Do you believe in guns?

[Flying Crane]

I do not believe that I need to have one. I do not feel unsafe without one.

I respect the right to be armed in the US. However, I also believe that most of the people who choose to be armed don't really need to be. I believe that for most of these people, it is extremely unlikely that they will ever need to use a gun to defend themselves or a loved one.

If you choose to be armed, just be responsible and clear-headed about it.

 

[Guardian]

Well, considering I'm retired Military and was a Cop in he military and believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, I believe in the right to defend myself and if that defense should prove to be violent to anyone trying to do me harm or my family/friends, then so be it and once they cross the line, they forfeit the right to pursue the same rights as me and thus forfeit their rights.

I believe everyone should have their own view/opinion and live their life like they want or believe in what they want. I choose to live and if that means protecting what I have or love, sorry, it's my view and my right.

 

[Archangel M]

Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?

Has there really EVER been such a time?

Some people state that we live in a far less violent society than at any point in history.

 

[searcher]

Sukerin-I think it would be fabulous to not HAVE to carry all of the time, but at no time in history has it ever been this way. If you take away firearms, then someon is going to get a club, knife, sword, etc. and make use of it in placeof a firearm. The advantage of having a firearm on your person is that it levels the playing field. I know manyof us have had the dream of taking out an armed group or even one person with our wonderful martial skill, but it is not reality.


And Tellner is right on saving up the money andgetting some good training. For all of you considering carrying a firearm or even the purchase of a firearm, get some quality training from a reputable instructor. The NRA ia a great place to contact for information on instructors in your area.

 

[Tez3]

Sukerkin, the reason the police have so much paperwork to do is a direct result of government directives not a result of the police deciding to annoy motorists. The perception is that the police are doing nothing but in fact the police are working their socks off trying to cope with being police officers and keep the government happy, if they don't, funding is stopped. It's as simple as that.

Take 'stop and search', the law says a police officer can stop and search anyone considred suspicious, a drug dealer, a gang member carrying weapons etc however everytime you stop and search you have to go through a form with the person being searched, this will take at least half an hour with a sober co-operative suspect, much much longer if they are doped or bolshy which most times they are.

If you watch the 'Nightwatch' programmes in ITV, 'Soho Blues' on Five etc you will see how much aggravation police actual get and how they are trying to do their jobs. On the Soho programme a Sgt. picked up someone who was drunk and violent, he put him in the van where the guy started bashing his head against the van wall, that Sgt, had to spend an hour filling out a report to say how those injuries were caused just in case he was accused of causing them.

Forms have to be filled in everytime someone is arrested, it take more time to fill them in than deal with many incidents. On a drunken Saturday night this is mountains of paperwork. On those drunken nights out the police have to deal with people fighting, being sick, being comatose, people spitting at them, abusing them and throwing bottle, punches and anything they can find at them. This is where the policing is tied up, we don't actually have more police here, the government is actually recruting more CSOs they are cheaper but of course carry no policing powers nor are they trained as police officers.

The perception is perhaps that police are harrassing drivers but it's not true, however with the influx of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who come from a different culture there has been an enormous rise in drunk driving especially down south. The Eastern European countries have a different mindset about driving when drunk, they also have a different mindset when it comes to crime, it's a good way to make a living as far as they are concerned. I know one police force that is stretched to it's limit because of this.

Gang crime is a problem, to a certain extent it always has been but over the past few years it seems to have come to peoples attention more and more and they are demanding action. What action they don't know but 'the police must do something'. Parents surely are the first line here, stop your children getting involved in the first place but no it's the police forces that are to blame for rising crime.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks for the information and links, Tez :tup:.

Also, your last there is a valid point that probably doesn't get as much weight as it should. I do fear, however, that altho' the outcome might seem as if it was by public demand, that there was a good deal of 'perception management' indulged in to generate the prime conditions to get the law the powers that be desired.

That might be a little paranoid but it's something that the government (of whatever colour) does all the time.

This is true enough but I'm anxious that non Brits don't get the idea that we all had guns and had them taken away from us by the government, which is what some posters seem to think happened. We've never been into the gun thing the way America has, it's never been an election issue nor have we had the 'right to arms' lobby that America has. People still have legal weapons in this country, those that want them and have the patience to go through the checks and get a licence. The view of weapons in this country held by non Brits is skewed by their own experiences and beliefs.

