The Armed Citizen - Oct 2003

[cpxxx]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Durr77
I
If that is the passive culture that exists in Europe where you have to hide in fear, and allow criminals to run roughshod over you, then I want no part of it.  I hope that that mindset never succeeds here.  I prefer to be the master of my domain, and I take responsibility for defending it.  That responsiblity comes with this for gun safety is obvious, but I trust myself and have confidence in myself to be alert, ready, and capable of defending my dwelling, and my family from criminals.  I have drawn a gun on several occasions to protect myself, and fortunately I have never had to fire a shot, but I can tell you that the fact that I had a weapon with me was immensely comforting in each of those dangerous situations.  
[/QUOTE]


While I can see your pont of view Durr. You really can't say that there is a passive culture in Europe per se. You don't have to hide in fear. In fact people don't unless you live in a bad area although even in bad areas no one really has a gun and if you come from a bad area you're as hard as the rest of them!.  While the story of your friend's experience in England  is ridiculous. It is as much characteristic of British attitudes as anything else.  I had a similar car thief experience.   Myself and my brother saw some guys at his car. We caught one. We called the cops and handed him over. But later when giving a statement, the cop taking it suggested that in future. 'We deal with it ourselves next time'.  We took the hint. Recently it happened to my car. I ran out called the bro. He brought a big stick but he wouldn't give it to me because I was ready to use it.  I don't live in fear and I also know if I chase someone they won't have guns.   I heard another car story. A Father and son rushed out, beat the thief to the ground and called the police. 'We heard a noise and found this man injured outside our house' they said. The cops smirked and the thief yelled.  Everyone knew what went on there. Another story of a couple from a rough area in a new house in another neighbourhood, same story only this time husband and wife rushed out with baseball bats, same result.  Incidentally these are isolated incidents over many years. I don't want you think I live in a battle zone.

Point is, no one needed a gun, even the uniformed police are unarmed here.  I find it almost inconceivable to  come across a situation where drawing a gun to protect myself would be useful, least of all several times as you have.  I suspect you are most unusual or unlucky.   I would not like to live with the mindset that I need a gun to protect my family from criminals.  

That is the differnence in attitude in a nutshell.  For us guns, as it is for most Americans, is a hobby and an interest. I will own a gun one day. I was offered a chance to buy a rifle lately but it doesn't suit me right now. I don't need it to protect myself because I have a big stick and know how to use it:aok  and anyway it simply isn't needed.  The only criminals who have guns in this city don't use them on the likes of me (only each other) and in any case would out gun most people.  So it's not an issue I worry about or fear. That's the way it is over most of Western Europe. Even where guns are widely available few people feel they need a gun for protection. It's not passivity it's reality.

Actually that's true of most of America too I suspect....in fact I know it.  Places where crime is low to non existant are all over the US not just because criminals fear gun owners but because the people are affluent and law abiding.

[mrblack]

Come to my door and tell me you'r homeless and you need a few bucks for a meal or hell even for a bottle of booze.
And I will dig into my wallet and give you some cash.
But break into my house and try and TAKE what is mine and IF I catch you.... say hello to martha the mossberg 12ga pump w/ OO buckshot.

Help thy fello man but don't allow you'rself to be the victum either.

[lazs2]

cpxx... not everyone is as young and manly as you are... some are elderly or women or cripples or infirm...  would you say to them that they had no right to defend themselves?   These are exacly the people that have to live in bad areas.    A lot of armed resistance in the U.S. is by the elderly or the otherwise helpless...

The mere fact that people here are armed makes burglars and theifs less bold... they are not usually armed themselves here but.... they fear even the most frail senior citizen.

You say you allmost bought a rifle?   here... you just buy it.. if you don't like it... throw it in the corner and buy another.   Or trade it in.   Whatever... who cares.. they are pretty cheap for the most part and the regulations on rifles are allmost non existent.... as it should be.

Like I said... I want to make my own decision on how to defend myself or have fun and I want my neighbors to be armed because I don't fear them and know that them being armed is good for me....   If the psychos thought that 10% of the teachers at schools had concealed firearms.... there would be no more shootings at schools.

A big stick is just a tool.... like a gun... a burglar might have a big stick or a crowbar or knife tho too....... In fact, it is likely....Where you live or here...It is very unlikely he will have a gun... I think that you are using the wrong tool for the job.   You thinking you have the right one makes me doubt your wisdom.

Again... i hope that you never live to regret your decision on tool choice.
lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
cpxx... not everyone is as young and manly as you are... some are elderly or women or cripples or infirm...  would you say to them that they had no right to defend themselves?   These are exacly the people that have to live in bad areas.    A lot of armed resistance in the U.S. is by the elderly or the otherwise helpless...

