What It's Like To Own Guns...

[BobTheCoward]

Speaking personally, if I was banned from access to guns, but other demographics were allowed full access, then that could be a tool of enslavement. If I have no access to handguns, and nor does anyone else except a small number of people with very good reason, then it doesn't look much like enslavement.

Collectively, the people in the UK have overwhelmingly decided that we would prefer to not have access to handguns if it means that others are not going to have them either. As the vast majority of the population are not interested in handguns, it barely even rates as any price to pay for having a very low risk of being threatened with being shot, any more than I feel restricted by the fact that I would not be allowed to own a Snow Leopard.

I have a very low fear of crime and the lack of handgun availability is one reason.

It is not "trading increased security for freedom" and "finding that we have lost both". If the situation changed, the UK population could decide that they wanted access to handguns, and could change the law. Slaves couldn't do that. I struggle to think of situations that might effect such a change in UK opinion, but a zombie plague might do it. The same goes for many other rich countries.

How many guns does the government own compared to the citizens at large? Seems like the other side does get to own a lot of them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How many guns does the government own compared to the citizens at large? Seems like the other side does get to own a lot of them.

I've heard quotes of 600,000,000 guns in the US right now, in civilian hands.

As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components.

If things were even every soldier would have 600 guns?

 

[jimbob]

How many guns does the government own compared to the citizens at large? Seems like the other side does get to own a lot of them.

In both the US and the UK the police shoot people, including innocent people. However, it is far more common in the US. Almost as if the second amendment provides a negative level of protection for the innocent from the police.

Most police officers in the UK also lack access to firearms, and the police officers tend to want it that way as well as the public.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In both the US and the UK the police shoot people, including innocent people. However, it is far more common in the US. Almost as if the second amendment provides a negative level of protection for the innocent from the police.

Most police officers in the UK also lack access to firearms, and the police officers tend to want it that way as well as the public.

I see a lot of armed guards in photos there.

 

[Information Analyst]

Unless someone is a complete consequentialist, we all have lines on things we won't allow a society to do to an individual regardless of the alleged benefits. We might share. My list just so happens to include this one other thing.

So you think not having guns means "enslavement" just because you think it does?

 

[Information Analyst]

How many guns does the government own compared to the citizens at large? Seems like the other side does get to own a lot of them.

The government has more helicopters than me. Big deal.

 

[Information Analyst]

I see a lot of armed guards in photos there.

No, you see photographs of high-profile targets, which - fairly obviously - often have armed officers in the vicinity. This is not the common experience away from those locations.

I live in London. My commute to work takes me into central London and out again five days a week. Last week I saw the grand total of two armed police officers, a pair working together at a major railway station. In the same time period I probably saw more than 20 unarmed officers.

There are 129,987 police officers in England & Wales, only 6,756 (5.8%) of whom are Authorised Firearms Officers. There are only 3,610 (1.8%) actual firearms roles, i.e. almost half of AFOs are working in non-firearms roles.

 

[jimbob]

In both the US and the UK the police shoot people, including innocent people. However, it is far more common in the US. Almost as if the second amendment provides a negative level of protection for the innocent from the police.

Most police officers in the UK also lack access to firearms, and the police officers tend to want it that way as well as the public.

I see a lot of armed guards in photos there.

You are probably looking at major news stories, so there probably is a fair bit of confirmation bias. Airports and other places that are at higher risk of terrorist attacks have armed police. There is an obvious need for police forces to have access to firearms on special occasions.

Most UK police don't have guns.

Out of the total 150,000 officers in the 39 territorial police forces in England, 6,500 are trained in the use of firearms. 2,500 of them are in service with the Metropolitan Police.[15]

In other words, there are nearly* twice as many police forces in the US than there are armed police officers in the UK.

US police have shot somewhere around 900 people in 2015, UK police shot three, and that was a high number with full investigations by the IPCC after each shooting.


*Figures seem hard to come by, I have seen figure ranging from 12,000 to 17,000 law-enforcement agencies in the US for 2015.

ETA: Information Analyst's figures are probably more accurate than mine, but the differences are minor.

 

[Ranb]

I've never heard any one of my acquaintances tell me they'd kill someone for merely stealing something out of their home. They might try to defend their home and use deadly force to do so, but that is far different than murdering someone over a TV.

I have relatives who have killed people simply for being in their house. No charges filed.