 

[jarrod]

i like my guns, i wish i had more.

i'll probably never have to shoot someone. i'll probably never have to use my martial arts training either, for that matter.

i don't care if others have guns or not.

jf

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?

Mark, you know I love ya( in the completely hetero sense of course), and you have my respect and I have never read a post from you I didn't like, even if the views were not mine.

But, I do think in this case it is best to take the appropriate measures to deal with the society I have right now, rather than the one I never will( nor will anyone for as long as there are humans).

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Mark, if I can make a suggestion, save up your pennies and get some good training. Some of the best training in the world can be found close at hand in New Hampshire. LFI will not only teach you how to shoot and how to use your firearm for self defense. It will also teach you when to shoot, when not to shoot and help you deal with the after effects of a lethal force situation. There are other excellent facilities out there. Mr. Ayoob's happens to be one with which I have personal experience.

There are good courses in firearms retention and disarming. I'd really recommend taking at least one of those. A firearm changes just about everything about how you fight.

I'm not a Krav Maga practitioner, but I have a great deal of respect for the way I've seen advanced Krav people, mostly former or active IDF soldiers - dunno about what you find at the regular schools, integrate their gun work with their empty hand tactics.

Absolutely. I consider the right to bear arms sacred , BUT--never arm an untrained person.

I'm taking a few extra classes next month at the Smith and Wesson Academy myself, out in springfield MA.

It'd do you some good too, be good to meet nother MTer

I DO still stand by the fact that a person ( who otherwise has no criminal or mental health record such as necessitates removal of the right) should have the right to be armed, or the choice not to be but that's the point--It MUST remain ALWAYS the individual's choice, NEVER the government's.

BUT--once the choice is made you OWE it to your fellow citizens to take the training first so as to never endanger any of them, should you need to shoot.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Hagakure]

Well,

I think I've said my piece. I'm not convinced about arming the populace with firearms, if people wish to do it, fine by me, just something I'm not into. Also, ain't gonna change anyone's mind, although I've taken a few points away. Bowing out boyz n girlz.

The right to arm bears... I mean, come ON... :mst:

 

[Sukerkin]

Sukerkin, the reason the police have so much paperwork to do is a direct result of government directives not a result of the police deciding to annoy motorists.

Aye, I didn't mean to imply otherwise as to the source of the paperwork.

The 'harassing motorists' statement, however, I somewhat stand by. As another inevitable result of those nonsensical 'performance targets' set by the government, you are much more likely to be stopped as a motorist at certain times of the month when the 'numbers have to be balanced'. I'm not intended to imply that the police themselves are happy about this state of affairs, as I know from talking with some that they feel it to be a misuse of their resources.

 

[Tez3]

Aye, I didn't mean to imply otherwise as to the source of the paperwork.

The 'harassing motorists' statement, however, I somewhat stand by. As another inevitable result of those nonsensical 'performance targets' set by the government, you are much more likely to be stopped as a motorist at certain times of the month when the 'numbers have to be balanced'. I'm not intended to imply that the police themselves are happy about this state of affairs, as I know from talking with some that they feel it to be a misuse of their resources.

The motorway police play motorway pool lol. Starting with red cars etc and finishing with a black one! We don't have anything to do with motorists except when cursing them when it's time for nuke moves (moving nuclear weapons up and down the country, happens a lot more than you want to think about)

 

[Sukerkin]

This is true enough but I'm anxious that non Brits don't get the idea that we all had guns and had them taken away from us by the government, which is what some posters seem to think happened.

Very true. The actual level of gun ownership was very low. I perhaps saw more people with guns than most did because I'm from a country town, worked on a farm, hunted and target shot.

I do miss being able to go to a gun shop for a browse tho' .

 

[Sukerkin]

Mark, you know I love ya( in the completely hetero sense of course), and you have my respect and I have never read a post from you I didn't like, even if the views were not mine.

Thank you, kind sir and likewise :rei:.

But, I do think in this case it is best to take the appropriate measures to deal with the society I have right now, rather than the one I never will( nor will anyone for as long as there are humans).

