Gun controll?

[Rasmus55]

No, not in my opinion.

Before you ask, however, the law allows me to take reasonable steps to protect myself whether attacked or in the house. This is generally taken to mean walloping the person back, rather than gunning them down.

And if you're in a wheelchair and your attacker is 6ft2, 22 yrs old, prison strong, and hopped up on drugs? Have a good "walloping".

 

[Rasmus55]

And if you're in a wheelchair and your attacker is 6ft2, 22 yrs old, prison strong, and hopped up on drugs? Have a good "walloping".

 

[Architect]

"Possible" majority? There's no "possible" about it. Near universal support for gun control.

And if you're wanting to keep a gun in case someone bursts into your house, I'll expect to see statistics showing this to be a subtantial problem.

 

[fagin]

Well, are there people in the UK who are not happy with this? I think the "we" really indicates you, some of your friends, and a possible majority but it is unlikely to account for all. Would be interesting to see what the polling on the subject shows; have any? You're right though; the last thing any country would want is to become like the US. In fact, I have no idea how the US could grant any immigrant visas, H1-B visas, student visas, and have such a terrible illegal immigration problem what with the guns and third world conditions. You're right, best to not be like the US.

If any people here are unhappy they are very quiet about it.
It just really isn't an issue at all.
There is no debate, no discussion, nothing.
Guns maybe an issue in the USA but not here.

 

[Ocelot]

Is it not fine to own a gun for purposes of home self-defense in your opinion?

If your sole reason for wanting a gun in your house is to make that household safer then you're making as much sense as a person who jumps into a swimming pool for the sole reason of keeping dry.

 

[fagin]

Well, are there people in the UK who are not happy with this? I think the "we" really indicates you, some of your friends, and a possible majority but it is unlikely to account for all. Would be interesting to see what the polling on the subject shows; have any? You're right though; the last thing any country would want is to become like the US. In fact, I have no idea how the US could grant any immigrant visas, H1-B visas, student visas, and have such a terrible illegal immigration problem what with the guns and third world conditions. You're right, best to not be like the US.

If any people here are unhappy they are very quiet about it.
It just really isn't an issue at all.
There is no debate, no discussion, nothing.
Guns maybe an issue in the USA but not here.

 

[fagin]

oops bloody slow office internet

 

[Architect]

If your sole reason for wanting a gun in your house is to make that household safer then you're making as much sense as a person who jumps into a swimming pool for the sole reason of keeping dry.

Surely it's more like someone who keeps the armbands on all of the time, just in case they might fall in? Even though there's a fence around it. And they can swim.

 

[Garrette]

You will recall that we don't arm our Police as a matter of course either.

Why, yes. Yes, I will.


In case it wasn't clear, the post of mine to which you were responding was meant to caricature each side's misrepresentations of the other side's position; it was not meant as an attack on your actual position.

 

[Lothian]

Actually, I understand that it is not a legal purpose justifying ownership in the UK. What I meant to ask, and excuse more poor wording, was whether, in your opinion, owning a firearm for self-defense is a valid purpose as a matter of general principle. Just your opinion and not what the law says.

Sorry I understood what you said I was not clear in my reply.

In my opinion, as a UK citizen, self defence is not a valid reason for gun ownership in the UK.

I stress UK as I appreciate that there are different issues in other countries.

 

[Rasmus55]

I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, just wondering if there has been an actual polling on the very narrow question of whether owning a gun (to include handgun) for use in personal self-defense in the home is a "valid" or "justifiable" (however you want to describe it) reason generally as asked against a random sampling of UK citizens? Or, even more pointedly, whether actual use of a firearm (including a handgun or "assault" rifle) in the case of self-defense in the home would be a justifiable means of self-protection asked against that same population? Again, I don't doubt there is tremendous voter support for this in the UK, just wondering whether there has been any actual polling to support your claim that nearly everyone in the UK supports the notion that use of a gun in self-defense (even if faced with deadly force) in the home is without justification?

 

[brodski]

Well, are there people in the UK who are not happy with this? I think the "we" really indicates you, some of your friends, and a possible majority but it is unlikely to account for all.

You're right, it doesn't account for all, but it is an overwhelming majority, the 1946 act was very popular, as where the more recent restrictions on firearms.
I find it amusing that the pro gun crowd in the video kept whining "but I thought we lived in a demcorasy" to them i say- you do and the majority had their say.

Note how the NRA had to lie about a protest to make it look like there was strong opposition to the recent changes in firearms laws?

 

[Garrette]

You will recall that we don't arm our Police as a matter of course either.

Why, yes. Yes, I will.

In case it wasn't clear, the post of mine to which you were responding was meant to caricature each side's misrepresentations of the other side's position; it was not meant as an attack on your actual position.

Correct. You have got to the heart of the misrepresentation presented in the OP.

Sigh. It appears I am always at my most insightful when I am not trying to be.

It is incorrect to represent the situation in Britain as guns being "taken away", as if that was something done against the will of the population. On the contrary, we wants 'em "taken away".

Rolfe.

To be serious a moment, I understand this point. I think most of those arguing against it don't really misunderstand it, they simply say the analysis needs to be applied to an much earlier decision--the thinking being that maybe now you don't want them in your midst but only because your ancestors had them taken away while not necessarily wanting it so. Whether or not the objection is legitimate, I'm not informed enough to say, but it does not appear so on the face of it.