So no charges filed as no one knew the person had been killed? Or was the excuse of "he was in my house" good enough? I don't think that would cut it even in Florida, there has to be some reason why the person was killed such as they were behaving in a manner that the shooter claimed was threatening.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

In both the US and the UK the police shoot people, including innocent people. However, it is far more common in the US. Almost as if the second amendment provides a negative level of protection for the innocent from the police.

What makes you think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with the police when it comes to killing people?

Ranb

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, you see photographs of high-profile targets, which - fairly obviously - often have armed officers in the vicinity. This is not the common experience away from those locations. I live in London. My commute to work takes me into central London and out again five days a week. Last week I saw the grand total of two armed police officers, a pair working together at a major railway station. In the same time period I probably saw more than 20 unarmed officer.

There are 129,987 police officers in England & Wales, only 6,756 (5.8%) of whom are Authorised Firearms Officers. There are only 3,610 (1.8%) actual firearms roles, i.e. almost half of AFOs are working in non-firearms roles.

There is no government property more important than your home and no official whose life is more important than yours.

 

[Information Analyst]

There is no government property more important than your home and no official whose life is more important than yours.

My home is not a potential terrorist target. As an individual the chances of me being the victim of a criminal using a firearm are minuscule.

I also work on government property that is not guarded by anyone with firearms, but then the vast majority of government properties aren't, anyway.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've never heard any one of my acquaintances tell me they'd kill someone for merely stealing something out of their home. They might try to defend their home and use deadly force to do so, but that is far different than murdering someone over a TV.


So no charges filed as no one knew the person had been killed? Or was the excuse of "he was in my house" good enough? I don't think that would cut it even in Florida, there has to be some reason why the person was killed such as they were behaving in a manner that the shooter claimed was threatening.

Ranb

"No charges were filed" implies (to me anyway) that the potential for charges to be filed was there, and that means (to me anyway) that the cops were there. As for being legal, welcome to Missouri.

 

[jimbob]

What makes you think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with the police when it comes to killing people?

Ranb

It's the obvious conclusion from Bob The Coward's suggestion that people in the UK are enslaved due to our lack of firearms. The second amendment is to protect against tyranny and thus the authorities.

I don't believe you hold these views - it was a specific response to Bob's views on enslavement.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's the obvious conclusion from Bob The Coward's suggestion that people in the UK are enslaved due to our lack of firearms. The second amendment is to protect against tyranny and thus the authorities.

I don't believe you hold these views - it was a specific response to Bob's views on enslavement.

I see.the second amendment as a barrier to our right of self defense.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see.the second amendment as a barrier to our right of self defense.

Is there any possible explanation that can be attached to that statement?

 

[Aber]

How many guns does the government own compared to the citizens at large? Seems like the other side does get to own a lot of them.

Characterising "the government" as the "other side" just looks very odd, when you can vote to change them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Is there any possible explanation that can be attached to that statement?

It is too restrictive.

 

[The Atheist]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Moderated content removed.

I've heard quotes of 600,000,000 guns in the US right now, in civilian hands.

Can't be too far off that. Congress says 359M in 2013 and I can't see them being high.

Characterising "the government" as the "other side" just looks very odd, when you can vote to change them.

That presumes there's a difference between the two options.
______________________

Meanwhile, just touching back on gun safety; as you'd expect, even in the largely gun-free world, some gun owners are morons who fail to follow basic safety rules.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Speaking personally, if I was banned from access to guns, but other demographics were allowed full access, then that could be a tool of enslavement. If I have no access to handguns, and nor does anyone else except a small number of people with very good reason, then it doesn't look much like enslavement.

Collectively, the people in the UK have overwhelmingly decided that we would prefer to not have access to handguns if it means that others are not going to have them either. As the vast majority of the population are not interested in handguns, it barely even rates as any price to pay for having a very low risk of being threatened with being shot, any more than I feel restricted by the fact that I would not be allowed to own a Snow Leopard.

I have a very low fear of crime and the lack of handgun availability is one reason.

It is not "trading increased security for freedom" and "finding that we have lost both". If the situation changed, the UK population could decide that they wanted access to handguns, and could change the law. Slaves couldn't do that. I struggle to think of situations that might effect such a change in UK opinion, but a zombie plague might do it. The same goes for many other rich countries.

Well said, couldn't agree more.