Preparing for Low probability / High risk scenarios is what this site is all about. Having a bandaid when you accidentally snag your finger on the Printed circuit board at work while changing your network card is convenient but hardly a survival situation. OTOH having a trash bag to cowwer under on the lonely top of some mountain that you have been abruptly deposited upon out of your comfy airliner seat is a matter of survival. I willingly concede that you are far less likely to fall out of the sky than snag your finger at the office. That doesn't stop many of us considering and preparing for the possibility that we may someday find ourselves on that unlikely mountaintop.

I live in a rural area of New Hampshire, USA. There haven't been two muders here in 10 years. There have been tool related accidents involving all manner of power tools and recreational equipment. Table-saws, dirt-bikes and Hunting tools such as rifles. When seen as a power tool the gun is not more dangerous than table-saws. Accidental death and injury are roughly similar for both.

We will all choose the scenarios for which we will prepare ourselves. I don't prepare for Teotwawki because I would rather not survive that. I don't prepare for jumping out of a burning High-Rise (other than declining employment in large cities). If, as some on this forum do, you consider the potential (either probability or consequence) of a scenario wherein you need to protect yourself from the threat of deadly force something you would like to prepare for, then you will need to be equipped with something that can confidently counter that threat - firearms are a reasonable tool choice for such a scenario - if they are available to you.

The passions start to rise when the reasonable tool needed to prepare for a scenario which you feel worth preparing for are forbidden you by individuals or organizations who don't / won't / can't provide the equivalent level or security from the threat that they are preventing you from preparing for. It's all about being willing and able to take personal responsibility for your well being and security.

My dad told me a story of something he saw during the war. A Young Officer was teaching the soldiers how to shoot. One soldier in particular had a very awkward looking (to the officer) position, so the officer paid particular attention to him, correcting his stance, showing him how to hold the rifle, how to aim, how to squeeze the trigger, and so forth. Meanwhile the other soldiers were killing themselves trying not to laugh - the "awkward soldier" was the Regimental Bisley Rifle Champion. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Isn't carrying a gun, fighting fire with fire. Wouldn't it be better to stop gun crime my reducing the number of guns on the streets, than increasing them?

i agrea, even though i wouldn't mind having a .38 on me, though... here in europe we has a lot less loss of life due to accidents with firearms. And we also have very little criminal use of firearms, that says enough about it i think. Diffrent places requires diffrent aproches.
btw why do i see so many americans with firearms, but so little with bodyarmor ? wearing bodyarmor and a piece is way beter than just a gun with you and a collection at home.

No it's not fighting fire with fire. Study after study in this country has shown that states or localities with easier access to concealed carry permits have lower crime rates than areas with more restrictive legislation. New York City and our nation's capitol have some the most draconian gun laws yet suffer from the worst crime stats. The premise is really pretty simple. Thugs don't want get shot so they don't fool around as much if their intended victim is likely to shoot back.

The notion of simply outlawing all guns is an overly simplistic view. By their very nature criminals would not surrender their guns, only the law abiding would. Since the population of victims is now unarmed crime would inevitably increase, in this country anyway. See paragraph 1. Besides, in this country it would be a case of locking the barn after the horse has bolted. There is absolutely no way that you could even begin to recover all of the guns that are out there legally.

Also, if you carefully read the post that started this sub-thread you'll note that just as many died in non-gun murders as gun murders. Those compelled to murder and mayhem will always find a way.

I was raised in the old school frame mind that says a man has a moral obligation to protect himself and his loved ones. In the end, though, it comes down to personal choice. You may carry a PSK or not, a SAK or not, a FAK or not, a gun or not. I choose to carry all four and accept the responsibilty, and occassional consequences, that goes with the use of each.

Ed

>>Isn't carrying a gun, fighting fire with fire. Wouldn't it be better to stop gun crime my reducing the number of guns on the streets, than increasing them?<<

Er, no. To add to the points that Ed already made....

It might be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't, and never has.

By not carrying a gun (your choice, of course), you're reducing the number of armed decent people out there by one.

You have considerably less to fear from armed, decent people than you have to fear from decent people with automobiles. The automobiles have more potential for mayhem by far.

When somebody shoots you, it's unlikely to be the first time they've done that, and unlikely to be the last. They do it because it works, it gets them whatever it is that they want (and some of the possibilities for what that might be don't bear thinking about). That person will very likely keep doing it, more killings that you might have prevented had you been willing, until they are stopped, almost certainly by someone with a gun. If it's not a decent, armed civilian (unfortunately, probably not), then it will go on until a policeman, paid by your taxes to do the dirty work you don't want to do for yourself, does it for you. Too late then for you, maybe too late for others.

The people who cry out to "reduce the number of guns on the street" intend that this would be done by more men armed with guns- how else? If that succeeds, and crime inevitably increases (criminals prefer unarmed victims), they demand more, and then still more police to "protect" them- still more men with guns.

How is hiring people to carry guns to do it for you, ethically superior to protecting yourself?

Another thought on the statistics of crimes involving guns in a mostly unarmed society such as most of europe:

In an unarmed society a criminal with intent to do personal or property theft / damage / assault / death can do so with less powerful arms since the victim will be less able to defend.

In an armed society criminals with intent to do personal or property theft / damage / assault / death must consider the potential lethal defense and some may be disuaded whilst others will arm themselves appropriately.

On the net there may be a limited drop in crimes accompanied with a rise in crimes involving arms in the armed society. These are just thoughts - I haven't done the research on the stats to back up these speculations but I am sure that someone could make the numbers say this. (or anything else they want them to <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).

> 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?

I think there's a minuscule number of people here in Britain who agree (or even express some sympathy with the idea of) the right to bear arms.

It's not really even considered a debatable point; everyone pretty much assumes you will be anti-gun.

I'm sure that there is more deaths by gun crime in the US per 1000 people than in Britain. If someone pulled a gun on me in England and demanded my wallet, i'd give it to him, and no one would die. If I shot him, he would die. Thats an unnessesary death. If peoples intent is to cause harm and kill you, yes it is safer to carry a gun, but that is rarer than just someone threatening you.

If someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, how do you know whether his intent is to merely threaten you or to do you harm? Benefit of the doubt is one thing but when your life is in the balance you need to be a bit more cynical about the other guys intentions. How neccesary his death would be is an endless theoretical debate. The guy may never do another crime after getting your wallet or he may become ever more emboldened to more violent crimes....crimes you might have prevented. It's really a shortsighted argument to not think beyond the immediacy of whether you give up your wallet or not. I'll assume the worst, plug the sh**head, and take my chances with the maker later on.
As I said before, it's a personal choice. Good luck living with yours.

Ed