 

[fagin]

I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, just wondering if there has been an actual polling on the very narrow question of whether owning a gun (to include handgun) for use in personal self-defense in the home is a "valid" or "justifiable" (however you want to describe it) reason generally as asked against a random sampling of UK citizens? Or, even more pointedly, whether actual use of a firearm (including a handgun or "assault" rifle) in the case of self-defense in the home would be a justifiable means of self-protection asked against that same population? Again, I don't doubt there is tremendous voter support for this in the UK, just wondering whether there has been any actual polling to support your claim that nearly everyone in the UK supports the notion that use of a gun in self-defense (even if faced with deadly force) in the home is without justification?

I think a general point has been missed by our US cousins (especially the one who marry each other).
Guns are just not an issue, there has been no poll, and pobably never will be because it isn't important.
No one in living history has carried a handgun in the UK, and no one even thinks about it.
We are rarely attacked at home by huge crack addicts, and even if we were, the police are there to handle it.
As I understand it, even in the US if you blow someone away who is not actually aiming a gun at you, it isn't really acceptable?

 

[Rasmus55]

Is it really? Do you own a home and carry homeowner's insurance? How about renter's insurance? Do you think insurance companies make money by insuring against things they believe will likely happen? Yet, many are willing to take the insurance and, at least here, are required to for purposes of financing. I guess these people make as much sense as jumping into a swimming pool to dry off because it is just plain unlikely that those things are going to happen.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't want to use Columbine (or any other mass shootings) as an example because, really, those can happen anywhere regardless of gun control.

Well, they can, no doubt. Anyone sufficiently determined can get hold of a gun if they really put their mind to it. (I probably ought to put an age limit in there, I suspect in this country a juvenile who wasn't already involved with the criminal fraternity might find it pretty hard.)

But do they? We've had precisely two such incidents in living memory, one in 1987 and one in 1996. In both cases the perpetrator was an adult. We've never had an incident of a juvenile shooting up his school. It does seem as if these incidents are much commoner in the USA than anywhere else, even accounting for population size.

Now the approach in Britain (and I think from what I read many other countries) is to try to reduce gun access as much as possible, to reduce gun fatalities and specifically this sort of incident. In contrast the US approach is based on the belief that if everyone was carrying a gun, everybody would be very much safer.

I appreciate that the US has particular problems as of this moment in time, specifically the attitude to gun ownership which makes gun control measures politically very very difficult, and the sheer amount of firepower already out there. These factors obviously make progress from "where we are now" a very problematic exercise in the US.

However, leaving that aside, I would suggest that the facts support the suggestion that strict gun controls are indeed associated with lower levels of gun crime and gun deaths and specifically with an absence of the characteristic US-style school shootings.

Rolfe.

 

[fagin]

Is it really? Do you own a home and carry homeowner's insurance? How about renter's insurance? Do you think insurance companies make money by insuring against things they believe will likely happen? Yet, many are willing to take the insurance and, at least here, are required to for purposes of financing. I guess these people make as much sense as jumping into a swimming pool to dry off because it is just plain unlikely that those things are going to happen.

I think a person is far more likely to have a motor accident, or similar, than need to shoot someone.
Also insurers insure againts things that do happen sometimes, as opposed to never happen, they just hope their estimate of the cost of claims in any year will be lower than the premium they collect.

 

[Rasmus55]

I think a general point has been missed by our US cousins (especially the one who marry each other).
Guns are just not an issue, there has been no poll, and pobably never will be because it isn't important.
No one in living history has carried a handgun in the UK, and no one even thinks about it.
We are rarely attacked at home by huge crack addicts, and even if we were, the police are there to handle it.
As I understand it, even in the US if you blow someone away who is not actually aiming a gun at you, it isn't really acceptable?

Eh? Come again? You have us marrying our cousins now? What are you talking about? If there has been no poll or actual analysis of this narrow issue, which you represent as universal in truth with respect to the UK, how do you know it is true? Maybe you're right; people don't think about it because it is not regarded as a problem or issue. That's not the point. It was represented that everyone in the UK was of singular opinion on the issue. I wonder if that is true? I wonder if a proper poll where conducted, how many might have a contrary opinion once the issue was actually considered. This is not for purposes of advocating a change in your gun laws; it is really just a questioning of the theory that all UK citizens, or a majority exceeding, let's say, 90%, would agree with you and your friends here? If you can get even 85%, I would concede you the point. You say there is no discussion on the matter; perhaps there should be. I just find it amusing that so many skeptically minded people are willing to make bold statements regarding everyone else's opinions without any proffer of some scientific/statistical basis. The mere fact of your legislation is not a qualification; I want to see the universal mind you allege to be at play here on this issue. By the way, I haven't attempted at insults as against the UK, nor would I as I greatly enjoy that country and its people. Appreciate it if you would extend us the same courtesy.

 

[Rasmus55]

I think a person is far more likely to have a motor accident, or similar, than need to shoot someone.
Also insurers insure againts things that do happen sometimes, as opposed to never happen, they just hope their estimate of the cost of claims in any year will be lower than the premium they collect.

So your position is that deadly attacks/rapes/horrible assaults never happen in the home? If the person becomes a liability, here anyway, the insurance is cancelled, it's that simple.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oh, crap... So, I watched this video about gun control about how they took all the guns away in england and it stirred the pot of paranoia again... Especially considering that England also has a reputation for being constantly monitored... It makes me wonder if it isn't part of some conspiracy. Guys, I'm kind of a mess right now and some re-assuring words would be nice... Discuss?

I have some words - Don't be so gullible.

The march has been completely misrepresented (i.e. lied about). The people marching wanted to be allowed to tear live animals apart with hounds as a hobby - not shoot them with guns. They even reared fox cubs for the purpose of providing sufficient prey for their 'sport'. They are not representative of the people of the UK.