Jump to content


Photo

Mass Shooting


  • Please log in to reply
518 replies to this topic

#361 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,040 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0236 AM

 

 

 

Yes, I think they ought to be legalized as well. Maybe young people would feel less need to carry knives.

Don't suggest tools that are useful if you also aren't allowed those for the same absurd reasons. It's patently disingenuous.

 

 
Can you say that again in English please? Its all but incomprehensible.

 


You're not allowed to own/possess/carry mace or spray as they are also considered offensive weapons correct?

Why then suggest that those are a useful alternative if they're also proscribed from ownership/use by the little people?  

Clearly your betters have decided that such things are not within your ability to competently use without hurting yourselves or misusing.


Make no mistake, I have no illusions that what Parliament suggests and passes as laws as being in the same sphere or reality as common sense.

 

 

Because they are better alternatives than young people carrying around knives. We have already had an upswing in young women carrying knives as well, ostensibly because they are holding them for gangs and they wont be searched. There are of course other explanations, such as they are as scared for their own safety as everyone else.

 

Just because its not subscribed to by the elites as a solution, doesn't mean its not the solution. Parliament doesn't endorse legalizing cannabis either, which just goes to show how monumentally out of touch with the 21st Century they are.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 15 August 2019 - 0240 AM.

  • 0

#362 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,561 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0603 AM

If only they banned drugs, then the drug dealers wouldn't have them.

;)


All guns start off their 'lives' as legal guns. That is not the case with illicit drugs.
  • 0

#363 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,561 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0608 AM

Yes, I think they ought to be legalized as well. Maybe young people would feel less need to carry knives.

Don't suggest tools that are useful if you also aren't allowed those for the same absurd reasons. It's patently disingenuous.
 
Can you say that again in English please? Its all but incomprehensible.
You're not allowed to own/possess/carry mace or spray as they are also considered offensive weapons correct?

Why then suggest that those are a useful alternative if they're also proscribed from ownership/use by the little people?  

Clearly your betters have decided that such things are not within your ability to competently use without hurting yourselves or misusing.


Make no mistake, I have no illusions that what Parliament suggests and passes as laws as being in the same sphere or reality as common sense.

Your consistent use of this phrase indicates a pretty strong emotional source for your arguments stemming from an inferiority complex.

You could make this argument about anything you disagree with.
  • 0

#364 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0620 AM

Because they are better alternatives than young people carrying around knives. We have already had an upswing in young women carrying knives as well, ostensibly because they are holding them for gangs and they wont be searched. There are of course other explanations, such as they are as scared for their own safety as everyone else.


Here in the States, the rapid growth of handgun ownership followed the substantial rise in violent crime in the 1960s, and again in the late 1980s. The causality is exactly opposite what the politicians claim.

IMHO, when otherwise normal people start arming themselves, its a sign that the legal system has let things go for quite awhile.


  • 0

#365 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,040 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0625 AM

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem. Im not arguing against that mindset, its your country, im just saying we dont have to slavishly follow suit when there are alternatives that, for us at least, might be better ones.

 

Its worth noting the rise in crime only occurred after fairly clueless members of the British Government of the day felt they could do with 20000 less police in harness. To my mind actually replacing those people on the beat might be an ideal  solution to the problem. If that doesn't work, yes, giving people pepper sprays should be the next stop.


  • 0

#366 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0932 AM

 

All guns start off their 'lives' as legal guns. That is not the case with illicit drugs.

 

All synthetic drugs start their life as legal precursors. Ban chemistry.


Edited by bojan, 15 August 2019 - 0932 AM.

  • 0

#367 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0933 AM

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem....

 

I don't think it is solution, but I don't think it contributes to that problem. So why impose additional control? Because "feel-good"?


Edited by bojan, 15 August 2019 - 0934 AM.

  • 0

#368 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,766 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0940 AM

On a serious note;

Some kind of big shootout in Philly, narcotics officers serving a warrant. I have read that warrant service is the most dangerous aspect of policing*.

https://pjmedia.com/...oter-situation/
 

UPDATE 6:09 p.m. EST: Police say the altercation began when narcotics officers attempted to serve a warrant. Fox 29 is reporting that six officers have been shot and a seventh was injured in an automobile accident. Local sources are saying that the injuries are all "non-life-threatening" at this point.

