Are you equipped to defend yourself

Posted by: handyman

Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/17/07 11:07 PM

All of the folks who read or are members of this forum are into or at least interested in being prepared to survive some sort of emergency or disaster , large or small . " WE " try to prepare , in some way , for many things .
IMO , the chance of being a victim of a violent act is greater than most things you or I could prepare for . Wether it is some crazy person in a school , a mall , a robbery , carjacking or even a terrorist attack .
I wonder how many of " us " out there are prepared to defend themselves . I know I would not want to be in a situation where I was totally helpless and defenseless . IMO if just one persaon in the room at VT. was legaly ccw there would not have been so many killed .
Imo , it is up to you and I to be prepared to defend ourselves . The police or security gaurds can't be everywhere . Counting on the police to always be there to protect you is like counting on FEMA and the GOV. to always be there to help you after a natural disaster .


Posted by: big_al

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/17/07 11:56 PM

So True, But intill "the people" get on there local reps. and have them vote for a "shall Issue Federal licance" you can kiss that idea good by. A Federal licence could be issued to all over say 21 that hae a clean nose. That includes State and Federal Law inforcement searchs.
Posted by: samhain

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/17/07 11:58 PM

College students carrying guns to class.

Now that image disturbs me.

College-aged students (early twenties) are still adolescents developmentally; easily getting passionately swept up in emotion and group/mob mentality.

Most are still in the process of developing impulse control and delaying gratification. That's part of the college education process.

Learning to set priorities, plan ahead, putting off what one wants to do at the moment in order to achieve a goal.

Which part of the football stadium has more fights; the student section or the one where the "adults" sit?

The image of the American old west where everyone was carrying guns where ever they went is a romantic one but unrealistic.

The population density now is exponentially greater now than during that time.

If my memory is correct, wasn't it Bat Masterson (old west gun slinging "hero") that outlawed carrying guns in the town where he was sheriff in order to establish order?

(I would humbley ask any historian to correct my facts, please.)

The great truth of the universe is sh*t happens.

No amount of fire-power is going to change that, and there are more what-if's than stars in the sky.

What happened at VT was and will continue to be unbelievably tragic, frightening, and to be honest, ticking me off royally.

It is natural for people to want to take some simple desisive action to eliminate what is scaring or ticking us off, but action taken out of fear and anger always creates more problems.

Remember, anger narrows and intensifies one's focus which makes it harder to see what's around one.

For now, it's best to grieve, hold our loved ones close and make big decisions when we have calmed down and thought things through.

Just for the record, I know the police can't be everywhere, and I still trust my safety to a police officer than a civilian carrying a gun.

Posted by: learnmore

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 12:41 AM

We can not expect that there will be a police officer available to protect us at all times. It just isn't a reasonable expectation. We all have to make a personal decision regarding what we are willing to do to protect ourselves and our loved ones. We also have to live with that decision. If you choose not to have the means to protect yourself and God forbid you are violently attacked the results will be devestating and possibly loss of life. We live in a society where violent crime is a reality and I choose to be prepared to protect myself. This involves sufficient training and a great deal of practice. I know a local girl who is 18 years old, she is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, she is highly trained ,practices and competes regularly. We should all be able to make our own decision and understand the ramifications. We can not expect anyone else to protect us. We have to make the decision before we are ever put into a violent situation and our choices are to be a victim or protect ourselves. A trained law abiding citizen is the least of my worries. An encounter with a violent criminal who has no regard for the laws does bother me and I choose to be prepared to protect myself and my family.
Posted by: raydarkhorse

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 12:56 AM



Samhain you need to read the FBI statistics, as a retired police officer I can tell you as documented by the FBI every year more people are stopped in the commission of a crime by private citizens than police. Why is that you may ask, because citizens are on the scene when crimes are being committed against them 100% of the time when the police are on scene less than 1% of the time.
The police arrived at this horrible scene as soon as humanly possible and doubtlessly saved many lives but if one person on scene at the beginning how many could have been saved.
One other thing you should consider. There is no place in any city, county or state charter or constitution and there is nothing in the American constitution that guarantees private citizens protection. No law enforcement officer is required to defend you they do so because of the oath they took and their personal honor and courage. And before I get off my soap box I want people who don't believe in carrying a gun to ask themselves If you are not willing to defend your self what makes you so much better than that police officer you are depending on that you expect him / her to risk their life to defend you.
I do not mean to offend anyone but to many people are willing to place an Officer in harms way when they are not willing to acccept resposibility for their protection and then criticize those that are.
Posted by: marantz

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 01:24 AM

samhain -- I have to respectfully disagree with you on two points. I wouldn't call early 20's college students "still adolescents developmentally". When are people old enough to be adults? Should we restrict military service, alcoholic beverages, and marriage to only those 25 or 30 years old?

As for trusting your safety only to a police officer, and not an armed civilian, that is your choice. One of my younger brothers is a police officer, and as he's said, the police will generally arrive from 5 to 20 minutes after they're called, depending how far away they are. In that first 5 to 20 minutes, the only people on the scene are the criminals, the victims, and the witnesses. I wish someone at Virginia Tech had chosen to be armed, and had fought back. Twice the police were called there, and 33 people, including the gunman, died anyway. I have a CCW, and although I rarely carry my Glock, after some sober reflection, I may carry it more often.

I do agree with you that now is the time to "grieve, hold our loved ones close and make big decisions when we have calmed down and thought things through."

Take care, and stay safe...
Posted by: Be_Prepared

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 01:50 AM

This event at VT was a tragedy, and I hope the families can somehow find peace eventually.

Having said that, I still wonder why it had to be this way. If you're in a situation where there are 15 of you in a room, and some wacko comes in with a gun, once that first round hits someone, wouldn't you expect a Flight 93 scenario to unfold? I'm not saying that everyone's coming out alive, I just think that everyone else would take their chances and try to subdue the guy, figuring they are dead anyway if they do nothing. One of them was even quoted saying he watched the assailant reload at least once in the room. That takes a few seconds anyway. I don't know, maybe I expect more than is reasonable, but, after 9/11 I would have hoped for better. It sounds like the only reason this was 32 instead of 100+ was he took his own life. It didn't sound like anyone was trying to stop him, did I miss that in the stories?
Posted by: samhain

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:02 AM


Quote:
No law enforcement officer is required to defend you they do so because of the oath they took and their personal honor and courage. And before I get off my soap box I want people who don't believe in carrying a gun to ask themselves If you are not willing to defend your self what makes you so much better than that police officer you are depending on that you expect him / her to risk their life to defend you.


Ray,

No offense taken and I appreciate your comments.

However, my preferance for law enforcment to be the ones carrying the guns comes not from a sense of entitlement but trust.

It's not that I expect the officer to sacrifice his/her life for me , but that I trust the officer to handle the weapon professionally and responsibly.

I do not trust the goof down the street (and I do have one in mind) to handle his weapon the same way.

I know my own obsessive sense of responsiblity when it comes to fire arms, I do not trust the person next to me to have that same sense of restraint and responsibilty.

If it is a right for me then it is a right for the goof down the street.
Posted by: big_al

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:04 AM


Raydarkhourse

BRAVO
Posted by: big_al

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:14 AM

SAMHAIN

The Goof down the street might have been all it takes to get the guy to go elsewhere(it's one thing to shoot at people, it's anouther thing when they start to shoot back) or he may have downed the perp.
Posted by: samhain

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:26 AM

Al,

We all have those who's judgement and skill we trust from experience.

We all have those of whom we would not turn our backs on.

The what-if's are endless.

The lives of my loved ones are not.

I am not arguing against fire arm ownership.

I have my own and if someone breaks into my house when I'm home, they will be shot and killed, no discussion, period.

I'm arguing against the blanket, anger and fear driven argument that large numbers of people walking around armed is going to make us and our loved ones safe.



Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:54 AM

Quote:
I trust the officer to handle the weapon professionally and responsibly.

I do not trust the goof down the street (and I do have one in mind) to handle his weapon the same way.


If the goof down the street is ccw licensed he has demonstrated safety and at least basic gun handling skills on the range. The Tennessee requirement is safe handling and hits within the target at ranges beyond what would be normal distance. (IIRC the ranges are 9' 21' & 45') They also go into depth about the legal responsibilities of carrying and what constitutes self defense.

Edit:
Legal age is 21 and the initial permit isn't cheap. The required class and permit fee ends up being about $150-200+ depending on what caliber gun is used to qualify.
Posted by: big_al

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:00 AM

Samhain:

I understand your fear of unworthy people having weapons (guns) I don't know you, but I know I am not qualified to say who should have or not have a weapon. My feelings are if they are law abiding citizens and have no record. They schould have the right to carry.
Posted by: AROTC

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:01 AM

Quote:
College-aged students (early twenties) are still adolescents developmentally; easily getting passionately swept up in emotion and group/mob mentality. Most are still in the process of developing impulse control and delaying gratification. That's part of the college education process.


This is an unfortunate product of a coddling culture. There is no reason why college students, or for that matter high school students, shouldn't be treated as adults. People have created this idea that people under twenty-five or thirty or forty aren't trust worthy and then made it true by not trusting them. You can't drink until you're 21, can't rent a car until you're 25. Students on college campuses are forbidden from possessing or carrying anything that can be considered a weapon. The dormitories here even put nerf guns on the list of banned weapons that should be stored in the police station. Colleges are not here to train people to have self-control, thats what parents are for. Colleges are institutes of higher, more specific learning. Yes, you also learn what it is to live on your own outside your parents influence (generally), but I am not spending ten thousand dollars a semester for my RA to teach me to do my own laundry. I'm paying ten thousand dollars a semester to learn about geology, so I can get a job which will pay me more then minimum wage because I've spent the time learning skills that not everyone possesses.

Try treating people as adults and you will find they act as adults. A person is considered to be an adult in the United States at 18 but is not granted all of the rights and privileges of being an adult until many years later. But we do expect them to pay taxes and sign up for selective services. We even allow them to join the military at 17 so they can be given an M-16 or an M9 and sent over to kill our countries enemies in a foreign land, but they can't own a handgun or drink until they are 21.

While I don't suggest that everyone should be armed. I think its appropriate for suitably trustworthy (as determined by a background check) and suitably trained people be allowed to conceal carry their weapons. A well trained and armed citizen could very well have made a decisive difference in this and similar situations.
Posted by: big_al

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:02 AM

Samhain:

I understand your fear of unworthy people having weapons (guns) I don't know you, but I know I am not qualified to say who should have or not have a weapon. My feelings are if they are law abiding citizens and have no record. They schould have the right to carry.
Posted by: MDinana

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:03 AM

Samhain
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with most of what you're saying. Most college age kids ARE "not quite there." After all, many of the 18-22 crowd have come straight from high school into college. They're book smart, but not necessarily street smart. Too little "real world" experience, given that the majority of them have been or still are living under parental oversight (I'm as guilty as them).

