Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Rapscallion]

The burden of proof is not on gun enthusiasts to prove that they need guns, it is on the government to prove that guns are too dangerous for people to own and in this not one has successfully followed through. Unless I pose a threat to you by owning something you have no right to keep me from having it. I'd say the majority of people don't need their own vehicles, and they certainly present a risk when used irresponsibly. But we accept that risk because some people need them, many people want them, and the risk is easily lessened through responsible use.

So what's that got to do with the thread? Do you think that allowing more guns in Yurp would prevent the occasional shooting? We still get them, but from what I can tell it's at far lesser frequency than the US.

Worth noting that vehicles are made with the purpose of taking people from one place to another. Guns are made with the purpose of putting holes in creatures - sometimes humans.

I know you don't have a constitution, and I know for the most part you don't need it, as both those points appeared in my previous post. However, I can't see how having such a document as a safeguard isn't better than the reverse.

It's also heavily anachronistic if you stick to everything. The third amendment isn't something people actually fear now, the quartering of British soldiers in civilian homes if memory serves. Safeguarding outdated needs?

Smokers can still smoke, for now. Even if the right to smoke if you so choose is never specifically pulled, but numerous governments are trying to tax that right away, making it too expensive to pursue in the same way as banning lead in bullets would make ammo similarly expensive. In that sense smokers are shafted.

Smoking is not a right enshrined in the US constitution. I don't see that either side of the pond is benefited when everything is taken into account by allowing it. However, in the case of smoking there are direct links to incapacity caused by the users, whereas in the case of boomsticks there are direct and immediate results against those they hit. Hmm, a victim of secondary gun use? Heh.

Many jurisdictions are moving to ban/have banned plastic bags despite the fact that they are a much more efficient option than paper bags. Those same jurisdictions and others besides are doing the same for incandescent light bulbs. Anyone who disagrees is forced to do it anyway.

Not exactly enshrined in any constitution anywhere, is it?

Keep in mind that the above applies to many places. Around here, over there, and who knows where else. It's not that this happens that much more in Europe than the US, it's that there tends to be more resistance over here, that I've seen at least, and part of that is thanks to guaranteed rights.

I'm waiting for the rally to ensure you keep the rights to not own slaves, or the one to ensure people remember that any passing Limey soldier cannot sleep on your couch should he want to.

I've heard a lot of reasoning about a great many things. But honestly, I could care less if people 'get by' without certain rights or that most of whoever doesn't care, but not by much. Until you prove that firearms are inherently more dangerous than cars, power tools, fireworks and any of the other dangerous items people are otherwise allowed to own and operate, you've no right to ban them. If you do it anyway, than you're just as thoroughly in the wrong as you would be if you banned anything else.

Cars - designed for transport. In their natural usage, the main danger is from exhaust fumes.

Power tools - designed to make things. In their natural usage, the main danger is ... designs that are eyesores, I guess.

Fireworks - designed to look pretty at a safe distance. In their natural usage, probably slight danger from smoke.

Guns - designed to make holes in inanimate targets and creatures (including humans) from a distance. In their natural usage, I'd prefer not to be near it.

The more something costs the more people won't be able to do it because it's prohibitively expensive. If the government steps in and causes that to happen, especially for the express purpose of making it prohibitive, that's a rights infringement.

Wholeheartedly agree. However, the UK - as part of the Yurpean paradise - doesn't have a right to bear arms. Are we at a greater risk as a result?

Responsible firearms

Interestingly enough, I actually agree with you on this part. The UK target shooter teams for the olympics are not allowed to practice on home soil for some events due to the weapons in question being illegal since some of the legislation came in. I've got no problem with boomsticks at target ranges, and I disagree with there being no exemption in cases where the items in question are kept securely at such a facility.

One day I may even remember to write a stiff letter on this to my local MP.

use means attaining and retaining a moderate-to-high proficiency level. That means lots of practice, which in turn means lots of bullets. If all bullets cost $5000 (as put by Chris Rock), only multi-millionaires could afford to be responsible firearm users.

Or irresponsible ones.

Don't get me wrong, the joke is funny. But it's just that, a joke. Although I admit I'm curious as to what you define rights infringement to be, so I'll lay it out for you as I see it in this context:

Right = freedom or ability to do something
Infringement = reduction or elimination of a right.
Also, the constitution protects against governmental infringements.

Again, we don't have the right or expectation to carry guns around over here. We've got enough gun threads on the US rights, what about the Yurpean rights or lack of? Infringing rights that don't exist is getting away from this thread.

So, if more Yurpeans were allowed to carry guns, would Yurpeans be safer or not?

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That European countries don't guarantee gun rights does not mean they don't still exist, just that they aren't expected to exist. And while it's been shown that the presence of armed civillians and LE prevents some shootings and certainly helps when one does occur, I hardly expect a nation that doesn't arm it's regular officers to up and allow OC much less CC. Although it's important to note that the UK semi-recently created an armed force sub-SO19 (which is called something else now) and with less training. Problem being that they're used to calling the SO19 on everyone and expect these guys to do the same job and it just isn't so. Here's hoping they take a book out of that Florida PD what gives all their officers tactical training and their choice of rifle or SMG 'cuz they're the ones that really know how to deal with dangerous sub-SWAT situations that the whatever-the-name UK guys are supposed to be for.

Anyway, tangent aside. I'll admit that there are things in the Constitution that we haven't needed for a while which is only to be expected as advancing technology has prevented those infringements from being necessary to the government. Hard to justify quartering troops in someone's house if you can build a barracks in a matter of hours. And once it was clarified that the color of someone's skin and the nature of their reproductive organ does not effect their equality, owning slaves became a right that in it's very nature infringed on numerous other rights and had to be done away with on those grounds.

Most of those things I've listed are not directly protected per-se, although they might grow into something more (the first person to introduce a ban on LCD screens gets a brick to the face, plasma sucks out loud) but with smoking, it is under the right to pursue happiness, something of an amalgam of other protections summed up as civil rights. Smoking is thus covered as much as any other activity unless that activity infringes on the rights of others.

It's worth noting that both of those did meet much resistance, and in both cases escalated among other complaints, to war because they perceived that their rights as human beings had been violated.

Now this is where I think there's a bit of a paradigm difference, as you're listing what the dangers are if all goes well. In which case those are all correct and for firearms it's potential hearing damage if you take your protection off at the wrong time, or a burn if you touch the wrong part at the wrong time.

In worst case scenarios, however, all of those objects are potentially/definitely lethal depending on the circumstance, thing being that we accept that the grand majority of the time these things are being used correctly and pose no threat. Guns are no different. The vast majority of the time they're 'staying in their lane, under the limit' at the range of 'in the garage' at home, and when something goes wrong during this, it's an accident. When it comes to CC, however, normal use is still safe because normal use is just the gun in a holster out of sight. The most it could do to hurt you is if banged your knee on it. However, in the event of exceptional circumstances it does come out and it is on the user to use correctly or there may be a risk to you, but it's important to remember that this slight risk is bundled up with a considerable capacity to reduce or eliminate a much greater risk. On that front, yes, I think any area that has CC is safer than those that don't, which is covered over here not just by the right to bare arms but also the right to personal security.

I wouldn't be against such a system, although I'd have to stipulate that the range must have facilities for user maintainable with does not necessarily occur on the same time table as range practice does or some measure allowing qualified individuals to store the weapons at their homes. It's certainly better than an outright ban and I think it would work well for y'all.

Uhh, getting kind of turned around here so I'll wrap this up with a response to your final statement. I think everyone as human beings have a fundamental right to defend themselves from danger and to pursue whatever recreational activity they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Guns are a fundamental part of the first and very much applicable to the second, and in this way I see it as incredibly sad/outright bad that any country has stripped it's citizens of those rights. They aren't rights that you do have, but they are rights that you should have.

Now I'm off to get some foods and some caffeine, how is it sleeping in makes me tired >_<?!

[Rapscallion]

I see a flaw in your logic. See, the purpose of cars is transport, and it can be dangerous, However, for you the purpose of guns is self defence - try the last part of your post. It's designed to kill and/or injure. It's designed to be lethal. It's purpose is not a visible or invisible deterrent - it won't deter unless it can be and is used.

It's intended to be lethal. It's an intended result of its function. Simple as that. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work.

What interests me is the circular logic of the second amendment and its supporters. Everyone else can have guns, so therefore I'm under threat, and therefore I need guns. Therefore they need guns.

In contrast, people around me don't have guns, therefore I don't need a gun (a weapon of equal standard) to defend myself, and that doesn't threaten others so they feel the need for guns.

The very right to bear guns creates a threat, or the perception thereof, to others. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Would relaxed gun control make Yurp a better or worse place? I think it would create more fear of neighbours, not respect. I'd suggest right now the Yurpeans don't fear their neighbours as much as the US citizens. Our neighbours can't kill us from a distance.

If we allowed concealed or open carry of firearms over here, I'd probably go down the route of arming myself. I trust my neighbours without weapons. I wouldn't be able to trust them with them.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Now I think we're getting somewhere.

It's true that firearms as a deterrent rely upon the possibility that they will be used if necessary. Which means that when necessary, they will be used. I don't have a problem with this as people have the right to defend themselves. Firearms are not new in this regard, they're just the latest iteration and as such the most effective and therefore the most viable.

We've shown quite conclusively that people having weapons doesn't make them into threats and that banning weapons doesn't prevent people from having them, in fact, it means only the people you don't want to have them will. People who prey on others are the problem and they're the ones we're arming ourselves against.