* In terms of getting shot, I would assume. LEOs get run over all the time on the side of the highway, at a rate which I find disturbing.
 

It's pretty darn dangerous.  


  • 0

#369 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0952 AM

YNamCgO.png


  • 0

#370 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,040 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1056 AM

 

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem....

 

I don't think it is solution, but I don't think it contributes to that problem. So why impose additional control? Because "feel-good"?

 

 

I was talking about the situation in the UK there.


  • 0

#371 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1128 AM

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem. Im not arguing against that mindset, its your country, im just saying we dont have to slavishly follow suit when there are alternatives that, for us at least, might be better ones.


 

I rather feel you folks should double down and demonstrate how guns are not the solution by disarming the special police units, and getting rid of your military forces save for the honor guards.  There might be a better way than violence you know. Give them mace and tazers. That's better right?

 

Its worth noting the rise in crime only occurred after fairly clueless members of the British Government of the day felt they could do with 20000 less police in harness. To my mind actually replacing those people on the beat might be an ideal  solution to the problem. If that doesn't work, yes, giving people pepper sprays should be the next stop.


You don't say.

Get rid of cops. Don't prosecute crimes. Ban Guns because of crime. Crime goes up. Ban Knives. Crime goes up.

How do you say "follow the bouncing ball" in the Queen's English?

Edited by rmgill, 15 August 2019 - 1131 AM.

  • 0

#372 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,040 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1203 PM

 

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem. Im not arguing against that mindset, its your country, im just saying we dont have to slavishly follow suit when there are alternatives that, for us at least, might be better ones.


 

I rather feel you folks should double down and demonstrate how guns are not the solution by disarming the special police units, and getting rid of your military forces save for the honor guards.  There might be a better way than violence you know. Give them mace and tazers. That's better right?

 

Its worth noting the rise in crime only occurred after fairly clueless members of the British Government of the day felt they could do with 20000 less police in harness. To my mind actually replacing those people on the beat might be an ideal  solution to the problem. If that doesn't work, yes, giving people pepper sprays should be the next stop.


You don't say.

Get rid of cops. Don't prosecute crimes. Ban Guns because of crime. Crime goes up. Ban Knives. Crime goes up.

How do you say "follow the bouncing ball" in the Queen's English?

 

 

I dont know why I always get into these discussions, one minute we are discussing things civilly and then you go off into an absurdist rant. I recognise there is a difference between a battlefield and home defence. Otherwise Id have a Chieftain tank in the back garden, and go to bed with a fucking flamethrower.


  • 0

#373 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1425 PM

I'm not going into an absurdist rant. That's your purview. I'm just expecting you to dogfood your own arguments and positions. I'm demanding that you be intellectually consistent. 

If tasers and pepper spray are good enough for civilian people, they're good enough for civilian law enforcement. Your police aren't on a battlefield every day are they? Well, if they're not, then they have zero need for battle field weapons. That's not my argument, that's the argument of the gun control folks. 

You repeatedly say that guns are not the answer to a variety of incidents. Well, then, if that's the case then why have cops armed with guns? Do cops get targeted by the criminal elements or is it the citizens? If it's the latter then why a difference in means of defense? 

If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander. 


  • 0

#374 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,319 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1452 PM

 

You guys feel handgun ownership is the solution to that particular problem. Im not arguing against that mindset, its your country, im just saying we dont have to slavishly follow suit when there are alternatives that, for us at least, might be better ones.


 

I rather feel you folks should double down and demonstrate how guns are not the solution by disarming the special police units, and getting rid of your military forces save for the honor guards.  There might be a better way than violence you know. Give them mace and tazers. That's better right?

 

Its worth noting the rise in crime only occurred after fairly clueless members of the British Government of the day felt they could do with 20000 less police in harness. To my mind actually replacing those people on the beat might be an ideal  solution to the problem. If that doesn't work, yes, giving people pepper sprays should be the next stop.


You don't say.

Get rid of cops. Don't prosecute crimes. Ban Guns because of crime. Crime goes up. Ban Knives. Crime goes up.

How do you say "follow the bouncing ball" in the Queen's English?

 

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

Special police units with guns exist in pretty much every country in the world. No one is talking about banning them. Their role is generally to respond to incidents involving, or potentially involving weapons, or in certain cases to provide a level of deterrence against such incidents. I don't see what their existence has to do with the possession of firearms by civilians for defensive purposes - that's whole different argument.

