Yes, I see that we are too close to total agreement now. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I originally thought that you were from GB and looking to discuss the matter with other GB'ers. I just thought I'd insert my quintessentially American opinion in there. My bad!! <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

The only way I can help explain the differences between us and the British would be the influence of Europe at large. They're no doubt inundated by a lot of socialistic ideas. Perhaps the idea of a "Nanny state" seems more palatable to them on average.

For me, I'm already seeing too much of it in our country! As far as I'm concerned, things only get worse with increased government intervention. I've said it before and I'll say it again, NOTHING frightens me more than this "Dept. of Homeland Security" monstrosity we've created. The cure is going to end up being far worse than the disease.

Some of us Brits manage to retain enough rebellion in our blood that we don't give in to the groupthink.

I'm born-and-bred British, I love the USA and I'm a die-hard Second Amendment supporter.

Of course, the 2nd amendment is sod all use over here! <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pat,

Thanks for the feedback. If you don't mind a question- about how much of a minority woiuld you estimate are of your opinion- or at least think it's gone too far in the the other direction- in the UK at this point?

Thanks.

PL, Ben,

I have seen many bullets in flight. However, all were on the same target range, and IIRC, all were in the later afternoon. I was always the shooter. Most were .22 LR fired from a rifle, and one was a .38 Sp. WC. I think lighting conditions are the main determinant. Probably minimum velocity, recoil, and smoke also help a lot.

As to your views especially re guns, I wholeheartedly agree. Indeed, one remarkably pleasing feature of this non-shooting website is the general favor with which guns are seen here. It makes for a very pleasant atmosphere (as well as realistic approach in living). You know you are in good company when the really spirited but still civil discussions revolve around which guns and which knives to choose for survival, business, and recreational purposes. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Regards,

John

I also appreciate the fact that people here are so polite.

You wanna hear something really funny? I've been called a "liberal" and an "anti-gun troll" on some pro-gun websites. <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The civility here is definitely refreshing!

ok, i'm not sure i want to get into a discussion about firearms, i'm sure that everyone else in here is much more knowledgeable on the subject than i am, but i am quite interested in the subject, and i'm also from the UK.

i think the thing that interests me most is "why?" what exactly are the reasons for wanting to own or carry weapons? as far as i can see; defence, either personal or home, and hunting, are the only reasons for owning firearms (just to clarify, i mean the only reasons from a survival perspective, i accept that people also own firearms for various forms of target shooting) whilst i'm not questioning the validity of the reasons behind anyone's choice to own or carry firearms i am curious as to how valid those reasons are in the UK.

so firstly, firearms for personal defence, this i've never understood. as far as i can see the only thing i'm protecting myself from is mugging, and as far as i'm concerned if anyone wants my wallet that badly then they can have it, nothing i carry on my person is worth someones life, neither mine nor anyone else's. i may be wrong.

secondly, home defence, again, what exactly is it that i'm supposed to be defending my home from? i accept that the situation may be very different in the US but here in the UK i'm not sure what i'm supposed to be protecting my house from, burglary? i don't know of anyone who's ever been burgled whilst they're in the house, and as far as i can see if anyone was burgling my house whilst i was in then as soon as they realised i was aware of their presence they'd be more likely to want to leave than take the risk of being confronted, maybe i'm wrong. a dog? wouldn't a dog be a satisfactory way of defending my house? defending my house in the event of a breakdown of society? a lot of people in here will dissagree with me, and think that i'm being naive, but a complete breakdown of society or teotwawki is just too far fetched and unlikely for me to take seriously, sorry if that offends anyone, it's not intended.

thirdly hunting, ok, this is the only area of firearms that i know a little bit about and it's a massive area for discussion, and i really don't want to get into arguments about suitability. i think the question of hunting weapons comes down to the same point as home defence, is there gonna be a break down of society that means i'm gonna have to hunt to feed myself? teotwawki? i don't think so.

i don't really know the reasons behind this post it's just my two pennies on a subject that i find fascinating. i'd love to hear peoples critisms of my thinking and maybe ofer me a few answers.

take it easy,
stuart.

p.s. just in case you were wondering i'm sitting firmly on the fence showing no sign of falling into either the pro or anti gun camp at present, and i can't really see me falling at any time soon.

this quote:

Last year, 12 people were killed in Lambeth, a gritty section of the city with a
growing reputation for gang warfare and drug dealing. But what alarms police and
community leaders even more is that half the murders were committed with guns,
increasingly the weapon of choice of criminals across Britain.

from this article explains one of the reasons to carry weapons. It is not whether you believe you have something that is worth your life but rather if someone else believes that they have a reason to threaten your life. If someone is willing to threaten your life - or the lives of your loved ones - then it is reasonable to be prepared to protect those lives with equal or greater force. I believe that I always have something worth someones life - My own life. If someone would attempt to take that from me I would want the ability to respond in kind.

Criminals killing people with firearms is the current best reason for non-criminals to be armed. The reason for the second ammendment was to ensure that the civilian population would be well enough armed to serve as a final check on unbridled governmental power. The threat of revolution from well armed and moderately trained civilian population that vastly outnumbers the government was intended to keep the government reminded of what we did to the last tyrant that tried to rule us unfairly. This is not something that is discussed all that often but it was important to the folks that passed the amendment. We didn't overthrow British tyrany just to fall prey to local dictators (or did we?).

Isn't it curious that the police are alarmed at 6 murders by gun but are (presumedly) completely accepting of an equal number by other means? Just goes to show taking guns from the public will only force criminals to find other ways of committing the same crimes.

Ed

i accept the fact that gang related viloence is on the increase in british inner cities, but i'm neither a gang member nor do i live in an inner city so in my opinion i face more or less zero risk from that area, as i said in my original post the situation may be different in the US but here in the UK i feel no threat at all from gang related violence. as i said in my original post the only way i feel at all at threat from violent crime is threat from mugging and whether i was carrying a weapon of any kind or not i would still give a mugger exactly what he asked for rather than risk any kind of violent confrontation.

take it easy,
stuart

Shaggystu,

Thank you for keeping the discussion measured.

While I applaud you for being open-minded enough to ask the question, I'm afraid I have to say that I regard the basis of the question as fundamentally flawed. Let me see if I can explain why.

You are, in effect, asking us to convince you that you should want to "own or carry weapons"... but that isn't at all the position we're taking on the issue. No one (that I'm aware of) feels that you should NOT have the right to make that determination for yourself. If you percieve no need for weapons in your life, we have no real interest in persuading you otherwise. We may indeed have misgivings that fate may change your mind for you later on, but it's entirely your decision, not ours.

We'd just much rather you didn't make the decision for all of us.

That is part of the essential difference between the two "camps" on this issue... those who are defending the right to own weapons are emphatically NOT trying to impose their decisions on everyone else, while those who want to deny that right are intent on exactly that- making that decision for all people, for all time, regardless of past, present or future circumstances. In essence, they are saying that they are so much wiser than you that they have the right to make the decision for you, regardless of your opinion of your opinion on the matter- and enforce it by violence, if necessary.

I think you will find that this is true across the board. Those who acknowledge your right to self-defense also respect the people's right to self-detemination, and the rights of others in general. Those who deny the right to self-defense feel that they also should, by rights, be able to make many, many other decisions for everyone else as well... because we're just obviously "wrong" and they're obviosly "right", and anyone who disagrees with them just isn't listening...