That being said, those that are a bit older, or have worked before going to college, usually are a bit more seasoned. As people rightfully point out, most of our soldiers are in that same age bracket. But the difference is, they have training, and are working, and are seeing overseas tours. I'm sure most vets on here would agree that it matures a person rather quickly.

To those that say more armed citizens are a deterrent, I beg to differ (though admittedly, this can be argued many ways). In most countries of the world, firarms are easy to get. Yet, there is still violence. It seems that between Africa and South America, there are always a few coups or 'ethnic cleansing' attempts in the making. Perhaps the argument shouldn't be against armed citizenry, so much as avoiding the mob mentality of armed persons? 1000 individuals with guns are armed citizens, 1000 buddies are a militia (insert your own "unit" here).

If anyone has ever read "Starship Troopers" (no, the movie is way different), there was an idea that citizenship had to be earned. Only after being a citizen was one allowed voting priveleges. It's an interesting concept: after voluntarily service for 'the greater good,' one is more likely to keep their fellow countrymen in mind, and act accordingly. One solution might be for only certain folks to be allowed weapons (former/current police, former/current military, perhaps needing a standardized training course for ownership, etc). Of course... this would be a HUGE political and emotional nightmare!

Anyway, just some random thoughts while I procrastinate.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:12 AM

Too true. There's also probably two or three what they call non-traditional students there. I'm working on my second engineering degree and know at least four in one class including myself. The other three are all ex military.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:22 AM

Becuase the average human is inherently cowardly, and has never seriously contemplated thier own demise, any more than most livestock has. Something scares them, and they freeze, on the theory that if they don't move they won't be seen. Then greed kicks in, they pray that will be saved, the beg, they cry, they try to run away. They'll even release wastes, hoping to disgust the predator.

They are also inherently greedy and ungrateful, due to their upbringing, social dynamic, and age. To them, to be injured period is an alien concept. To injured by another, shockingly so. And being injured or killed to protect someone whom you don't have a biologically-programmed instinct to protect just doesn't even enter into most of their minds. Ever.

What happened on Flight 93 is that they had time for thier thinking brains to kick in.
Posted by: Themalemutekid

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:49 AM

Originally Posted By: IzzyJG99
I noticed a black male looking in the windows. He saw me and charged towards me. Long story short it turned out to be a HUGE ring of black males who were robbing homes.


What does the skin color of the guy looking in the window have to do with anything??
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:51 AM

I will agree, reluctantly, with samhain for one simple reason- most kids in a class room are under 22. Most of them have never had to do very much for themselves. As I said elsewhere, I wouldn't have trusted most of them with a baseball bat. I'm only 30, turn the clock back a year and I was in a tech school- when I was surrounded by the 20 year olds, I was the stranger in a strange land. They are kids, regardless of a legal status tied to a biological benchmark. They act in a manner I would have been embarrassed to act in when I was 14. I've watched them cry hysterically becuase they got a "B" on a paper; this was a member of the National Gaurd, by the way. It shocked, it didn't awe.

Now, there were some who didn't have thier lives pasturized, homoginized and sanitized for their protection. These are the guys (and gals) who didn't spend their childhoods drooling in front of the television, got cut, got scraped, broke bones by falling out of trees, all the stuff that parents generally don't let their kids do today. They are the kind of people who fit in here, like JIM or AROTC, and my brother, and the guys I'm trying to drag here. But they are those outsiders looking in, shaking their heads. The guys everyone else thinks is weird.

I will disagree with trusting my safety to a police officer. I went to a college that had 1 security guy on on each shift, and he was allowed by a step up the chain of command that was off the campus to carry neither pepper spray nor a baton. Most days, we had the head of security around unless he was in a meeting, or in court (he was also the county sheriff), but that was it. It takes 15 minutes to get an ambulance there most of the time, and 10 to get state troopers. At least the volunteer fire department is on the otherside of the soccer field. And I grew up in a place where the times we could have really used a cop, it was over 20 minutes get one there. In 20 minutes, I can beat someone to death with a soaked bath towel.

Someone with a firearm wouldn't have prevented all the deaths. Just a lot of them. If we are ever in the same place, samhain, you don't have to trust me. You've got my protection anyway, even if I am unarmed. I won't expect gratitude either, it is an emotion beyond the capacity of most humans. I would just ask people not to puke on me.
Posted by: MDinana

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 04:06 AM

Originally Posted By: ironraven
In 20 minutes, I can beat someone to death with a soaked bath towel.



That's CLASSIC!! laugh ROFLMAO

(oh, and thanks for doing the job you choose to do)
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 04:30 AM

Uhm, you're welcome.

I'm just a professional computer geek who grew up in a family where if you weren't a healer or in the military, the only other acceptable profession was medicine/engineering. (Same thing, just your patients don't restart to easily if you turn them off at the end of the day.) If I gave anyone the impression I am military (Air Force said no when I was still high school- arthritic jaw) or police (I said no, not with my lack of tolerance for people who hurt little kids), becuase I'm not. I'm just a renaissance man who grew up rural, and acted a mentor to a lot of kids in college who had never found someone quite like them and thought they were misfits.

It's odd, being a survival geek like us is as much of a stigma in our society as being gay, just with different segments. Closets suck, everyone out.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 05:50 AM

I am former military, former law enforcement, and a lifelong firearm owner. I am the worlds biggest fan of private ownership of firearms (with exception of convicted felons, those addicted to drugs, etc etc etc), and CCW's by those who can pass whatever is required by their local laws. In many cases (McD's, Post Offices, etc) where shootings have happened in the past, I feel that a firearm in the hands of one good guy could have made all the difference in the world. But in the jurisdictions I am familiar with, firearms are not allowed on school grounds by any other than peace officers. One may have a CCW, but it does not allow carry on a campus, so it is a moot point in this case...
Posted by: AROTC

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 01:22 PM

You are correct carry on campus is not allowed. In this state, the full rule I believe is that carry on college campuses is not allowed with out written permission from the head of security or campus police which is (at least at my school) impossible to get. My argument is two fold that appropriate students should be allowed to carry on campus, and that campuses should not bar students from carrying any sort of weapon at all. Students at my school who live in the dorms are not even allowed to have mace let alone an ASP baton or a stun gun. Keeping people helpless seems to be endemic in schools and universities and many other places.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:10 PM

I am fortunate that I live in a state where publicly funded colleges are not allowed to ban the carry of firearms by people who are licensed to do so. A fairly recent law, and long overdue IMO.

As far as being prepared to defend myself, I consider it no different than being prepared to build a fire or purify water. I carry an RSK and a handgun, as well as pepper spray (while jogging.) I keep myself in reasonable shape and try to be aware of my surroundings at all times.
Posted by: Blast

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:20 PM

I stumbled across this essay and feel it's very worthwhile to read...
Each one of us is a foot soldier for civ...t to thwart it.

I can defend myself. If the need arises, I will try to defend others. I will teach my girls these lessons, too.

-Blast
Posted by: JimJr

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:47 PM

A very good read:

"On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs"

Posted by: samhain

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 02:53 PM

Quote:
samhain, you don't have to trust me. You've got my protection anyway, even if I am unarmed. I won't expect gratitude either, it is an emotion beyond the capacity of most humans. I would just ask people not to puke on me.


ironraven,

Do you really think that I wouldn't come to your aid just because I didn't carry a gun?

I would come to your and anyone else's aid in a heartbeat. It's what we human beings do (for the most part).

If I were to receive help from you, you would receive my life-long gratitude and would not be puked on (not intentionally mind you, I can't account for what I might do during loss of consciousness).

The resentment I hear from folks leads me to think that the group views me as a coward or pacifist (not carrying a gun = defensless cowardice).

My arguements has always been and always will be:

1) to base gun laws on careful, reasoned thought and not reactionary emotional responses.

2) arming college kids is stupid.

3) large numbers of people walking around carrying fire arms does not make everyone safer.

For the record, I am not unarmed nor defenseless. My EDC does include a Delica tucked in my waistband for defense only. It's destination: the carotids (and any other artery I can get to) of my assailant.

If I gotta go, I'm not going alone.





Posted by: Blast

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:22 PM

Quote:
A very good read:

"On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs"


Wow! That's going to a bunch of people I know.

-Blast
Posted by: garland

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:46 PM

I'm going to try and not come off too harsh here but there seems to be a great deal of something.. (ignorance?) in this post. People need to take personal accountability for their actions. That's the problem with our evolving democracy is that for some reason people are content to remove less and less responsibility from their lives. Responsibilities like parenting (let the schools do it!), self defense (let the police do it!), washing their clothes (let the washing machine do it!), et al.

There are alot of rebuttals I could do here because I vehemently disagree with much of the "leave it in the hands of the pros" defense. First, police are people like you and me. They make mistakes too.

Second, former police are on here stating their opinion it's best to arm the citizens. I would suspect that opinion likely comes from a very valuable experience from which they can draw said conclusion. In that respect, I trust that judgement in usage to supplement my own. I would hope others would do the same.

Third, the response time issue. I personally wouldn't want to wait huddled in a classroom for 20+ minutes desperately barricading a door while bullets are ripping through it. Ultimately as stated multiple times before YOU are responsible for you. No one else. That's the problem with our coddling nanny society anymore is that everyone expects to be babied and cuddled while someone else does the dirty work. Call it what you want, but that's the reality of it. Don't trust the guy down the street? Tough. That's the nature of this world. Who do you trust? What is trust? What is love, what is hate? What is this pseudo philosophical crap I'm spewing getting at? YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU. NO ONE ELSE IS. Therefore if you choose to go out unarmed that is YOUR CHOICE - you can rely on others to protect you. Perhaps they will. Perhaps they won't. Your problem, not mine. Unless I see the problem happening, then I will come to help. That's just my nature.

Me? I choose to protect myself. Because in the end, I'm the ONLY PERSON I CAN ABSOLUTELY BE SURE WILL DO IT. That's in caps for a reason folks. Because I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MYSELF - end of story. If the cops show up, great. More help. Otherwise, I will most likely have things covered BY MYSELF - because again.. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ME (see a pattern here?).

Also on the note of militias - not to degrade the topic here but I'm just going to make this flat and clear - our own government includes us as part of their military via militias. Want proof?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Our government EXPECTS us to be able to defend the country. End of story. By the way, sorry for the tone of the post. I'm in a pissy mood.

Lastly, I'm glad someone posted the info about the sheep/sheepdog/wolf bit. That one never gets old and definitely gets the point across.
Posted by: Micah513

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 03:57 PM

Nice read.

Very true -> 'what the e-mailer meant was that schools have systematically beaten the fighting spirit out of American children, who then grow into dispirited adults, for whom "fighting back is not an option."'
Posted by: el_diabl0

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 05:06 PM

I am certainly ready to defend myself if the situation calls for it. I have trained in karate, have a CCW permit (I carry 50% of the time. I cant carry at work because I work in a school district), and I always carry a knife.