 

On the gun crime going up after banning certain categories of gun argument, as guns were not held for, and were not allowed to be used for defensive purposes except in highly unusual circumstances, there is simply no case for arguing for causation. A .38 Super M1911 held by a target shooter in Norfolk for IPSC would not have deterred a gang member in Moss Side. Yes, gun crime exists in the UK, but we are talking a very small number of criminals, many of them sharing or renting the same guns. We can never eliminate the very small pool of guns necessary for a small pool of criminals, nor the potential for the occasional crime of passion with a shotgun or hunting rifle. In England and Wales (population 56 million) we are talking something like 30-50 people being killed with guns a year. For example in 2017 it was 31. This is simply not a statistically significant cause of death.

 

https://researchbrie...7654#fullreport

 

Again, you appear to be arguing that banning knives caused a rise in crime and that having more knives out there would result in less crime. We haven't had a tradition of having a knife on one's person or in one's home for self defence, or been able to carry a knife for that purpose for so long that arguing knife crime has recently increased because of a ban on knives is clearly non sequitur. That's even if you accept that a hidden knife is somehow a deterrent to someone using a knife on you, which I really don't for the vast majority of people. 

 

Remember, I'm someone who really likes guns and knives and is very happy that you and your ilk have them Ryan. I also used to be what you would call a "gun rights activist". If I felt the societal benefits of arming the general populace for their own defence here outweighed the potential for harm, I'd be arguing for it now. 


  • 0

#375 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1504 PM

OK, I'll bite.
 
Special police units with guns exist in pretty much every country in the world. No one is talking about banning them. Their role is generally to respond to incidents involving, or potentially involving weapons, or in certain cases to provide a level of deterrence against such incidents. I don't see what their existence has to do with the possession of firearms by civilians for defensive purposes - that's whole different argument.


Is the tool effective and useful in a civilian setting? If yes then that's a factor whether the person is a cop or a non-cop.
 

On the gun crime going up after banning certain categories of gun argument, as guns were not held for, and were not allowed to be used for defensive purposes except in highly unusual circumstances, there is simply no case for arguing for causation. A .38 Super M1911 held by a target shooter in Norfolk for IPSC would not have deterred a gang member in Moss Side.


Part of the problem is that you don't allow self defense with arms to begin with. If you did, then such weapons would manifest the same level of deterrence that exists for anyone thinking they can burglarize the property at #10 Downing Street or mug the blonde guy getting into a car.
 

Again, you appear to be arguing that banning knives caused a rise in crime and that having more knives out there would result in less crime.


No, I'm pointing out that the focus is NOT on the criminals, but on the objects the criminals use, and more expansively the people who aren't committing the crimesin the first place.

You as a former gun owner were never a factor for violent crime in the UK. Some guy with a long rap sheet is. If you lived in a high crime area and had the facility to use a firearm for self defense, that would have two effects.
1. The criminals would be more suspect of who they preyed upon
and
2. if they did prey upon you there'd be a bloody good chance you'd remove them from the pool of predatory criminals.

Moreover, if the police were locking up the violent/predatory criminals as their PRIMARY and most important focus, then you'd see rather less of the knife crime, rare gun crime and drain cleaner crime/acid attacks, as well as the other rather unsavory beatings and such. Instead we see how such and such Police have shown up and threatened someone with arrest for an impolite tweet. At least in the US we're not THAT far down the stupid hole.

Likewise, a friend of mine who's an attorney and who was targeted by the Philly Mayor's office SPECIFICALLY because he had a carry license was never a factor in Philly's crime except for the one time he warded off a thug/homeless dude with a knife. Meanwhile, the guy who was just involved in a shoot out with Philly Police was, he has been a factor for decades in violent crime in Philadelphia. Who got raked over the coals for a non incident? Not the Violent felon.

Maurice Hill, according to multiple news outlets has a violent crime record going back 18 years at least. The crimes range from burglary, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment of another person and gun charges. Many of the charges didn't result in a conviction. This is a clear pattern.

People commit violent crime.
The local city/state/federal government doesn't effectively prosecute those criminals (A felon with a gun should be charged federally, PERIOD).
The same people commit more violent crime, with guns.
No effective prosecution/incarceration.
The same people commit REALLY high profile violent crimes, with guns, the media notices. Everyone is shocked.
The same government officials demand more gun laws to fix the wrong problem.

