Guns,guns, and more Guns

[selectortone]

Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.

Yep. Thus my point earlier about the vast majority of UK citizens wanting to keep the genie in the bottle. Once it's out it will be virtually impossible, as in the USA, to put it back in again.

btw: I used to shoot at a range here in Bournemouth, before the post-Hungerford legislation, so I'm not speaking from complete ignorance when it comes to firearms. The first time I held a rifle was in Hong Kong when I was five in 1956. It was a service issue Lee-Enfield .303 that my RAF Dad was issued with during the Double Ten riots and kept under his bed. He told me under NO circumstances was I to touch it, so of course I took to first opportunity, when he was out, to sneak in there and play cowboys and indians with it. It was unloaded and, fortunately, he never told me where he had hidden the ammunition.

 

[artie]

Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.

A gun won't deter a burglar but an alarm will. ???

Advice from local plod is that burglary's are mostly opportunistic, and sight of an alarm box on your gable will encourage them to seek a quieter target.

Sounds plausible, but what happens when most folk have a box on the gable.

Will the burglars make a rota so they can rob the few unalarmed homes left?

A lot I think depends on what the intruder is seeking. He's unlikely to get into a shootout with you over your DVD collection, on the other hand if he thinks you have a couple of hundred thousand in used notes under the bed he might chance it.

I know it's practically unthinkable in the UK for a young woman to go out on a date with a revolver in her purse.

In some parts of the US it's quite common, and has saved lives.

I know we live in one of the safest regions of the world but there were 695 homicides in England and wales in 2020 and I bet every single one of them in their last moments would have given all they had for a gun and the knowledge of how to use it.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

To invite someone to your house and shoot them dead and pretend they threatened you would be folly. American homicide detectives see a lot of crime scenes and know how to read them.

I didn't intend to present it as a sensible idea - just the emergent consequence of the silly idea of letting people do anything they want to defend their property.

 

[sploo]

This is a false statement. You're not unlikely to be involved in some kind of accident, but that claim relies on calling suicides "accidents". Guns are used defensively in the US a lot. The are, unfortunately, often used for suicides, too. If you are not suicidal, the chance that you will have a gun suicide is pretty low.

I wasn't actually thinking of suicides (though that in itself is a valid issue). Every time I've seen any stats on accidental shootings (by which I mean accidentally injuring yourself, or a family member, or a family member shooting another family member) the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy" (so I do feel the statement was true).

I'll be absolutely honest; if I lived in a high crime area (where firearms were reasonably easy to purchase, but also prevalent amongst criminals) I'll admit I'd seriously consider owning one; but I would still have to concede that the statistics usually show self harm (intentional or accidental) is a much more likely scenario than actually using it to protect yourself.

 

[artie]

I didn't intend to present it as a sensible idea - just the emergent consequence of the silly idea of letting people do anything they want to defend their property.

As has been said before, circumstances are everything.

You come home to find someone making off with the gnome from your garden, it would be hard to justify shooting him.

If someone shot your dog and kicked in your door it would not be prudent to hesitate before dispatching him.

I've heard people talking about the wild west where a man would be executed for horse theft, but to take a mans horse and consign him to travel by foot in some areas would be certain death and the culprit just as culpable as if he had shot him.

 

[sploo]

Gun ownership to discourage intruders will simply encourage intruders to go armed.

I'm sure I read a story some years about a US state (that had a spate of car jackings) allowing victims to use deadly force against attackers; the end result being that car jackers simply starting shooting first rather than risking threatening people and getting themselves shot.

 

[artie]

the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy"

Unfortunately there can be no accurate record of the number of times a gun is used to stop a bad guy.

 

[sploo]

Unfortunately there can be no accurate record of the number of times a gun is used to stop a bad guy.

It's a very good point. Though; there must be some statistics somewhere (and heck, if it were common I'd assume the NRA would make a lot of noise about it). The problem is that any such incident will get a lot of media attention ("brave civilian fights off evil intruder"), but frequent home accidental shootings are less of a story.