Your fear in people who own weapons is unfounded and your lack of fear in those who don't is likewise unfounded. Firearms being illegal does not protect you from violent attack, and firearms being legal does not subject you to violent attack.

You're assuming much about the mindset of self-defense supporters and practitioners. You assume that we do it because we fear the populace in general, a baseless assumption that I'm frankly surprised that you've made. We don't arm ourselves against our neighbors, sheep present no threat to anyone. We arm ourselves against the wolves of society, who exist in every society guns or no guns and can and will try and succeed to kill people guns or no guns.

From you're statements a number of questionable assumptions come to mind. You assume that anyone who wishes to provide for their own protection is paranoid. You assume that guns somehow make people into murderers. You assume that banning guns or other weapons keeps them out of the hands of criminals, and you assume that criminals have to be armed to be threats.

I humbly submit that these are all incorrect. We know that poverty is the overriding factor in creating criminals, that gun owners are as normal as anyone else, that criminals don't need weapons to harm you but you can be sure they'll get their hands on something. But what I know, and what you obviously don't know, is that self-defense is about protecting ourselves and society from those who prey on it and it works.

[Vash113]

I see a flaw in your logic. See, the purpose of cars is transport, and it can be dangerous, However, for you the purpose of guns is self defence - try the last part of your post. It's designed to kill and/or injure. It's designed to be lethal. It's purpose is not a visible or invisible deterrent - it won't deter unless it can be and is used.

It's intended to be lethal. It's an intended result of its function. Simple as that. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work.

On the contrary, the problem here is your assumption that people who own guns are inherently dangerous simply because a firearm has the capability to kill, but just because cars are meant for transportation they are not to be feared? That just doesn't make any sense.

A firearm handled by someone trained in its proper use is no more dangerous than a car driven by someone trained in its proper use. The only danger is to those who wish to harm or kill others around firearm users.

What interests me is the circular logic of the second amendment and its supporters. Everyone else can have guns, so therefore I'm under threat, and therefore I need guns. Therefore they need guns.

Again your making assumptions here and they are just frankly wrong. Firearm owners are not concerned about other legal firearm owners. We don't like criminals, we like to protect ourselves from criminals. Criminals can and do get guns illegally regardless of the laws and regulations, they don't abide the laws for rape, murder, arson, grand-theft-auto, and so on and so forth, why should they flinch over gun laws?

Really if you pick any midwest town you can be pretty well sure every house has at least a 12-Gauge shotgun in it, almost every trucker probably has a revolver in their cab, not to mention off duty law enforcement and so forth. There are far more guns around anyone in the US than most people think about but do we fear them? Do we really think that cabby or our next door neighbor is going to burst out of their home and start shooting people? Of course not, there's no reason that we would, just like we have no reason to suspect they would try to run us over just because they own a car or cut us up because they own a kitchen knife.

We worry about criminals who do those things regardless of the law. Heck there's a fire station two blocks away, doesn't stop me from owning a fire extinguisher. There's a cop who lives three blocks away, still doesn't stop me from owning a firearm. Don't get me wrong, the highest caliber gun I own is a .22 and I live in a neighborhood with virtually no crime. I don't have to worry about criminals, in fact I don't have a single round of ammunition in the house, but I'm still a big supported of the 2nd Ammendment. Like it or not we have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of ourselves, our families, our neighbors and even our country if necessary. People may like to make guns out to be the epitome of all evil, that owning one leads to psychotic murder but this is really so far from the truth it would be laughable if it wasn't given so much credence.

To be honest I'm shocked the UK has such a fear of firemars, considering the Brittish empire was built on the darn things. Besides its not like crime is any less of a problem there, criminals will use bats and knives if necessary, the weapon is not the problem, the criminal is. I'm even more amazed people in the UK don't even trust most of their law enforcement with guns. One of the biggest arguments is: "Why do you need a gun, just call the cops!" but that doesn't help if the cops don't have them either!

In contrast, people around me don't have guns, therefore I don't need a gun (a weapon of equal standard) to defend myself, and that doesn't threaten others so they feel the need for guns.

The very right to bear guns creates a threat, or the perception thereof, to others. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Would relaxed gun control make Yurp a better or worse place? I think it would create more fear of neighbours, not respect. I'd suggest right now the Yurpeans don't fear their neighbours as much as the US citizens. Our neighbours can't kill us from a distance.

Wow, you must really fear your neighbors are going to go on a psychotic killing spree at any moment then. Besides what's this "our neighbours can't kill us from a distance" thing? After all it doesn't take a genius to throw a rock now does it? The person is what matters, not the item.

I mean what on earth would make you fear your neighbor more because they have a gun and not because they have who knows how many bludgeoning and stabbing implements in their house? I own 1 gun, but about 50 knives. Plus other common items people have that are really good at killing people such as baseball bats, hockey sticks (cricket bats for yall, I hear they make more a thud!), and how many times do you hear of an angry wife taking a frying pan to her husband?

If we allowed concealed or open carry of firearms over here, I'd probably go down the route of arming myself. I trust my neighbours without weapons. I wouldn't be able to trust them with them.

Well as I've pointed out, your neighbors already almost certainly do own many weapons yet you don't fear them now.

Guns are not the burning hand of darkness that if wielded confer +1000 corruption, they're just a thing, of metal and plastic. When used right they can't and won't hurt you. Fear comes from ignorance of the subject matter, a gun is no more dangerous than the person handling it, if the person is irresposible and uses the item irresponsibly then there's danger. If the person is responsible there is no danger. Just like with a car, there's only danger if its used irresponsibly.

After all, as my favorite bumper sticker says; "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun!"

P.S. I'm far more afraid of a chainsaw than a firearm, those things are bloody dangerous!

[Rapscallion]

We've shown quite conclusively that people having weapons doesn't make them into threats

I'd disagree with this.

What I believe is that there are dangerous people out there. They're not in the majority, but they exist and guns allow them to hurt or kill others from a distance.

and that banning weapons doesn't prevent people from having them, in fact, it means only the people you don't want to have them will. People who prey on others are the problem and they're the ones we're arming ourselves against.

Making assumptions here. See, over in the US it may be easy for people who shouldn't get guns to get them, but over here it's pretty damned difficult.

Your fear in people who own weapons is unfounded

No it's not. I've had plenty of pro-gun people telling me that it's easy for people who shouldn't be allowed guns to get them and therefore the best defence is to be armed as well as they are. Look up.

and your lack of fear in those who don't is likewise unfounded. Firearms being illegal does not protect you from violent attack, and firearms being legal does not subject you to violent attack.

It protects me from the majority of gun crime, and gun crime can strike at a distance- it's designed to strike at a distance. Relaxing gun laws in Yurp only means I can be killed or maimed at a greater range by a device designed to do just that. Right now, illegally held guns are very much a rarity (I don't know of anyone who has one) and the main way to harm me is up close and personal.

You're assuming much about the mindset of self-defense supporters and practitioners. You assume that we do it because we fear the populace in general, a baseless assumption that I'm frankly surprised that you've made.

Not surprising. Reread what you put above. Illegally held weapons or those held by the people who shouldn't have them have been cited by you in this very post. How can that not be taken as fear of your potentially armed neighbours?

We don't arm ourselves against our neighbors, sheep present no threat to anyone. We arm ourselves against the wolves of society, who exist in every society guns or no guns and can and will try and succeed to kill people guns or no guns.

Are your neighbours the folk in the house next to you, or those in your neighbourhood?

See, without easy access to guns, the wolves have it harder. Suits me.

From you're statements a number of questionable assumptions come to mind. You assume that anyone who wishes to provide for their own protection is paranoid.

You tell me. You've told me that there are people who seek to harm me, so I should feel safer by having guns. Is this alleged paranoia therefore with some basis?

You assume that guns somehow make people into murderers. You assume that banning guns or other weapons keeps them out of the hands of criminals, and you assume that criminals have to be armed to be threats.

Certainly not. The fact is that guns allow criminals and idiots to harm others far easier and from much further away.

I humbly submit that these are all incorrect.

I believe I've just demonstrated that.

We know that poverty is the overriding factor in creating criminals, that gun owners are as normal as anyone else, that criminals don't need weapons to harm you but you can be sure they'll get their hands on something. But what I know, and what you obviously don't know, is that self-defense is about protecting ourselves and society from those who prey on it and it works.

I'm sure criminals are going to get their hands on something, but I'd prefer my chances of survival in a world without guns as being better than in a world with guns.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

On the contrary, the problem here is your assumption that people who own guns are inherently dangerous simply because a firearm has the capability to kill, but just because cars are meant for transportation they are not to be feared? That just doesn't make any sense.

Er, yes it does.

Car - when used properly takes people from A to B.

Gun - when used properly puts holes in people.

Car - only dangerous to me when used improperly. When in a situation where cars are extant, I take sensible precautions to look out for people who aren't using them properly.

Gun - dangerous to me when used properly. When in a situation where guns are extant, I have to look out for any gun being used for its intended purpose of putting holes in people.

A firearm handled by someone trained in its proper use is no more dangerous than a car driven by someone trained in its proper use. The only danger is to those who wish to harm or kill others around firearm users.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, cars are legal and therefore easy to get hold of. In the UK, guns are illegal and therefore bloody hard to get hold of. Greater accessibility to guns means more people with the intent to harm others will be able to buy firearms.

Again your making assumptions here and they are just frankly wrong. Firearm owners are not concerned about other legal firearm owners. We don't like criminals, we like to protect ourselves from criminals. Criminals can and do get guns illegally regardless of the laws and regulations, they don't abide the laws for rape, murder, arson, grand-theft-auto, and so on and so forth, why should they flinch over gun laws?

