Not really the point though
Why should a properly vetted (background checks, etc) citizen (or subject) be prohibited from owning (or carrying for that matter) whatever he wants? Just because you have a pistol/knife/hammer on your person doesn't mean you're going to go mental and shoot/stab/club everyone to death just because you have it.

It's the countries where the only arms are in the hands of the police that repressing the public is a breeze - think about whats going to happen when the UK economy really grinds to a halt and all the folks feeding off the public teat start getting hungry. It's not going to be pretty and I don't think a stern telling off is going to do the trick.

I still hold a British passport and proud of my heritage but I'm not proud of what my country has turned into and doubt I'll ever go back there to live.

The US has its problems but the founding fathers of this country had it right when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights.

The country is portrayed as a nation of gun nuts but you have to look at who is doing the characterizations though. It's not the wild west here - not by a long shot.

The adage about not needing a gun is best summed up by "when seconds count the police are only minutes away".
(Lurkaloid awarded wanking black belt on, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 15:55, 2 replies)

Fuck off you ignorant twat
The second ammendment was written to allow people to form militias to resist the british army, it has no relevance in today's society.

Compare the massive investigations into the occasional shooting of members of the public by the police in the UK to the recent incident in teh US just before new year when a policeman shot a man in the back as he was prostrate on the floor. He resigned from the force and is therefore untouchable by criminal law.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to carry a firearm in public. Guns are purely designed to fire metal slugs with the purpose of killing things from a distance. That's the long and the short of it.

If you want to use them for sport I think you should be able to keep guns in certain registered places and do all the target shooting you want. Farmers need guns to protect their animals from predators, but joe public doesn't need to carry a handgun with him.

And as for this:
"it's the countries where the only arms are in the hands of the police that repressing the public is a breeze - think about whats going to happen when the UK economy really grinds to a halt and all the folks feeding off the public teat start getting hungry."

Don't be such a fucking drama queen.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 16:17, closed)

Up yours.
If you're going to interpret the bill of rights, read some of the writings of those that came up with it and stop spewing wank. It wasn't about armies or fighting off the British at all. It was inspired by the fact that the king was the be-all and end-all of government power and THAT is why they wanted the populace armed. So they could throw off an unjust government.

Drama queen or not, the UK (and the US) is in for some really hard times before all is said and done. Lets review this in 10 years time and see who was closer to the truth.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not limited to just those the government sees fit.

You may not like it and certainly don't have to agree with it and that's fine but to jump to swearing and name calling sort of belittles the point you're trying to make.
(Lurkaloid awarded wanking black belt on, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 17:23, closed)

If I was discussing this with an informed person I might care
I'm not going to get into an entrenched argument about the second amendment, it's about allowing people to be armed to form militias, it has fuck all to do with the right of someone to carry a handgun around on the streets.

"Why should a properly vetted (background checks, etc) citizen (or subject) be prohibited from owning (or carrying for that matter) whatever he wants? Just because you have a pistol/knife/hammer on your person doesn't mean you're going to go mental and shoot/stab/club everyone to death just because you have it."

If you think it is a right to own a gun, then why should any background checking be necessary? In the US you have the right to free speech, you don't only get that following a background check do you.

Also, the only reason guns exist is to kill things. You can use them for sport, which, as I said before, is fine, but you don't need to carry a gun around with you for any reason other than you think at some stage you are going to have to shoot someone.

In the US lots of people have just gone crazy and shot dozens of people. Allowing guns only for sport (or people that actually need them, like farmers) and making them be kept in a locked place will significantly reduce the number of guns around and therefore school children are less likely to die.

Even having a gun in your house doesn't make you more secure. You're far more likely to shoot a member of your family than any intruder.

And please, the country is not going to descend into chaos and anarchy, there is going to be a rise in unemployment, people will suffer, but it will turn around without everyone needing a gun.

If you're that disappointed in what your country has become, then surrender your passport and stay the fuck away.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 10:42, closed)

The more I read these various posts, the more it seems we're all disagreeing whilst sharing the same viewpoint: Concealed carry is un-neccesary, unrestricted ownership unwise, club ownership acceptable, and historically firearm ownership has balanced (external?) opressive forces.

I think it's a right to own a gun, *if you're responsible*. You see, free speech can't kill someone if abused. A firearm can. And responsible ownership means responsible storage and handling, too.

Background checks are necessary - some people are simply unsuitable. Previous convictions for armed robbery being the clearest example; if they broke the law and endangered others, then they waive one of their rights in exchange for rights of society. People currently suffering certain health problems - like psychiatric disorders affecting impulse control and judgement.

And building on what MichaelS mentioned; Switzerland has seldom been threatened, even in WW2. Now why? Possibly it's becasue every dictator wants an anonymous account in case it all goes arse-up. Possibly it's fear of lederhosen, or fear of the people who would willingly wear them. Possibly it's to avoid all the bloody clocks, chocolate, and cheese.

Or just maybe it's becasue their society (and the landscape) makes an invasion a daunting prospect - there could be active resistance from every hamlet. And it's not just external threats, as far as I'm aware there's no swiss citizens in a swiss Guantanamo, held without charge. No opressive government - theres's no such thing as a Swiss asylum seeker.

As for domesitc shootings, if a possible intruder answers my challenge in a relative's voice; then that'll be a good enough clue for me of an invalid target. I don't intend to shoot at shadows - that would be part of the earlier responsibility I mentioned. This stuff could be taught prior to purchase, just as the military are trained to verify a target.