The elderly and infirm might not find it easy to operate firearms. Imagine a pair of old arthritic hands trying to pull back the kimber slider on a .45 - the end result is that this might happen. I've quoted this story before, but it's worth repeating.

[ravells]

lasz..

do you think that citizens in the US ought to be able to carry guns on internal flights?

cheers

Ravs

[culero]

Originally posted by midnight Target
The point is.... there are fewer gun related deaths when gun controls exist.

Yes, but as someone else pointed out, the statistic you quote could be misleading. It doesn't differentiate between desirable and undesirable gun-related deaths. Thus, it isn't necessarily a good thing.

Before you start to reply to that, allow me to remind you of the ******* that stabbed the elderly woman to death and was then shot to death by her husband. Don't waste your breath trying to convince me that's not a "desirable" gun-related death. I'm not listening, in that case I also argue that this isn't the only instance in which its a good thing that some ******* got shot down.

I really would be interested, OTOH, to see what the statistics are regarding gun-related deaths that end up being deemed crimes, or even simply any crimes where the perpetrators use guns in their commission. If you can show these are greater in states with no controls vs those with controls, you'd then be making a logical and convincing argument and I'd be willing to admit it.

As an aside, I'd like to stipulate that even though I'm in the "pro-gun" camp, I don't object to gun control laws per se. I support safety-training-related licensing for public concealed carry, I support safety-training-related licensing for sporting use in public, I have no problems with the current Federal registration requirements, I have no problems with requiring background checks for purchases, etc.

I'm all for regulating the public usage of guns in ways designed to ensure the common safety, so long as they aren't implemented in ways that restrict the right of a lawful citizen to be armed.

So, perhaps if you care to cite the more sensible statistics I'm suggesting, then we may move on to defining what makes sense and what doesn't in the way of "gun control"

culero

[culero]

Originally posted by lazs2
thanks straffo.. that is my point.   gun control laws do, and allways have, taken the right of gun ownership away from the lower classes and given it to the upper classes and their armies.  

In the U.S. we don't believe that this is a good thing.   I don't believe this is a good thing.  
snip

Please use that "we" carefully. While I don't necessarily disagree with with what you're saying about how things have gone in the past in most cases, I'd say that "always" is going a bit too far, and that it definitely doesn't have to be that way if things are done in a reasonable way.

Just a for instance - Texas, always considered to be a "pro-gun" state by and large, was for as long as I lived a state where carrying a handgun was illegal except in very regulated circumstances...until George W. became governor and got our current concealed carry law passed.

I'd argue with you that this law doesn't take rights away from "lower class" folks. (I assume by that description you mean folks without a lot of money.) It simply doesn't cost a lot of money to be permitted here.

You have to pay a state licensed instructor to teach you a state-approved curriculum that includes safety training, proficiency training, and instruction in when and how it is legal to use your weapon. I think this is simply prudent!

And, since the training is private sector, its pricing is competitive. Last time I checked, courses were available for $75.

"Gun control" doesn't necessarily have to be The Boogy Man. We control the use of motor vehicles without unduly restricting the right to their use by all. We can also do the same for guns if we're all willing to be reasonable.

culero (a definitely "pro-gun" guy, I assure you)

[lazs2]

ravell... I have no problem with a concealed carry permit holder having a gun on an internal flight.   At one time this was the case and I can't recall ever hearing of any problems with it.   I would add that in order for a police or concealed carry permit holder to carry on  plane or nuclear reactor or whatever.... he should be trained... they way that would work would be... the airline would say that only people with such and such permits were allowed to carry their guns loaded and on their person on the flight.

culero... no... Allways is accurate in this case.  any restriction hurts somebody... the degree is of course less with what you describe but... say the bedridden.... How do they get to the classes?   How do the illiterate fill out the forms?   There is allways a fee where government is concerned and..... It ALLWAYS goes up eventually.   I agree that "allways" is a strong word... like "never" but in the case of government.... accurate.

I like the idea that clases are available... that is great..  The NRA had the best clases in the world availabel for children at schools and boy scouts and any group that requested them... they have been chased out of the schools tho... ignorance is the best safety measure I guess.

lazs

[ravells]

Thanks Lasz,

I was just wondering whether you believed that the government should not have any say about gun ownership whatsoever. I used to be very keen on shooting in school (we got to fire a bren gun as a treat - what a beautiful gun it was) but would never see use for a weapon other than on the target range or for farmers to kill vermin or by law enforcement authorities and the forces. But as has already been discussed, guns are relatively uncommon here and most people want to keep it that way - different culture and I respect that.