Had even a small percentage of the VT students been armed, I think far fewer people would have been killed. I disagree with Samhain. These students are ADULTS, not kids, and I would think they'd be responsible enough to carry guns. I was brought up around them and was taught gun safety as a child, beginng at age 5. I was responsible enough to NOT kill people at that age. What's the difference in a 23 year old laborer vs a 23 year old college student carrying a gun?

You cant wait for the police. I called the police when a guy was beating his girlfriend in a parked car that I had driven by, and the police never showed. I wish I'd had my CCW permit then. I did manage to get him to take his attention off her and direct it toward me. I told him I'd called the cops and jumped back into my car because this guy was in a rage.

Our gun laws are strict enough. The root of the problem of violence in our society is the breakdown of the family, although in the VT case, this guy was just nuts to begin with. Why are so many of these mass killers on prescription anti-depressants? That's another valid question.

Posted by: Chris Kavanaugh

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 05:15 PM

Our canadian readers may recall a campus shooting some years ago. One of the victims was found to have a revolver still in her purse.In the end, she was more afraid of legal repercussions than a gunman shooting her classmates. Incidents like this are frustrating. The killer himself is dead, and society looks around for ANYONE or ANYTHING to vent it's horror and pretend it is doing something. This is why nail clipers are on EBAY people.Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out if the 'large black males' were Newfoundlands with rabies, a ninja gang or something else. We live in a pluralistic society, one that unfortunately seems to include tolerance for people obviously of threat to the majority.
Posted by: garland

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 05:31 PM

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/newsl/prozac.html
http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/prozac.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/08/zoloft.defense.ap/index.html?eref=rss_law

columbine + luvox=?
http://www.boulderclassifieds.com/shooting/30cluvox.html

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/SSRI.htm
http://www.newstarget.com/020787.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/DDIL/prozac.html

...etc...etc..

It seems like people at large believe that there's a magic pill to cure behavior issues. Unfortunately it seems to me at least that we are prescribing things without a clear idea of what they do or how they work.
Posted by: el_diabl0

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 05:54 PM

Chris,
Thanks for the "black males" reference, I had meant to toss that in also. The tone of that post seemed to imply that black males are scary and threatening. Did it matter what color the man was?

On the other hand, I dont understand the nail clippers on eBay reference. ??
Posted by: ChristinaRodriguez

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 06:03 PM

I agree with samhain.

I also think that if there was a student at VA Tech who was of the age (21 to legally carry in VA) and mindset (protect and defend only) to carry a gun, he or she would probably have already done so, quietly and discreetly, despite any campus rules.

My own father encouraged me to be equipped to protect myself in secret when I was in college, because it was better to break a few campus rules than wind up getting raped (this isn't meant to undermine the non-equipped tactics used to stay safe, of course). But I was pretty much alone in this mindset, I didn't know anyone who shared my interest in preparedness at all.

I currently don't carry a gun (but my hubby and I are looking into training courses), but I don't consider myself defenseless at all. As I've explained in earlier posts, I don't consider guns to be the be-all, end-all of personal defense, nor would I ever assume that those who carry a gun would be successful, or even willing, to deploy their weapon against an assailant.



Posted by: ponder

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 06:26 PM

"...violating federal law..."

What federal law is violated?
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 06:31 PM

Just a very minor correction. You are not violating Federal law by carrying in a bank unless that bank is a Federal Reserve bank (i.e.: government controlled.) Most banks are private businesses and as such are subject to state law when it comes to CCW.

As far as that scenario goes I'd likewise probably wait and see, but it would really depend upon the layout of the place, etc. Just too many variables to say for sure.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 06:42 PM

I wouldn't call you a coward, because I don't know you. I actually am a pacifist- I would much rather just be left alone. I would consider you, like a great many people, someone who seems to ignore that what we wish and what is are very different.

And I do appologize for mistyping- I'd been taken crap all day from a now former coworker who was antagonizing the guys in the shop who are gun owners. Including the boss. Not the first time it's happened from this individual, is the last. My "you" in that staement was a general statement to those who feel as you stated you do about private citizens carrying a concealed firearm.

But you seemed to be attacking those of us here who do legally carry a concealed handgun when you said you didn't trust us. THAT is why you hear resentment. I don't mind that you don't carry a sidearm, that is your choice. I respect your choice. What I, and undoubtedly a others, do resent that you implied that since I am neither military nor law enforcement that we could not be trusted to carry a firearm.

I have known several cops, and many of my friends went not only into the military but also the special operations community. A competitive shooter shoots a lot more than anyone outside of Delta, SEAL 6, the Presidential Detail or the FBI's HRT. If you hunt, you know what bullets do. You're average cop fires less than 500 rounds a year, and if they've never hunted, the only thing that they believe (practical knowledge vs book knowledge) is that bullets punch holes in paper and just disappear when . You're average infantryman fires more than that in peace time, but is just as unfamiliar with the terminal effects of small arms ammunition, maybe even less becuase you don't always see the person you hit in a firefight. Most of the people I know who EDC or semi-EDC a handgun fire at least 500 rounds a year, and since a great many of us hunt, we know what bullets do. We know they leave the body in most cases, so there is always the danger part the target, but still we accept the risk. We know that in a situation where there might be multiple shooters in a group setting that we just became a target for the shooters we don't see, and that we don't have the option of praying to the radio gods for back up or air support. And we know that if that bullet hits someone after it exits the perpetrator, that we don't have a larger organization behind us with lawyers and handlers and access to the press and either insurance or buckets of money. And we accept that, as an armed citizen.

As I said, you don't have to trust me or any of the others. And even though we resent your attitude towards us, we'll stick our necks on the line while waiting for the guys with badges, armour and radios to show up, rather than let others die.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 06:53 PM

Uhm... two point.

In VT and NH it isn't illegal unless you intend to make a hasty withdrawal. I can't comment on other jurisdictions, as those are the only ones I'm cleared to carry in.

Second, if hostages are taken, SOP is you will be frisked when released through negotiation or more active intervention. If they find it, there will the assumption that you were a back up shooter and held as an accomplice until the charges are dropped or you make bail (good luck). I'd rather get the slap on the wrist (if any) and a cleaning bill from the bank than go through the repercussions of the plan you just described.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 08:02 PM

That's perfectly ok. Given the ridiculous number of gun laws on the books in this country (20,000+)it is probably impossible for any one person to keep track of them all.
Posted by: Blast

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 08:06 PM

Quote:
The tone of that post seemed to imply that black males are scary and threatening. Did it matter what color the man was?


Unfortunately, when making a threat assessment of an situationstatistically it does. frown
Assorted links

I'm not saying it's fair or good, only that statistically Izzy has a point. Adding the race detail wasn't vital to his story and in fact probably detracted from it. However, the race of the man did influence his feelings of and response to the situation.

I'm assuming I'll now be branded a racist. Think of it this way, not all clouds bring rain but it's pretty easy to identify which are more likely to. Does that make a person a "weatherist"? Doing a threat analysis means exactly that, being aware of all threats whether it be a strange dog, a white Enron CEO, or inclimate weather... Don't go all Imus on Izzy for stating the facts of his story.

-Blast the Scientist (or heretic?)







Posted by: ChristinaRodriguez

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 10:19 PM

C'mon, I don't really think Izzy's notation of the guy's race had anything to do with his post or his response to the threat. It seems he was just completing the mental picture for us. Does anyone really assess some guy's race against a potential threat when you catch him looking in your windows and then he charges at you? If you do, you're wasting valuable time.

When I had to fend off some white guy trying to break into my dorm room in college, I only observed his race so the campus cops would know what to look for. I sure didn't think, "How odd, as a white male he doesn't fit the statistical analysis of a burglar..." My post is silly, I know, but this whole argument is just silly.

Maybe it is just because I'm a chick, and as a chick I have to regard all strange men on the same level: white male, black male, brown male... they ALL could be rapists!
Posted by: handyman

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 10:48 PM



As far as being prepared to defend myself, [i]I consider it no different than being prepared to build a fire or purify water.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make .
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 11:01 PM

On the surface, Samhain's arguments seem conclusive. They do not, however follow a logical conclusion.

No one here and I would say with confidence no one in the justice system or pro-gun crowd would ever advocate generally arming the public any more than a reasonable person would advocate wholesale disarmament. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of sound mind that would argue that point. Likewise, it is just as ridiculous to assert that because some people are not capable of responsible firearms handling and use, all should be disallowed the privilege.

It is not the age of the attendees, but the mental/psychological state that they posess which would disqualify them as mature, responsible firarms carriers. We happily and enthusiastically arm 18 year olds and have done so for 250 years when it suits our countries needs, without much concern for how they will act with the firearms they are issued once they have been appropriately conditioned. This education used to be something that was practiced by parents with their children up until about 50 years ago. Sad to see that some good ideas wither and die.

It has been my sad fate to have encountered a fair number of young LEOs that I would deem wholly unsuited to the task of protect and serve. Given enough time on the beat, they eventually discover the reality of their duties and either get out or become legitimate peace officers. Some don't learn in time, and become statistics. Putting great faith in one set of humans over another without proofing that they are deserving is inviting folly.

Past about 16 years old, the only relevence age has is the propensity that a given individual has been exposed to the proper experience that would make them suitable for packing heat. There are plenty of 50 year olds out there that will never have what it takes, and hopefully at least have enough knowledge to know this is the case and thus refrain from participating, though there is damned little to prevent them from doing so anyways.

It is, however, wholly irresponsible for any person to reject taking it upon themselves the necessary means of defending their person and property. To abdicate such responsibility to law enforcement is a gross misinterpration of the purpose of such services and the intentions of our lawmakers. For a parent to not take the time and effort to properly raise their children into responsible, law-abiding, competent adults is reprehensible, and represents probably the single greatest threat to liberty, our social growth, and our domestic stability.
Posted by: handyman

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 11:02 PM



"I currently don't carry a gun (but my hubby and I are looking into training courses), but I don't consider myself defenseless at all. As I've explained in earlier posts, I don't consider guns to be the be-all, end-all of personal defense, nor would I ever assume that those who carry a gun would be successful, or even willing, to deploy their weapon against an assailant."

1. I'm glad to see that you and hubby are looking into training courses . Very important IMO .
2. I don't consider guns to be-the be all
end-all of personal defence either . IMO , mindset , situational awareness and some sort of self defence training are equally important . However , I do think that having a firearm and the knowledge of how to use it are a very important part of the overall preparedness package .

