Best Self-Defense Firearm

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Curval
Holy defensive.

Well, he does have a point, seeing as how you don't have a location set in your profile.  Most of us do (see beneath my picture).

Might help avoid confusion in the future.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by beet1e
Martlet, I don't think you know much about Britain. I'd guess you've never been here, as your statement implies a belief that we were an armed society before the gun "ban" of 1997. We were not.

And I see from your link that John R Lott is using the classic NRA statistics distortion technique of analysing UK homicides by noting percentage changes. The number of homicides in Britain is too small for percentage changes to have any real bearing. Another factor you might want to consider with regard to homicides in Britain is that there was a large increase in the number of recorded homicides for 2002, as this was the year when the case was closed on around 200 homicides committed by the doctor and serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman.

Nice spin.  You don't have to visit Britian to see that prior to the gun ban, some violent gun crime rates had dropped by as much as 50%.  After the ban, they went up.

[Curval]

He may have a point about not knowing where I live...but then he hasn't paid much attention in the gun threads in the past.  But regardless, he got all snitty because I suggested he forgot where I was from....and then used that as a springboard to tell me "I don't know what rights you have as a citizen of whatever country you're from. Ask someone who does."

I was asking for his opinion...not facts.

He wants to be a richard about it......so be it.

My point is that lazs' and most gun advocates would say that banning guns leave a person defenseless and at the mercy of crimminals with guns.  Well...we have no guns and now knives and machetes (used for defensive purposes) have been effectively banned.

I was wondering if the law banning the carrying of these weapons (knives and machetes) means I am defenseless against crimminals in his/their opinion.  It is just an extension of the gun ban logic surely?

Except that I would never carry a knife or machete for defensive purposes...and nor would anyone I know.

In this case the only ones who do are gang members or those intent on some sort of crimminal activity.

So...this ban appears to be targeting THEM and not the law abiding citizens.

It is an interesting twist in the age-old gun debate...that's all.

[Martlet]

No, you asked if that infringed upon your rights.  Maybe you don't know much about the US.  When we talk about our "rights" here, we refer to the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  I have no idea where you're from.  I have no idea what rights you are guaranteed.  If you are from Iran, you have far different rights than I.  

If you want an accurate answer, provide accurate information.

If due to the illegality of knives/guns in your country only the gangs have them (as you state), that makes the teams a little unfair.

Sounds like you guys just walk around at the mercy of thugs better armed than yourself.  That sounds stupid to me.

[Maverick]

Of course Curve now you know that those gang members and criminals will certainly give up their knives and such now that they are illegal. They absolutely wouldn't want to be breaking the law while engaging in their livelyhood of...... breaking the law. Yep the new law will really show them and I'm certain will totally eliminate bad people from your nation.

As far as being defenselyess is concerned. Nope the ban didn't make you defenseless any more than you were before since you don't intend or expect to have to defend yourself anyhow. In that case you made yourself defenseless long before the govt. in this case did it for you.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Martlet
Nice spin.  You don't have to visit Britian to see that prior to the gun ban, some violent gun crime rates had dropped by as much as 50%.  After the ban, they went up.

I don't think so. Gun homicides have stayed fairly constant for quite a number of years. Remember, in some years we may well have had a "25% increase" - but the actual value of that 25% increase could be a number as low as 15. As you can see, such variations are year on year fluctuations, so it makes no sense to take an increase of 15 gun homicides one year, and blow it out of all proportion by noting it as a 25% increase. The numbers go down as well as up. There is no overall trend.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by beet1e
I don't think so. Gun homicides have stayed fairly constant for quite a number of years. Remember, in some years we may well have had a "25% increase" - but the actual value of that 25% increase could be a number as low as 15. As you can see, such variations are year on year fluctuations, so it makes no sense to take an increase of 15 gun homicides one year, and blow it out of all proportion by noting it as a 25% increase. The numbers go down as well as up. There is no overall trend.

So your claim then, is that the gun ban had no noticable impact on gun crime?

That position alone validates my point, even if I'm wrong in relying on my percentages.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Maverick
Of course Curve now you know that those gang members and criminals will certainly give up their knives and such now that they are illegal. They absolutely wouldn't want to be breaking the law while engaging in their livelyhood of...... breaking the law. Yep the new law will really show them and I'm certain will totally eliminate bad people from your nation.

As far as being defenselyess is concerned. Nope the ban didn't make you defenseless any more than you were before since you don't intend or expect to have to defend yourself anyhow. In that case you made yourself defenseless long before the govt. in this case did it for you.

So I have been defenseless since 1971/2 Mav?

Since that date there has been one death as a result of gunplay, that I am aware of, and one or two incidents of wounding.

If you want to use Lott's methods for calculating the effect of the gun ban it has been a resounding success....prior to the ban the governor, his aide de Camp and his dog were all gunned down.  Before that the perpetrator of that same crime murdered two employees by tying them up and shooting them.  

So...pre-ban at least 4 human deaths by gun-fire (don't know how many previously, but I'm sure there were a few), since the ban ONE.

I feel safer.

As to your first point....the crimminals don't "have to give up" anything...but they face HUGE penalties for being caught carrying the knives and machetes.  This will hopefully discourage them.