The dude's name is Maurice Hill. Look him up. I'm sure a copy of his 12 page rap sheet will make it into the news in the next few days.
https://www.inquirer...l-20190815.html

We can see the same behaviors over here of your system in the UK. Some of you have complained about it.

Edited by rmgill, 15 August 2019 - 1515 PM.

  • 0

#376 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,561 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 August 2019 - 0620 AM


 All guns start off their 'lives' as legal guns. That is not the case with illicit drugs.
 

All synthetic drugs start their life as legal precursors. Ban chemistry.

Wait, are you telling me drugs aren't regulated? Is there a constitutional Amendment to keep drugs in Your
Medicine cabinet? Hell its harder to buy cold medicine in some states than guns.
"Ban Chemistry"? Are we suggesting we "ban metallurgy"? That's a pretty sloppy analogy.
  • 0

#377 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,319 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 17 August 2019 - 1616 PM

 

OK, I'll bite.
 
Special police units with guns exist in pretty much every country in the world. No one is talking about banning them. Their role is generally to respond to incidents involving, or potentially involving weapons, or in certain cases to provide a level of deterrence against such incidents. I don't see what their existence has to do with the possession of firearms by civilians for defensive purposes - that's whole different argument.


Is the tool effective and useful in a civilian setting? If yes then that's a factor whether the person is a cop or a non-cop.
 

On the gun crime going up after banning certain categories of gun argument, as guns were not held for, and were not allowed to be used for defensive purposes except in highly unusual circumstances, there is simply no case for arguing for causation. A .38 Super M1911 held by a target shooter in Norfolk for IPSC would not have deterred a gang member in Moss Side.


Part of the problem is that you don't allow self defense with arms to begin with. If you did, then such weapons would manifest the same level of deterrence that exists for anyone thinking they can burglarize the property at #10 Downing Street or mug the blonde guy getting into a car.
 

Again, you appear to be arguing that banning knives caused a rise in crime and that having more knives out there would result in less crime.


No, I'm pointing out that the focus is NOT on the criminals, but on the objects the criminals use, and more expansively the people who aren't committing the crimesin the first place.

You as a former gun owner were never a factor for violent crime in the UK. Some guy with a long rap sheet is. If you lived in a high crime area and had the facility to use a firearm for self defense, that would have two effects.
1. The criminals would be more suspect of who they preyed upon
and
2. if they did prey upon you there'd be a bloody good chance you'd remove them from the pool of predatory criminals.

Moreover, if the police were locking up the violent/predatory criminals as their PRIMARY and most important focus, then you'd see rather less of the knife crime, rare gun crime and drain cleaner crime/acid attacks, as well as the other rather unsavory beatings and such. Instead we see how such and such Police have shown up and threatened someone with arrest for an impolite tweet. At least in the US we're not THAT far down the stupid hole.

Likewise, a friend of mine who's an attorney and who was targeted by the Philly Mayor's office SPECIFICALLY because he had a carry license was never a factor in Philly's crime except for the one time he warded off a thug/homeless dude with a knife. Meanwhile, the guy who was just involved in a shoot out with Philly Police was, he has been a factor for decades in violent crime in Philadelphia. Who got raked over the coals for a non incident? Not the Violent felon.

Maurice Hill, according to multiple news outlets has a violent crime record going back 18 years at least. The crimes range from burglary, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment of another person and gun charges. Many of the charges didn't result in a conviction. This is a clear pattern.

People commit violent crime.
The local city/state/federal government doesn't effectively prosecute those criminals (A felon with a gun should be charged federally, PERIOD).
The same people commit more violent crime, with guns.
No effective prosecution/incarceration.
The same people commit REALLY high profile violent crimes, with guns, the media notices. Everyone is shocked.
The same government officials demand more gun laws to fix the wrong problem.

The dude's name is Maurice Hill. Look him up. I'm sure a copy of his 12 page rap sheet will make it into the news in the next few days.
https://www.inquirer...l-20190815.html

We can see the same behaviors over here of your system in the UK. Some of you have complained about it.

