??? Do you have a cite for that? I can’t claim to be an expert in the area, but I’ve read a hell of a lot of fictional and nonfictional works from nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, and I never got the impression that carrying handguns was standard practice for civilian gentlemen.
Hell, even Holmes and Watson didn’t pack heat on most occasions—just when they were heading off to confront the bad guys.
Granted it’s only an Amazon review, but there does seem to be the impression that the British traveling public was often “armed to the teeth” prior to gun control.
Interestingly this page claims British gun control began as a response to fears about communism.
Well ,I assume you’re a good guy. How many bad guys have you taken out? How many have you had the opportunity to take out?
Even something like 1% of cops discharge their pistols in their careers.
Some European countries have rid themselves of guns and they’ve certainly had them around longer than this continent has.
I don’t doubt that they may be fun to shoot at times and that they can be for recreation or hunting, but should we limit what is used to hunt?
Isn’t that also a bit sad and perhaps points to a fault of someone or something’s? (read: society of humanity, let your bias be the guide).
Gun shows are packed after Katrina because people feel they need these things for security. This guy even talks about how he has a gun in the car, which, as fat as I’m concerned, a recipe for disaster.
Is life really that much more different down there after the hurricane? If there were a secutiry force that could provide guaranteed 100% coverage no matter what the disaster, do you think it’d have any effect on the rate of gun ownership?
The gun culture, outside of “I want to own one because it looks cool and never really plan on firing it”, I simply don’t get.
I can see going to a shooting range. It’s not my cup of tea, but I can see it. And I can even see how gun enthusiassts can thrive. If there’s a product, there are bound to be two people that like it, and they’ll find a way to talk about it. Hell, look at customized Japanese import cars (another thing I simply don’t get).
When it’s for collecting, a hobby, or for hunting (cause…you know…hunting is a hobby), I can see it. I can’t fathom the need for one for self defense. Having one just because they have one sounds like a bad idea. That logic, put on the big stage, leads to an arms race and everyone walking around like some hero in a cop movie when he has 15 guns and knives hidden on his body in various places.
True, ammunition can be made, but what percentage of the population knows how to or would even bother with making it? I am also willing to concede that, if ammunition were made illegal, some scoundrels would learn because, dammit, they like their guns. So, would making ammunition VERY expensive make any impact?
Any gun person willing to meet me halfway? I think I’ve made me plenty of compromises here.
Here’s the hairy part: Parroting “the right to bear arms” is not applicable. Yes, it’s in the Constitution, but those WERE different times. You can’t point to that as proof of your position and not acknowledge that it was used for a different time, then cling to it for our times and expect it to stick with equal force.
Also, as a bonus question, would you change “the right to bear arms” clause if you could? I assume it will lead to a resounding “NO!”, but what if compromises are reached? Of course, the NRA wouldn’t stand for any of it. I don’t expect zealots to find a counter argument moving, instead, I’m appealing to the more (seemingly) sensible pro-gun people of the Dope.
Well, to some extent, the self-defense aspect is part of the hobby. A number of people do have a rational use for guns for self-defense (including self-defense against non-human critters). But plenty of others just like to think they need a gun for self-defense, because it’s part of gun mystique and gun culture.
As a non-gun-owner, I certainly would. However, I wouldn’t support any laws banning guns (at least, few or none more stringent than the gun laws we’ve already got in the US).
It’s not gun ownership (by responsible law-abiding people, of course) that I have any problem with. It’s the Second-Amendment-idolizing “Minuteman mindset” that romanticizes any form of gun ownership into some kind of noble heroic defense of freedom.
Like that bumper sticker that says “A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject”. Aw, fuck that noise, you John Wayne wannabe. Your gun doesn’t give you any more real power or independence vis-a-vis the government than anybody else has. If the mean old Nanny State really turned out in force to get you, not even your S&W .500 would win the day. Stop acting as though your gunslinger fantasies have anything to do with the actual responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
So I say, keep the guns, but get rid of the Second Amendment. IMO, gun ownership is perfectly justifiable for a wide variety of reasons. The vast majority of rational people can be trusted with firearms if they’re properly trained and informed about how to deal with them. It’s the self-laudatory bloviating gun-worshiping rhetoric that’s the real danger to society.
What are the justiafiable reasons then?
What is there to fathom? I am less likely to be murdered in my home because I have a gun. This is a positive thing to me. I admit, my murder is very very unlikely with or without me owning a gun. However, neither is me perishing in a house fire, but I still have smoke detectors.
That’s highly debatable.
I am talking about me, a trained firearms user. Not Joe Everyman. The “A gun is X times more likely to kill an innocent person than a bad guy” does not apply to me.
For starters, I live alone, there are never kids in my house, I am not suicidal, and I know how to use a gun properly.
Thats cool, but a lot of hoops to jump through to own it.l
Yeah, it’s a good thng the UK has such restrictive firearms laws…
England has worst crime rate in world
It’s also my understanding that the UK has a much higher incidence of ‘hot’ household burglaries, where the burglars break in while the family is home. It’s easier to find the goodies when you can intimidate a family member to show you where they are. In the U.S., it’s more likely that a burglar will wait until no one is home, to reduce the risk of being shot.
