Rifleman Archive

Bashbacharac wrote:

Er.... what's the point in having a big collection of guns at home?

It's something that I collect and enjoy. They are a piece of history. All those weapons are over 60 years old but still functional. I also use to do WW2 re-enactments so they were useful for that too.

Only wondering because in the UK we have a very anti-gun culture (thankfully).

Not sure about the thankful part. Since the banning of firearms in the UK the violent crime rate there has gone up considerably. Crime rates in London is actually worse than even New York City. Which leads to cases where you have victims getting more jail time than the criminals. Case in point is the UK guy in jail for shooting the two guys that broke into his house. The UK prosecutor actually opposed his release from jail on the grounds that he was still a danger to anyone who might break into his house. Maybe it's a cultural difference but that makes no sense to many here in the US.

In the US we have the right to self defense. That means you can use deadly force to protect yourself or the life of another in certain situations. It is a right that no longer applies in the UK. But it did at one time. It has only been in the last 100 years that the Brits have lost their ability to protect themselves. After centuries of being guaranteed to do so. I think that right was even enshrined in the Magna Carta to some extent.

One thing to remember, the US firearms culture started the same as the UK's. When the US was formed the right to carry weapons was required because of their experience while part of the British Empire. The American Revolution started because of the British attempt at restricting firearms. I know many are taught that it was a tax revolt, and that was a big part of it. But the actual war started when British troops were attempting to seize the weapons from a militia inConcord. American culture has been based around threindividual more so than the group. One way to ensure the ability of the individual to protect themselves is to keep them armed. The US Bill of Rights guarantees this with the Second Ammendment. This serves to purposes. At the time there was no standing army, the people (militia) were the arming. It also protected the people against tyranny. Since a tyrannical government will be hard pressed to survive and oppress an armed citizenry.

Actually most cultures that have banned guns have either had an increase in violent crime since the criminals feel safer or the government has confiscated the weapons and murdered large numbers of their own people.

In the UN arms control debate they talked about banning small arms to make the world safer. Yet there own data shows that more people were murdered by governments than by armed civilians.

Yes the school shooting in the UK was traumatic and tragic. But do you always ban things that were illegally used and killed someone? If so why are there still cars in the UK.

Do you use these things?

Yes. They all work and some I've even restored.

Do you kill things with them?

Some of them can be used for hunting. I do take them to the range on occasion and shoot them.

Or do you just sit up late at night stroking them?

No. But even if not used you need to take them out every couple of months to clean and oil them. They are also an investment. Some of them have doubled in value since I've held them.

Message Edited by Waste93 on 07-22-2004 04:46 PM

Bashbacharac wrote:

Good lord, I've made this one lurch off topic!

True. Maybe we should move this to another thread?

But anyway, I can quite see your point of view. A few responses though... The Tony Martin case (the farmer who shot intruders) is not particularly clear cut. As much as I can condone using force to defend yourself (and any Burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night's gonna get a plank wrapped around his head), in this case Martin shot the kid in the back. Meaning he was running away . Self defense? Your guess is as good as mine, but the police thought that the kid had seen the gun, and tried to flee. Clearly (and understandably) Martin was so angry that he shot this person... however, had there been no gun, there would have been no shooting. On the other hand, had there been no gun, would the burglars have run away? Would Martin himself have got attacked? Like I said, its a difficult one to call.

The fact that he was shotin the back is not conclusive proof that he was running away. I work in law enforcement and could give you examples of people being shot in places that didn't make sense at first. He could have heard another noise and started to turn, he could have been going for a light switch, his friend could have said something making him turn, he could have tripped over a cat, etc. He could have been turning for any number of reasons. However you also have to look that there is also absolutely no right to self defense in the UK anymore are articulated by the prosecutors (solicitors). You also have that rather foolish statement by those opposing Martins release that he was still a danger to burglars. If I remember correctly, there were two burglars. One was killed and the other wounded. The wounded one is already out of jail. Wasn't he also suing Martin for emotional and physical distress?

One other thing about the Martin case. He has been repeatedly robbed. Nor was it these kids first time robbing him.