Posted by: raydarkhorse

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/18/07 11:11 PM

I read all these responses that say the "kids" attending collage are not responsible enough to carry a weapon because they are so young and don't have the mind set or how ever you want to put it. Why is it we can take Children the same age and place them in harms way. If we can trust our children to defend this country and our way of life why is it such a stretch to allow the to protect themselves. Quit complaining about the ones who want to carry a weapon to protect themselves, and do something about those who want to cause harm to others. Before you start telling the world how much safer it would be without them the world has already heard it. ”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead.” (Chancellor’s Speech, 1935 by Adolf Hitler) Every body was safe them.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 12:18 AM

For those of you who, legally or not, carry a concealed handgun, to school, and are forced to use it, please keep this in mind: The police will arrive. Maybe soon, maybe a tad later than that, but they will come, and they are looking for a person with a gun. If you have taken the bad guy out, great, but then get rid of the weapon (as in out of your hands/waistband, etc, but do not just toss it where someone else can get it), and try to make sure that you have friends/fellow students to help ID you as a good guy. If you are barracaded in a safe spot and the police arrive to save the day, immediately lay the weapon down (don't drop or toss it, bad things might happen if it should go bang when it hits the floor), hopefully before they see you with it. Throw your hands up as high as you can get them, fingers spread, and let them know verbally that you are a good guy and have a gun between your feet (or where ever). Have those friends and fellow students help with this. Expect to be handcuffed until the whole mess can be straightened out. Being mistaken for a bad guy with gun in hand by responding officers is not a good thing...
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 12:27 AM

Do nothing. The bank has lots of money, and can get more. You, on the other hand, only have one life. What if you try something and miss? And he doesn't. Or you didn't notice the second bad guy by the door (right behind you maybe). No sense getting killed to save money, anyones money. If, on the other hand, the bad guy starts shooting, fire for effect...
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 12:48 AM

Volunteer force- the guys who join either do it for college money or because they don't fit into normal society but do in the military. You can make a soldier, but a good soldier is born. Many of them already have just a different mind set from their peers before they join the service.

It's the same kind of mindset that leads to guys becoming fire fighters and paramedics. They are just a different breed of cat than the majority of the people today.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 02:18 AM

A lack of which can be quickly removed by a competent instructor. At 16 with a good case of buck fever, I sat looking at what I would have sworn was a deer for 20 minutes (through a scope no less). Granddad teaching me about gun safety and a feeling of something wasn't quite right and not being able to tell what was behind the bushes kept me from putting a big hole in a bunch of leaves.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 03:31 AM

"I am fortunate that I live in a state where publicly funded colleges are not allowed to ban the carry of firearms by people who are licensed to do so. A fairly recent law, and long overdue IMO."

I've never heard that. Which state is it?

Many people here assume that college kids are always 22 or younger. There are ex-military going to college, and older people, too.

From what I've seen, the military doesn't really change anyone. I've seen guys who were stupid little s**ts before they entered the military, and they were stupid little s**ts when they got out four years later.

Sue
Posted by: aloha

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 05:51 AM

I think most, but not all, people will try to do the right thing and help others in need, whether it is to help defend someone or to intervene on someone's behalf. At least most of the people I know would.

One night my friends and I saw this guy skulking around a car. It looked really suspicious like he was going to try and steal it. So we went around the in different directions, converged on the guy at the same moment to stop him from stealing the car. We scared the cr@p out of him as he was peeing in the shadows behind the car. It was funny, but not for him, so we apologized and went on our way. But we did what we thought was the right thing at the time. blush
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 06:02 AM

I would think that it depends on what they experience when they are in. Looking at the difference between the newbie soldiers that came into Camp Victory and the ones that were going out on Rat Patrol at 5:00 am, again, you can see what seasoning does to the meat. The game face on a recruit fresh out of boot is a lot different from the countenance on those who've had to kill to defend themselves more than once. The recruit's countenance isn't durable, but the vet's sure looks it. It is not real comfortable to sit amongst them at breakfast time just before a patrol and see what they are going through inside. Last meal for some of them, and they know it.

There are plenty of big s**ts I work with now that were little s**ts back in the day and remained s**ts most of their lives. Sometimes they learn, usually the hard way, and quit being s**ts. Some never do. The point is maturity and respect have to be taught and experienced, and the only thing age does is give you more opportunity to learn. It can be learned at a younger age, provided those who are responsible for teaching it do the job they are supposed to, and don't try and foist off their work onto the public or worse. I don't view a 16 year old who is holding down a job, earning good grades, and participating in appropriate social programs as a kid, nor the 18 year old soldier heading out on patrol. I view the 15 year old on welfare with an infant as a waste and a burden, and the 25 year old with a drug habit and gang tats as a threat. The 35 year old who thinks that the government knows best is an ignorant and insulting kid, or worse.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Susan
"I am fortunate that I live in a state where publicly funded colleges are not allowed to ban the carry of firearms by people who are licensed to do so. A fairly recent law, and long overdue IMO."

I've never heard that. Which state is it?
Sue


I live in Utah. The University of Utah, the state's largest public school, tried to ban concealed carry by permit holders. In response the legislature passed a law stating that, in effect, only they have the right to make gun laws. The University sued and lost. Now, the only place on campus that you cannot carry is in professor's offices and some dorm rooms, all of which must be posted. That was a bone the legislature threw them to get them to drop all further suits. It's a compromise I can live with.

Utah's other large school, BYU, can still ban CCW because they are a private institution. I don't know if they actually do so though.
Posted by: Craig_phx

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/19/07 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: benjammin
On the surface, Samhain's arguments seem conclusive. They do not, however follow a logical conclusion.

No one here and I would say with confidence no one in the justice system or pro-gun crowd would ever advocate generally arming the public any more than a reasonable person would advocate wholesale disarmament. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of sound mind that would argue that point. Likewise, it is just as ridiculous to assert that because some people are not capable of responsible firearms handling and use, all should be disallowed the privilege.

It is not the age of the attendees, but the mental/psychological state that they possess which would disqualify them as mature, responsible firearms carriers. We happily and enthusiastically arm 18 year olds and have done so for 250 years when it suits our countries needs, without much concern for how they will act with the firearms they are issued once they have been appropriately conditioned. This education used to be something that was practiced by parents with their children up until about 50 years ago. Sad to see that some good ideas wither and die.

It has been my sad fate to have encountered a fair number of young LEOs that I would deem wholly unsuited to the task of protect and serve. Given enough time on the beat, they eventually discover the reality of their duties and either get out or become legitimate peace officers. Some don't learn in time, and become statistics. Putting great faith in one set of humans over another without proofing that they are deserving is inviting folly.

Past about 16 years old, the only relevance age has is the propensity that a given individual has been exposed to the proper experience that would make them suitable for packing heat. There are plenty of 50 year olds out there that will never have what it takes, and hopefully at least have enough knowledge to know this is the case and thus refrain from participating, though there is damned little to prevent them from doing so anyways.

It is, however, wholly irresponsible for any person to reject taking it upon themselves the necessary means of defending their person and property. To abdicate such responsibility to law enforcement is a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of such services and the intentions of our lawmakers. For a parent to not take the time and effort to properly raise their children into responsible, law-abiding, competent adults is reprehensible, and represents probably the single greatest threat to liberty, our social growth, and our domestic stability.


Amen brother!
Posted by: cedfire

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/22/07 06:32 PM

The VT gunman had run-ins with the school, his peers, his instructors, and the mental health system.

Yet he was able to legally purchase two firearms. It sounds like (then again, this is according to the media) the gunman was given a clean mental health record after review at some point.

I can think back to high school and kids bringing homemade pipe bombs to school. Thankfully they never exploded. Was this in an area plagued by criminals, drugs, and lawlessness? No. This was in a sleepy bedroom community full of tourists on the weekends.

The more I see the more I share the view that there is, and will always be, true evil in the world. It manifests itself in many different ways, but exists nonetheless.

People should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to carry something to defend themselves; firearm, baseball bat, pepper spray, etc. This expectation of society that you simply dial 9-1-1 like in the movies and the police roll up is ridiculous. By not taking your personal safety into account, no matter what the horrible event, you are rolling the dice. Maybe something happens today, maybe it doesn't.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/22/07 08:05 PM

I am so glad that in reality I don't have to really think about the issue in this thread. Arming oneself with a firearm because of the fear of personal attack is not something that I even have to even consider living in North East Scotland. Here in the UK we do not even have a general armed police force. To have a generally armed police force in the UK is politically unacceptable. The contrast between the two countries over the issue of gun culture is astounding.

The tragic events at Virginia Tech University have again shown the completely unsolvable conundrum faced by the citizens of the United States of America. A wholesale ban on firearms is completely unacceptable politically and socially. There are just to many vested interests involved. The majority who have contributed to the thread have positively indicated that. The arguments for gun ownership without any real restrictions make perfect logical sense because of the situation the majority of US citizens find themselves in. To be allowed to defend ones self with a firearm because the assailant may also be armed is a reasonable and sensible conclusion. I myself also would have a difficult time trying to defend any idea, which is at odds to that logical conclusion.

In essence the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, is now responsible for 20,000 - 30,000 of its own citizens freedoms and rights being fully extinguished every year - they have been killed as a direct consequence of that right. Lets call it the national collateral damage rate for the idea of a US citizen’s personal freedom. This figure is the equivalent of 8-10 9-11 terrorist attacks every year. Rather than trying to have a debate about the proposition put forward in this thread, surely a debate about why there is such a gun culture would be more relevant to solve the overall problem of death through gunshot wounding. I am sorry to say that there is no apparent solution to this issue and that the tragedy at Virginia Tech is ultimately just another little contribution to the overall national collateral damage figure for a US citizen’s personal freedom and liberty.
Posted by: BachFan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/22/07 10:24 PM

All very good advice!

But this is what I don't get ... even if concealed-carry had been permitted on the VT campus, how many of us truly believe that college kids -- even the grad students -- would have bothered bringing a handgun to 8 AM or 9 AM classes on a Monday morning about 2 weeks before the end of spring semester classes? I've had this argument with my brother, and he kept saying that even if the students hadn't brought firearms with them to class, they could have run out to their dorm rooms to retrieve them. Well, no -- Cho had chained/padlocked the doors to Norris Hall, presumably to keep LEOs out and keep targets in.

Personally, I'm in favor of regulating firearms possession and use at least as stringently as we regulate the right to drive legally -- basic "how to" classes, a test (written and actual/physical), mandatory insurance, etc. -- and that's a minimum threshold, since cars/trucks have a lot of uses other than injuring people/animals. But I've also submitted an affidavit in support of my brother's recent application for a handgun permit in Manhattan, because I feel comfortable with his training and temperament ... though since we're Korean-Americans, I'm thinking his permit application is going to get a lot of extra scrutiny now.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/22/07 11:26 PM

Quote:
So there's no violent crime in the UK?



There is violent crime in the UK, but it is at the level where even the majority of the leadership of the police forces throughout the UK will, when asked about whether the general police force in the UK course should be armed, will say No. Most police forces in the UK do have what are called 'armed response teams'. In the highlands and islands of Scotland I don't even think they have even one of these 'armed response teams'. If they do I have not been able to recall if they have ever been deployed. There have been incidents such as the Dunblane massacre in 1996 in central Scotland. This led to the law restricting the ownership of concealed firearms. There are areas within rural Scotland where there is no recorded violent crime let alone violent gun crime what so ever. These areas tend to be areas where everyone knows and relies on each other such as Island communities. But generally if you are going to be murdered in Scotland it will be with a knife and it will be in the inner cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee.

