Gun controll?

[JoeEllison]

In every online discussion of gun control, the anti-gun control side has used dishonest rhetoric combined with immature and possibly delusional "what if" examples straight out of bad 1980s action movies to justify their gun fetish. Nice to see this discussion is so very different...

 

[WildCat]

I think a general point has been missed by our US cousins (especially the one who marry each other).

Sorry to disappoint you fagin, but we don't have royalty here.

 

[fagin]

In every online discussion of gun control, the anti-gun control side has used dishonest rhetoric combined with immature and possibly delusional "what if" examples straight out of bad 1980s action movies to justify their gun fetish. Nice to see this discussion is so very different...

The main issue here seems to be a difference in culture.
Very different.
But I wonder in reality how many Americans actually carry guns.
Is it a majority, or a vocal minority.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Apologies then - seemed a bit flippant to me, but I don't do smilies neither.
What actually happens is an escalation.
When I was very young, crime was a problem and we had bars on opening windows.
Fixed windows would be broken, and then we barred all windows, and doors.
Burglars started using crowbars and jacks to bend bars, so we installed alarms.
However as crime was quite high, and frequently violent, neighbours just ignored (and cursed) the noise, so we got radio alarms, with armed response services.
And electric fences, and immobilisers in our cars.
So instead thieves hi jack cars, and often as not shoot the occupants.
And either wait outside your house and hold you up when you open your gate. Get electric gates and they simply follow you in when you drive in.
And so on.
Sorry long point but I grew up with this.
And a 38 special.
Now in the UK I don't miss it a bit.
Your chances of being attacked etc are extremely remote - your solution paranoid and drastic. In my opinion.

I edited the post with some, "granny," stories from the states.

A lot of elderly over here grew up with guns. I'm getting elderly, and I grew up with guns. A gun on the end table is no more drastic or paranoid for me than carrying a spare tire, jack, tire wrench and jumper cables. It's a tool that's there if I need it. I know where it is, I know what condition it's in, and I know how to use it. I don't sit in the corner, holding it, waiting for a break in.

I do sleep with it under my butt cheek in case of a break in, though.

When seconds count is no time to wrassle with a gun lock.

 

[fagin]

Sorry to disappoint you fagin, but we don't have royalty here.

We agree on something anyway.

 

[WildCat]

.
When I was very young, crime was a problem and we had bars on opening windows.
Fixed windows would be broken, and then we barred all windows, and doors.

Not a good idea from a fire safety standpoint. And it's illegal here (Chicago) to have bars on a doorway.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The main issue here seems to be a difference in culture.
Very different.
But I wonder in reality how many Americans actually carry guns.
Is it a majority, or a vocal minority.

Gun owners are a minority, at about 20 to 30 percent of the population, depending on who you talk to. They're fairly vocal.

Most actual gun carriers, though, as concealed carriers, and they don't tell much of anyone. That's kind of the idea behind concealed carry: If they don't know you're armed,
1) You're not the first target, and
2) You've got that elephant of surprise working for you.

I read an article about a democratic governor out west who packs. He said that it wasn't a liberal/conservative or a Democrat/Republican issue, but more about urban/rural.

 

[fagin]

Hi


I edited the post with some, "granny," stories from the states.

A lot of elderly over here grew up with guns. I'm getting elderly, and I grew up with guns. A gun on the end table is no more drastic or paranoid for me than carrying a spare tire, jack, tire wrench and jumper cables. It's a tool that's there if I need it. I know where it is, I know what condition it's in, and I know how to use it. I don't sit in the corner, holding it, waiting for a break in.

I do sleep with it under my butt cheek in case of a break in, though.

When seconds count is no time to wrassle with a gun lock.

Maybe granny Annie Oakley could do it, but my granny would need a nice cup of tea before she shot anyone.

 

[fagin]

Not a good idea from a fire safety standpoint. And it's illegal here (Chicago) to have bars on a doorway.

A girlfriend in high school lost her family when their thatch house caught alight and they couldn't get out.
But most houses in South Africa are brick, wood is not used except for roof trusses, and we guarded against the more likely occurrence.
And the law had better things to do.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Maybe granny Annie Oakley could do it, but my granny would need a nice cup of tea before she shot anyone.

