I love how the writer of this piece keeps referring to the Baikal automatic pistol as a “revolver.” People who don’t know what they’re talking about really shouldn’t be allowed to report the news.
Don’t know about the US but if you stopped all the journalists in the UK from writing about things they don’t know about, the papers would be pretty empty.
This is an article in a national paper talking about how shocking two gang on gang shootings in 18 months are. I would guess that in many cities in the US this wouldn’t even make a local paper.[/quote]
According to a different article in the Daily Mail, UK’s streets are “gunravaged”.
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
[/quote]
That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
[/quote]
We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.
And you might want to read a couple of other articles in the Mail, it is broadly similar to the National Enqiurer for in depth non-senstaional reporting.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.
[/quote]
The same logic was used amongst lords wrt to crossbow ownership amongst peasants during feudal times: “You have a right to self defense, just not with anything that will penetrate my armor.” It makes it much less dangerous to snatch a girl or two for a little fun.
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
That’s gun control in a nutshell: the idea that your 135-lb. wife has the right to fistfight with her 250-lb. attacker. It must really suck to walk the streets in Britain if you’re not big and strong…
[/quote]
The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.
The same logic was used amongst lords wrt to crossbow ownership amongst peasants during feudal times: “You have a right to self defense, just not with anything that will penetrate my armor.” It makes it much less dangerous to snatch a girl or two for a little fun. [/quote]
No, you must have that wrong, it is all due to Tony Blair changing the law in 1997. Up until that point everyone in the UK was walking around with guns blasting robbers left and right and there was no crime.
Self defense is the most important reason of all to own a gun. The British saying that self defense is not a reason to own a gun just shows how out of touch with reality the British are.
This is the funemental argument that we have been talking about all along. You beleive this to be true, I do not. Possibly it is you that is out of touch because the majority of the world holds a different view to you.[/quote]
Are you saying that the majority of the people world, after assessing their personal safety situation, would conclude that they have no need to arm themselves, even if they were permitted to do so?
I was under the impression that people have always armed themselves to the best of their ability, regardless of the law, wherever in the world they may happen to be.
You said earlier that you disagreed with me on a fundamental level. Which fundamental? That it is in the self-interest of every living organism to protect his or her own life? That as a member of humanity, I am able to use technology to assist me in protecting myself? Or just that I should choose to do so?
I am trying to understand your objection to the idea that it is right and proper to want to protect one’s own life, and to equip oneself with the tools with which to do so.
And also your assertion that this objection is the prevalent mentality of the inhabitants of the planet. I really have a hard time accepting that a rational person, faced with the probability of mortal danger, would choose to be defenseless.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
We believe (more or less) that people have the right to defend themselves, we just don’t equate that to promoting the ownership of guns.[/quote]
A “right” to self defense, without the legally permitted means is no right at all.
The majority of street violence in the UK is between 18-24 men. Your 135lb woman example is fear mongering, and what happens if the 250lb attacker has a legally bought firearm and a criminal mentality where has already crossed the line and is totally happy with attacking someone. The 135lb woman is still at a total disadvantage but now she risks being shot into the bargain.[/quote]
Nice to know that your criminals over there are too polite to take advantage of those who are smaller and weaker than themselves. It’s a luxury few in this world are afforded.
And if said attacker had a “legally bought” firearm, it must be because he lives in a place where it is legal for him to buy it, in which case it is also legal for his potential victim to buy one, and as such the victim may well have the means to defend herself,
Unlike in Britain, where she has the right to throw herself upon the mercy of your much-more-considerate criminals.
Varqanir, you think people in the US are at such a high risk of mortal danger that they should buy guns to defend themselves.
I think having lots of guns around increases the mortal danger that people are in and for no good reason given that the risk of mortal danger is tiny in the first place.
That is the fundemental difference. If I was going to war, I would want a gun. Sitting around in my house, I don’t feel that need.
Actually, Cockney, comparing records from the US Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice, one finds that an American is more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than he is of being injured in a passenger car accident.
Admittedly, the chances of both are small, but neither is nil.
I don’t know about you, but I always buckle my seat belt when I get into a car. It’s not that I live in fear of a road accident, it just feels like a prudent precaution against unknown circumstances beyond my control.