There is a level of gun crime in the UK and there is also a debate about how to tackle the problem. There have been a number of incidents in London and other English regional cities where the gun crime appears to be linked with young black criminal gangs. In the news media, these gangs have been associated with the so called 'US gun culture' which is prevalent within certain forms of American based music (if one can call it that) called 'Rapping'. In the UK in 2004 there were 70 gun related fatalities mostly in England.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 12:31 AM

Um, I think there's a few generations of Irishmen who would contend that the police are well armed and quite willing to use lethal force on a regular basis.

I would say that in the more rural areas the trend to more traditional values serves to diminish the propensity for members of that community to assail one another. Your citations seem to fit this model well, as do many places in rural America still. Likewise, these communities tend to watch out for the welfare of their members more diligently, so the chance that one will fall prey to the outside terrors is also greatly diminished.

There is still a great deal of gun crime in Great Britain, and it has diminished from what it was, and where the crime is most concentrated you will find the police armed more frequently and heavily than elsewhere. That does not change the issue, which is that when the law abiding citizen is confronted by an armed maniac, they can choose pre-emptively to either break the law or become a victim. I know which way I will choose every time.

As for students having the will to carry, let alone use a firearm in school, I know at least two girls who would have no issue with either case. Whether to pack a gun or not out of convenience is really not a significant issue, regardless of the time of day or the environment. Once you make accomodation for it, you find that it is a non-sequitor decision after that. Put another way, if you are going to hod around 30 lbs of notebooks and such, then the extra weight and bulk of a firearm is not much of a factor. To my mind it is cheap insurance, especially if no one ever checks your bags or person. The much tougher decision is whether or not you have the will or desire to defend yourself when no one else can or will. Once you get past that hurdle, then the convenience issue is really kinda moot.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 12:50 AM

Um, I thought knives were already outlawed in Great Britain, or was that only in England and Australia?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 03:38 AM

Knifes are not banned in the UK. How would we be able to peel the potatoes. What is banned is brandishing a knife in a public space, which would lead to a public order offense. Also carrying a lockable knife with a blade greater than 3 inches in a public space is also considered an offense. I say 'considered' because this must be within a certain context. Carrying a large concealed survival knife without good reason in the middle of the city centre would get you into some trouble with the Police as it may be regarded as an offensive weapon. The same principle can be applied to a golf club or cricket bat. Carrying the same knife in the wilderness, you would have a good enough reason to say you needed the knife for the job it was intended to do, as a survival tool.
The same can be said of if your carrying a crowbar and torch at 3 am in a back alley especially if you are known to be a convicted burglar by the police. It is all about common sense really and he context any offensive weapon can be used in.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 04:08 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a locking pocket knife, despite being much safer, an illegal item to carry? As is any length of fixed blade when in an urban area? Isn't it true that knives with points of any blade length have been banned, or their banning discussed, in that various Parliaments of the United Kingdom?

Is not the determination of "good reason" left at the hands not a jury, judge, or prosecutor, nor defined by law, but an individual police officer? And that can be applied to any object in a person's possession? By your own admission, that can be applied to most any item, even a flashlight.

Oh my- what if a police officer decides you don't need a camera or cell phone on your person while walking past a jewelry store or bank? Or that your umbrella could make too effective a weapon in the wrong hands?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 04:56 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a locking pocket knife, despite being much safer, an illegal item to carry? As is any length of fixed blade when in an urban area? Isn't it true that knives with points of any blade length have been banned, or their banning discussed, in that various Parliaments of the United Kingdom?


You may be correct. The Criminal Justice Act (1988) says that you may carry a knife with a blade length of 3.0" or less so long as it is capable of folding. That means no fixed blade knives. A knife has no place at a football match, in a pub, nightclub or school and becomes an offensive weapon in these circumstances in just the same way as a screwdriver, or any other inanimate tool.

if you wish to carry a larger knife then you must have 'reasonable cause'. That means that you must be able to prove that you had a genuine reason for carrying the knife.

You may carry a larger cutting tool if it is associated with your work (for instance a chef may carry a 9.0" butchers knife roll to and from work), or if it is associated with your sport, (for instance a fisherman may carry a 6.0" fillet knife, or a hunter may carry a 4.0" fixed blade hunting knife).

The following items are banned from sale within the UK (although if you already own one you may keep it, but not use it outside of your own property) ... Switchblades, automatics or 'flick-knives', gravity knives, balisongs or 'butterfly knives', push daggers, belt buckle knives, sword canes, or knuckle-duster knives.

Late on in 2004, an amendment to the law was introduced which restricts the sale of any knife which is not readily detectable by the normal methods of detection, ie: either x-ray or metal detection, unless it can be proven that the knife's sole purpose is for the preparation of food. So for instance, the Cold Steel CAT Tanto or Lansky Knife are now prohibited within the UK.

You may not buy any knife designed to look like something else, for instance a knife which appears to be a pen, (and it doesn't matter whether the pen works or not, it's still a concealed weapon).

Quote:
Is not the determination of "good reason" left at the hands not a jury, judge, or prosecutor, nor defined by law, but an individual police officer? And that can be applied to any object in a person's possession? By your own admission, that can be applied to most any item, even a flashlight.


Again you are correct, if a policeman suspects that with 'good reason' you are involved in or preparing a criminal act, the policeman can stop and search you for incriminating evidence and can then arrest you if he feels this is the case. The decision whether the case is brought to trail is not the police officers. This is how a very famous English serial murderer called the Yorkshire Ripper was caught. A local police officer on the beat became suspicious and when questioned about his actions was arrested and then taken to the local police station. The hammer which the murderer had been using to dispatch his victims was latter discovered in a back alley where he was first arrested some hours latter.

Quote:
Oh my- what if a police officer decides you don't need a camera or cell phone on your person while walking past a jewelry store or bank? Or that your umbrella could make too effective a weapon in the wrong hands?


Again you are correct. This could in theory happen if the police officer suspects that a criminal offense in either in progress or is being prepared.

I should also qualify everything above with the fact that in the UK the police force are generally seen as public servants. They are almost always approachable and helpful and there for the public good.

When it comes to self defense there the laws regarding reasonable force. I think we need an example to explain the differences. About 10-12 years ago there was a Scotsman who had traveled to Texas. He had been out drinking at a bar and had got to know some of the locals. He had accepted a lift back from the bar but was dropped off in the wrong neighborhood. The neighborhood was an upper middle class area. Being from Scotland as he would back home in Scotland he decided to knock on someones door and ask if he could use their telephone to get a taxi home. It was now late in the evening. In Scotland most people would open the door and call a taxi for the fellow to see him on his way. He forgot he was in Texas. He was shot through the door and was killed. In the US the property owner faced no charges because it was deemed self defense. In Scotland the same property owner would be charged with murder.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 05:34 AM

I guess in general to answer the proposition;

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself?

the answer would have to be;

No I am not equipped to defend myself because there is not really anyone to defend myself against, living where I live. I suppose you could say I just live elsewhere on the imaginary freedom versus fear curve.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 06:07 AM

"No I am not equipped to defend myself because there is not really anyone to defend myself against, living where I live."

Hmmm.... I went over to that site, International Murder Per Capita Rates, that was posted by HightHiker. It just said murders, not specifying gun murders, so I guess we can include all forms of fatal mayhem.

Murder rate in the U.S.: 0.042802 per 1,000 of population (which is ~300,000,000)= 12,774.

Murder rate in GB: 0.0140633 per 1,000 of population (which is ~60,610,000) = 852.

The U.S. has a population very close to 5 times that of GB. So if we reduced our population by 80%, we could also reduce our murders by 80%, which would bring it down to 4,260. And if we could trim certain cities (like Miami, D.C., Chicago, & L.A.) off the map, we could do far better, I'm sure.

But, Bentirran, I'm glad you live in such a safe place, or we might end up with fewer people with whom to argue, and life here at ETS would be dull and boring.

Sue
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 06:15 AM

A lot of the deciding factor is the age of the student. The people I can see carrying would be professors or non-traditional students. Either returning for an additional degree or starting later (i.e. ex military) or working on a degree in night classes after work. The parking areas can seem mighty dark when there's only a couple cars left in the lot. Given the required investment in money and/or time to get the permit I would expect that several who already had a permit would. As far as weight goes, it's like Benjammin said in another post. Once you've made it part of your routine EDC you won't notice it added to the 25-30 lbs of books. It would take a large automatic and a couple of magazines before I'd notice the added weight if it was carried with the books in a pack.

Quote:
in favor of regulating firearms possession and use at least as stringently as we regulate the right to drive legally


I don't know about other states but Tennessee requires passing a hunter's safety course with both written & range components before you can get your license. Same thing for the CCW license. IIRC the hunter safety course is 3-4 evenings of lecture plus demonstrate safe handling while shooting clay pigeons on the range. The CCW license is an evening presentation on the legalities plus exam and accuracy with safe handling on the range. They also require a background check with the sheriff's office for the purchase of handguns. I don't know if the background check requirement includes long arms.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 06:56 AM

So I am wondering now, who is there in your community to stop someone from committing gross acts of violence against your population?

If you've not the ability to defend yourselves, and the police aren't right there when you need them, and wouldn't be sufficiently armed if they were there anyways, then I'd say it is only a matter of time before the world you know comes crashing down.

Then again, I might be wrong.

Perhaps the question is what would the motivation be for an act of violence to be perpetrated in your area?

I would assume that some in your community have or possess items of significant value, which would be easily transportable, maybe even on their person on a daily basis, maybe even money.

Yes, there are places in the USA in which it is still reasonable to expect to leave your front door unlocked whilst you head into town to do a bit of shopping or off to the pub for a dram or two. These places still allow us some modicum whereby we can tally and doff vagrants, brigands, and the occasional highwayman or so.

I liken your situation to the process of osmosis. Given that your violent crime rate is low such that you are no longer really too concerned (so it seems) with the notion of defending one's self and property, relative to the reality of other places in the realm, I would expect that such criminal pressures will eventually equalize and you will some day regrettably find that your community will be subject to the same attrition others have faced/are facing. It would be preferable if this were not the case, but the world is getting smaller all the time, and the have nots do still outnumber the haves, and nature always seems to work to an equilibrium, sooner or later.

I hope you won't mind terribly if we direct some of our fellows to your area enlightened with this new information. It may help to alleviate some of the predatory pressure we have here for a time. Hopefully you will find a less violent means of dealing with them than we have. If so, please enlighten us as to how this is accomplished, for as we have found, the only effective way of deterring predatory manner is the use of firm and direct force.