My doubts about gun ownership (and I have found this thread very instructive about why US voters havn't voted for stronger gun control laws) rest in making the decision about who is or is not responsible enough to carry a gun.

As Mr Black said, guns should not be possessed by stupid people but should be possessed by law abiding people. Question is, what if the owner is stupid and law abiding? And who decides who is stupid? I have never met Mr Black, but one of his postings (liberals rejoicing over the death of allied soldiers in Iraq) has been....extremely er...stupid. Does that qualify him to possess a firearm even under his own criteria?

I was parking the car today and after waiting five minutes for a spot (I was in a rush), someone nicked my space. I told him I was waiting for the spot and he apologised. I asked him if he was going to move and he said 'nope'. My only response was to call him a f**kwit - but with my apolgies.  I cannot tell you how angry I was at the time - of course ten minutes later I was laughing about it. Made me wonder whether normally stable people with guns might be just put into a position where they momentarily snap and then use a weapon which leads them to regret their actions for the rest of their lives.

Lol! I was so mad about the incident at the time I forgot to pay for the parking and came back to the car to find a traffic warden writing out a ticket....I can tell you that REALLY made my day

take care

Ravs

[lazs2]

rav... there are millions of people in the states that carry guns legally and are provate citizens...  the rate at which they commit crimes with these guns is..... zero.   yep... zero.  They are more lawfull then the rest of the country.  The only known case of a shooting because of a traffic accident was when the concealed carry permit holder shot a UPS driver who was beating him to death.... the uPS driver had allready broken the mans jaw and was continueing his attack.... no charges were filed..  The UPS driver would probly have been charged if he had survived... I think that this is the way it should be.

The only restrictions I would put on gun ownership are.... age..  and sanity.   If you are sane and over a certain age then you should be able to have any firearm you wish.    As for the bren or any machine gun... no problem... I like my government to know it's citizens are armed with modern weapons.... keeps em honest.. or, relatively so.

I would be interested tho in how you would restrict firearms and what your reasons for your restrictions would be.   It is proven that firearms save more lives than they take and that they stop crime so who would you allow to have firearms and why?   what firearms do you think that I should be allowed to own and why?  

lazs

[lord dolf vader]

im an american liberal ( from texas) i hate violence but feel pistols are a nessisary evil. whereas rifles are a constitutional nessesity.

our country is different. not killin violent criminals outright is just wrong to me. invading another mans home or property to steal is insane here. never had anything stolen at all in 28 years, nothing.
10 dogs on one block you cant walk at night without setting off one dog alarm after another. you are lucky if the cops get you here if you are a felon.

now health care for the wounded criminal should be top notch and affordable.

[Pooh21]

top notch circa 1346 or so

[culero]

Originally posted by lazs2
snip
culero... no... Allways is accurate in this case.  any restriction hurts somebody... the degree is of course less with what you describe but... say the bedridden.... How do they get to the classes?   How do the illiterate fill out the forms?

This doesn't apply to the bedridden, because no permit is required (nor should it be) concerning guns on one's own premises. The permitting only applies in public.

Illiterate persons may have assistance in filling out forms. Tests may be taken orally.

There really is a middle ground. (But don't misunderstand, I share your concern that there are those who seek to strip us of our rights, and abhor them equally as you do.)

culero

[ravells]

Let me preface this email by saying that I'm more than a little bit drunk (as I have just come home from one of my best friend's wedding) so I reserve the right to withdraw anything I've said here in the morning  Also, I've heard something quite mind blowing from a bloke I was sat next to, who is in a NATO think tank, but I will post that tomorrow when I am more sober. - warning! ramble ahead.

In the matter of gun control:

We obviously can't rely on statistics...you can make them mean what you want them to mean, so let's call that one a 'draw'. I saw one posting about gun crime which said something like 'white on white gun deaths in such and such an area are on a par with ...' WTF does 'white' gun death mean? says more about the person who posted that than I could imagine - he probably calls himself a 'white' american.

So... (bearing in mind that I think that if America wanted to have better gun control, they would just elect people who would legislate it) why this American conservative fascination with guns?

To protect ourselves if we are attacked by someone

A very good liberal (in the american party political sense) friend of mine, who is a professor of a redbrick university in America put it this way: My family live on a farm in Iowa, it would take the police hours to get there, farms in our area have been hit. That's why I sleep with a gun under my pillow. This guy is as 'euro-sophisticated' as they come' but he believes that people in isolated areas where there is a long term response to a 999 sorry 911 phone call means that a person has to be able to defend himself/herself (oops what a liberal distinction!) then and there. He is not prepared to take the chance that some mad violent person will come into his house and they will be defenseless. I can see his point. I don't fancy being somewhere miles from anywhere in that situation.

