More guns, less crime

[The Mad Rapper]

Oh, you were joking? OK, my turn...

You know that one of these is much cheaper and safer than a gun, right?

No, I wasn't joking in my message, it was a light hearted retort to a silly question. Who am I to give you advise? It's obvious our views are poles apart. Nice come back though

 

[semi-pro waster]

This is what we should have.

We already have the right to defend ourselves, including the right to use deadly force if proportionate - the Castle Doctrine doesn't tend to go beyond that, many of the states where excerpts of legislation are referred to in that article expressly state that the force must be reasonable/justifiable. Now the actual interpretation in courts may be slightly different or more lenient in the USA but the basic premise isn't that far removed from what we currently have. However in the UK there isn't the "stand your ground" clause that some states have allowed for so you would be expected usually to retreat if it was safe to do so - property tends to be replaceable, people don't.

 

[edscdk]

Which is why the burgler will be looking once again to reduce that risk.

I agree, if I rob your house and you confront me, I know my best option not to get injured or caught is to run...

However if I think you have a gun, I would ahve probably brought one with me... and as I cannot outrun a bullet if you confront me and you are armed, my only real option is 1) run and HOPE you dont shoot, or 2)Shoot first..

 

[CaptainComedy]

Tbh I think it's just swings and roundabouts.

But do you honestly think giving a gun to a chav will work in your favour? Give me a break

 

[edscdk]

It may increase gun crime, but will it increase overall crime? That is the key question.

If 100 people are murdered, and all you do with the ban is change the weapon used, where's the benefit?

This also ignores the fact that prior to 1997, we didn't have a major handgun crime problem anyway, at least not one that was at all addressed by the ban.

I'm sure more poeple would die if guns were readily available...

More people would not decide to murder someone as has been pointed out however..

at the very least

1) burglars would have to carry a gun incase the home owner had a gun, and so when confronted by an armed home owner may be more inclined to shoot rather than run
2) there would be accidental shootings
3) its much easier and less effort to kill someone with a gun, so im sure some 'attempted murders' would become murders...

there are probably more I ahve missed...

 

[RimBlock]

The Mad Rapper,

You mention having military training so I would not be too concerned about you having a firearm if it was kept safely at your home, what I would be more concerned about is someone without firearms training having one.

You mentioned waving a gun out the window or firing a warning shot to deture a burgular. What if your neighbour did this and slipped or misshandled the gun resulting in the shot going wild and hitting someone walking by. What if that person was your child.

You also mentioned licensing. What rules would you advocate around the ability of someone to obtain a license.

Would you agree or disagree that if firearms were made legal then there would be a greater opportunity for people to gain access to firearms that were not registered to themselves (via burgulary, robbery etc). If you disagree, how would this be prevented bearing in mind that 'joe public' does not have the firearms training (use or safety) that you have.

I personally agree that firearms should be made available to license holders but I do not currently see a workable way of doing this without putting people at risk of more deadly accidents to themselves or others, more violent confrontations and an escelation between the police and criminals.

What I strongly agree with above all is the 'home is a castle' concept. No one has the right to enter my property without my concent or that of my wife. I believe that I should have the right to make sure they leave regardless of the method (shotgun, broom handle, 10ft polearm, double banana guns). There should be no stipulation that they need to be in one piece or breathing when they exit .

RB

 

[Orcish-Horde]

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Quote:
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war

Never a truer word said and to see it in action you need only look at N Ireland.

the real reason why we are disarmed isn't for our well being, your very naive if you believe that.

the real reason is that you cannot allow slaves to be armed, its simple... its for the governments/elites safety not the public.

Its not for their safety as they are well protected, its more to protect their control. A disarmed population can't confront or challenge government to any real effect, as they can't maintain the large numbers of unarmed protesters for long enough to have an effect on government. An armed population can have a much greater effect with smaller numbers which is easier to maintain over a longer time.

 

[keyser87]

arm the masses? unfortunately the masses are generally retarded. I don't trust a lot of people with a car so giving them a gun for "protection" sounds ludicrous to me.

Gun laws may not reduce crime but I'm pretty sure they reduce murders by gun shot wound.

We've all been out in town and seen two people fight over the most ridiculous of things, lets take any Friday night outside any given club or pub, now imagine if these people had access to guns?

A burglar takes the risk he is going to be beaten with a bat inside a house, attacked by a dog, stabbed with a kitchen knife and hit over the head with a rolling pin. Having a gun in the house won't deter anyone looking for their next fix.

+ just read some comments about how we are slaves and the government doesn't want us to meet them with armed resistance, to these people I say "go back to watching Alex Jones you numpties and thinking 9/11 was an inside job". This argument would be a lot more persuasive if the government were marching us to concentration camps at gun point but what they are actually doing is walking around in high vis jackets with pepper spray.

http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv2n2lott.pdf
Cities with high rates of gun ownership where you can buy a gun in Walmart in the USA have incredibly low levels of crime. People don't even lock their doors at night.

heh taken from the famous 'Door locking Report' of 08 conducted by the ministry of silly walks.