But as you say what would have happened if he did not have a firearm? It's a guess. He might have been attacked he might not have been. Which is a big difference between the US and the UK in a point of law. In the US he probably wouldn't have been indicted since self defense relies upon a reasonable fear of life. Which in this case wouldn't be that hard since he had been a repeated victim and both burglars were younger and more likely stronger than Martin.

But in the UK that wasn't relevant since there is no right to self defense. In the Martin case the self defense arguement couldn't even really be used since there is no longer such a right.

That violent crime is on the increase is a damning indictment of our society, although it must be said that it is not uncontrollably increasing. But with guns off the street, at least there is less chance of getting shot by some mixed up kid. And we all know the damage mixed up kids can do; just look at your high school massacres. Would these have happened if their parents didn't own guns, and they had no way of obtaining them? No.

Again not quite true. Violent crime involving weapons has had a dramatic increase in the UK. There are actually more guns on the streets there now then there were before. Many of these weapons are also full autos from the stockpiles of collapsed Eastern European countries. Gang related crimes in the UK have gone up dramatically.The reason being that those that followed the law and turned in their weapons were those that were not likely to use them for crimes anyways. Those that have them now feel safer to use them since they know that the people the assault, rob, rape, etc are very unlikely to have the means to defend themselves. A clear indicator is the rapid increase on home invasions while the owners are home. The invaders have no fear of entering a residence since they know the person shouldn't be armed. In the US the number of home invasions in those areas where firearms are not heavily restricted are much lower. The criminal wants to steal property and maybe assault or rape people. They don't want to die.

As for the school shootings in the US. You make a couple of flawed assumptions. There is no indication that having a firearm at home led to these. Also there are plenty of illegal ways to obtain firearms. One thing to remember is that 30-40 years ago it wasn't uncommon for kids to bring firearms to schools and leave them in their vehicles. Also if the availability of firearms is what causes the shootings, then why have there been no shootings at gun shows like this? The reason that you see school shootings isn't the guns, it's how the media covers them. Any nut that wants to make a scene goes to kill children because they are kids which the media will cover and because they have little fear of being stopped by anyone at the school since it's highly unlikely anyone there will be armed and able to stop them.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if no one has a gun, then no one's going to get shot.

The most common murder weapon in the Soviet Union prior to the collapse was the hammer. Sure no one would get shot, instead they would be stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. Samuel Colt was correct in stating that the firearm is the great equilizer. As other weapons rely on physical strength, the firearm does not. So it allows the weak to defend themselves from the strong if neccessary.

Having the right to protect yourself is all well and good, but then it comes down to theold 'my gun's bigger than yours' argument, andfor a perfect way of condemningthat, think nuclear weapons.

Actually your example proves my point. Atomic weapons were a deterent. They prevented a full scale war like those seen in 1914 and 1939. The consequences were to drastic for that scale of combat to occur between nations. So you ended up with much smaller brush wars. Same thing with firearms. In a study done by John Lott in the US, he found that most cases where a firearm prevented a crime they were never reported. In this study it was shown that over 90% of the time the weapon only had to be displayed to stop the crime. The number of crimes prevented in the US this way was between 2-10 million. The number of crimes commited with firearms is well under 1 million.

So though people say "But is it worth it if it costs one innocent person their life ?" The response is should be "But what if it were to save the lives of two or more ?"

However, had I been a victim of armed robbery, i might well change my mind! There's certainly a few unprintable things I'd like to do to the thugs who robbed my 90 year old grandmother (thankfully without any violence).

Again it should be everyones choice. But what if your grandmother only had to display a firearm to stop the attackers?

SpawnofHell wrote:

american 5-6 times bigger than UK meaning any stats cant be directly converted over as there will be errors.

Actually no. The stats I was using were per capita. That means the population sizes were taken into account as per capita stats are the number of occurances per a certain number of population. Usually 10k. So a per capita crime rate of say 4.5 would mean 4.5 crimes per 10,000 people. It isn't just a comparison of raw numbers and makes the comparrison valid.

america is wrong weapon are not good allow the use of them is not good you allowing people to care legal weapon of small destruction to be carried around in your pocket.

