Guns For Self-Defence

[Derek]

Slightly OT

Seemingly 'violent' crime rose by 6% in the last 3 months to June this year, how much more would this rise if guns were available from Asda?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4359744.stm

(although I fully expect these figures to be denied by certain members of the forum as a complete lie and fabrication as everything is rosy and getting better in the country )

Originally Posted by dezzo

Slightly OT

Seemingly 'violent' crime rose by 6% in the last 3 months to June this year, how much more would this rise if guns were available from Asda?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4359744.stm

(although I fully expect these figures to be denied by certain members of the forum as a complete lie and fabrication as everything is rosy and getting better in the country )

Not me. The last British Crime Survey - a much better indicator than reported crime - showed violent crime was the only area showing an incease, whilst all other types of crime were falling.

[Xaccers]

Just give it a few years and look at Italy which has recently relaxed gun ownership laws in an attempt to deter crime.
Let them run the experiment and see how it goes.

Personally, I have no reason to own a real gun.
If I lived in a town where I didn't feel safe enough to live without a gun, I'd do my best to move!

[punky]

Crime is everywhere... In some cases being more rural makes you more vunerable. Also, areas with less crime cost more, so its not always that easy. Also, an armed intruder, is still an armed intruder no matter where in the country they intrude.

Also, people are saying violent crime is a lot statistic so self-defence isn't necessary... well, it only has to happen to you once, doesn't it? IT happens to some people, what's to say next time it won't be you? It might, but also, it might not. Also, when your wife has been raped by an armed intruder, is it really much comfort to her that the statistical probability of that crime happening is low?

[greencreeper]

In the history of thread starting, this thread must surely be up there in the top 10 daftest threads to start, ever

I grew up with a dad that had shotguns, so I'm sort of privileged to actually know what a gun is beyond having seen pictures of them. It's people that make guns a bad idea - just too much Coucil Estate inbreeding, and rampant respect for human rights Not to mention have a go heros and gung-ho ex-army SO19 officers with an longing to kill.

Originally Posted by punky

Crime is everywhere... In some cases being more rural makes you more vunerable. Also, areas with less crime cost more, so its not always that easy. Also, an armed intruder, is still an armed intruder no matter where in the country they intrude.

Also, people are saying violent crime is a lot statistic so self-defence isn't necessary... well, it only has to happen to you once, doesn't it? IT happens to some people, what's to say next time it won't be you? It might, but also, it might not. Also, when your wife has been raped by an armed intruder, is it really much comfort to her that the statistical probability of that crime happening is low?

But you don't introduce legislation which affects the country, based on things that happen to some people. Because a very, very small minority of people might, possibly benefit from having a gun for self defence, you don't liberalise the laws, especially when the effect of that liberalisation could actually increase the probability of violent acts against some people.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

But you don't introduce legislation which affects the country, based on things that happen to some people.

So, do you wait until it happens to everyone?

Originally Posted by punky

Crime is everywhere... In some cases being more rural makes you more vunerable. Also, areas with less crime cost more, so its not always that easy. Also, an armed intruder, is still an armed intruder no matter where in the country they intrude.

Also, people are saying violent crime is a lot statistic so self-defence isn't necessary... well, it only has to happen to you once, doesn't it? IT happens to some people, what's to say next time it won't be you? It might, but also, it might not. Also, when your wife has been raped by an armed intruder, is it really much comfort to her that the statistical probability of that crime happening is low?

No, But none the less it is low. Also how would guns truely help?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by me283

So, do you wait until it happens to everyone?

But it never will happen to everyone so that argument is nonsensical.

[me283]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But it never will happen to everyone so that argument is nonsensical.

So it must have been in response to a nonsensical suggestion then?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But it never will happen to everyone so that argument is nonsensical.

Thanks for that. And if that was the sum total of me283's post (I have him on Ignore for obvious reasons) a somewhat disingenuous bit of editing too. Legislation is not introduced willy-nilly on the basis of individual or extremely rare incidents (although this govt is showing a canny knack for knee-jerk responses to media pressure)

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by me283

So it must have been in response to a nonsensical suggestion then?

No the suggestion was perfectly logical:

Originally Posted by andyl

But you don't introduce legislation which affects the country, based on things that happen to some people. Because a very, very small minority of people might, possibly benefit from having a gun for self defence, you don't liberalise the laws, especially when the effect of that liberalisation could actually increase the probability of violent acts against some people.

[me283]

Why do you think my resonse was nonsensical? I think maybe you are being a little biased towards someone who thinks the same way as you do?

The comment I responded to was:

But you don't introduce legislation which affects the country, based on things that happen to some people.

My response was:

So, do you wait until it happens to everyone?

__________________

I am with Punky on this one. But then he has handled guns, I have handled guns. I wonder how many people who are anti-guns have actually picked one up?

Another point of perspective is this: if I were a burglar in this country today, I wouldn't have much fear. After all, if I am caught by a householder I can claim damages if he injures me; if the courts try me, I haven't much to fear from the justice system.

However, if there were a chance of a householder shooting me, then I think it would be time for a career change.

For the record, I have spent a fair bit of time in countries where guns are legalised - not just holidays, but extended stays. Please note the term "legalised"; they are strictly controlled, not just available in Asda as one poster mentioned. Strangely enough, you don't see gangs of vigilantes roaming the streets shooting anyone who looks like they might be a dog rapist; you don't see people walking into bars acting like John Wayne out with a vengeance; you don't see schoolkids carrying shotguns in case they get a bullied. People are taught how to use guns responsibly; you get a lot more training than you do before you can buy a knife, an axe, or a chainsaw. And remember, those people who own guns legally, tend to respect guns.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by me283

Why do you think my resonse was nonsensical? I think maybe you are being a little biased towards someone who thinks the same way as you do?

I suggested why it was nonsensical in a previous post.

I am not biased towards anyone but respond to the reasoned argument that I read regardless of who has written it. Anyway this is OT and irrelevant.

[me283]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But it never will happen to everyone so that argument is nonsensical.

Exactly. It will never happen to everyone; thus it is a ridiculous suggestion to say that you don't change the law because of something that only happens to some people.