Rolfe actually convinced me of that. No sense in arming the British elderly, as they pretty much don't know how to deal with firearms.

It's pretty different over here.

 

[fagin]

Hi




Rolfe actually convinced me of that. No sense in arming the British elderly, as they pretty much don't know how to deal with firearms.

It's pretty different over here.

It would still probably be easier to disarm the US population than arm the UK one, but both are fairly unlikely I would think, so the point is moot.
But returning to the OP, one of the key words is fascism, implying that the 'ban' on guns in the UK is a sign of fascism here.
I think we've shown that firstly, guns aren't banned, and secondly, there seems no demand at all in the UK to change the status quo.
So as a thread I think it's almost dead.

 

[The Painter]

The main issue here seems to be a difference in culture.

Ya think???

I, for one, am very thankful we are not like you and I'm sure you are thankful you are not like us. We fought a war with you to get away from your lunacy.

 

[fagin]

Ya think???

I, for one, am very thankful we are not like you and I'm sure you are thankful you are not like us. We fought a war with you to get away from your lunacy.

My personal lunacy, or are you generalising.

But maybe time to get over it, haven't we fought a few wars jointly since then?

 

[richardm]

We fought a war with you to get away from your lunacy.

Of course, in the 18th Century you were pretty much free to carry any weapon you liked in Britain. Even (or especially) for self defence. So whatever the reasons for the war, I don't think that arguing over the right or otherwise to have guns was one of them.

 

[Rolfe]

I dunno... It's that piece of **** movie that destroyed such a wonderful summer. I was enjoying my freedom from religion and then I fell into that horrible trap... I'm gonna do a dissection of it on youtube later on... But I'm haunted for life.

Trying to get this thread back on track. This isn't about the USA, how things are there, or how you justify your private arsenals to yourselves or anyone else. It's about the gun situation in Britain, or rather lack of same.

We've explained how it is. Nobody remembers a time when it was normal or legal to keep a firearm for self defence in the way it is in the USA. Back then, the sort of firearm that was available would have been nothing like the weapons available now, so there really is no comparison. But not only that. Nobody (in the sense of total absence of articulated public demand, even from an extremist minority) wants guns to be available in the way they are in the USA. Every time there is a gun outrage, 100% of the public outcry is on the side of demands for more gun control, not less.

While there has been increased gun control, notably following the Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) incidents, these measures have been generally welcomed by the public, with little dissent. We've heard a lot here from Americans who want to justify their own addiction to firearms, even to the point where they've tried to persuade us that we should be demanding the right to go around armed to the teeth. But no cigar. It just isn't an issue.

The video you were watching, Jonathan, seems to have portrayed a bunch of upper-class yobbos protesting about the fact that new legislation was proposing to insist they use guns (to control foxes, rather than using dogs to tear them apart). It had nothing to do with any gun control legislation.

Now when the gun control legislation actually happened (1988 and 1997, perhaps?), people were just as free to mount public protests if they wanted to. They didn't. In their droves. Because pretty much nobody owned guns in the first place, so pretty much nobody objected.

So please, Jonathan. I'm getting curious. What was it about the film that "destroyed a wonderful summer"? Why are you "haunted for life" by it? Were you really so invested in the British upper classes' right to ride their horses after a pack of dogs, chasing a fox that they wanted to see ripped to pieces, that the legislation to ban that activity has done this to you? I'm quite confused here.

Rolfe.

 

[fagin]

Trying to get this thread back on track. This isn't about the USA, how things are there, or how you justify your private arsenals to yourselves or anyone else. It's about the gun situation in Britain, or rather lack of same.

We've explained how it is. Nobody remembers a time when it was normal or legal to keep a firearm for self defence in the way it is in the USA. Back then, the sort of firearm that was available would have been nothing like the weapons available now, so there really is no comparison. But not only that. Nobody (in the sense of total absence of articulated public demand, even from an extremist minority) wants guns to be available in the way they are in the USA. Every time there is a gun outrage, 100% of the public outcry is on the side of demands for more gun control, not less.