That is your opinion. I can easily show where the carrying of arms if good. In fact it was that carrying of arms that allowed the US to form when it did. Also most states in the US now have concealed carry laws. In those states that have them, the crime rate of violent crimeshas dropped faster than the national average.

I can also point to Switzerland. Where they have a higher rate of firearm possession than even the US. Also those weapons are assault rifles (capable of full auto or burst fire). Yet doesn't Switzerland have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe?

Weapons are just tools. They are the same as a car or any other tool. They are not inherently good or evil. Only the use people put them to use determines what is good or evil. But that makes the person good or evil. Not the tool.

i dont mind people having the odd gun sitting up in the wall to remind the of a bloody awful war that the american played little to no part and still claim victory for "helping" us out,

Not sure which war you are talking about here. Can't be WWII. WWI maybe?

i dont mind that if there disabled like no bullet or some other way that all good. if u really want to defend yourself get real security system take up some form of unarmed combat aka (krate judo etc) or even self defense classes america so famed about. this will allow u to take them down the intrude with no leathal force

This is going to depend on the physical characteristics of the person. Regardless of training, an elderly person would be hard pressed to take down an average teenager or young adult. Nor will a disabled person be able to defend themselves. Unarmed defenses that rely on physical power do not work for the most part. They are not nearly as effective as some think. Most martial arts will work to a limited degree as long as you can keep the opponent at arms length. Once someone is inside that range and grapples then it degenerates to a free for all. I use to watch competitions in college of Judo vs wrestlers. Judo did fine until the wrestler got a grip on the Judo person. Then the Judo was pretty useless since they were rolling on the ground which is the wrestlers natural habitat. But if the Judo stayed on their feet the wrestler could be thrown.

Also martial arts is not a non-lethal force. You are taught how to break bones, pressure points,and dislocate joints. That can be lethal. It may be less lethal that a firearm, but it is also less effective in acomplishing it's goal. Don't forget that many defensive uses of firearms only involves showing the weapon. Not actually firing it. That is much less lethal than a martial art. Most burglars won't stick around if they hear a shotgun being racked. It makes a very distinct sound that most people recognize.

over here in ireland u go into someone house ull be shot down we know it crime rate over here only on old people and the young everyone else can defend themself do. only rarity r these crimes done. the most popular crimes over here r burning out cars houses and just destroy property.

that case of the buglars is a very unsual case a lot of people agree and disagree with the judge that judge had a lot of pressure on himself.

the right to defend urself doesnt give u the right to kill we do have the right to fight back and defend if not disable. not to kill this man seriously didnt just defend himself but start to try (or did) kill one of them this is so not what defend yourself is this man was taking revenge not just fighting back and so they judge in my eye made the right choose though with so many factorys it was going to be a lose lose for what ever call the judge made.

Actually it does. You have the right to defend yourself and if that requires the killing of someone then you are within your right to do so. It comes down to this, everyone has the right to life. However you forfeit that right in certain cases. There is an old saying "The right of my fist stops at the tip of your nose". Whenever you defend yourself you should always be prepared to kill the other person. Anything less than that will leave you in a worse position than if you did nothing. Trying to only disable someone is difficult and increases the risk to youself since you will hesitate, second guess yourself, and pull back from the attack leaving openings for the opponent. In combat situations you don't want to think, you want to react. It's why soldiers are trained the way they are. They are taught to react in combat. Yes you think prior to going into combat, you plan, set tactics, etc. But once in combat you want to react. If you are thinking you are hesitating, and that can get you killed.

Of course you have the right to choose not to defend yourself if you so desire.

sorry about the seriously bad english its late (early over here) 4:45 am and its so load of rubbish i started to get angry also im dsylexic (sp?) .

Again that is your opinion and it could be a cultural difference.

well my conculision and 2 cents america is not uk and will never be the uk vice verusa.

No they aren't. However it is an interesting comparrison since they were the same basically a little over 200 years ago. My personal question was always when did the colonies lose their British accent. And did Canada lose it around the same time or did they keep it longer since they were in the Commonwealth til recently.

Message Edited by NoahD2000 on 07-26-2004 01:15 PM