I don't dispute that in the slightest. It was perhaps a somewhat 'pie in the sky' statement for me to make. I do think tho' that, by focussing only on the present perceived need to go armed, other alternative approaches can never be considered. It's like being in a state of constant crisis and taking the expeditious measures to deal with the consequences but never getting around to dealing with the causes.

 

[Tez3]

Very true. The actual level of gun ownership was very low. I perhaps saw more people with guns than most did because I'm from a country town, worked on a farm, hunted and target shot.

I do miss being able to go to a gun shop for a browse tho' .

You are going to have to visit up north lol! We have several gunshops, there's one in Richmond, Northallerton, and Leyburn. There's also a very good one in York. Mind I suppose we are 'shooting' country, there's plenty of shotguns for the small game and rifles for the deer (though here you are just as liable to run one of the buggers down... don't half damage your car though!) Pistols etc wouldn't sell here even if they were legal, country folk got no use for them lol!
This is my local shop just down the road.
http://www.gilsansports.com/products.asp?search_id=83

 

[Hagakure]

The motorway police play motorway pool lol. Starting with red cars etc and finishing with a black one! We don't have anything to do with motorists except when cursing them when it's time for nuke moves (moving nuclear weapons up and down the country, happens a lot more than you want to think about)

Umm, I'd say all Police will from time to time. I know this, because an ex of mine was a copper, and she told me herself. Never own a pink car is all I'll say... You heard it here first.

 

[Tez3]

Umm, I'd say all Police will from time to time. I know this, because an ex of mine was a copper, and she told me herself. Never own a pink car is all I'll say... You heard it here first.

Well you deserve everything you get if you do lol! Up the road from me there's a Ford Ka in 'Lady Penelope pink".

 

[Hagakure]

Well you deserve everything you get if you do lol! Up the road from me there's a Ford Ka in 'Lady Penelope pink".

Oh absolutely, pink car? *shudders*. I'd rather eat my own face.

 

[Glycerine0160]

Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."

So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."

Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves?

Since I'm asking, I do believe that people have the right to use violence to defend themselves. I believe that includes using whatever tools you have at hand, whether they are your hands, knives, a hammer, a baseball bat, or a firearm. I believe that if someone decides to do violence against me or my loved ones unprovoked, they forfeit their right to security. They buy the violence I will do in defense, and I feel no compunction or guilt over the consequences of their actions.

I mean this as a serious question. I'm not trying to set you up. I'm not trying to belittle you. I have my own opinion, I'm curious what yours is.


-Rob

Well I would like to begin with saying, I am from New Jersey so I have probably been socialized differently than you. I also want to say I am a criminal justice major and am looking to become a law enforcement agent but am also considering becoming attorney defending or prosecuting. I go both ways on these issues. I am only 20.


I completely agree you should have the right to defend yourself. Here is my conundrum with guns. Do you think all law enforcement agents know how to use their force properly? Clearly, many of them do not get into these incidents unless they are in bad urban areas. But you could think of many incidents where the officer did not obey "only if your life is in serious danger or a third party." If professionals in this matter sometimes may use excessive force to lethal, than what of regular civilians? I'm just referencing that obviously there would have to be a even higher risk chance here.

Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves.

But I will say, if your life is actually in lethal danger, you have every right to instantly take the life of your attacker. BUT, only in that condition. If there were strict policies and contracts signed that people would have to oblige to without a doubt, to ensure they could handle a gun and would take all liability for when they mishandle a gun; then so be it.

Otherwise, just stick with a knife and learn how to use it. As they say, from 15 feet a trained knife fighter will most likely take the life of a gun wielder (given he has to remove his gun from a holster or whatever have it.) 25 feet and they both will exchange even deadly blows. And knives are ridden of all these accidents guns carry. (for the most part)




Now lastly, I"ve taken some sociological courses and I ask,
"Do you think people are naturally bad?" Do you think they come born bad, or do you think they are socialized by some third party to be that way? Most likely, a person who commits a crime has had a much worse upbringing or a psychological disorder (schizophrenia, dementia, etc.) So although I am not negating people have free will and they should obey the laws of nature, I am just saying why would you want to kill someone unless you have to? And as aforementioned, have to would be you are in serious danger.

 

[elder999]

Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves.

Statistics show that children who eat hot dogs have a tendency to choke on them.

