On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:37:21 -0000, "Ret." wrote:
>Alang wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:44:26 -0000, "Ret." wrote:
>>
>>> Alang wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:11:46 -0000, "Ret." wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> unit743 wrote:
>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 at 15:34:12, Ret. wrote in
>>>>>>>> uk.legal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You and I are fortunate in that we do not live in an area
>>>>>>>>>> where there is a significant risk of attack whenever we step
>>>>>>>>>> into the street. Others are not so fortunate. The problem is
>>>>>>>>>> that in order to remain law-abiding, we may not even carry so
>>>>>>>>>> much as a pointy stick for self-defence. So people who live
>>>>>>>>>> in areas where violence is rife are forced to break the law
>>>>>>>>>> as a matter of survival. And once they decide to risk
>>>>>>>>>> getting caught for carrying a pointy stick, there is the
>>>>>>>>>> element of "May as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if we say: "Ok then, you can all carry guns for protection."
>>>>>>>>> You honestly believe that having the streets heaving with
>>>>>>>>> people of varying degrees of mental stability, anger management
>>>>>>>>> abilities, propensity to get drunk, etc, and carrying loaded
>>>>>>>>> handguns on their persons for 'protection' is going to improve
>>>>>>>>> your safety?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those sorts of people are already *there* - personally I'd
>>>>>>>> rather face them with a gun in my hand...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These sorts of people are indeed already there - but the vast
>>>>>>> majority of them do not have access to firearms!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your attitude has led to the situation where the ordinary punter
>>>>>> has to go forth into the cities without *any* means of self
>>>>>> protection so as to give the bad guys the confidence that they
>>>>>> can achieve their ends without tooling up over aggressively.
>>>>>> This is primarily so that the law enforcement personnel can do
>>>>>> their jobs with minimal defensive/aggressive equipment.
>>>>>> The ordinary citizen can go screw himself as their sacrifice is
>>>>>> considered a small price to pay for the reduced economies of
>>>>>> policing. As my younger acquaintances would say, 'It sucks big
>>>>>> time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, my attitude (and that of most sensible people) is that by
>>>>> restricting the availability of handguns in the UK we have
>>>>> thankfully avoided the situation rife in the States where, every
>>>>> year, there is a massive loss of life to shooting incidents. Not
>>>>> just crime shootings - but accidental shootings, anger shootings,
>>>>> drunken shootings, etc. The facts are unavoidable, - if you
>>>>> increase the number of guns in circulation you will increase the
>>>>> number of unnecessary deaths. As I pointed out to Alan - any
>>>>> feeling of additional safety you might feel from carrying a gun is
>>>>> completely illusory because all sorts of nuts will also be
>>>>> carrying them. If the UK permitted gun ownership for
>>>>> 'self-protection' you would *not* be safer - you would be
>>>>> considerably less safe.
>>>>>
>>>> There speaks someone terrified of his neighbours
>>>
>>> Indeed - as any sensible person would be. There are some neighbours
>>> I would trust - and there are others I wouldn't. But even otherwise
>>> sensible and well-balanced people are known to go off the rails at
>>> times of high stress and anger.
>>>
>> Just because *you* are paranoid shouldn't mean the rest of the
>> population suffer
>
>You simply refuse to accept that the population would suffer far more if we
>moved to wider gun ownership?
It didn't suffer when we had the right to own arms for defence. It
does now
> Can you point to any country in the world,
>that has laxer gun controls than ours, where the death toll from gun shots
>is lower than ours?
>
You do your own research |