I would always consider defending myself as a genuine reason for carrying any weapon. Perhaps the most genuine reason I can think of. I also believe a knife, like any other tool, becomes an offensive weapon only when it is deliberately used as such. It is not any more inherently offensive than a brick or a shard of glass or a pair of scissors or a scarf. Unless I am using it in an offensive manner, which does not include just holding it in my hand (which is not the definition of brandishing as some would lead us to believe), then the police ought not be allowed to declare it as such just because they think I might do something offensive with it. You may not be prosecuted for it, but you will not ever see it again once it is confiscated by the police as well. If you use it at home to defend yourself, you will likely be before the magistrate after being hauled into the hoosgow for illegally defending yourself in your own home (seems to me I recall hearing about just such a thing not too long ago).

Funny how the british have one policy for their homeland subjects, and quite a different one for other areas they operate and manage. Seems an awful lot like US policy we've cited here too.
Posted by: handyman

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 11:42 AM

bentirran

So , the UK is Utopia ?
I don't know all the crime stats. But , one thing I do know is that guns do not CAUSE crime and banning them does not eliminate crime .
Violent crime has been around for thousands of years , long before guns were invented . You have banned guns and , from what I've heard , pocket knives . What's next , banning pointy sticks and rocks ?
It's very sad that you have become a nation of brainwashed sheep .
WHY are you on the ETS forums ? What could possibly happen to you when you live in utopia ?
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 01:52 PM

Um, is it really necessary to be so hostile toward another country just because they have a different legislation? Have you been to the UK at all?

I would never call the British a nation of brainwashed sheep (maybe Tony Blair would qualify but that's a different matter lol). If anything, I felt pretty safe in the UK and the people I met were very friendly and helpful. As were the few policemen I came in personal contact with. I understand crime is an increasing concern in the UK but the last time I was there they still seemed to be doing pretty well in that department. If you look at the swift and effective response after the recent terrorist attacks in London (some of which were actually successfully prevented by the police) their law enforcement is doing a good job, too.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 02:33 PM

Quote:
If you look at the swift and effective response after the recent terrorist attacks in London (some of which were actually successfully prevented by the police) their law enforcement is doing a good job, too.


They do a good job but they are not perfect. Just ask the poor Brazilian guy who got shot in the head. 9-11 should have served as a wakeup call but they had to undergo their own attack before they really cracked down on the islamofascists.

An admirable society in many ways, but hardly "utopia".

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 07:41 PM

Quote:
It's very sad that you have become a nation of brainwashed sheep .
WHY are you on the ETS forums ? What could possibly happen to you when you live in utopia ?


I'm not aware of any British equivalent to Project MKULTRA.

Hopefully I can bring a slightly different considered viewpoint to the debates to the difficult questions raised. If you think I live in Utopia then I really do hope that you are not going to live in a future Dystopia. Heterotopia is where we are right now, both you and me. Outopia is a but a distant dream.

Posted by: Micah513

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 08:02 PM

So if you experience a major TEO... due to an EMP and society breaks down then how do you plan to defend yourself?
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 08:17 PM

And just how likely is that anyway? It's not like TEOTWAWKI happens every day. Besides, I wouldn't worry about the Brits too much. They're a tough bunch and can pull themselves together when they need to. They survived Hitler's blitz, daily bombings and a severe submarine blockade in WWII. I guess they could survive a power outage too. wink
Posted by: gatormba

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 08:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Micah513
So if you experience a major TEO... due to an EMP and society breaks down then how do you plan to defend yourself?


Well they could always ask the UN for help, that seems to work wonders. Or if worse comes to worst then our gun culture here can always throw a benefit to raise guns for those across the pond. We could call it "Gun AID." The NRA could sell hotdogs and 2nd Amendment tee shirts. Maybe Tud Nugent could headline the event. smirk
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/23/07 10:29 PM

Bentirran,

I am curious, given the number of now illegally owned firearms here in Australia, did the general population of the UK really disarm themselves, or have they stashed them away as everybody here seems to have?

It is difficult for me to think that such an intelligent population would not at least consider the prospect that things could change for the worse, and retain at least some measure of deterence should the need arise.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 12:35 PM


Quote:
I am curious, given the number of now illegally owned firearms here in Australia, did the general population of the UK really disarm themselves, or have they stashed them away as everybody here seems to have?



It is actually possible to own a legal firearm in the UK, only there are restrictions on the types of firearms that can be held. Automatic assault rifles and concealable hand gun cannot be held with a firearms license. Other firearms are used in field sports and are available to those with a firearms license. A firearms license is processed by the police authorities and rigorous background checks made.

There are sportsmen and sportswomen who are involved in the sporting side such as target shooting and other field sports such as hunting. The UK target shooting teams have an impressive record at the Olympics and they will to continue to do so. The rifles used by these sportsmen is not generally held at their homes but securely at their sports club under very tight security conditions.

I would suspect that the chances that anyone in the UK has easy access to an Assault rifle, which has be salted away are very low indeed to the point of being almost impossible, although I have heard that someone in Manchester was able to purchase through the Internet from the US by ordering separate individual parts. Concealed hand guns are again very hard to get hold off but I would suspect not impossible. Ammunition for these weapons would probably be even harder to get.

Quote:
It is difficult for me to think that such an intelligent population would not at least consider the prospect that things could change for the worse, and retain at least some measure of deterence should the need arise.


The difference in outlook when things get tough or difficult is really a cultural one. I suspect that in the US people have a different mindset. People in the US are more individualistic, they are forced to rely on there own abilities and see others in their communities as potential threats to the own way of life. I think an example would be useful. In the late 1960's there was a Blackout in New York, there was looting and anarchy. In the UK in the 1970's there was something called the 3 day week. During 4 days out of 7 electrical power was turned off around the country. During that period people just went to bed earlier than normal by candlelight and some learned to play the piano and most got around to reading that unfinished novel during the extra time they had on their hands. Some even claim that they had a great time during the 3-day week. Apparently the birth rate jumped considerably 9 months later.
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 03:14 PM


Oddly the people who shake their heads wondering why americans don't have Britains gun laws forget to mention that since Britain introduced them, the number of shootings have gone up.
Britain was the easiest place to get rid of guns. Hardly anyone had one, most people didn't even know someone who had one.

All the guns were confiscated, no one can get a licence for one now. And it's an island with no 6,000 miles of landborders to patrol.
Only the week before the British media were aghast at americans 'foolishness' in allowing people to own guns, the same media was full (as it had been for months) with reports of teenagers shooting teenagers yet again.

It's never been easier to get a gun illegally. The obvious fact that the Virginia chap would have simply used an illegal gun is never mentioned.
Simon
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 03:15 PM


Oddly the people who shake their heads wondering why americans don't have Britains gun laws forget to mention that since Britain introduced them, the number of shootings have gone up.
Britain was the easiest place to get rid of guns. Hardly anyone had one, most people didn't even know someone who had one.

All the guns were confiscated, no one can get a licence for one now. And it's an island with no 6,000 miles of landborders to patrol.
Only the week before the British media were aghast at americans 'foolishness' in allowing people to own guns, the same media was full (as it had been for months) with reports of teenagers shooting teenagers yet again.

It's never been easier to get a gun illegally. The obvious fact that the Virginia chap would have simply used an illegal gun is never mentioned.
Simon
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 03:20 PM


Actually the ghettos are awash with guns and kids can get them. Look on-line at any of the British media for the week before last.
Simon
Posted by: Jezcruzen

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 06:13 PM

To state that the 2nd Amendment is cause of 20K to 30K deaths per year is a very ignorant statement. The RKBA is not an enabler of gun-related violance. Criminal behavior is the enabler!
Much of the figures you cite are gang-on-gang violence fueled by the illegal drug trade, which itself is fully banned, BTW, with no noticable affect except making lots of money for some and death for others.
You seem well spoken and educated, but I do detect some snobbery as you describe the culture here in the colonies. I'm surprised that you seem not to be aware that during the darkest hour for GB during WWII it was American citizens who sent over thousands of personally owned and donated firearms for the defense of your homeland against the Germans. Why did Americans have to do that? Evidently because self-defense was not a priority to the citizens of GB, then as now.
Next time, (and it WILL be a "next time" considering your muslim invasion) I hope we will be in a position to respond to your needs again.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 10:07 PM

Quote:
To state that the 2nd Amendment is cause of 20K to 30K deaths per year is a very ignorant statement. The RKBA is not an enabler of gun-related violance. Criminal behavior is the enabler!


If there was historically no 2nd Amendment there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns and therefore there would be no gun-related violence in the United States.

Isn’t criminal behaviour, human behaviour that is against the law? As criminals are not allowed to purchase or own guns, criminals should in theory not have access to any guns which allows them to commit murder. When they commit criminal acts such as murder through gun related use, where do they get their guns from? Is it that they were originally law abiding citizens who had owned guns who then became criminals who then go on to murder their victim with the gun? Do law abiding citizens give guns to criminals? If so, does that not make them criminals? Why do criminals use guns anyway? Is it because law abiding citizens have guns because they have the right as law abiding citizens to lawfully keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment or is it due to the need to own a gun because criminals have guns. Are law abiding citizens allowed to kill criminals with their guns allowed to remain as law abiding citizens or do they become criminals themselves? This must depend on whether the act of killing with the gun was legal or illegal under the law I suppose. Do criminals who have guns who kill law abiding citizens under the same circumstances still remain criminals? As they are criminals who are not allowed to have a legally owned gun but have killed someone legally under the law, as in, say trespass on private property in Texas after nightfall, are they regarded as law abiding citizens or as criminals? What happen to law enforcement officers who kills a legally armed law abiding citizen with their legally held gun? Do they then become criminals? What happens if they kill an illegally armed criminal in the same way? Do they then become a criminal or a hero?

The 2nd Amendment – the criminal justice industries friend. If there were no guns in America and there were no criminals and no fear of criminals exactly how many would this put out of work?

I agree with you that criminals (human beings who have a history of law breaking) who have access to guns are ultimately responsible for the majority of deaths caused by gun shot wounding (if they killed someone unlawfully by definition they are now a criminal), but there is also a measurable percentage of the total figure that also die from gun shot wounding accidents. Many contributors on the forum are undoubtedly responsible gun owners who know exactly what their firearms are capable of and they have ensured that their family members are also aware that a gun is not something to be played about with. But there are literally thousands of other US citizens who have died or have been seriously wounded every year because they lack safety training in the use of firearms.

The 2nd Amendment was fundamental to the beginnings of the revolutionary politics, which formed the United States of America, the right to keep and bear arms. It was a way to ensure an armed militia. A civilian territorial army in essence was created to protect the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. It was also a way to ensure the United States of America remained a constitutional democratic republic. RKBA was designed to ensure itself as the final arbitrator if the finely balanced constitutional arrangements went out of kilter. It was there to ensure that dictatorship, which would then transcend into monarchy, would never take hold. But it also has a downside. If ever that final arbitration is required, when the balance of power of the internal constitutional politics within the United States tips either one way or the other then a blood bath will quickly follow. It has happened once before and for the sake of the US and the World I hope it doesn't happen again. Of course now, the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: on a side note - 04/24/07 10:43 PM

Quote:
I've heard that it is very expensive to go hunting in the UK so much so that it's basically a rich man's sport. Any truth to that?