 

[Cabinetman]

A few thoughts on gun control for places like the US - just my opinion. They are not going to beat the gun lobby by passing draconian anti gun ownership laws. Instead it is done gradually - my idea is - First point - everyone wishing to own a gun can continue to do so (except convicted criminals etc, 5th amendment or whatever) but must go through a formal application rigmarole and register their details and the details of every gun they own, so a central computerised database can be set up. Anyone caught in posession of an unregistered gun, or a gun with serial number removed, is dealt with harshly - custodial sentence. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed.

Second point - to own a gun you need a licence which you must renew periodically, at a cost, together with certificate from your GP, at another cost (as in UK). Each gun requires a separate certificate, at a cost, with semi-automatic military hardware etc costing much much more for the licence.

Third point - licences gradually increase in cost so that it becomes financially difficult to legally hold multiple weapons, especially mass killing ones. Eventually just owning one might not be worth bothering with.

So basically you try to minimise the legally owned guns, whilst making illegally owned ones easy to identify. I don't know if it would have any effect but could be worth trying.

I emailed President Obama with these ideas - he didn't reply.

Sorry G O, they may be Americans but certainly not stupid, they would eat any proponent of those ideas for breakfast. That was Tony Blair‘s method of control.

 

[John Brown]

I think this is one of those subjects about which nobody is likely to change their mind.
What I find strange, however, is the idea that the US Constitution is written in stone. After all, it has been amended before. Slavery, votes for women... no doubt numerous others. I guess there are no votes in it, though.

 

[Spectric]

What I find strange, however, is the idea that the US Constitution is written in stone.

From what I have read and heard any parts involving the so called NRA are, once you give someone the right to do something it is never going to be easy to retract that right especialy after so many years of having it.

 

[Noel]

This is a very interesting and emotive subject and congratulations to everyone for keeping it civil.

But there's a few incorrect assumptions.

You can't swan into Walmart and put an AR15 in your trolley with the beans. At very least you will be subject to a background check and possibly a waiting period which varies by state, before you can pick it up

It's not ok to shoot someone stealing your TV, you will be in deep dung unless he threatens your life.

Some states have stand you ground laws which means they won't give you much trouble if you defend your self and property.

Others don't and you are expected to run if you can and only defend yourself if cornered.

To invite someone to your house and shoot them dead and pretend they threatened you would be folly. American homicide detectives see a lot of crime scenes and know how to read them.

With the exception of gun fair sales where no background, history or mental health status checks are required providing both vendor and buyer are same state residents.
I think some states have prohibited such things but many still allow it. A few recent well known court cases have highlighted just how easy it is for anybody to obtain weapons via this method.

 

[shed9]

I know we live in one of the safest regions of the world but there were 695 homicides in England and wales in 2020 and I bet every single one of them in their last moments would have given all they had for a gun and the knowledge of how to use it.

Of those 695;

275 (39.6%) were killed by a sharp instrument (this is typical year on year). 23 of those were 17 or younger.​

115 (16.6%) victims were killed by hitting and / or kicking.​

45 (6.5%) were under the age of 16.​

31 (4.5%) were killed by strangulation / asphyxiation.​

39 (5.6%) were refugees left to die in the back of a lorry.​

A third of all victims were under the influence of a substance with 19% on alcohol, 7% on illicit drugs and a further 7% on both.​

Only 30 (4.3%) were killed with firearms.​

​

Does a gun in the majority of those statistics present a reversal of situation in 'every single one of them'? Perhaps we should arm children with firearms? Just what use would the refugees have with a gun in that position? I also question the rationale and the outcome of placing guns into a situation where the victim is intoxicated. Additionally how may times was the victim was the original assailant (albeit I expect that number to be very small, but possible none the less). The whole suggestion of placing a gun into a situation without any understanding of circumstance is sheer ignorance. Homicides are most likely to occur within a residential setting so that means that having access to a gun to prevent a homicide essentially means placing guns in homes. Of the female victims, they were more commonly killed by a partner, ex-partner or a member of family, again with almost half killed in a domestic setting. The reason women are so readily stabbed in these situations is because a knife is to hand and is common place in the home. Now imagine putting guns in the home as common place as knives?

You're more likely to be a victim of COVID than homicide (especially by firearm) so get that shot instead

Guns beyond controlled sport and land management have no place in the home or society. It really is that simple.