I would rather have the seat belt and not need it, than need it and not have it.
You are fortunate to have found the Shangri-La you seem to be living in, wherein the risk of harm from criminals (freelance and government) is so low as to be entirely negligible.
I commend you on your happy circumstances, and fervently hope that they never change suddenly and without warning.
Varqanir, that really suprises me, any chance of a source on those data?
I buckle up when I drive, but there is no risk that my seat buckle will accidentally kill someone else, or provoke someone into crashing into me also, the training needed is extremely low so not that good an analogy as far as I am concerned.
Self defense is the most important reason of all to own a gun. The British saying that self defense is not a reason to own a gun just shows how out of touch with reality the British are.
This is the funemental argument that we have been talking about all along. You beleive this to be true, I do not. Possibly it is you that is out of touch because the majority of the world holds a different view to you.
This is the core of the argument, and the part that I find most confounding. It amazes me that the United States is in the minority in believing that the right of self defense extends not just to the strong, but everyone, including the oppressed, weak, sick and old.
[/quote]
The US isn’t in the minority on this. Most people think that way but are denied the means thru oppressive government regulations to arm themselves effectively.
Those living in la la land or a pasture somewhere may think differently of course. It simply doesn’t fit in with their views and is discounted out of hand due to lack of perspective.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…This is the funemental argument that we have been talking about all along. You beleive this to be true, I do not. Possibly it is you that is out of touch because the majority of the world holds a different view to you.
We were “out of touch” in 1789 and we still are today? Sounds good to me.[/quote]
…is discounted out of hand due to lack of perspective.
Ahhhh…perspective…what a magical word…with it one possesses great power in a debate; without it one flops on the deck of the boat like a gaffed fish.[/quote]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir, that really suprises me, any chance of a source on those data?
I buckle up when I drive, but there is no risk that my seat buckle will accidentally kill someone else, or provoke someone into crashing into me also, the training needed is extremely low so not that good an analogy as far as I am concerned.
[/quote]
Yes, but if you ever vote for someone (if you were an American) who is a gun control advocate, so far as it affects me, you may as well be saying that it is illegal for me to buckle up. And actually, there have been studies saying that people who wear bicycle helmets get in more accidents on the road since people drive I believe it was 6" closer than to those bikers who don’t wear helmets. Yet I wonder if you’d advocate that no one wear bike helmets.
There is a reason we in America get sore when people talk about gun control. For most of us it isn’t about the guns; it’s about freedom. To take my guns is an affront to my rights, not as an American, but as a sovereign human being. This really comes as no surprise from a subject in a nation where they laugh tongue in cheek about each new Orwellian step. I’d take the anarchy of Mexico over that any day. Kudos to you on that step.
But here’s the rub: When you advocate gun control, you suggest that OTHERS come and get my guns. You suggest that the boys in blue come, knowing full well that I will shoot anyone that attempts to unlawfully disarm me. As I see it you have no business talking about gun control unless you are volunteering to come get my guns. Hell I might even give them to you, after I empty the mag.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir, that really suprises me, any chance of a source on those data?
I buckle up when I drive, but there is no risk that my seat buckle will accidentally kill someone else, or provoke someone into crashing into me also, the training needed is extremely low so not that good an analogy as far as I am concerned.
[/quote]
Here are the most recent reports from the Department of Justice:
Well, you know, there is always the risk that I might, in a fit of rage, beat an innocent motorist about the head with the buckle of my seat belt. Small risk indeed, but definitely not nil.
An accident might cause it to come undone and strike me with the buckle, causing me even greater injury than I might have suffered had there been no seat belt in the first place. It might hinder me from escaping in the event that my car is engulfed in flames, or sinking into the icy river.
Worst of all, the seat belt might instill in me a false sense of confidence, making me believe that I am more capable of driving in unsafe conditions than I actually am, which might cause me to have an accident that I might not otherwise have had were I not wearing a seat belt.
Or maybe this is all poppycock.
The seat belt is a tool, which without proper driver’s training and mind-set to accompany it is less than useless. The same for a pistol, or any weapon for that matter.