As for the original post, I don't know if I "believe" in guns, but I have them, and I use them.

I carry a concealed Ruger P97 .45 caliber eight-shot semi-automatic handgun almost everywhere I go, though Rita and I have taken to carrying Glock 29 10mm’s in the field because they’re easier to bicycle with and will take out a black bear-consequently, I find myself carrying the Glock more and more. We keep a shotgun or two in our homes — all within easy reach. They all hold bullets or shells designed to kill or shred a violent criminal-or a bear- instantaneously, before he can take another step or move his hand another inch. I won't even go into the rifles.I don't keep gun locks on these weapons, and I don't apologize for them, and it's not just because it is my" Constitutional" right to keep guns, although that is reason enough. It is because I have been convinced by overwhelming evidence that guns keep me and my family safe.

Does that sound like the rantings of a paranoid, gun-toting nut? Probably, if you are a paranoid, gun-grabbing ignoramus who knows nothing about guns and the role they play daily in American society in the prevention of crime. To those of you who do know the relationship of gun and crime statistics, the weapons I keep probably make a lot of sense.

We who own guns for self protection have been much maligned by those who think guns are evil, even though the statistics about gun use show that guns are used far more often by average citizens to prevent violent crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The evidence is greater than ever, thanks to the largest and most accurate study ever undertaken. It was performed by John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School who had never owned a gun and who had spent most of his career doing research on nongun-related issues. The study's findings are contained in his scholarly 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press), which is a detailed analysis of 18 years of the gun/crime relationship in all 3,000-plus counties in the United States.

After Lott finished the study, he went out and bought his first gun.

Here are a few of the things he found, much of which will sound like plain common sense to us gun owners:

• In counties that have "right-to-carry" laws or "shall issue" permits, that is, where a citizen must be issued a gun permit after meeting certain criteria, usually a background check and having taken a gun safety course, violent crime goes down dramatically while it goes up in surrounding counties that issue permits only at the discretion of the relevant law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the crime rate continues to go down year after year due to the increasing deterrence of more people getting the "shall issue" permits.

• Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets.


• Resistance with a gun, rather than passive resistance, is the safest option for the private citizen when confronted by a criminal. For a woman, especially, it is the best option, increasing her chances of not being injured by two and a half times.

• The biggest drops in violent crime occurred in urban areas, especially in poor neighborhoods, and among women and the elderly, who are most vulnerable.

When his study was released, Lott was instantly attacked by the likes of New York Senator Charles Schumer and other anti-gun advocates as being a stooge of the gun industry, which he is not. The mass media briefly mentioned his book, then ignored it much like they have ignored the 2,000,000 annual instances in which guns are used to prevent crime while heavily reporting the under 20 instances of young children being killed by guns.

What are we to conclude from this study, especially in the wake of the mass shootings at some of the nation's schools, such as at Columbine High School? If it is clear that guns save lives far more often than they take them, what happened at Columbine? May I be so crass and insensitive to suggest that some of the teachers-or security guards- should have been armed? In a country like Israel where they fear attacks by madmen and terrorists, the teachers carry guns into the classroom and they consequently have no gun attacks on their students. Here in the United States, we have a federal law that bans guns from within 1000 feet of schools, even sometimes posting signs outside the school announcing to the world and to the nuts it is a "gun free zone." Do you think there may be an analogy here, that perhaps Israel's policy works and ours doesn't?

In the counties mentioned in Lott's study, where "shall issue" laws are in effect violent crime goes down, while it goes up in the surrounding counties where there are no "shall issue" laws. Do you think there may be a connection there too? Do you suppose that violent criminals and nuts may be figuring out where the easy prey are?

We who realize the value of guns have been very silent in the face of the all-out war on gun ownership that is currently being waged by certain politicians and the mass media. Yet the evidence clearly shows that gun possession and "shall issue" laws save lives. Isn't it time we stopped apologizing for our guns and spoke up?


Anti-gun groups, politicians, and the mass media regularly hide incidents and studies that portray guns favorably, and they spare no ink to tell the rare story when guns are used by criminals or by accident. Then they pass stupid laws that endanger our children. We who know the truth about guns need to let that truth be known: Guns save lives and prevent criminal attacks. They protect our families from harm, not expose them to danger.