I don't have a problem with responsible boomstick owners. After working in retail for over a decade, I'm convinced that most people are not responsible. After four decades on this planet, I fully believe that reaching another decade or four is more likely to happen if arseholes don't have the capability of putting holes in me from a distance.

Guns aren't the problem. People are. Keeping weapons out of the hands of fuckwits is my main concern. When you've managed that, everyone else who is reasonable doesn't really need their weapon. Come and spend a few years in the UK and see what I mean. It's cultural.

Really if you pick any midwest town you can be pretty well sure every house has at least a 12-Gauge shotgun in it, almost every trucker probably has a revolver in their cab, not to mention off duty law enforcement and so forth. There are far more guns around anyone in the US than most people think about but do we fear them?

I think you do. The whole circular logic strikes again - other people have guns so I need one to have an even chance of survival.

Do we really think that cabby or our next door neighbor is going to burst out of their home and start shooting people?

I think it increases the availability and the likelihood that the guns are going to be stolen by those with no need for them.

Of course, if they aren't going to burst out of their house and start shooting people, why do they even have them?

Sure, there's the argument that it stops thieves and burglars. Has a court in the western world regularly sentenced anyone to death for burglary?

Of course not, there's no reason that we would, just like we have no reason to suspect they would try to run us over just because they own a car or cut us up because they own a kitchen knife.

Kitchen knife - proper use is for cutting food or opening awkward packages.

Gun - proper use is for putting holes in people.

Big difference.

We worry about criminals who do those things regardless of the law. Heck there's a fire station two blocks away, doesn't stop me from owning a fire extinguisher. There's a cop who lives three blocks away, still doesn't stop me from owning a firearm. Don't get me wrong, the highest caliber gun I own is a .22 and I live in a neighborhood with virtually no crime. I don't have to worry about criminals, in fact I don't have a single round of ammunition in the house,

Somewhat off topic, but if you have a gun why don't you have ammunition?

but I'm still a big supported of the 2nd Ammendment. Like it or not we have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of ourselves, our families, our neighbors and even our country if necessary. People may like to make guns out to be the epitome of all evil, that owning one leads to psychotic murder but this is really so far from the truth it would be laughable if it wasn't given so much credence.

Indeed, and that's why I said above that I don't think that guns aren't the problem, that people are.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. With guns. From a distance.

To be honest I'm shocked the UK has such a fear of firemars, considering the Brittish empire was built on the darn things. Besides its not like crime is any less of a problem there, criminals will use bats and knives if necessary, the weapon is not the problem, the criminal is.

Wholeheartedly agree. So let's make it harder for criminals to have guns! Great solution!

Works for us.

See, a criminal with a knife or bat is going to have to get close and at least I can grab an arm or knee a crotch or something. A criminal twenty paces away with a gun is very likely going to put a hole in me and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I can move if I really have to, but not at stunt double speed (I've seen movies, and those buggers give Olympic athletes a run for their money), and I can't move faster than a bullet. I've got a far better chance against the knife or bat.

I'm even more amazed people in the UK don't even trust most of their law enforcement with guns. One of the biggest arguments is: "Why do you need a gun, just call the cops!" but that doesn't help if the cops don't have them either!

More and more cops are now armed, though not necessarily with guns. More firearm cops are around, but still very much the minority. Most forces have armed response units available within a reasonable time.

See, the thing is that we don't actually need them as much as you do. Our criminals don't have easy accessibility to guns.

Wow, you must really fear your neighbors are going to go on a psychotic killing spree at any moment then. Besides what's this "our neighbours can't kill us from a distance" thing? After all it doesn't take a genius to throw a rock now does it? The person is what matters, not the item.

Indeed. While I can't tell from looking at a street full of people which one is going to throw a rock at me, I do have a far better chance of dodging a rock, and I have the same chance of spotting a gun-toting psycho as I do of seeing someone who is intent on grabbing a rock and hurling it.

I mean what on earth would make you fear your neighbor

Well, the constant claim that other people are armed and therefore I should be?

more because they have a gun and not because they have who knows how many bludgeoning and stabbing implements in their house?

Potential for killing at distance where I can do nothing about it versus potential for killing at close range where I can attempt to do something about it.

I own 1 gun, but about 50 knives. Plus other common items people have that are really good at killing people such as baseball bats, hockey sticks (cricket bats for yall, I hear they make more a thud!), and how many times do you hear of an angry wife taking a frying pan to her husband?

Not often, actually, but at least he has the chance to grab her arm. If she had a gun, he'd likely be dead instead of potentially concussed.

Well as I've pointed out, your neighbors already almost certainly do own many weapons yet you don't fear them now.

Reasons stated above.

Guns are not the burning hand of darkness that if wielded confer +1000 corruption, they're just a thing, of metal and plastic.

Indeed true, and my commentary on this is a rehash of what's above.

When used right they can't and won't hurt you. Fear comes from ignorance of the subject matter, a gun is no more dangerous than the person handling it, if the person is irresposible and uses the item irresponsibly then there's danger. If the person is responsible there is no danger. Just like with a car, there's only danger if its used irresponsibly.

True - and as I pointed out, I don't have a problem with guns. I know how many idiots there are out there, and it's bloody worrying.

After all, as my favorite bumper sticker says; "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun!"

Interesting - are you saying you don't take cars, driving permits, and liberty away from those who kill with their cars?

P.S. I'm far more afraid of a chainsaw than a firearm, those things are bloody dangerous!

Can run from a chainsaw, or attempt to. Can't run from a bullet.

What I can't see from the two current contenders in this thread is any sort of argument that makes me think that Yurp may be made safer or better by having fewer restrictions on personal firearms. What I do see is you coming from cultures where guns are great. I'm happy for you and your higher mortality rates. Really, I am. I've got no problems with you owning more guns. If I lived over there permenantly, I'd very likely invest as well.

I don't. I live in a country where even the police are routinely not armed with guns because they don't need to be.

I prefer it here.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

What I believe is that there are dangerous people out there. They're not in the majority, but they exist and guns allow them to hurt or kill others from a distance.

If they can even hit you. Unless they're a trained shooter the difference in effective range is only a few meters and the average distance at which violent crimes occur is zero. Simply put, a man with a gun is really only slightly more dangerous than a man with a knife with few exceptions. Since even over here you're more likely to encounter a knife wielding opponent than a gun-toting one, it still makes more sense to arm yourself than it does not to. Remember: the purpose of a gun isn't to protect you from a gun, it's to protect you from anyone trying to kill you.

Making assumptions here. See, over in the US it may be easy for people who shouldn't get guns to get them, but over here it's pretty damned difficult.

Not that hard, really. But for the most part it's just not needed, after all, you can kill the average unarmed joe just as dead with a knife and they know that so they're still scared enough to do what you want, why bother with a gun?

No it's not. I've had plenty of pro-gun people telling me that it's easy for people who shouldn't be allowed guns to get them and therefore the best defence is to be armed as well as they are. Look up.

Did you read the sentences, as in, all the way through? I never said that people looking to kill you aren't the problem, they are. You're the one laboring under the delusion that the average citizen will just mystically turn into a robbing, murdering fiend just because they happen to own a rifle.

It protects me from the majority of gun crime, and gun crime can strike at a distance- it's designed to strike at a distance. Relaxing gun laws in Yurp only means I can be killed or maimed at a greater range by a device designed to do just that. Right now, illegally held guns are very much a rarity (I don't know of anyone who has one) and the main way to harm me is up close and personal.

It protects you from the majority of gun crime, but gun crime is only one face of the equation. If it's not guns, it will be knives and either way they'll be in your face before you know what's up. People can't rob or rape from a distance, so unless you're dealing with a random killing spree, a blade is as much to be feared as a firearm. You're best bet is both cases is to either run or fight and in both cases the less prepared you are the more likely you are to fail. Banning weapons from being carried disarms law abiding citizens only, which puts you at risk because you lack the tools to defend yourself.

Not surprising. Reread what you put above. Illegally held weapons or those held by the people who shouldn't have them have been cited by you in this very post. How can that not be taken as fear of your potentially armed neighbours?

Because, as I've amply pointed out, it's not the tools that are to be feared, it's the people behind them. I don't fear my neighbors armed or not, because I have no reason to be afraid of them. I only fear those who demonstrate that they intend to do me harm, something that's not tied to firearm ownership in any significant way.

Are your neighbours the folk in the house next to you, or those in your neighbourhood?
See, without easy access to guns, the wolves have it harder. Suits me.

Actually, the wolves have it easier. You see, if it's illegal for their targets to arm themselves in any way, not only can they reliably use a lesser weapon, but should they get their hands on something better, they're even more overwhelmingly equipped while their prey are quite the opposite. If, however their targets have access to weapons and can carry them, this means that they run the risk of being outgunned so to speak, and even if they are on equal footing they still run the enormous risk of losing anyway.

You tell me. You've told me that there are people who seek to harm me, so I should feel safer by having guns. Is this alleged paranoia therefore with some basis?

You deny that there are people who seek to harm you? If so your head is very firmly stuck in the sand. While your country enjoys lower crime rates than ours thanks to it's lack of poverty areas, it's by no means non-existent. Protecting yourself from something that you know exists isn't paranoid, it's common fucking sense.

I know for a fact that I could crash my car driving across town or someone could crash into me. It's unlikely, but nevertheless I put on my seatbelt. Likewise I know that someone could try and subjugate me or someone around me to violent assault at any time whatsoever, it's unlikely, but still and all, I holster my Sig. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt or carry a weapon, that's your decision as you're obviously willing to accept the consequences should the worst come to pass, but what right do you have to keep me from being prepared? None at all.