​

 

[GweithdyDU]

Like heroin? Wow. Totally naive.

Actually, pure heroin is not a drug that normally kills. A greater percentage of alcohol drinkers will die from their addiction that smack heads. The City is run on heroin and amphetamines which is likely why they won't introduce testing. The biggest societal problem with heroin (IMO) is poor users not being able to sustain their habit without being a thieving little toe-rag. Second biggest problem (IMO) (and often related to the first) is that the drug gets cut, which lleads to two issues. Firstly, what it is cut with is often more dangerous than the damn heroin, and secondly, when pure, or at least less doctored than is usual heroin is available and a user takes the same amount as they normally do, it becomes an overdose.

I've spent many years working as a mentor to both drug and alcohol addicts, and agree that many do succeed in giving up and lead great productive lives. Many end up doing drug rehab and educational work and their insight is very useful.

One thing I don't get though is injecting addicts that use street drugs but won't have a Covid vaccine because they don't trust the scientists or even the science. Mad when one consider this means they trust a street-dealer of illegal drugs more than a pharmacologist/epidemiologist who is happy to put their name to their work!

Who'd have thought a woodworking forum would throw up such interesting debates on societal issues? Brilliant!

 

[artie]

It's a very good point. Though; there must be some statistics somewhere (and heck, if it were common I'd assume the NRA would make a lot of noise about it). The problem is that any such incident will get a lot of media attention ("brave civilian fights off evil intruder"), but frequent home accidental shootings are less of a story.

Yes, I get your point and I'm sure it happens quite a bit but it's mostly anecdotal.

There are I'm sure some people who make the news because they used a legal firearm to stop a robbery or home invasion.

I'm also quite sure that illegal arms are used for the same reason but not reported.

The fact that people know you carry a gun may have the effect of discouraging an attack.

I talked to a guy in Vermont a number of years ago.

He had a Colt 1911 .45acp semiautomatic pistol in a holster on his belt he said he wore it when he went to town and had never been messed with.

Impossible to know if it discouraged any or how many.

 

[artie]

With the exception of gun fair sales where no background, history or mental health status checks are required providing both vendor and buyer are same state residents.

Only if it's a private sale.

A FFL still has to do a background check.

 

[artie]

From what I have read and heard any parts involving the so called NRA are, once you give someone the right to do something it is never going to be easy to retract that right especialy after so many years of having it.

Rights are not given or taken.

The right to self defence has to be the most basic and moral right of all.
And if you have the right to self defence who can pick and choose what implement you use.

If governments can take away your rights when it suits them, then you didn't have any in the first place.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Only if it's a private sale.

A FFL still has to do a background check.

As I understand it a background check to enable ownership of a firearm in the US is merely checking that the person has no prior convictions.

Have a quick read of the restrictions (or lack of them) in some states here … some seem to reference no background check required.

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/04/01/the-top-10-most-gun-friendly-states
Whatever the detail is I think we can agree that it is substantially easier to buy a gun in the US than the UK.

 

[TRITON]

He had a Colt 1911 .45acp semiautomatic pistol in a holster on his belt he said he wore it when he went to town and had never been messed with.

Easy enough thing is just shoot him in the back of the head. No risk.
He could be carrying a fully automatic assault rifle, but it's no good unless the would be perpetrator is facing his victim.

 

[D_W]

I wasn't actually thinking of suicides (though that in itself is a valid issue). Every time I've seen any stats on accidental shootings (by which I mean accidentally injuring yourself, or a family member, or a family member shooting another family member) the numbers for those incidents have always been higher than the number of people who successfully use a firearm to stop a "bad guy" (so I do feel the statement was true).

I'll be absolutely honest; if I lived in a high crime area (where firearms were reasonably easy to purchase, but also prevalent amongst criminals) I'll admit I'd seriously consider owning one; but I would still have to concede that the statistics usually show self harm (intentional or accidental) is a much more likely scenario than actually using it to protect yourself.

It's perhaps a sad statement, but well more than half of gun deaths are self inflicted. We parsed the stats on here maybe earlier in this thread.