 

[hurfdurf]

Because despite what you may think, most criminals don't want to kill people. What tends to happen in places with strong self defence laws and high weapon ownership is that burglars concentrate on empty houses, not that they go around killing homeowners.

What happens to the statistics in relation to

Armed robbery with a firearm
Drive bys
Unintentional deaths from gun shot wounds
Stray bullet accidents
Firearm confrontations in public.

 

[I get around]

Our licencing system works, it allows people to own guns. But stops idiots who have nowhere proper to store them or too stupid to use them from owning them.
And lets be fair there are a lot of stupid people about.

 

[avec]

Put yourself in the mind of a burglar.

Scenario #1:

Current rules apply.
No guns owned for home defence.
Defending yourself in your own home frowned upon.
High likelihood of getting away with the crime.
Odds very much in your favour in the event of a struggle.

Scenario #2:

New rules apply.
Legal gun ownership for home defence.
Defending yourself in your own home applauded.
Decreased likelihood of getting away with the crime.
Odds no longer in your favour in the event of a struggle.
Knowledge that the owner of the house you're entering could have a gun.

Which scenario is the one you'd rather have as a burglar?

In the mind of a burglar I know I'd certainly not burgle anyone if I thought they might have a gun, the risk is far to high to myself. Most burglars don't want to commit murder, they use weapons to scare people who don't have them, they tilt the odds in their favour. If home owners are able to have guns, the burglar has no such advantage, the risk becomes huge for a very meagre reward.

Yes, burglaries would still happen (but they'd certainly reduce) and gun crime may rise but it would not be anarchy.

If you want to go postal and kill 20 people before killing yourself like some fruit loops do, you're going to be able to do it in a thousand different ways without going anywhere near a gun.

With properly regulated gun ownership you will have accountability. Those legal guns with legal ammunition wont be committing crimes and if they do it's perfectly possible to trace the owners and find out more.

Criminals can get guns, people can go mental, we can't fight back.

 

[ntg]

Why do people equate statistics from another country (USA) to what would happen in UK? Are you oblivious to cultural differences and trends? Don't you think these matter?

A simple example: American's, in general, do not have the drinking problem that is prevalent in many areas of Britain. Most of us, if not all, have experienced fights taking place in pubs/clubs involving drunk people. Would you rather they had guns?

Also, I don't understand the "need" to own a gun? Why do people need to have guns and feel that their liberties are stepped upon simply because they are not allowed to own a rocket launcher?? I understand the right to carry a hunting rifle but that's all. What exactly is the point of owning an instrument that has an only purpose that of killing someone. Protection? Protection from whom? Burglars? So people are comfortable with the idea of killing a burglar? I can't see the use of a gun as a "deterrant" as the point is in using it, e.g. you wouldn't own a gun to deter a burglar unless you are ready to use it. Well, are you ready to kill someone who wants to steal your TV? (maybe you are, maybe you aren't).

To all those that claim that "if everyone had a gun, then burglars would think twice", well, what happens with those that choose NOT to own a gun, are we sitting ducks then as every burglar WILL have a gun? By the way, this notion that criminals who wish to have guns find ways of getting them even if they are illegal, it's ridiculous. Seriously, how many criminals have you seen/heard of carrying guns compared to the amount that will carry guns (chavs ringing a bell?) if it was legally accessible. I feel bad walking down the high street sometimes with all the retarded chavs messing around, nevermind if they were allowed to own guns as well. I feel bad when a fight breaks up in a pub at friday night, nevermind if the drunk idiots carried a gun as well.

Perhaps you should look at gun-crime statistics at countries that do not allow firearms at all for citizens apart from hunting rifles. How come gun crime is extremely low there? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that no one can buy a gun there for any reason whatsoever, would it?

Guns are made to kill people, not protect yourself. If you want to protect your home install a sturdier door, put iron bars outside your windows, put alarms or whatever to discourage the burglar. You don't need to have a gun under your pillow so that in the event someone breaks in then someone will die. What a silly notion.

Oh, and can someone show us the statistics with gun related robberies/muggings etc? Have they gone up or down in places with tighter controls? That would be interesting.

/signing off.

 

[ntg]

Put yourself in the mind of a burglar.

Scenario #1:

Current rules apply.
No guns owned for home defence.
Defending yourself in your own home frowned upon.
High likelihood of getting away with the crime.
Odds very much in your favour in the event of a struggle.

Scenario #2:

New rules apply.
Legal gun ownership for home defence.
Defending yourself in your own home applauded.
Decreased likelihood of getting away with the crime.
Odds no longer in your favour in the event of a struggle.
Knowledge that the owner of the house you're entering could have a gun.