Certainly not. The fact is that guns allow criminals and idiots to harm others far easier and from much further away.

Technically speaking it's easier to sneak up on someone and kill them from behind, which only works if you get up close, or are a marksman. But so far we haven't run into too many criminals who are either Ninjitsu or snipers, so I think you should spend less time worrying about the never-occurring 20 feet away robbery and more time worrying about the guy with a knife to your throat.[/quote]

I believe I've just demonstrated that.

But have you? Survey says: no .

I'm sure criminals are going to get their hands on something, but I'd prefer my chances of survival in a world without guns as being better than in a world with guns.

Once again, I'll point out that what you really need is a world without poverty and equipped with magic weapon scanners in every door. Until then you're still going to have armed criminals, some of whom have guns, and all of whom will prove lethal if you can't fight them off or get the fuck out of there. I'm sure you spend you're hours on the treadmill as much as other folks, otherwise the prospect of being virtually defenseless would phase you some. On the other hand, you could always call the SO19 to come help you, with... they're... guns... and other... weapons... and stuff... after 10 minutes or so... when they get there...

P.S. Your world's still not one without guns anyway, and there's reason to believe that it's getting worse. Even if it were, you should still be allowed to carry a knife at least, right? I mean, if that actually were the only thing you had to worry about, you should at least be allowed to prepare to the same degree, shouldn't you?

Wingates mother-fucking Hellsing, OUT!

[Mikkel]

Even if it were, you should still be allowed to carry a knife at least, right? I mean, if that actually were the only thing you had to worry about, you should at least be allowed to prepare to the same degree, shouldn't you?

No, why should you prepare for something that will probably never happen?
I always have a Swiss army knife in my pocket, but it's a tool, not a weapon. The only time I was held up with a knife I told the robber that I wasn't afraid to fight him and he ran off. I could have been carved a bit but a knife isn't as easy to use as a weapon as a gun is. Anyway, knives over a certain size are illegal to carry around here (not that it bothered the robber ).

I agree with Rapscallion that making it difficult for normal people to have guns make it more difficult for criminals to get them too. My son-in-law is a sergeant in the Danish home guard (hjemmeværn) and has several guns at home. He is required to keep them locked up, taken apart and each gun in two different places with ammo in a third locked place. The same rule applies to other gun owners. As I have said before, it isn't difficult for someone to buy a gun if they need one, for hunting or target shooting. It is only difficult if you are a criminal or want the gun for an illegal purpose, as in shooting other people.

[Rapscallion]

If they can even hit you. Unless they're a trained shooter the difference in effective range is only a few meters and the average distance at which violent crimes occur is zero. Simply put, a man with a gun is really only slightly more dangerous than a man with a knife with few exceptions.

So, still more dangerous. Check.

Ten paces away - I fully believe that someone with only a small amount of familiarisation could fell me from ten paces with a gun, whereas a guy with a bat would be hard pressed to do that. This is about me. My chances are better.

In what way does it make Yurp safer if we relax gun control? More fuckwits who shouldn't have guns would have them.

Since even over here you're more likely to encounter a knife wielding opponent than a gun-toting one, it still makes more sense to arm yourself than it does not to. Remember: the purpose of a gun isn't to protect you from a gun, it's to protect you from anyone trying to kill you.

Apparently also from those trying to take your guns. Cold dead hands and all that.

Not that hard, really.

I'm sure you're going to provide some sort of evidence of this.

My evidence is that I've never heard of anyone able to get a proper firearm (air guns are still mostly legal).

But for the most part it's just not needed, after all, you can kill the average unarmed joe just as dead with a knife and they know that so they're still scared enough to do what you want, why bother with a gun?

Why doesn't the second amendment provide for knife wielding rights, then?

Did you read the sentences, as in, all the way through? I never said that people looking to kill you aren't the problem, they are. You're the one laboring under the delusion that the average citizen will just mystically turn into a robbing, murdering fiend just because they happen to own a rifle.

Apparently as much as you read mine. See, I've got no problem with guns as tools. I disagree with the removal of ability of our Olympic team to practice with and use guns on a target range. I don't have a problem with target range shooting, if that's the flavour of someone's pleasure. I don't have a problem with gamekeepers or farmers protecting their animals from the few wild animals left.

I do have a problem with any undetected lunatic being able to go and get a rifle and then snipe at people from watchtowers.

It protects you from the majority of gun crime, but gun crime is only one face of the equation.

It's still one that won't threaten me. Advantage mine.

If it's not guns, it will be knives and either way they'll be in your face before you know what's up.

I have a far better chance in a fight against a knife or bat than I do against someone who has a gun.

People can't rob or rape from a distance, so unless you're dealing with a random killing spree, a blade is as much to be feared as a firearm.

At ten paces, I'd be able to avoid a knife fairly easily, unless the wielder is a skilled thrower. A gun means a person of limited ability could fell me with a reasonable likelihood. At a longer range, while less effective the gun is still lethal.

You're best bet is both cases is to either run or fight and in both cases the less prepared you are the more likely you are to fail. Banning weapons from being carried disarms law abiding citizens only, which puts you at risk because you lack the tools to defend yourself.

I'm at less risk because criminals have less access to weapons that can threaten me at range. If a knife or bat wielder, as you say elsewhere in your post, is a greater threat as they can sneak up and slap you before you react, then a gun won't help anyway.

Because, as I've amply pointed out, it's not the tools that are to be feared, it's the people behind them. I don't fear my neighbors armed or not, because I have no reason to be afraid of them. I only fear those who demonstrate that they intend to do me harm, something that's not tied to firearm ownership in any significant way.

About this reading sentences this, as I've amply said, I damned well agree. The problem is that there are far more idiots that cannot be trusted with firearms than enough.

Actually, the wolves have it easier. You see, if it's illegal for their targets to arm themselves in any way, not only can they reliably use a lesser weapon, but should they get their hands on something better, they're even more overwhelmingly equipped while their prey are quite the opposite. If, however their targets have access to weapons and can carry them, this means that they run the risk of being outgunned so to speak, and even if they are on equal footing they still run the enormous risk of losing anyway.

Here's a thought - limit their access to weapons. It's quite effective!

You deny that there are people who seek to harm you?

Please point out where I said that. I said quite the opposite - I fully believe that it would just be easier for them to do so with a gun.

I know for a fact that I could crash my car driving across town or someone could crash into me. It's unlikely, but nevertheless I put on my seatbelt.

Irrelevant. We're talking about gun control in Yurp.

Likewise I know that someone could try and subjugate me or someone around me to violent assault at any time whatsoever, it's unlikely, but still and all, I holster my Sig. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt or carry a weapon, that's your decision as you're obviously willing to accept the consequences should the worst come to pass, but what right do you have to keep me from being prepared? None at all.

Actually, speaking of irrelevance, I have to point out that the UK requires seatbelts by law.

What right do I have to keep you from being prepared? Fuck all.

That's what you don't get. We have plenty of gun control threads on this board centred around the US. This one is about the UK and Yurp and the hypothesis proposed by someone posting a link that we'd be safer by all having boomsticks.

I don't think the US would be safer if you took the guns away. It would be a bloodbath. Great spectator sport, but a bloodbath.

This thread's about Yurp.

Technically speaking it's easier to sneak up on someone and kill them from behind, which only works if you get up close, or are a marksman. But so far we haven't run into too many criminals who are either Ninjitsu or snipers, so I think you should spend less time worrying about the never-occurring 20 feet away robbery and more time worrying about the guy with a knife to your throat.

*sigh* I'll once again have to type this. If someone is within knife range of me, I can at least attempt to do something. If he's ten paces away with a gun, he can still kill me if that's his intent, but I can't do anything to him.

Arm myself or make it difficult for him to arm himself? We've found out what works.

But have you? Survey says: no .

Small sample size. Just one, from what I can see

Once again, I'll point out that what you really need is a world without poverty and equipped with magic weapon scanners in every door. Until then you're still going to have armed criminals, some of whom have guns, and all of whom will prove lethal if you can't fight them off or get the fuck out of there. I'm sure you spend you're hours on the treadmill as much as other folks, otherwise the prospect of being virtually defenseless would phase you some. On the other hand, you could always call the SO19 to come help you, with... they're... guns... and other... weapons... and stuff... after 10 minutes or so... when they get there...

You can posit a mythical, utopian world should you so choose. Feel free! In the real world we can't get rid of poverty, so make it safer for everyone by removing something designed to be a weapon.

Actually, since the onset of osteo-arthritis in my knees, I can't do the treadmill thing, and the exercise bike is limited. However, the funny thing you may not comprehend is that we have a fairly peaceful culture over here and I don't have any fear of walking around on an evening. I don't feel the need to arm myself.

That's a difference between the US and Yurp. We don't need the weaponry to defend ourselves because there's simply not as much threat.

P.S. Your world's still not one without guns anyway, and there's reason to believe that it's getting worse.

Oh.

Yeah, reduction in gun crime. Even has a handy little graph there.

Even if it were, you should still be allowed to carry a knife at least, right? I mean, if that actually were the only thing you had to worry about, you should at least be allowed to prepare to the same degree, shouldn't you?

Wingates mother-fucking Hellsing, OUT!

I'm undecided on the knife thing, actually. We used to have a law that was 'tools of the trade' - if you were in a fight and could prove it was something you'd normally have accessible to you it was considered that you could defend yourself with it and face no repercussions. We now have laws that say you can't have blades above a certain length etc etc etc. I'm not fully au fait with the new regulations.

