights. I just offered a different perspective from my life here in the UK.

I don't have the legal right to carry a gun without very good and licensed reason... but I do have plenty of chemicals that could kill hundreds if not thousands if I chose to do so.

Guns are just objects. The will and belief we can use them are the problems.

Obviously people in the US with it's history and culture will have a different perspective.

Maybe the thread should have been named: "Gun ownership. Which US citizens agree?"

I knew I would be shouted down :o)))

Fair game!



____________

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584287 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:22:27 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 6:28:58 UTC

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...

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 7
United States
Message 584291 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:36:30 UTC

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

Profile cRunchy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1127
Credit: 425,709
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584293 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:38:44 UTC - in response to Message 584287.

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.


I know the slang... I was being facetious :o)

I have been in many neighbourhoods here and yes know of lots of people who have been harmed. I also know of the majority that haven't. Anacdotes are emotive but don't help much in discovering truth.


...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.


I know!... but as soon as I read the OP's post I knew this was in reality a US-centric post.. I just posted to add a different perspective.

Maybe US citizens are more sane than us in the UK.. But I'm glad my neighbours don't have any guns ;o)




____________

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584294 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:42:03 UTC

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...

Profile cRunchy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1127
Credit: 425,709
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584295 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:46:10 UTC - in response to Message 584291.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 6:48:03 UTC

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.


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

If many people in a single country believe they 'must' have a gun then that says something either about the culture or the general feeling of safety they have.

On that level I actually find it interesting to see how people feel.

I'd really find it interesting to hear what gun owning but non US citizens felt.


I don't think anyone has been disrespectful so far.. I hope I wasn't?




____________

Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584296 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 6:47:45 UTC - in response to Message 584291.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 7:06:28 UTC

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.


I whole heartedly agree, but this, as well as certain other topics, tend to get heated by their very nature, they're like lightning rods in a storm...enough said.

Cows with Guns
____________
Account frozen...

Lester
Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 07
Posts: 414
Credit: 38,111
RAC: 0
Message 584338 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 10:20:20 UTC - in response to Message 584258.

'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
____________

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584361 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 11:43:14 UTC

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



Profile David Stites
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 99
Posts: 286
Credit: 7,261,501
RAC: 3,933
United States
Message 584365 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 11:54:16 UTC

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


That about covers it all. I have guns for all three although I haven't used them in years, except keeping them around for the last reason. I use a bow for sport and hunting now.


____________
David Stites
Pullman, WA USA

Profile cRunchy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1127
Credit: 425,709
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584394 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 12:45:43 UTC - in response to Message 584361.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 12:57:12 UTC


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 ilogical 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.




Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 584417 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 14:16:49 UTC - in response to Message 584394.
Last modified: 9 Jun 2007, 14:20:32 UTC

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.


I agree Crunchy.

His situation is not typical.

But, his experience of police response (remember they are here to protect us and uphold the law) was crap. The lesson he was taught is don't depend on the police, depend on yourself!

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 am sure that most people faced with such a situation would not kill. The circumstances of any attack would determine the outcome, not the initial intention ... unless the householder was armed. Certainly, it would be my position and, most probably, the outcome ... injury to both the intruder and myself!

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


From what Dennis told me for his State ... the presumption in Law was the intruder had the intention to threaten bodily harm to the householder. So, an action by the householder towards the intruder, including shooting them to death, was considered to be unfortunate but not result in automatic court persecution as in the UK.

The only exception was if the intruder retreated, including turning around. If the householder then shot, and killed, the retreating intruder, then they would face a manslaughter charge at best.

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?


See my last paragraph in the previous reply, for the US state Dennis lives in.

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.


It is also well known that the spin and glitz of our current rulers results in heavily massaged figures, including crime figures, which then favour them to the extent they look good.

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.


I agree. Fortunately I live in a rural area with low crime. This will most likely result in a rise in Council Tax. The low crime area is not due to the efforts of our local Police, rather than to the nature of where I live and all the locals knowing each other. A stranger is very quickly spotted!

____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile Michael Roberts
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 1923
Credit: 309,859
RAC: 7
Germany
Message 584419 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 14:18:56 UTC

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.

Profile mikey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 4215
Credit: 3,474,603
RAC: 0
United States
Message 584427 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 14:52:00 UTC - in response to Message 584338.

'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


A .357 2incher may be a bit rugged and heavy handed for her. Go to a gun store that lets you actually shoot some guns and try a few. She needs one that will let her shoot more than once, ie little recoil, but have some stopping power. MOST people are scared to death and shoot poorly at least once. The bad person keeps coming and they are forced to shoot again. If she can't handle the recoil she is a one shot, dead woman! It is VERY hard, and disconcerting, to convince yourself, in a shooting situation, that the other person is not going to just back down when they see you have a gun.

On a side note...a friend of mine bought his wife a gun to protect herself when he was away. He got off work early one night and snuck into the house and burst into the bedroom. Lucky thing he had fast reflexes, because as he hit the floor 5 shots went over his head into the wall! The gun left with him the next day.
Buying a gun is not always a good thing, and if you have kids.......!!

____________

Profile champ
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 03
Posts: 3642
Credit: 1,489,147
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 584454 - Posted: 9 Jun 2007, 15:18:53 UTC

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.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 8 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Gun ownership..........right or wrong??

Copyright © 2014 University of California