While there has been increased gun control, notably following the Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) incidents, these measures have been generally welcomed by the public, with little dissent. We've heard a lot here from Americans who want to justify their own addiction to firearms, even to the point where they've tried to persuade us that we should be demanding the right to go around armed to the teeth. But no cigar. It just isn't an issue.

The video you were watching, Jonathan, seems to have portrayed a bunch of upper-class yobbos protesting about the fact that new legislation was proposing to insist they use guns (to control foxes, rather than using dogs to tear them apart). It had nothing to do with any gun control legislation.

Now when the gun control legislation actually happened (1988 and 1997, perhaps?), people were just as free to mount public protests if they wanted to. They didn't. In their droves. Because pretty much nobody owned guns in the first place, so pretty much nobody objected.

So please, Jonathan. I'm getting curious. What was it about the film that "destroyed a wonderful summer"? Why are you "haunted for life" by it? Were you really so invested in the British upper classes' right to ride their horses after a pack of dogs, chasing a fox that they wanted to see ripped to pieces, that the legislation to ban that activity has done this to you? I'm quite confused here.

Rolfe.

Don't be mean to Jonathan, he's obviously a caring sensitive guy.Somebody has to love the chinless wonders.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not being mean to Jonathan. I still want to know what on earth it was about this film which "destroyed a wonderful summer" and will "haunt him for life". Maybe I actually ought to watch it! But really, I don't see why anyone should be traumatised by some film of the Countryside Alliance demanding the right not to use guns to kill foxes.

Rolfe.

 

[Rasmus55]

Read again what I wrote. I said that the security system we'd inherited with the house was connected to the police station and would call the police directly if triggered. I then said that we'd had this capability disabled and the system rigged as a simple home alarm, because our concern about false alarms vastly outweighed any concern about determined burglars.

If there was sufficient threat to raise genuine concerns, the first thing I'd do would be to get that system returned to full specification. I would expect anyone to take that simple precaution long before they even thought about secreting firearms about their home.

This argument that we should be prepared for even the remotest, improbable danger is in my opinion nothing but rationalisation. People fail to take quite sensible precautions all the time, because they can't be bothered, or they don't see the threat as imminent. Deciding to keep a loaded firearm in my house is so far out of my world I can't even imagine circumstances where I'd consider it. Listening to people who advocate this as an "insurance policy" against something about as likely as a meteorite falling on the house just sounds to me like someone looking for an excuse to have a gun because they want one.

Rolfe.

PS. And you call me a "skeptic" (any spelling) over my cold dead body.

Well Rolfe, appreciate your comments. It's nice that you live in a neighborhood free from crime and violent threats. I wonder if most of the rest of the world is the same way? Meanwhile, nothing you said above overcomes the simple fact that a home alarm system, while a possible deterrent, cannot physically prevent you from being killed in your own home in the event of (what is in YOUR neighborhood) an extremely rare home invasion. I'm very curious about one thing though; why will you not answer my question regarding Fagin's and your rather large assumption that you know the minds of all (or nearly all) UK citizens on the following issue: Whether, if faced with deadly force in one's own home, using a gun in self-defense is justified, excused, etc. Fagin's position is that no person who is not some sort of law enforcement officer ever has that right, and from what I've read you agree with him. I think you might both also go as far to say that no ordinary non-law enforcement type has the right to use any type of deadly force if faced with deadly force in the home (sort of makes me wonder why carve out an exception for law enforcement?) Furthermore, you have both claimed that all UK citizens believe this. Why not answer to that with the actual proof of the opinions of all UK citizens, or are we avoiding have to offer the proof now for our personal perceptions of how we want others to think? Sounds to me like someone looking for an excuse to justify a position without any evidence of the thing claimed.

 

[Rasmus55]

Can you give the examples to which you refer?

 

[Rasmus55]

In every online discussion of gun control, the anti-gun control side has used dishonest rhetoric combined with immature and possibly delusional "what if" examples straight out of bad 1980s action movies to justify their gun fetish. Nice to see this discussion is so very different...

This forum is very slow today and it's messing up my posts. Sorry to repeat; care to share the dishonest rhetoric (is that the same as "lies"?) and examples to which you refer?