Yes this is very true. Field sports such as hunting are basically a rich man's sport. The main reason for this is historical. In the UK, large areas of land were purchased by very wealthy 18th and 19th century industrialists who turned them into what are called sporting estates. These estates were then used as exclusive playgrounds for the very wealthy up until the middle of the 20th century when they then began to become economically unworkable. The estates since have had to diversify into tourism but there are still a small number of estates which provide hunting for game.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/24/07 11:03 PM

Originally Posted By: bentirran
If there was historically no 2nd Amendment there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns and therefore there would be no gun-related violence in the United States.

...

The 2nd Amendment – the criminal justice industries friend. If there were no guns in America and there were no criminals and no fear of criminals exactly how many would this put out of work?


Are you accusing American manufacturers and importers of legal, safety test, heavily regulated, unintelligent machines of being accessories to felonious acts? I want you to answer that question, and there are only two answers- "yes" or "no".

Are you accusing, OR believe, me and the other members of this forum of being accessories, accomplices or conspirators to felonious acts for owning samples of the most heavily taxed and regulated category of manufactured non-chemical, non-pharmaceutical item sold in America? I want you to answer that question, and there are only two answers- "yes" or "no".
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 12:30 AM

Quote:
Are you accusing American manufacturers and importers of legal, safety test, heavily regulated, unintelligent machines of being accessories to felonious acts? I want you to answer that question, and there are only two answers- "yes" or "no".


I would have to say morally 'Yes'. The armaments industry markets and sells products which have only one design purpose, that is to kill. Concealed hand guns have generally only one design purpose, that is to kill other people. The industry knows full well the death toll statistics. The industry does not care about the death toll, it is only interested in its own financial profitable gain. This is why there are specific laws in many States which specifically do not allow any civil actions against the industries which provide firearms to the public knowing what they know. The vested interest is that great.

Quote:
Are you accusing, OR believe, me and the other members of this forum of being accessories, accomplices or conspirators to felonious acts for owning samples of the most heavily taxed and regulated category of manufactured non-chemical, non-pharmaceutical item sold in America? I want you to answer that question, and there are only two answers- "yes" or "no".


'No', but that is a loaded question. I am not going to accuse any individual on this forum that they are involved in any illegal activities in relation to firearms selling, procurement or ownership. The previous posting points I have raised are purely based on my moral viewpoint and if most Americans wish to believe in a simplistic good guys versus bad guys moralistic viewpoint in relation to gun ownership then that is up to them.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 12:52 AM

Well, so far as I know, nowhere in the US grows a marketable supply of coca, and yet we can't seem to stop the flow of cocaine (or many other drugs that don't orignate in the US) despite harsh drug laws and a fairly sizable law enforcement/interdiction campaign for a few decades now. There are an awful lot of guns manufactured outside the US, many of them quite affordable. I doubt that the absence of the 2nd Amendment would ever have significantly reduced the number of firearms in this country being used by criminals. At one point I believe even England got into the game of illegally transporting firearms to the US, back around the time of our civil war I think it was.

So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. The laws won't do much to change that, except to keep guns out of otherwise law-abiding citizens' hands.

If what you say about the lack of assault rifles in the UK is true, then I would be disappointed. In Australia, the illegal possession of assault rifles is almost as prevalent as for handguns. Based on my experience there, a lot of folks still have both. Most of them just got rid of their old POS worn out 303s and shotguns and such.

The laws don't seem to have much effect on criminal behavior one way or the other. Even if availability were significantly reduced, the maniacs would just use something else, like at my daughter's school last week, where no guns were involved because apparently the kids couldn't get their hands on any in time, but were able to build a couple of bombs nonetheless, one of them so constructed it posed a serious threat. We have so many criminal laws on the books now even the lawyers are struggling to keep up, and yet our prisons continue to fill with people who know they are breaking the law and go ahead with their felonious activity anyways.

I will have to stand by my original tenet; the surest deterrent to criminal violence is effective use of lethal self defense. That seems most likely accomplished this day and age via the proficient and determined use of a firearm.

BTW, this is my first ever post from Singapore, on my way home.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 02:22 AM

Actually those laws protect all importers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of legal products who sell their non-defective wares in a legal manner to those persons whom they believe to be able to legally purchase said items based upon the documents they are provided with (and in the case of automobiles, firearms, some medication, and most industrial and agricultural chemicals, having consulted with state and federal authorities and logged the sale as the law requires) at time of sale, those documents passing inspection. In other words, they protect the law abiding from the whiny people whom they do not wrong.

If you stab yourself in the leg with a knife, it isn't the sellers fault, now is it?

If you fall off a ladder, unless it is defective, is it your fault?

If try to eat a beer can rather than drink it's contents, you are stupid git and that's the long and the short of it.

If you use a car as a get away vehicle after holding up a liquor store with a knife, the car nor it's seller committed what crime, right?

A seller of pressurized gases who has his stock stolen is in no way responsible if someone ODs on nitrous or makes a series of bottle bombs out of acetylene.

Is the guy who sold the pedophile the hard drive guilty of collection kiddie porn, or is the freak?

If someone buys a lighter, how can they be held accountable if it is used to light the fire that burns down a building?

If you buy sleeping pills and try to overdose on them, is the chemist to blame in your little utopia? I should certainly hope not, or there won't be a single business in the UK in a few years.

But you'll differentiate between these machines and chemical processes which have myriad of legal and legitimate purposes and a legally owned firearm in the hands of a law abiding, mentally competent citizen. That you can manufacture such a fiction, to blame a few pounds of metal, wood and plastic for a crime, amazes me. It has no life, it has no soul, and it can't hurt you in anyway unless another human uses or abuses it. Your solution is to take away the tools; our solution is take away the people who misuse them.

And you accuse us of having a simplistic mindset.

And I'm not even going to bother with your second point other than to say it wasn't a loaded question. I honestly want to know what you think of the American gun owner. As for your moral perspective, I respect it; I think it is based on denial, but I respect your right to have it. But you keep attacking our moral perspective and insulting us.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 03:00 AM

Quote:
Concealed hand guns have generally only one design purpose, that is to kill other people


If the perpetrator is high on drugs the only way to stop the threat without getting within arm's reach is a firearm. He won't even feel anything else unless you do similar damage.

Quote:
simplistic good guys versus bad guys moralistic viewpoint


A person minding his own business walking down a city street after dinner would be which one? This would seem to be a rather black & white difference. How do you consider this to be simplistic or moralistic?
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 09:08 AM

<< there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns >>>

As someone else has commented: you are obviously an educated man with a viewpoint worth listening to, but (and no offence is intended) that is an incredible statement.

there WOULD be guns. Britain has never had a second amendment and manufactures no guns; but it's shootings are rising. The argument against gun bans is very simple; 'they don't work'.

On a campus of 24,000 students do you really think there were no drugs? no illegal immigrants? no banned books or films? So what is this magical property of guns that they alone can be stopped at the border?
If that troubled boy had been in Britain he'd have simply used an illegal gun.
Simon
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 09:29 AM

The FBIs figures show a woman saves herself from being raped every 2 minutes with a gun.
Simon
Posted by: handyman

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 12:13 PM

It appears that my original thread has become an anti/pro gun debate .
There is just one last thing I have to say to bentirran . As others have said , you are a well spoken and educated person .
But , education doesn't = common sense !
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/25/07 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: ironraven
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a locking pocket knife, despite being much safer, an illegal item to carry?
You are wrong. What happens is that the court makes a judgement as to whether the knife is being carried as a weapon or a tool. A short, non-locking folder is presumed to be a tool, and a fixed or locking blade is presumed to be a weapon, but both presumptions can be rebutted. There have been recent cases of people arrested for locking blades, where the case was tossed out of court and the police embarrassed.

Quote:
Isn't it true that knives with points of any blade length have been banned, or their banning discussed, in that various Parliaments of the United Kingdom?
It is not true that they've been banned. I don't think the banning has been discussed in parliament, either. The idea was raised by, I think, a doctor, and it got a lot of publicity precisely because it was considered outrageous. Newspapers like to wind people up. The controversy is why you have heard of it.

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it were discussed, and the whole area reviewed. The statute law is good, but has been followed by some bad case law which needs clearing up.

Quote:
Is not the determination of "good reason" left at the hands not a jury, judge, or prosecutor, nor defined by law, but an individual police officer?
No, it is determined by a court.

Quote:
And that can be applied to any object in a person's possession? By your own admission, that can be applied to most any item, even a flashlight.
If an item is being carried as a weapon, then it is being carried as a weapon. I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:
Oh my- what if a police officer decides you don't need a camera or cell phone on your person while walking past a jewelry store or bank?
In the UK the police have some discretion in the field. This can be abused, and then they have to answer for it. I don't see how else it could work. I'm sure US police are also trusted to make judgement calls.

Your specific example is fairly ludicrous. How is my camera a weapon?
Posted by: picard120

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/26/07 12:35 AM

Is a stun gun considered as legal defense weapon??
Posted by: simplesimon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/26/07 09:05 AM

You don't mind standing there while i hit you in several times the face with a camera?
Simon
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/26/07 04:24 PM

Option 1
One half mass times velocity squared at the end of a three foot strap. It may only be good for one or two swings but if its and older model SLR I guarantee you will notice it.

Option 2a
Information about alarms, security, procedures, etc.

Option 2b
Mr. Owner leaving for long lunch with someone besides Mrs. Owner
Posted by: Jezcruzen

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/26/07 08:04 PM

"Of course now, the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services."

Yes, but that doesn't cover it all. The RKBA also was/is meant to act as a deterent against domestic enemies, too. Now-a-days, that seems to be of most concern - domestic enemies.

Certainly there are instances where someone who aquired a firearm legally (and who is legally entitled to own/posess a firearm) commits a criminal act with it. Mostly, however, criminals aquire firearms illegally and use them to further their criminal endeavors.

Even in GB, a society that has chosen to prevent its citizens from legally aquiring firearms for personal protection, (and who is now mulling over enacting draconian laws to further restrict the freedoms of someone who "they" suspect "might" commit an offense), shooting deaths are climbing in the more urban areas. Why? How can that be? Because criminals and others (thereby becoming criminals for want of protecting their families and themselves) will always be able to get guns if they really want one...or two.

We don't live in a Utopia. Never have. The world is a dangerous place - always has been, always will be. There have always been wolves preying on the sheep. I (and many, many like me) have chosen not to ever be a sheep. I'm concerned and worried that GB currently has a wolf running loose, and it preys to Mecca five times a day. Maybe one morning you'll awake and wish you had a Second Amendment. Good luck.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/26/07 09:36 PM


Quote:
Maybe one morning you'll awake and wish you had a Second Amendment.


Total Number of firearms deaths in the UK

1998/99: 49
1999/00: 62
2000/01: 73
2001/02: 97
2002/03: 81
2003/04: 70


Total Number of firearms deaths in Scotland.