However, I'll point out that I'm not actually under threat. I don't feel fear of the majority of my compatriots. I can walk around my neighbourhood without any expectations of violence.

For what do I need to prepare?

This isn't the US.

Rapscallion

[Vash113]

Er, yes it does.

Car - when used properly takes people from A to B.

Gun - when used properly puts holes in people.

Car - only dangerous to me when used improperly. When in a situation where cars are extant, I take sensible precautions to look out for people who aren't using them properly.

Gun - dangerous to me when used properly. When in a situation where guns are extant, I have to look out for any gun being used for its intended purpose of putting holes in people.

Actually that very statement shows your ignorance of firearms. Guns when used properly hurt nobody. A firearm has the inherent ability to kill but that does not at all mean its only use is to kill. Range shooting, IPSC, and hunting are the predominant uses of privately owned firearms in the United States. Not to mention when used properly even against a person the gun still won't kill them. A responsible gun owner is absolutely no danger to you or anyone else, just like a responsible car owner is no danger to you or anyone else. The very notion that a properly used gun means dead people is absolutely nuts.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, cars are legal and therefore easy to get hold of. In the UK, guns are illegal and therefore bloody hard to get hold of. Greater accessibility to guns means more people with the intent to harm others will be able to buy firearms.

Actually... not really. Most criminals get their weapons illegally, they don't go into a store and buy them. You could argue that they could steal them from legal gun owners but that is still illegal and what gun safes are for. Besides if a criminal really wants a firearm they will get it, regardless of the laws. Gun crime is not non-existent in the UK, despite all the laws and regulations criminals still have guns.

I don't have a problem with responsible boomstick owners. After working in retail for over a decade, I'm convinced that most people are not responsible. After four decades on this planet, I fully believe that reaching another decade or four is more likely to happen if arseholes don't have the capability of putting holes in me from a distance.

Again with the pessimism, and the paranoi of distance killing. What, you think you're going to be magically robbed by a telekinetic gunman from 30 feet away? If your going to be mugged, or robbed, raped or murdered the crime is generally going to take place at the same distance, regardless of the weapon used. What advantage does a gun give a criminal after all? They're loud, easy to trace, and if used from a distance means they are at a distance.

The only reason for a criminal to use a gun in most street crimes is as a scare tactic or for direct murder, in most cases a knife is better. It's silent, doesn't jam, doesn't run out of ammo, and is far easier to conceal. Knives are a far more dangerous prospect than a gun in my opinion. A gun, close up, is easy to disable, easy to direct, and easy to take from a criminal. This is not the case with a knife, knife fights are far more brutal and deadly than most gun fights.

Guns aren't the problem. People are. Keeping weapons out of the hands of fuckwits is my main concern. When you've managed that, everyone else who is reasonable doesn't really need their weapon. Come and spend a few years in the UK and see what I mean. It's cultural.

So, in conjunction with what you said earlier, most people in the UK are dangerous "fuckwits?" Um... no thanks. Besides again the whole "people don't need them" shpeal, it's not law abiding citizens that guns protect people from, its criminals, who will be dangerous regardless of whether guns are legal or illegal.

I think you do. The whole circular logic strikes again - other people have guns so I need one to have an even chance of survival.

I'm sorry but the inanity of that statement makes my head hurt. I don't need a gun to survive, regardless of who has guns around me. There is no circular logic, as the law only really affects law abiding citizens, I have really no reason to fear my neighbors regardless of whether they own guns or not and I'm not really that bothered by criminals with guns either. Doesn't change my position however. You constantly bring this up but I think its just you who are confused.

It is simply a matter of rights and responsibilities, we have a right, from the constitution to keep and bear arms, and hell or high water that right better not be infringed. However it is... nice, to have the capability to defend oneself, but that doesn't mean everyone is stuck in a catch 22 circle of paranoi, constantly worried that everyone around them could be a nut job with a shotgun. If that were the case you'd see people answering their doors wearing riot gear and armed with an assault rifle, but this is just not the case.

When it comes to personal defense, that is the issue, not gun ownership. Personal defense takes many forms, from unarmed close combat techniques, to knives (which are the most common), to guns. But firearms are just one aspect of this. When we talk about self defense we just mean from dangerous criminals, whatever weapon they may be armed with, but we are not concerned solely with guns and somehow convince ourselves that because other people have guns we need them too.

My personal defense weapon is a folding knife, 2 1/2 inch blade I take with me when I travel. If a mugger points a gun in my face, the knife works just fine, likewise it works just fine against another knife, and if a gunman is at a distance well that's when the old "bug out" comes into effect. A gun is always nice, as it offers tactical flexibility and capability, but it is by no means the only tool in the shed so to speak.

I think it increases the availability and the likelihood that the guns are going to be stolen by those with no need for them.

To be honest, this is the most solid argument I've seen so far in this discussion. Theft of legaly owned firearms is somewhat a problem, but does that mean even ownership should be outlawed? That's like saying because cars can be stolen that owning them should be outlawed. It just doesn't make any sense, criminals will always steal things, and they'll steal dangerous things, but that doesn't mean owning those things should be outlawed.

Of course, if they aren't going to burst out of their house and start shooting people, why do they even have them?

I... I... can't even respond reasonably to that. I mean, did you just accuse everyone of owning a firearm world wide of being a psychopath? I've said it before, I'll say it again, owning a gun does not make you evil or suddenly have urges to go on a murderous rampage. Why do they have them? Cause they want them, they're reasons are their own. They might target shoot, or hunt, or maybe they need them as protection against wild animals, or they want protection from criminals, whatever the case it's their buissiness not yours. There's no sense in irrational fear of an inanimate object. Fear someone because they want to kill you, not because of what they're trying to kill you with.

Again you seem to think that everyone who owns a gun must want to kill people and that's just... neurotic. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern of circular logic here on your part; "Guns can kill people so they must be incredibly dangerous, therefore people that own guns are incredibly dangerous and must be dangerous to me therefore guns are the problem!"

How about dangerous people are dangerous and leave it at that?

Sure, there's the argument that it stops thieves and burglars. Has a court in the western world regularly sentenced anyone to death for burglary?

Well, armed burglary where people are killed... why yes... yes they have. Besides, that's what we have the castle doctrine for. While we're on the subject, I find it rather horrifying that in the UK you can be convicted for defending yourself, and that's just insane. What would they rather have you do, stand there and let yourself be stabbed to death?

Kitchen knife - proper use is for cutting food or opening awkward packages.

Gun - proper use is for putting holes in people.

Big difference.

I mentioned this before, but I'll state this again, that statement just isn't true. Guns properly used are entirely safe, just like a kitchen knife, and the proper use of a gun can be shooting clay pidgeons, or real pidgeons, or putting holes in a piece of paper, the assumption that the only way to use a gun properly is to kill people is just plain wrong.

Somewhat off topic, but if you have a gun why don't you have ammunition?

This is the sort of thing I was talking about, because its not to kill people? I don't get why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

I use it for target shooting, I buy all the ammunition and targets at the range and I get to use it for free. I've done this since I was 14 or so, but there's really no reason to keep ammunition in the house. I buy 500-600 rounds of .22 for $15, shoot it all up and then leave. Perfectly safe, and I keep the gun locked up in a durable case with a lock through the chamber as well. Owning a gun is not dangerous, gun owners aren't dangerous. The danger is from dangerous people.

If guns were the issue, we'd see the shoot out at the OK Corral every day, but we don't.

Indeed, and that's why I said above that I don't think that guns aren't the problem, that people are.

Well technically that's a double negative, besides it's clear you do think guns are the problem, and that everyone who owns guns must be dangerous.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. With guns. From a distance.

Well actually no, people kill people with cars, and knives (lots of knives) and bats, and bombs, and rope and drugs and so on and so forth. People kill people, what they do it with is ultimately inconsequential, whether it's with a rock or a tank it doesn't really matter. You can't outlaw everything that is dangerous and could kill people. Many knives are designed purely for killing, they're not illegal.

[Vash113]

(Too long for one post!)

Wholeheartedly agree. So let's make it harder for criminals to have guns! Great solution!

Works for us.

Actually it doesn't seem to be working for you, crime is still up in the UK last time I checked, it's just with a lot of knives. Gun laws don't really make it harder for criminals to have guns, the blackmarket will always keep them in supply. Gun laws just mean that only criminals have guns. All the worst shootings take place in "gun free zones" where it is only the law abiding citizens that don't have firearms.

How about we make it harder for criminals to kill people? Now that would be a great solution.

See, a criminal with a knife or bat is going to have to get close and at least I can grab an arm or knee a crotch or something. A criminal twenty paces away with a gun is very likely going to put a hole in me and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I can move if I really have to, but not at stunt double speed (I've seen movies, and those buggers give Olympic athletes a run for their money), and I can't move faster than a bullet. I've got a far better chance against the knife or bat.

Yet that argument just makes no sense. As I said before what is the criminal going to do? Telekinetically take your wallet from twenty paces away? A gunman still has to be close to you to rob you and do you know sambo or something that you have less fear of a knife? A gun is a lot easier to deal with than a knife. I'd deffinitely say your chances are worse against the knife or bat unless your an ex-marine or something or the gunman is an expert marksman. Again the fear of the gun is simply irrational and misplaced. It is the criminal that you should be worried about, not what they are using.

More and more cops are now armed, though not necessarily with guns. More firearm cops are around, but still very much the minority. Most forces have armed response units available within a reasonable time.

See, the thing is that we don't actually need them as much as you do. Our criminals don't have easy accessibility to guns.