Well in scenario #2, if I was a burglar, I would think "well, everyone carries a gun, so as soon as I break in I will shoot first if I see any movement" whereas in scenario #1 I would think "well no one carries a gun in their homes, so I don't need one, a knife to intimidate them will do and I don't risk of getting my *** shot too"

Guess which scenario has fewer dead people at the end of the day? Burglars will burgle, junkies and addicts will commit crime, that won't change because you and I are carrying weapons. Idiots will continue breeding no matter what.

Oh, by the way, just because you are a burglar it doesn't mean you have easy access to weapons, that is a perpetuated myth that every outlaw can get a gun easily.

At any rate, I - as a citizen - am not willing to kill someone or increase the chances of getting killed by someone, which is very possible to happen if burglars think you have a gun (i.e. come in armed and ready to shoot).

Do you think robberies and burglaries have gone down in places where guns are legally owned and carried? It would be interesting to check that.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

So people are comfortable with the idea of killing a burglar?

I'm comfortable with shooting a burglar. If he dies, he dies. If he doesn't, then it's taught him a lesson.

You think that a burglar is more likely to take a gun if he believes the home owner to be armed, but it doesn't seem to occur to you that the burglar may consider the risk to not be worth the reward?

 

[FoxEye]

T.M. Rapper, would you rather shoot a burglar than have your telly, PC and other stuff nicked?

Or would you rather that no one got hurt, because possessions are just inanimate objects, and you've got insurance anyhow?

 

[Adsta]

I for one support having guns avaliable with permits etc. The only thing that would also be needed is some shooting ranges so you can practise.

That said it could all completely go to hell and we end up with teenagers thinking they can get away GTA style things.

Infact sod it this is England, its the nanny nation just ban everything ! that will solve all our problems

/end of pointless rant

 

[Repta]

You also mentioned licensing. What rules would you advocate around the ability of someone to obtain a license.

In NI, they've tighten up who they are allowing licenses and who can renew theirs. You need to be a member of a gun club and compete in x (cant remember the number) competitions for that club a year. Pretty good way to ensure that people that own them are properly trained and stops people owning a gun just because they like the idea, want to boast to mates or whatever other silly reason people come up with

Edit, that is for handguns, not sure about other firearms.

 

[etom]

while i love the idea of shooting people up when they stumble into my back garden drunk or whatever, in reality i think the current weapon laws are fine and without a gun culture like the US or national service like some scandanavian (sp?) countries it would be to unsafe.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

T.M. Rapper, would you rather shoot a burglar than have your telly, PC and other stuff nicked?

Or would you rather that no one got hurt, because possessions are just inanimate objects, and you've got insurance anyhow?

It's not about possessions, as you say, I have insurance. It's about stopping someone who has or is trying to illegally enter my home. How often do we read in the papers about people waking to find burglars in their bedrooms? I just don't want any of my family to get hurt.

I have a million candle power torch and a claw hammer by my bed, but it really isn't enough.

 

[avec]

Well in scenario #2, if I was a burglar, I would think "well, everyone carries a gun, so as soon as I break in I will shoot first if I see any movement" whereas in scenario #1 I would think "well no one carries a gun in their homes, so I don't need one, a knife to intimidate them will do and I don't risk of getting my *** shot too"

Guess which scenario has fewer dead people at the end of the day? Burglars will burgle, junkies and addicts will commit crime, that won't change because you and I are carrying weapons. Idiots will continue breeding no matter what.

Oh, by the way, just because you are a burglar it doesn't mean you have easy access to weapons, that is a perpetuated myth that every outlaw can get a gun easily.

At any rate, I - as a citizen - am not willing to kill someone or increase the chances of getting killed by someone, which is very possible to happen if burglars think you have a gun (i.e. come in armed and ready to shoot).

Do you think robberies and burglaries have gone down in places where guns are legally owned and carried? It would be interesting to check that.

So now you've escalated from a burglar to a murderer. Most burglars aren't up for such high stakes, they burgle because it's a largely penalty free crime. Even if they get caught they don't go to prison and even if they get caught 10 times they get released early.

They aren't pre-meditated murderers, they are mostly opportunists and opportunists are not going to burgle someone who might have a gun, even if they have a gun themselves.

Junkies are violent/out of control people and their crimes can escalate dramatically. All the more reason for the law abiding public to have the means to defend themselves. I've been stabbed by a junkie before, if I had a gun I could have shot him and he may have paid the ultimate price for being a piece of filth, not caring whether I live or die, willing to do anything just to get a few quid.

There is no respect in this country anymore, gun ownership commands respect. People talk crap and behave like morons towards one another because they feel that no one can do anything about it. Threatening behaviour, assaults and pointless murders occur because the perpetrators have no fear of being hurt, they have no fear of being caught.

A gun would have saved me the anguish of some serious crimes being committed against me. I bet millions of others could say the same thing.