Nope, and they cant own one under current laws
Britain is tiny. And they never had near the number of guns we have.
They get them from a lot of places
No, I’m not. Everyone in my family has owned guns for as long as I can remember. Most of the people I know own guns. None of us have ever shot a family member. Several of us have use guns in self defence, without firing a shot. I have done so twice. Most of the time when guns are used in self defence thats the way it usually works.
The criminal almost always runs when he sees a gun. One of the incidents I mentioned he was armed with a butcher knife. He ran.
I cant. I dont run very fast. Niether can my wife. I’ll just hold him at gun point or shoot him instead, but thanks for the suggestion.
Only if your a moron. Morons shouldn’t own guns, I’ll give you that.
Last I heard, most illegal guns were stolen from homes.
Well, duh. Guys without guns seldom shoot people; it’s hard to throw the bullets fast enough.
Glad to know you are a superhuman who’s finger won’t twitch when surprised.
Most criminals dont have guns. I’m more worried about someone with a knife, or a blunt weapon. A friend of mine used his .45 to save his own life about a week ago. Road rage incident where a guy charged him with a pipe when he got out of his car. He had a carry permit and drew his .45 and held the guy at gun point until the cops got there…
Nothing super human about it. Just takes a little common sense…for instance you dont put you finger on the trigger until you know what you are going to shoot.
People use guns in self defense an awfull lot in this country, rarely do they blow away junior for getting up to pee.
Mind you, I’m not saying that I think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership or use. Just because you happen to be a rational, sensible person doesn’t mean that you should be completely unregulated when it comes to dangerous weapons.
I just don’t think that there’s a plausible case to be made for the position that guns are so dangerous that we should get rid of them. Lots of other things are dangerous and require a good deal of regulation, and nonetheless manage to cause a lot of damage anyway despite the regulation, but we accept that risk. If lots of sane, law-abiding people really want to own guns, I think that we as a democratic society should be willing to accept that risk, within reasonable limits.
But I don’t think that we therefore have to buy the argument that Americans should have a constitutional right to own guns or that gun ownership is somehow specially vital to citizenship. As I say, I think the biggest problem with our gun culture is the widespread fixation on gun ownership as some kind of holy birthright that somehow makes you more of an American or more of a citizen. This is the sort of thing that dangerously distorts the value and role of guns. People who ordinarily wouldn’t own guns, and in some cases shouldn’t own guns, get caught up in their glamor as an iconic symbol of patriotism or independence or masculinity or what have you, and start regarding them primarily as icons, whose paramount purpose is just to be flaunted anywhere and everywhere like flags, instead of as tools with practical purposes and real-life dangers.
Guns ought to be fundamentally regarded in the same common-sensical way as cars and chainsaws and swimming pools and other dangerous items: they’re things many people have a use for but nobody has a sacred right to. Their construction, sale and use should be regulated for safety purposes, but we should not expect to make them totally risk-free, or expect that responsible people who want to own them should have to do without them entirely.
And I say that as a lifelong non-gun-owner who has no intention of ever getting a gun and who would probably never notice any impact in my own life if all guns were banned forever tomorrow, so I don’t think I can be accused of irrational gun-nuttery here.
And if the other guy had a gun, instead of a pipe ?
Which means a criminal with a gun would kill you easily. For that matter, so would the hypothetical “criminal waiting around the corner to grab you” you mentioned earlier.
And I’ve heard the exact opposite, not that I really trust either sides statistics.
He would have shot him or been shot. Better chances than if the guy had a gun and my friend was unarmed.
Nope. It doesnt take much to move your finger from outside the trigger guard to the tigger. But its not going to happen from an inadvertant twitch Yeah, the bad guy can still get you in any case, but you have better odds and thats what its all about. Giving yourself a better chance of defending yourself and your family.
And I’ve heard the exact opposite, not that I really trust either sides statistics.
[/QUOTE]
The old “you’re more likely to kill a family member or friend” comes from a flawed study in which people who lived in the same apartment building were considered family and rival gang leaders and drug dealers were considered friends because they knew each other. It also only counted self defense and when the defender shot the bad guy, which in real life rarely happens. Usually the sight of a draw weapon eands the conflict.
Convenient. You pretty much took the discussion right where I was going to take it, Kimstu.
bdgr, sorry, a place that has people with guns in cars in case of road rage and then holding people with a pipe at bay until the authorities get there is not a place I’m happy being. Next thing, we’ll be singing the praises of vigilantes. A friend of mine got into a car accident many moons ago and didn’t wear his seat belt. The accident was such that if he had worn his belt, he would almost certainly have been very seriously hurt, if not, killed. Pointing out an extreme circumstance in either case isn’t the basis for an argument. You’re merely proving that weird stuff happens sometimes, much as my old friend’s argument against seat belts.
Can we combine 1 and 2?
In that matter, what about 4 and 5?
Any pro gun person want to comment on any subtleties?