I wouldn't want to use a knife or machete to defend myself against another person with the same, or similar weapons.  A bit too close and personal...and I'm not trained in how to do so properly.  

So, this legislation changes NOTHING for me.  It does make the carriers of weapns a bit nervous now though, I imagine.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Martlet
No, you asked if that infringed upon your rights.  Maybe you don't know much about the US.  When we talk about our "rights" here, we refer to the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  I have no idea where you're from.  I have no idea what rights you are guaranteed.  If you are from Iran, you have far different rights than I.  

If you want an accurate answer, provide accurate information.

If due to the illegality of knives/guns in your country only the gangs have them (as you state), that makes the teams a little unfair.

Sounds like you guys just walk around at the mercy of thugs better armed than yourself.  That sounds stupid to me.

I asked for your opinion by posing this question:

"Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
 
So...either give it or don't.  I don't care anymore.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Curval
I asked for your opinion by posing this question:

"Do you consider this a serious infringment of my rights?
 
So...either give it or don't.  I don't care anymore.

What are your rights?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Martlet
So your claim then, is that the gun ban had no noticable impact on gun crime?

That position alone validates my point, even if I'm wrong in relying on my percentages.

The problem is that you keep referring to it as a gun "ban". Even before the 1997 legislation, it was all but impossible to buy a handgun in a shop - not that I ever tried. You had to have a police permit, and to get one of those you had to have a very good reason, which had to be more than the desire to go plinking. IIRC, the 1997 "ban" put the last stitches into our firearms control tapestry by banning certain small calibre weapons which might have been used by pistol shooting enthusiasts in their chosen sport.

As for our gun legislation having no noticeable impact on crime, I think our overall firearms control package has played an important part in keeping our annual gun homicide tally to below 100 in any calendar year. I can't prove it, but I personally believe that gun homicide and the overall homicide tally in Britain would skyrocket if guns were freely available.

[Maverick]

So Curve,

There were no "HUGE" penalties for robbery, rape, mudrer in your country to dissuade the criminals? But now they will be persuaded to not do those things because the possession of knives and machetes is banned. Right? I see then the possession of these "bad things" would be far worse a crime than the others listed above. Why you must not have had any criminals at all then before the ban. But if there were no criminals, why do you need a ban of these evil items? I'm confused.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Martlet, I don't think you know much about Britain. I'd guess you've never been here, as your statement implies a belief that we were an armed society before the gun "ban" of 1997. We were not.

And I see from your link that John R Lott is using the classic NRA statistics distortion technique of analysing UK homicides by noting percentage changes. The number of homicides in Britain is too small for percentage changes to have any real bearing. Another factor you might want to consider with regard to homicides in Britain is that there was a large increase in the number of recorded homicides for 2002, as this was the year when the case was closed on around 200 homicides committed by the doctor and serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman.

  So, I have still not seen your recomendation for best self defense weapon as the thread starter asked.
  You see, Beet, not everyone lives a dull, Ho Hum existence in Pleasantville such as yourself. Most here wouldn`t and couldn`t thrive on such a low pulse rate existence such as this I expect. As stated before , on different occasions, I have a feeling that one day, when your area get out of the dark ages, there may be some "color" come to Happy Town.
  There is a real world out there. It includes real threats on a day to day basis for those in the mainstream. It is accepted and dealt with or ignored by sticking your head in the sand and wishing it away. The ones that have their head buried are, on a lot of occasions, singled out as "easy targets" for robbery, rape, etc, etc. Them`s the facts Jim.
  There was  at least was one Brit  gentleman who had fine taste in self defense weapons as I stated in the coachgun thread. That being W.W. Greener. His pieces still make great home defense weapons and or great collectibles and shining examples of pride in workmanship.
  I`d love to have one of his coachguns. Not to hang on the wall as an art piece but for home defense.
  On the street, as stated before, I`d go with what ever each individual becomes comfortable and efficient with.

[lasersailor184]

Reading, Pennsylvania

LMAO!  That's a perfect reason to carry a gun when on a walk.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by beet1e
The problem is that you keep referring to it as a gun "ban". Even before the 1997 legislation, it was all but impossible to buy a handgun in a shop - not that I ever tried. You had to have a police permit, and to get one of those you had to have a very good reason, which had to be more than the desire to go plinking. IIRC, the 1997 "ban" put the last stitches into our firearms control tapestry by banning certain small calibre weapons which might have been used by pistol shooting enthusiasts in their chosen sport.

As for our gun legislation having no noticeable impact on crime, I think our overall firearms control package has played an important part in keeping our annual gun homicide tally to below 100 in any calendar year. I can't prove it, but I personally believe that gun homicide and the overall homicide tally in Britain would skyrocket if guns were freely available.

You yourself referred to it as a ban.  Why can't I?

If you could get a gun before the legislation with proper permitting, then that is gun control.  If you can't get a gun for any reason after the legislation that is a gun ban.  Big difference.

Furthermore, your entire previous argument revolved around the fact that your gun crime numbers are so low percentages don't count.  Now you claim the same low numbers suggest the ban works.  How can you claim gun control is working when violent crime involving guns has increased every year since the ban went into affect?

The only thing that has changed is criminals no longer have to fear being shot by law abiding citizens.