Perhaps not, but you have plenty of knife wielding criminals, I hope your cops have a lot of tazers and don't mind getting stabbed...

Indeed. While I can't tell from looking at a street full of people which one is going to throw a rock at me, I do have a far better chance of dodging a rock, and I have the same chance of spotting a gun-toting psycho as I do of seeing someone who is intent on grabbing a rock and hurling it.

Do you have a spidey sense for psychos then?

Well, the constant claim that other people are armed and therefore I should be?

As opposed to the claim that all people who have guns are dangerous psychopaths? I'm a lot less paranoid than you it would seem.

Potential for killing at distance where I can do nothing about it versus potential for killing at close range where I can attempt to do something about it.

Not often, actually, but at least he has the chance to grab her arm. If she had a gun, he'd likely be dead instead of potentially concussed.

Again, not really true. I could get into the specifics of the tactical situations, the danger and lethality of blunt-force-trauma to the head, relative marskmanship at a distance and evasion techniques but I don't suppose that would convince anyone.

True - and as I pointed out, I don't have a problem with guns. I know how many idiots there are out there, and it's bloody worrying.

Oh no, you deffinitely have a major problem with guns, an outright irrational fear I'd say. As I said before, a firearm is nothing but metal and plastic, it can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but so can just about anything. Fearing an inanimate object is a waste of time in my opinion, fear the person that wields it. The object they are using makes little difference and I still see no reason for the extra danger assossiated with range. Crimes are up close and personal affairs in most cases, range makes little difference and knives can be thrown after all with about the same accuracy as your average shooter.

Interesting - are you saying you don't take cars, driving permits, and liberty away from those who kill with their cars?

Oh we do, just like we take those things away from those who kill with guns. The difference is we don't take them away from those who don't kill. As I said before, it's about rights and responsibility. Take dangerous things away from those who are irresponsible and dangerous, but there's no reason to take them away from people who are responsible and are not dangerous.

Can run from a chainsaw, or attempt to. Can't run from a bullet.

Well you seem to have entirely missed the point of that. In actuality the danger of chainsaws comes even from proper use, a slight mistake or circumstance can result in serious injury or death, the same is not the case with firearms and while no you can't run from a bullet you can run from a gun. It's called evasion and cover.

What I can't see from the two current contenders in this thread is any sort of argument that makes me think that Yurp may be made safer or better by having fewer restrictions on personal firearms. What I do see is you coming from cultures where guns are great. I'm happy for you and your highr mortality rates. Really, I am. I've got no problems with you owning more guns. If I lived over there permenantly, I'd very likely invest as well.

I really hope you wouldn't, for someone with your fear of firearms I wouldn't go anywhere near a range with you on it, it just wounldn't be safe, besides it seems you think we're all psychotics. The problem is your fear of firearms is misplaced, guns may or may not make a place safer or better, but fear of them is completely irrational, just like fear of a car. It's criminals that you have to be concerned with and the UK really has no less violent criminals than the US or significantly lower mortality rates when compared to areas of similar population density.

I don't. I live in a country where even the police are routinely not armed with guns because they don't need to be.

I prefer it here.

You also live in a country where protecting yourself is a crime, where things like privacy are minimal and your rights are restricted. So if you prefer it there be my guest. I'll sit here and lovingly stroke my rifle, the physical manifestation of my 2nd Ammendment rights. Why will I do this? For no other reason than that I can, which is more than I can say for you I suppose.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

No, why should you prepare for something that will probably never happen?
I always have a Swiss army knife in my pocket, but it's a tool, not a weapon. The only time I was held up with a knife I told the robber that I wasn't afraid to fight him and he ran off. I could have been carved a bit but a knife isn't as easy to use as a weapon as a gun is. Anyway, knives over a certain size are illegal to carry around here (not that it bothered the robber ).

I agree with Rapscallion that making it difficult for normal people to have guns make it more difficult for criminals to get them too. My son-in-law is a sergeant in the Danish home guard (hjemmeværn) and has several guns at home. He is required to keep them locked up, taken apart and each gun in two different places with ammo in a third locked place. The same rule applies to other gun owners. As I have said before, it isn't difficult for someone to buy a gun if they need one, for hunting or target shooting. It is only difficult if you are a criminal or want the gun for an illegal purpose, as in shooting other people.

And if he had decided to attack you with the knife, you'd be better off with something to fight back with, right? Moreover, unless he knows what he's doing, a gun isn't that easy to use either, especially when the other person is fighting back or fleeing. Hitting a moving target with a handgun and without training to say nothing of trying to control it in a face-to-face struggle without training is just as difficult as using a knife without any idea of how to use it. In either case they could get lucky and in either case proper technique and a weapon go a long ways towards their defeat. I won't dispute that a gun is the better weapon, but let's not get carried away here, they aren't magic make everyone dead thingies. If you don't use it right, you're just making noise.

So, still more dangerous. Check.
Ten paces away - I fully believe that someone with only a small amount of familiarisation could fell me from ten paces with a gun, whereas a guy with a bat would be hard pressed to do that. This is about me. My chances are better.

Obviously you've never tried to shoot a gun or stab someone before. In a very short time, both could either work or not work depending on skill and luck alone. At ten paces a knife wielding opponent is lethal within most people's reaction times, which is why it's so important that later version tazers are longer ranged and why cops keep so much distance even from knife wielders. In both cases, if you cut and run, you stand a good chance of avoiding the initial attack in one piece and after that it's all a matter of staying ahead and out of sight until the criminal gives up.

In what way does it make Yurp safer if we relax gun control? More fuckwits who shouldn't have guns would have them.

And people would have the tools with which to defend themselves against violent attack. Fuckwits, as you put it, would have every reason to believe that they can be killed by anyone they might target.

Apparently also from those trying to take your guns. Cold dead hands and all that.

I'm looking for the place where I said that and, no, it doesn't exist. Still, if you're trying to take my gun away I've either done something wrong and you're a good samaritan or cop OR you've done something wrong and want to keep me from fighting back. In the first case, well you've the right to take it, in the second, yeah, I'd cap your ass. If you aren't trying to hurt me, why are you worried about me fighting back anyway?

I'm sure you're going to provide some sort of evidence of this.

My evidence is that I've never heard of anyone able to get a proper firearm (air guns are still mostly legal).

Every year in the UK there's still a handful of firearms deaths, logic would dictate that firearms are used more often than they prove lethal, so there's at least some.

Why doesn't the second amendment provide for knife wielding rights, then?

It does, actually. Knives are arms after all, and infringing on my right to carry a Balisong if I so choose is just as bullshit as a pan on compact pistols instead of full-size (I mean, that's the whole fucking point isn't it?!)

Apparently as much as you read mine. See, I've got no problem with guns as tools. I disagree with the removal of ability of our Olympic team to practice with and use guns on a target range. I don't have a problem with target range shooting, if that's the flavour of someone's pleasure. I don't have a problem with gamekeepers or farmers protecting their animals from the few wild animals left.

Than, why do you support it being illegal for those people to have firearms too? or is this complete ban you refer back to, incomplete? I mean, if those people have guns than obviously 'no one has guns' is false.

I do have a problem with any undetected lunatic being able to go and get a rifle and then snipe at people from watchtowers.

That's the wonderful part of licensing and background checks. Not only can you detect lunatics but you can also find them easy if things go shitty. Also, if you go

It's still one that won't threaten me. Advantage mine.

Disadvantage: the ones that slip through the cracks by your logic devastate you. Which leads me to:

I have a far better chance in a fight against a knife or bat than I do against someone who has a gun.

Actually, no, you don't. At least not more than marginally. At distance the firearm is difficult to hit with and the knife requires closing distance and up close the gun is really easy to direct away from yourself like the knife. Thing is that knife fights tend to be very brutal affairs that get very bloody, very quickly. I'm probably going to call it a draw in terms of how much of a threat each presents, but you always better your own chances with a weapon, something you can't do. Bummer.

At ten paces, I'd be able to avoid a knife fairly easily, unless the wielder is a skilled thrower. A gun means a person of limited ability could fell me with a reasonable likelihood. At a longer range, while less effective the gun is still lethal.

Actually, what you need to worry about is the knife user charging into close range where they can use their weapon with the most effect. Unless you can turn away and start running reliably faster than the knife user can react and follow you, you're just as screwed as if you're against a shooter skilled enough to track onto you and fire at a moving target before losing LOS. You still run the risk of becoming cornered in either case but in simple terms it goes thus in both cases: Running away = hit or miss, fighting = hit or miss. It's best to have the capacity to do both.

I'm at less risk because criminals have less access to weapons that can threaten me at range. If a knife or bat wielder, as you say elsewhere in your post, is a greater threat as they can sneak up and slap you before you react, then a gun won't help anyway.

A gun user intent on shooting you instead of robbing you is also going to close and fire just like the others, and there's nothing you can do unless they miss and then you start having a chance to flee or fight. However, someone intent on robbing you is going to be in your face regardless of the weapon they use and your reaction is going to be circumstantial and that's why self-defenders train to redirect weapons and/or quickdraw and fire several shots, then bolt.

About this reading sentences this, as I've amply said, I damned well agree. The problem is that there are far more idiots that cannot be trusted with firearms than enough.

That's not what I've seen. Having been at the range on many occasions and in the company of many gun owners, I haven't met one that doesn't take it seriously. By my reckoning there's way more that can be trusted than otherwise, and even if there weren't, it's not either of our places to pre-judge people on this matter. If most people really were irresponsible, the situation over here among legal owners would be catastrophic, and yet it isn't.