 

 

So, if military style firearms are effective for our security forces, there is no rationale for denying them to civilians for similar purposes? Following that logic there is likewise no reason to prevent members of the public having C4, directional fragmentation weapons, grenade launchers, ATGWs, MANPADS, Trident II D5 etc. We work on the basis that anyone can have anything if the benefit of their having it outweighs the potential risks. Therefore there are private individuals with C4 or fully automatic weapons here that members of police tactical units are not allowed. It comes down to benefits vs risks and each case is risk assessed. A highly trained policeman having a semiauto G36K vs anyone being allowed to have one obviously risk assess very differently.  

 

Yes, I agree with you that there should be a focus on discouraging armed crime. We already have a mandatory 5 year sentence in place for simply being found in possession of a pistol for example.  Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life carries a life sentence. Regardless of legality of possession, I'm for throwing the book at anyone who misuses guns and I'm sure you are too.

 

Allowing firearms, and particularly centrefire semiauto firearms in a concealable/portable format to become all pervasive in society will mean those that want to misuse them will get them. Furthermore, with no disincentive to carry and use and a strong incentive to do so, miscreants would start to carry and use firearms in larger and larger numbers until we hit a new equilibrium which would be somewhere between where we are now and where you are now, on average with the different gun crime rates in localities differing for many of the same reasons they do in the States.

 

Unfortunately, even in a society where guns are pervasive, there is seldom anyone in the right place to use one to stop a miscreant and even if there is, as we have seen, they have a pretty strong incentive to depart the scene, taking any loved ones in their vicinity with them. This is not cowardice on their part, it is simply because security forces showing up at the scene, and anyone else wanting to have a go, won't be able to discriminate between them and the miscreant. There is also the problem that someone with a Glock or AR-15 can drop an awful lot of people before anyone shoots back - if indeed they ever do. Look at the Las Vegas shooting or the "Beltway Sniper", for example. The attacker will have the advantage of choosing the time and place, preparing in advance, surprise and, in the latter case, concealed mobility. Equally obviously, introducing guns into homes where they can be kept loaded and readily accessible is going to make "domestics" a lot more lethal, both for those directly involved and for responders. We also, like it or not, have thousands of people following fundamentalist Islam. Some of those will have recently returned from points East where they were trying to implement their instruction manual. Do we really want to arm them too?

 

Armed burglaries/violent home invasions seldom result in the death of anyone in the UK. Introduce lethal force on the defensive side and again you incentivise the intruder not only to carry but to employ firearms, which is practically unheard of now.

 

In your argument that we are somehow falling into a hole, you also again and again ignore the fact that gun attacks are now practically non-existent, acid attacks incredibly rare and knife attacks are still uncommon and rarely result in deaths, as it is. Of course, if someone pulled out an acid sprayer in a night club and everyone immediately lit him (and numerous bystanders) up that result would somehow be better, especially if it encouraged lots more people to carry guns and use them at the drop of a hat.

 

Someone once pointed out that the UK has a higher level of low level violence than the US. This is true. For instance, despite having only 31 gun murders, we had 1.3 million violent crimes in England and Wales in 2017. Now just sit down and imagine what would happen if you injected small arms into those incidents. Some would be deterred of course, but many would result in deaths, sometimes multiple deaths and life changing injuries, that would not have happened otherwise. Most of us think it would be crazy to go down that route, and with good reason.


  • 0

#378 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 17 August 2019 - 1702 PM

(...)
 
Unfortunately, even in a society where guns are pervasive, there is seldom anyone in the right place to use one to stop a miscreant and even if there is, as we have seen, they have a pretty strong incentive to depart the scene, taking any loved ones in their vicinity with them.
 
(...)


Sorry, Chris, but this is far from true. In the USA many miscreants have been stopped by civilians carrying their licensed guns, and the only case I know of concealed carry users departing the scene because family protection is the last unpleasantness at El Paso.


  • 0

#379 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,561 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 19 August 2019 - 0738 AM

YNamCgO.png


By that standard half of Tanknet FFZ would be red flagged.
  • 0

#380 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 19 August 2019 - 0901 AM

So, if military style firearms are effective for our security forces, there is no rationale for denying them to civilians for similar purposes? Following that logic there is likewise no reason to prevent members of the public having C4, directional fragmentation weapons, grenade launchers, ATGWs, MANPADS, Trident II D5 etc.

British civilian security use "C4, directional fragmentation weapons, grenade launchers, ATGWs, MANPADS, Trident II D5 etc."