But all this debate is, in the end, meaningless. It won't alter anything. Can we end the great b3ta gun debate peacefully, and whilst respecting each others viewpoints?
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:40, closed)

I think in reference to your final point
I can only post this


(Bazongaloid, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:53, closed)

Touché!
Sometimes I debate a point without being sure I believe it myself. Thankyou, althegeordie and Musuko, for challenging my position.
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 17:22, closed)

Agreed, Lurkaloid.
Unless it's Friday / Saturday / Any other day of the week; between 6pm - 3am, or longer if it's a 'special occasion'. Then you're lucky to get a response within the hour.

Still, at least this means conscription or national service will never be re-introduced. After all, if apparently we can't be trusted to operate a firearm safely; we'd do sod-all good in the armed forces. How does that lyric go? "So if I can shoot rabbits, Then I can shoot fascists".

Oh, and althegeordie - as long as there are state-controlled armed forces, there will exist the risk of misuse of those forces. Don't think the passing decades have changed human nature.
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 16:19, closed)

Presumably because
If you join the army, you are trained to use your weapon and you are trained to follow orders in a disciplined way. You are not given a gun and sent home to practice are you?

Quoting the Manic Street Preachers should be subject to something akin to Godwins Law.

And with reference to your final point, do you really think that things in the UK will get to the stage where the army starts stealing food from the public at gunpoint?

If so, can I suggest you just head over to the daily mail forums.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 16:42, closed)

It is interesting that in Switzerland:
I believe that all men in a certain age group are in the military and are required to keep their weapons at home. I don’t know if they have any more crime than the UK or a higher murder rate.

I am NOT a believer in people carrying weapons around (even though you can do it in my state (Vermont) without any license or restrictions other than guns being banned in schools and other government buildings), there is no need for it. I do wonder however if a lot of the crazy things that some people do with guns has more to do with the culture of the country they live in and socialization. I would imagine that every Swiss male with a military weapon at home has been fully trained in its use and more importantly, what it actually means to use a weapon versus the yahoo people who go crazy with guns after watching old Rambo movies.
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:00, closed)

The point there being
that everyone with a gun is trained soldier who is legally obliged to undertake a certain amount of training each month. They aren't just any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to own a gun. (edit - sorry this pretty much mirrors the last paragraph of your comment, I didn't read it properly)

They do have a lower crime rate, but I don't think you can just attribute that to the number of guns, Switzerland is a very wealthy country with high education levels, which I'm sure plays a fairly strong role.

Also, on an unrelated note, they are very behind everything being Swiss being better, so if a shop sells Swiss tomatoes at a higher price then imported tomatoes, many people will buy the Swiss ones, just because they are Swiss.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:40, closed)

This is tricky.
You see, I agree with some of your points, and some of his. I'm against public-carry like you. I'm in favour of gun-club ownership like you.

Poor logic of me, I know; and a lazy quote at best. I meant to refer to the ethics rather than the skill. The army recruits from the general public, the same subset of people deemed unreliable for private ownership. But just becasue they're being paid to carry arms does not imbue them with extra mental stability. If it's too dangerous to let someone shoot inanimate objects or vermin, how will they cope with taking another persons life? My argument here is as much for better forces "after-care" as it is for letting people plink targets.

I didn't mean to suggest *our* troops would do things like steal food; even though there are some shocking lapses in discipline in the present day (I'm sure no-one was directly ordered to bully new recruits to death in Deepcut barracks, or abuse prisoners in Iraq; but it happened). The americans had historical problems with an *external* military force, not their own.

edit: And as an aside, police "cover" is an illsuion, just like any other service. You can move in additional help from surrounding areas, but create enough demand and any service will fail.

The miner's strike drew in cover from nationwide and it still wasn't enough to keep complete order; and you can't keep that level of deployment up for long without leaving yourself short elsewhere. I'd like to know the real crime stats from when cover is stretched thin. Even peaceful events place a heavy demand on finite resources (eg. football matches), and if an officer is pulling O/T to cover one, then in theory they're unavailable again until rested.

But I'm getting distracted now, from my original point: If someone breaks onto my house, possibly carrying a weapon, definitely making a deliberate choice to do wrong; why are my options currently limited: Barricading myself away / asking them politely to leave / getting savagely beaten with a claw hammer? Why can't I hold them, (after training and certification) at gunpoint, until officers can arrive to apprehend the criminal?
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 17:30, closed)

"If someone breaks onto my house".

Examine someone's motives for doing this for just a moment. Usually, someone will break into another person's house to steal posessions. A person doing this will have no reason to become violent unless threatened, with violence or capture. Why would you WANT to prompt an intruder into violence for the sake of your posessions? Announce your presence and let them flee. Let them rob you if they don't. Is your life so worthless that you'll risk it for insured goods, or for your pride, or for a worthless principle that you shouldn't be robbed? If you're going to risk your life for something, do it for fun, or for something much more worthwhile than a telly and a laptop!

Getting savagely beaten with a claw hammer? This brings up the other issue here; an unrealistic fear that someone will break into your house for the purpose of deliberately harming/killing you and your family. Psychopaths of that variety are so very, very rare. And where they do occur, don't you think that someone who has planned the attack in advance is going to have the upper hand no matter how much money you spend on guns? You're going to be asleep in your bed, after all, likely until it's too late. The chances of someone randomly picking your home to commit murders just for kicks? Has it ever happened to ANYONE you've ever known, even a friend of a friend of a friend?

Filling your home with guns, putting deadly weapons in close proximity to yourself and your family, exposing yourselves to great risk, just to protect yourself against an extremely unlikely risk?

How about you douse yourself and your family in petrol and walk around with lit matches, so you're ready to protect yourself against the cold in the event of a sudden global ice age? Because that's just as sensible.
(Musuko, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 16:55, closed)