Here's a thought - limit their access to weapons. It's quite effective!

Except it isn't as I just pointed out there and you ignored, disarmament of both parties means that they can use improvised and illegally acquired purpose-designed weapons and you can't, stacking the cards in their favor. It is possible to do a lot to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and lessen the threat they pose, but just making it illegal for everyone doesn't cut it.

Please point out where I said that. I said quite the opposite - I fully believe that it would just be easier for them to do so with a gun.

Not if you're disarmed in contrast with them, and I've already pointed out that you exaggerate the lethal effect of firearms in the hands of untrained users. And you said that when you said that anyone wishing to protect themselves is paranoid because they think there are people willing to do harm to them. There are people willing to do harm to them so thinking that's true isn't paranoid.

Irrelevant. We're talking about gun control in Yurp.

Hardly, we're talking about doing something mildly inconvenient and utilizing a skillset to protect ourselves from something unlikely, within a self defense context. Analogies can be abused, but this one fits the bill.

Actually, speaking of irrelevance, I have to point out that the UK requires seatbelts by law.

What right do I have to keep you from being prepared? Fuck all.

That's what you don't get. We have plenty of gun control threads on this board centred around the US. This one is about the UK and Yurp and the hypothesis proposed by someone posting a link that we'd be safer by all having boomsticks.

I don't think the US would be safer if you took the guns away. It would be a bloodbath. Great spectator sport, but a bloodbath.

This thread's about Yurp.

Have I been saying Zanzabar? I knew it, I always mix y'all up

Bull-fucking shit! The idea of self defense in Yurp (is that a soft drink?) is no different than in the US. The only difference is that here it's legal and there it would have to become legal, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't work the same way.

Arm myself or make it difficult for him to arm himself? We've found out what works.

Both work, actually, except in the first one you've got a chance to fight back and in the second you're apparently screwed from square one. I think you're over estimating your average thug here, hitting someone at any given range, especially if they're moving is harder than you think in the same way as stabbing someone trying to stop you is harder than you think.

Small sample size. Just one, from what I can see

Go to an NRA meeting, they'll teach you the meaning of 'some of the time'

You can posit a mythical, utopian world should you so choose. Feel free! In the real world we can't get rid of poverty, so make it safer for everyone by removing something designed to be a weapon.

Actually, since the onset of osteo-arthritis in my knees, I can't do the treadmill thing, and the exercise bike is limited. However, the funny thing you may not comprehend is that we have a fairly peaceful culture over here and I don't have any fear of walking around on an evening. I don't feel the need to arm myself.

If you're culture is so fucking peaceful you should be fine with guns. After all, if no one's trying to hurt you from square one the presence of weapons doesn't make a difference. Still, I find it comical that you think only them being armed as better than both you and them. Bully for you though, if someone else wants to, I don't see why they shouldn't.

That's a difference between the US and Yurp. We don't need the weaponry to defend ourselves because there's simply not as much threat.

Again, if that's true, adding guns won't change that.

Oh.

Yeah, reduction in gun crime. Even has a handy little graph there.

But aww Violent crime happens anyway? jeebus.

I'm undecided on the knife thing, actually. We used to have a law that was 'tools of the trade' - if you were in a fight and could prove it was something you'd normally have accessible to you it was considered that you could defend yourself with it and face no repercussions. We now have laws that say you can't have blades above a certain length etc etc etc. I'm not fully au fait with the new regulations.

Good to know, the length thing always puzzled me. "An inch int he right place will kill a man" and all that jazz. Besides, short blades are better tactically, maneuverability is key.

However, I'll point out that I'm not actually under threat. I don't feel fear of the majority of my compatriots. I can walk around my neighbourhood without any expectations of violence.

For what do I need to prepare?

So that means it would be fine for people to have guns for recreational stuff because, there's no threat that people will use them against each other because they don't do that anyway. Let there be watermelons exploded!

This isn't the US.

But you're all people, right? Not Gremlins or zombies or shit like that? Zombies with guns is scary. People with guns? not so much.

Rapscallion

ThatGuyWithTheShemagh

[Rapscallion]

Actually that very statement shows your ignorance of firearms. Guns when used properly hurt nobody. A firearm has the inherent ability to kill but that does not at all mean its only use is to kill. Range shooting, IPSC, and hunting are the predominant uses of privately owned firearms in the United States. Not to mention when used properly even against a person the gun still won't kill them. A responsible gun owner is absolutely no danger to you or anyone else, just like a responsible car owner is no danger to you or anyone else. The very notion that a properly used gun means dead people is absolutely nuts.

That shows your ignorance of my points.

Guns at a range - used properly are there to put holes in targets. I actually don't have a problem with this. I've recently taken to mind the idea of approaching an archery club in the area.

Guns as CCW or open carry - the purpose there is to put holes in people.

When used properly it won't kill them - hah! Last time I looked, in a self-defence situaion when using a gun the advice was to hit them twice in the main mass. That's the largest area, so hits are easiest. Two bullets to the torso are generally going to make someone's life less existential. A bullet to the leg, if it hits the femoral artery, will bleed someone dry pretty quickly.

Actually... not really. Most criminals get their weapons illegally, they don't go into a store and buy them.

You win a cookie!

However, illegal sources of guns are not exactly frequent.

Gun crime is not non-existent in the UK, despite all the laws and regulations criminals still have guns.

I never said it was. However, it's far lower than what it is in the US.

Again with the pessimism, and the paranoi of distance killing. What, you think you're going to be magically robbed by a telekinetic gunman from 30 feet away?

Killed, more likely. I can survive the loss of my wallet. I can't survive a bullet as easily.

If your going to be mugged, or robbed, raped or murdered the crime is generally going to take place at the same distance, regardless of the weapon used. What advantage does a gun give a criminal after all? They're loud, easy to trace, and if used from a distance means they are at a distance.

Hardly easy to trace. Sure, you can work out if a bullet was used in one crime came from a certain gun, but the average open or concealed carry weapon is pretty easy to hide.

Besides, if I was going to rob someone using a gun, I'd do it at range to stop them grabbing the gun. There's no point to threatening someone with a gun and then not using it if they don't comply.

The only reason for a criminal to use a gun in most street crimes is as a scare tactic or for direct murder, in most cases a knife is better. It's silent, doesn't jam, doesn't run out of ammo, and is far easier to conceal. Knives are a far more dangerous prospect than a gun in my opinion. A gun, close up, is easy to disable, easy to direct, and easy to take from a criminal. This is not the case with a knife, knife fights are far more brutal and deadly than most gun fights.

And?

So, in conjunction with what you said earlier, most people in the UK are dangerous "fuckwits?" Um... no thanks. Besides again the whole "people don't need them" shpeal, it's not law abiding citizens that guns protect people from, its criminals, who will be dangerous regardless of whether guns are legal or illegal.

Not most, but enough.

People not needing them - over there, you do, and I'd buy one if I lived there. Over here, we're not scared.

I'm sorry but the inanity of that statement makes my head hurt. I don't need a gun to survive, regardless of who has guns around me. There is no circular logic, as the law only really affects law abiding citizens, I have really no reason to fear my neighbors regardless of whether they own guns or not and I'm not really that bothered by criminals with guns either. Doesn't change my position however. You constantly bring this up but I think its just you who are confused.

The law affects law abiding citizens, but then they have guns stolen and sold through the illegal sources, correct? We don't have many guns over here, so the illegal sources I've yet to hear about have a lack of supply.

I'm not confused. It's simple cause and effect.

It is simply a matter of rights and responsibilities, we have a right, from the constitution to keep and bear arms,

Indeed you do. Have another cookie.

We don't have that constitution over here. That's the difference. Therefore we don't have a sizeable chunk of the population armed. Therefore there's no real threat from people who may have stolen guns.

and hell or high water that right better not be infringed.

Why is this always being dragged back to the US? This is the UK under debate in this thread.

However it is... nice, to have the capability to defend oneself, but that doesn't mean everyone is stuck in a catch 22 circle of paranoi, constantly worried that everyone around them could be a nut job with a shotgun. If that were the case you'd see people answering their doors wearing riot gear and armed with an assault rifle, but this is just not the case.

Aye, that's the next step.

When it comes to personal defense, that is the issue, not gun ownership. Personal defense takes many forms, from unarmed close combat techniques, to knives (which are the most common), to guns. But firearms are just one aspect of this. When we talk about self defense we just mean from dangerous criminals, whatever weapon they may be armed with, but we are not concerned solely with guns and somehow convince ourselves that because other people have guns we need them too.

So, effectively guns carrying is a lazy way out? You could train in martial arts etc, but instead a device will protect you?

To be honest, this is the most solid argument I've seen so far in this discussion. Theft of legaly owned firearms is somewhat a problem,

I keep getting told that there are illegally owned weapons available. That's where a fair chunk of them would logically come from.

but does that mean even ownership should be outlawed?

Makes sense to me.

That's like saying because cars can be stolen that owning them should be outlawed. It just doesn't make any sense, criminals will always steal things, and they'll steal dangerous things, but that doesn't mean owning those things should be outlawed.

Interesting fascination you have with using cars as an argument. See, cars are a device used for transportation, not for putting holes in people. If someone steals a car, their first thought is usually to sell it somehow, or to use it in a ram raid. The intent is not usually to threaten someone with it or to run them over with it.

I... I... can't even respond reasonably to that. I mean, did you just accuse everyone of owning a firearm world wide of being a psychopath?