Why are you conflating national military with police?



We work on the basis that anyone can have anything if the benefit of their having it outweighs the potential risks. Therefore there are private individuals with C4 or fully automatic weapons here that members of police tactical units are not allowed.

I'm pretty sure there are FAR more useful examples of explosives used in civilian civil engineering than there are for police work. Why do the plod need explosives? Are they gonna use it for traffic enforcement? I guess you've got to make sure they can do dynamic entries on people who make untoward tweets that the Metropolitan Police and the Home office don't approve of. Mr Buttle isn't going to kill himself right?


It comes down to benefits vs risks and each case is risk assessed. A highly trained policeman having a semiauto G36K vs anyone being allowed to have one obviously risk assess very differently.

  

Yes, I agree with you that there should be a focus on discouraging armed crime. We already have a mandatory 5 year sentence in place for simply being found in possession of a pistol for example.  Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life carries a life sentence. Regardless of legality of possession, I'm for throwing the book at anyone who misuses guns and I'm sure you are too.

Allowing firearms, and particularly centrefire semiauto firearms in a concealable/portable format to become all pervasive in society will mean those that want to misuse them will get them.

Simple possession with no harmful intent is VERY different than criminal misuse. You seem to gloss over the fact that the standard that involves dealing with all violent, predatory crime is not very well followed.


I think it's quite arguable that even if you don't allow them, that felons will obtain them. Are various illicit drugs allowed or are then proscribed? How hard is it to get pot and other things?


Unfortunately, even in a society where guns are pervasive, there is seldom anyone in the right place to use one to stop a miscreant and even if there is, as we have seen, they have a pretty strong incentive to depart the scene, taking any loved ones in their vicinity with them. This is not cowardice on their part, it is simply because security forces showing up at the scene, and anyone else wanting to have a go, won't be able to discriminate between them and the miscreant.


There is also the problem that someone with a Glock or AR-15 can drop an awful lot of people before anyone shoots back - if indeed they ever do. Look at the Las Vegas shooting or the "Beltway Sniper", for example.

I have stopped two incidents personally that involved assault one was likely to turn into a homicide, it was certainly aggravated assault. US data on defensive gun use direct contradicts your assertion.

It's more likely that a civilian who's armed is going to come into contact with a felon than is a cop with a G36 who happens to be victimized by them or even just be there when the act occurs.




Look at the Tyler Texas shooting. The civilian saved a bunch of other people. Cops included. He paid for it with his life but he did turn the tide.


Equally obviously, introducing guns into homes where they can be kept loaded and readily accessible is going to make "domestics" a lot more lethal, both for those directly involved and for responders. We also, like it or not, have thousands of people following fundamentalist Islam. Some of those will have recently returned from points East where they were trying to implement their instruction manual. Do we really want to arm them too?

If you have a population that you know is dangerous, why are you importing them? Why not just
 

Armed burglaries/violent home invasions seldom result in the death of anyone in the UK.

When someone is breaking into your home, how do you determine if they're JUST there to burglarize or if they're there to do worse?

After the fact determination of the crime is post game analysis. What's the victim to do? Call a time out and conduct a spot poll?

Introduce lethal force on the defensive side and again you incentivise the intruder not only to carry but to employ firearms, which is practically unheard of now.

Then take the armed police and others away from ALL government facilities so everyone is equal. There is an old english concept that a man's home is his castle. There's a reason for that.

Explicitly denying that for most citizens is a travesty.  

In your argument that we are somehow falling into a hole, you also again and again ignore the fact that gun attacks are now practically non-existent, acid attacks incredibly rare and knife attacks are still uncommon and rarely result in deaths, as it is.


It's not the rarity of guns that's the problem for crime in the UK. It's the question of how rare is violent crime?
 

Someone once pointed out that the UK has a higher level of low level violence than the US. This is true. For instance, despite having only 31 gun murders, we had [font=sans-serif]1.3 million violent crimes in England and Wales in 2017. Now just sit down and imagine what would happen if you injected small arms into those incidents.

Well, if you made SURE that civilians could use them for defense, you'd have fewer violent crimes because you'd be making it far more likely for those violent criminals to be killed by their victims.

IS it better to allow the criminals to keep preying on their victims? Keep robbing, raping, murdering as they choose? I think not.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users