Nevertheless he is in despair about the amount of shootings in certain urban areas in America.

What are you Americans going to do about it? The fact that you have so many urban guns floating about in your country makes you more in common with some bannana dictatorship than any other country in the world than other western democracies. What is your solution? it's your country.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms and the right to defend ourselves against 'internal governmental threats'

Wot a load of bollocks. Balance the amount of people who are killed by gunfire against the chance....the very remote chance that your government is suddenly going to turn into some dictatorship where elections are not allowed anymore. - grow up.
Your constitutional right to bear arms relates to a bygone age which is no longer relevant.

We may be invaded so we need these various weapons to defend ourselves [/d]

Another total load of bollocks. By whom? You have the strongest military on earth! If Britian managed to survive invasion for more than 800 years because of the Channel, you've got a better chance: the bloody Atlantic and Pacific.

---------

If the people who want guns in your country need a justification for it, then at least be honest. - It's rather nice to have a power projection weapon in your hand - isn't it? Makes you feel like a real man, doesn't it? I don't blame you - your media has made you think this way.


womanly men in california

This is someone's tag-line, I think lasz's. Pathetic. If you want a man to man fight, leave your gun at home and go fisticuffs to a knock out. Don't snipe at women and children in petrol stations. If you think you're such a hard ba*tard, go to your local bar and challenge some man with big muscles to an arm wrestle and ask him outside for a fist fight. That is a time honoured way of settling disputes. Go to California and do this with a few people bigger than you and see how 'womanly' they are. This tag line is from someone with more verbal testorone than actual courage. You think you're tough? Take 'em on!'

[ravells]

Reply to Lasz.

----------
The only known case of a shooting because of a traffic accident was when the concealed carry permit holder shot a UPS driver who was beating him to death.... the uPS driver had allready broken the mans jaw and was continueing his attack.... no charges were filed.. The UPS driver would probly have been charged if he had survived... I think that this is the way it should be.
-----------

I simply do not believe you. We have more gun related road rage deaths in the Uk and we have a fraction of firearms than in the US and we have far fewer guns.

-------
The only restrictions I would put on gun ownership are.... age.. and sanity.

-------

also a  previous criminal record of gun crime (I'm sure you meant to say that but forgot - so cut me slack if I make obvious errors)

Lasz I could reel off lots of situations where your criteria are insufficient:

a. Someone who may not be insane but has a 'bad temper' ie he 'loses it' occasionally.

b. Some racist white man who finds out his daughter is about to have a child by a black man.

c. Some racist black man who finds out his daughter is about to have a child by a white man.

e. Children who can get hold of these weapons because although their parents are sane and over 18, they are just bloody careless

If you want more, I can provide.
----------------

I would be interested tho in how you would restrict firearms and what your reasons for your restrictions would be. It is proven that firearms save more lives than they take and that they stop crime so who would you allow to have firearms and why? what firearms do you think that I should be allowed to own and why

----------------

I would restrict firearms by controlling where they are available and to have a good justification to have them.

So...Armed forces.... of course, but only on active duty or exercises.

Police...depending on the level of potential response they should/should not be armed. Most of our police don't carry guns, but if they get into a 'gun situation' they can call on trained units. Yes, some of the them get shot before they can, but it's very, very few. We don't want to escalate, we respond. Having said that gun crime in the UK is growing and it's quite worrying. Most right thinking people are still horrified by it, though.

Farmers...about the only people who have an excuse to own a gun in civilian society as far as I'm concerned. Sure, you'll get the odd nutter who will use it on a person rather than vermin but in terms of human death ratios, I think it's an acceptable risk.

Hunting....wonderful. Just eat what you kill. People who kill for pleasure alone do not deserve to be called human.

There was another category, but I'm pissed and I forget!

-----------

I don't believe that anyone can prove that possession of firearms stops more crime. It's just more statistical B.S.

---------------

As to what firearms you ought to be allowed to own and why...here is my take on firearm ownership:

I do not believe that firearm ownership should be only a matter of filling in a form which gets processed in some far off place by someone who doesn't know you.

Here are my controls:

a. You can show good cause to own one by way of application to the government...no previous criminal record etc..
b. You can get at least n respectable people who live in your local community who actually know your character to say you need one and that beyond a reasonable doubt you will keep it locked up at home out of the reach of minors.
c. The people who give you references are parents.

Then you ought to be able to own a firearm and keep it in your house. Owning one should not be a right, it should be a privelidge.

Ravs