The point I was trying to make is that the only reason for having guns in the house is self defence, and to me that's something I'm still mulling over the rights and wrongs of. However, what I did point out is that burglary over here does not carry the death sentence.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, owning a gun does not make you evil or suddenly have urges to go on a murderous rampage. Why do they have them? Cause they want them, they're reasons are their own. They might target shoot, or hunt, or maybe they need them as protection against wild animals, or they want protection from criminals, whatever the case it's their buissiness not yours. There's no sense in irrational fear of an inanimate object. Fear someone because they want to kill you, not because of what they're trying to kill you with.

To re-iterate - I have no problems with farmers or gamekeepers owning weapons. I have no problems with target shooters.

I do have problems with potential vigilantes. Sure, you're going to say 'responsible gun owners' again. That doesn't get rid of irresponsible ones. It doesn't get rid of illegally held weapons.

Again you seem to think that everyone who owns a gun must want to kill people and that's just... neurotic. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern of circular logic here on your part; "Guns can kill people so they must be incredibly dangerous, therefore people that own guns are incredibly dangerous and must be dangerous to me therefore guns are the problem!"

How about dangerous people are dangerous and leave it at that?

Indeed, so why make it easier for them to be armed?

Well, armed burglary where people are killed... why yes... yes they have. Besides, that's what we have the castle doctrine for. While we're on the subject, I find it rather horrifying that in the UK you can be convicted for defending yourself, and that's just insane. What would they rather have you do, stand there and let yourself be stabbed to death?

So, the sentence for burglary is death over in the US. Interesting. We don't have that.

We're allowed 'reasonable force'. If someone is found dead in someone's house and their wounds are on their back (they were trying to get away), it's regarded as not reasonable. If it was obviously a fair fight face to face and so forth, that's generally reasonable. The intent is to get them out of the house, not murder them.

I mentioned this before, but I'll state this again, that statement just isn't true. Guns properly used are entirely safe, just like a kitchen knife, and the proper use of a gun can be shooting clay pidgeons, or real pidgeons, or putting holes in a piece of paper, the assumption that the only way to use a gun properly is to kill people is just plain wrong.

To keep you happy and to increase the risks of RSI, I'll repeat myself as well. Sports shooting, fine. Walking down the street like a gunslinger, that's going too damned far for the UK.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about, because its not to kill people? I don't get why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

Please tell me where I said I had a problem with sports etc.

I use it for target shooting, I buy all the ammunition and targets at the range and I get to use it for free. I've done this since I was 14 or so, but there's really no reason to keep ammunition in the house. I buy 500-600 rounds of .22 for $15, shoot it all up and then leave. Perfectly safe, and I keep the gun locked up in a durable case with a lock through the chamber as well. Owning a gun is not dangerous, gun owners aren't dangerous. The danger is from dangerous people.

Thanks for the explanation. My error there was in thinking along how I'd read a pressure group would like to see it with sporting firearms being kept in secure facilities at a club. I hadn't thought about keeping sporting weapons at home.

If guns were the issue, we'd see the shoot out at the OK Corral every day, but we don't.

Nope, but you have far higher gun death rates.

Well technically that's a double negative, besides it's clear you do think guns are the problem, and that everyone who owns guns must be dangerous.

Not really. It's not that I trust or don't trust my neighbours, but what I'd trust them with.

Well actually no, people kill people with cars, and knives (lots of knives) and bats, and bombs, and rope and drugs and so on and so forth. People kill people, what they do it with is ultimately inconsequential, whether it's with a rock or a tank it doesn't really matter. You can't outlaw everything that is dangerous and could kill people. Many knives are designed purely for killing, they're not illegal.

Guns, and their easier accessibility, make it far easier for people to be killed.

Knives designed for killing are, as far as I'm aware, illegal over here. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Just to make this quite clear.

Guns put holes in things. I don't have a problem with targets at a range. I don't have a problem with an attacking polar bear (not that we get any bears here). I don't have a problem with defending a farmer's animals.

I do have a problem with the assumption that adding guns to Yurp is going to make things better over here. That's the argument behind this thread and I've yet to hear any argument from the pro-gun side that starts to prove it.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

(Too long for one post!)

Join the club. About to head to parents for Sunday lunch. Will be back later after this.

Actually it doesn't seem to be working for you, crime is still up in the UK last time I checked,

Your source, please? I linked earlier to gun crime being down. I'm pretty certain that Crazylegs has provided stats that say many of our crime rates are below those in the US. I'd have to check.

it's just with a lot of knives. Gun laws don't really make it harder for criminals to have guns, the blackmarket will always keep them in supply.

Incorrect. One source of illegal guns are those obtained through robbery of gun owning people. That's one source the UK gun sellers (the illegal ones) don't have as much.

Gun laws just mean that only criminals have guns. All the worst shootings take place in "gun free zones" where it is only the law abiding citizens that don't have firearms.

Incorrect. That depends on the gun law. Our laws allow our police to have guns, and trust me our police are heavily watched and under huge scrutiny.

As to gun free zones, most of the UK is a gun free zone by law, and we don't have the worst shootings. We have some, but the frequency isn't nearly as great as it is in the US.

How about we make it harder for criminals to kill people? Now that would be a great solution.

We did that by limiting access to firearms. UK firearm offences are falling.

Yet that argument just makes no sense. As I said before what is the criminal going to do? Telekinetically take your wallet from twenty paces away?

Well, were I that criminal I'd be ordering someone to throw their wallet to me. Fortunately I'm not a criminal, otherwise I'd be rich!

A gunman still has to be close to you to rob you and do you know sambo or something that you have less fear of a knife? A gun is a lot easier to deal with than a knife. I'd deffinitely say your chances are worse against the knife or bat unless your an ex-marine or something or the gunman is an expert marksman. Again the fear of the gun is simply irrational and misplaced. It is the criminal that you should be worried about, not what they are using.

Not my opinion.

Perhaps not, but you have plenty of knife wielding criminals, I hope your cops have a lot of tazers and don't mind getting stabbed...

Several forces deploy tazers and pepper gas these days, and they also have knife-proof vests.

Do you have a spidey sense for psychos then?

That's what I was saying - I don't. I can't pick out the likely rock throwers, and I can't pick out the psychos with guns.

As opposed to the claim that all people who have guns are dangerous psychopaths? I'm a lot less paranoid than you it would seem.

I don't claim that. What I claim is that there's a substantial part of the population I wouldn't trust with guns.

Again, not really true. I could get into the specifics of the tactical situations, the danger and lethality of blunt-force-trauma to the head, relative marskmanship at a distance and evasion techniques but I don't suppose that would convince anyone.

Must admit, my knowledge of that is limited. However, I don't see that it's as relevant to 'more guns in yurp makes it a safer place' as it could be.

Oh no, you deffinitely have a major problem with guns,

Words and my mouth, one put in the other.

an outright irrational fear I'd say. As I said before, a firearm is nothing but metal and plastic, it can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but so can just about anything. Fearing an inanimate object is a waste of time in my opinion, fear the person that wields it. The object they are using makes little difference and I still see no reason for the extra danger assossiated with range. Crimes are up close and personal affairs in most cases, range makes little difference and knives can be thrown after all with about the same accuracy as your average shooter.

Throw a knife, and you'd better have another to hand. A gun is designed to send another bullet straight after, should the user choose. Can't really carry around a decent supply of clubs, can you?

Oh we do, just like we take those things away from those who kill with guns. The difference is we don't take them away from those who don't kill. As I said before, it's about rights and responsibility. Take dangerous things away from those who are irresponsible and dangerous, but there's no reason to take them away from people who are responsible and are not dangerous.

Aye, but as we've said there isn't that same right to bear arms over here. For the most part, we don't need it. Know what? We don't sit in darkened corners muttering about how life would be better if we had a gun each. It doesn't routinely come up in conversations. There aren't many people over here who would want to carry a gun as a percentage of the population as my experience.

Well you seem to have entirely missed the point of that. In actuality the danger of chainsaws comes even from proper use, a slight mistake or circumstance can result in serious injury or death, the same is not the case with firearms and while no you can't run from a bullet you can run from a gun. It's called evasion and cover.

I didn't miss the point. The purpose of a chainsaw is to cut stuff. Sure, it can be dangerous. A gun is there to put holes in people. Give it to an irresponsible person and that's what will happen.

I really hope you wouldn't, for someone with your fear of firearms I wouldn't go anywhere near a range with you on it, it just wounldn't be safe, besides it seems you think we're all psychotics. The problem is your fear of firearms is misplaced, guns may or may not make a place safer or better, but fear of them is completely irrational, just like fear of a car. It's criminals that you have to be concerned with and the UK really has no less violent criminals than the US or significantly lower mortality rates when compared to areas of similar population density.

I'm not scared of guns. It's people that scare me shitless. In a controlled environment, I'd be quite happy to practice with and learn gun use, if that were my preference.

Please quote similar areas of population density, stats, and add in poverty rates. Please use all available figures. There are more factors than simple numbers of people.

You also live in a country where protecting yourself is a crime,

Incorrect. Reasonable force is permitted.

where things like privacy are minimal

Irrelevant, but where do you get this from?

and your rights are restricted.

Which rights?

It's not a right if you don't legally have it as a right. If we wanted guns as a right, we'd vote in someone who would give us those. Democracy and all that.

So if you prefer it there be my guest. I'll sit here and lovingly stroke my rifle, the physical manifestation of my 2nd Ammendment rights. Why will I do this? For no other reason than that I can, which is more than I can say for you I suppose.

The image of you lovingly stroking a rifle will replace the screaming in my nightmares for years to come.

Yes, you've got that right.

We don't to the same extent.

There's no real evidence to say that we actually want it.

Rapscallion