1998/99: 7
1999/00: 5
2000/01: 3
2001/02: 5
2002/03: 3
2003/04: 2


From 1993 to 2000, overall firearm deaths in America fell from 39,595 to 28,663.

Don't really need to say much more.



Posted by: ChristinaRodriguez

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 01:38 AM

Originally Posted By: bentirran
Concealed hand guns have generally only one design purpose, that is to kill other people.


Isn't this, uh, kind of... true? Doesn't he have a point there?

You guys know that I don't currently own a gun but I do want to start handgun training, even though I wasn't brought up around guns and unfortunately most of my family's intimate experience with them has been through violent gun crime.

I personally shouldn't own a gun unless I am willing and able to kill someone with it in defense of myself and my loved ones. I figured having the means to kill someone isn't something I should take lightly when holding a gun, and that's the whole point of the training and seminars about the moral implications of using lethal force in self-defense. I didn't want begin handgun training for a CCW permit until I carefully considered if I was ready to wield such responsibility.

I know lots of other people buy handguns for other reasons (collecting, shooting competitions, etc.), and maybe I'm missing out on some big party, but I view handguns as weapons, plain and simple. So I dunno, I don't think Bentirran's statement is ridiculous at all, because to me that's the whole point of carrying a handgun.


Posted by: Seeker890

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 02:04 AM

Statistics are always ripe for the miss-informed to miss-use. Numbers such as those mean nothing without being referenced to total population, as in "per 100,000". I think a better yardstick to use would be violent crime statistics. Without the means to defend yourself, people in the UK are much more likely to become victoms of violent crime than people in the US.

Conceal carry weapons are to defend oneself. If you have to kill someone to do it, bad luck. Statistically, that weapon is more likely going to prevent someone getting hurt than causing hurt.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 04:21 AM

Bentirran, I think you think you know what you're talking about, but I suspect that you don't, from many of your arguments.

"If there was historically no 2nd Amendment, there would be no RKBA and therefore there would be no guns and therefore there would be no gun-related violence".
Try it this way: If there hadn't been an English king who thought England could subject the colonies to whatever control, taxes and whims he and his lackeys could invent, Americans might not have included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. We might not have the attitude that we could/should all have guns. The way I see it, it's all England's fault we have guns.

"Criminals should in theory not have access to any guns."
In Fantasyland, maybe not, but have criminals in England turned all their guns in at your government's request? Please tell us how you did it!

"Where do they get their guns?"
The same place yours do: they steal them or, more likely, get them from their criminal friends. England has had a long history of smuggling... and probably still does, although rum probably isn't the cargo.

"Why do criminals use guns anyway?"
Because if all their victim has is a stick or a rock, they have the advantage.

"Do criminals who have guns who kill law abiding citizen under the same circumstances still remain criminals?"
I'm assuming that you're meaning something like if a rapist is attacked by his 10-yr-old victim's crazed but otherwise normal father, and the criminal shoots him in self-defense. Well, since he wasn't supposed to have a gun to begin with, and he instigated the situation with the rape, YES, he's still a criminal. Of course, the father has also committed a crime.

"If there were no guns in America and there were no criminals and no fear of criminals exactly how many would this put out of work?"
If there were no weapons in England, and there were no criminals, and no fear of criminals, would an English person still have a tax rate of 40% on £35,000? England could have stopped the bloodshed in Belfast with one act, but it hasn't, has it? Is it the money, the power, or the mere possession?

"...there are literally thousands of other US citizens who have died or have been seriously wounded every year because they lack safety training in the use of firearms."
Yes, and with cars, too. And England?

"...the balance of power of the internal constitutional politics within the United States tips either one way or the other then a blood bath will quickly follow. It has happened once before..."
England has had two civil wars, hasn't it?

"... the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services."
The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the U.S. is a guy called President Bush. Was your comment intended to me us feel safe? It doesn't.

You seem to think that all the guns in America suddenly appeared overnight, and could disappear the same way. And all crime would go with it. Are you living in Brigadoon or somewhere? Crime existed well before guns, and will continue to do so, here and in England.

On the other hand... England has few guns, probably less ammunition, and a small military. America has a lot of guns, a lot of ammo, and a pretty strong military... hmmmmm......

Sue



Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 04:25 AM

You might want to keep this in mind, just in case you ever have to shoot a bad guy, and end up in front of a jury (and you will, either criminal or civil)...you shot to STOP the bad guy from hurting people, not to KILL him. The fact that he might have died makes no difference. As more than one smart law enforcement officer has said, "...shoot to end violence, not to kill..."
Posted by: norad45

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 02:41 PM

Claiming that handguns are only "for killing people" is wrong, but even if it wasn't, so what? I know it is unfashionable in certain circles to take responsibility for one's own defense. We are presumably expected to leave such matters in the hands of the government. This attitude is apparently even more pervasive across the pond, where self defense, particularly with a weapon of any sort, is frequently considered a criminal act. I sincerely hope we are not headed in the direction of Scotland, where they are--I kid you not--about to ban most swords in the vain hope that it will somehow make them safer.

You are absolutely right about not wanting to own a gun without the proper training, and the mindset to use it. But I'll bet you'll be surprised at just how much fun shooting can be. Get somebody you know with a .22 rifle or pistol who is proficient to take you to the range. Or have your CCW instructor do it. Unless I miss my guess you'll be hooked. smile
Posted by: FRERAD1776

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 02:50 PM

Scotland a model for defending yourself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html
Posted by: gatormba

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 03:10 PM

Originally Posted By: FRERAD1776
Scotland a model for defending yourself.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html


That's brilliant! Thanks for the link!
Posted by: Jezcruzen

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 06:27 PM

SAF APPLAUDS NEW KATES-MAUSER REPORT ON FIREARMS AND CRIME
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives.

Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

“The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws. It seems hardly a coincidence that here in America, the highest crime rates are in places with strict gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. However, in areas here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership violent crime rates are lower.

“The authors note an earlier study by Kates that showed a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, while overall gun ownership increased 103 percent and handgun ownership went up 163 percent,” he continued. “Yet during that period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.”

Gottlieb said the timing of this report’s release in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is significant due to the renewal of the gun control debate following the recent events at Virginia Tech.

“Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against all the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd,” Gottlieb stated. “While their research will obviously not close the debate, they’ve made a strong case against the traditional anti-gun mantra. Gun ownership is not the problem, and this new report proves it.”
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 08:53 PM

Yeppers, you made the point I try to pound home to people. Thanks OBG.

Remember, you don't even have to hit the guy, you just have to make him run away or stop. That is your one and only goal. If I can make the guy stop without even firing a shot, so much the better.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Susan

I'm assuming that you're meaning something like if a rapist is attacked by his 10-yr-old victim's crazed but otherwise normal father, and the criminal shoots him in self-defense. Well, since he wasn't supposed to have a gun to begin with, and he instigated the situation with the rape, YES, he's still a criminal. Of course, the father has also committed a crime.


Are you referring to before or after the freak is in custody?

If before, said freak is either committing his crime or attempting to escape. Preventing a felony, stopping a felon defense of a family member- all there are legal grounds for the used of potentially lethal force.

And if after, any judge who would find against the father should have his gavel taken away from him.
Posted by: ChristinaRodriguez

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 09:37 PM

Originally Posted By: norad45
I'll bet you'll be surprised at just how much fun shooting can be. Get somebody you know with a .22 rifle or pistol who is proficient to take you to the range. Or have your CCW instructor do it. Unless I miss my guess you'll be hooked. smile


You're right, I was. My in-laws go "plinking" on the grounds of their country house and I fired a .22 rifle at some cans. It really was pretty exhilariating, like catching my first fish. Now I know why people can get addicted to activities like that. I will probably be less timid about handguns when I start shooting with those, if rifle shooting was any indication.
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/27/07 11:31 PM

The DA that even files the case had better be ready for a rough ride the next election.
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 04/28/07 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: simplesimon
You don't mind standing there while i hit you in several times the face with a camera?
But if someone does that isn't it right that they be stopped and disarmed?
Posted by: Ponce

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/08/07 03:31 AM

I always carry a large pocket knife with me, in my pick up I carry a 24" extendable batton and a large tear gas bear repellent ..... attached to the back of my seat a 9 mill carabine with a 28 shot clip, I have the back of the seat covered so that it looks like part of the back seat.

Also carry my 3 days back pack an in winter a heavy sleeping bag.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/08/07 02:03 PM

If that pocket knife has a blade more than 4" long, it would be illegal for you to carry it in public in many states.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/23/07 11:31 PM

I'd like to Suggest that in a Self Defense, -you take a Multi-Faceted Approach as the Situation Dictates. For instance, -in Addition to ordinary Fistfighting / Boxing / Martial Arts / Use of Standard Weapons or Handy Items / Sidestepping or Fleeing if you can, -that you also Segway yourself into say a Wrestle where you can. Especially if you feel you've at least somewhat've "Got Wrestling into your Bag"! Next to Disabling someone's Eyes, "Offensive Appendages", and etc, -There's nothing quite like getting an Attaker *Off* his Feet!, -and *Onto* the Ground!

*Don't* put all your Eggs into only One Basket! *Don't* put All your Self Defense Techniques into Only One Method!

Perhaps Learn and Master only One as much as Exceedingly Well! But *Don't* Neglect at least Some Knowledge and Familiarity with the Many Others!
Posted by: picard120

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/24/07 04:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Ponce
I always carry a large pocket knife with me, in my pick up I carry a 24" extendable batton and a large tear gas bear repellent ..... attached to the back of my seat a 9 mill carabine with a 28 shot clip, I have the back of the seat covered so that it looks like part of the back seat.

Also carry my 3 days back pack an in winter a heavy sleeping bag.


Is it legal to carry extendable baton and pocket knife? I won't even ask about the gun.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/29/07 10:49 PM

But the Punks and Crooks over here would *still* have their Guns, -even if there *be* such a Sweeping, Public Ban!

The 20,000 to 30,000 Annual Victims of such, (and you don't even include those "merely" Wounded), -could easily be Many, Many, Thousands *More*! Were we to just attempt to Ban the "Firearms *Means*"!

Unfortunately, and Badly Reflecting on us / U.S., -We are Not all "Across the Common Board Civil", -as you Commendably are in the U.K., -where one could Successfully Do such!

Its like "Peace vs War"! -If *Nobody* were a Warmonger to *Begin with*, -We *Could* have ourselves an Amicable, Peaceful World! Here, -in this Idealistic Sense, -the Doves and Peaceniks *are* Right! *Everybody* should be such!

But in that many Someones somewhere in the World, -or on the Street, -are going to Wrongly want to Raise a Weapon at Another!, -Then we the Decent Citizenry / Free Peoples of the World, -are going to Ourselves have to Bear Arms / and Man Freedom's Watch!

There of course Remains Great Truism in the once Common NRA Phrase, -"When Guns are Outlawed, -Only Outlaws will have (and Use) Guns!"

I think they should also Go Back to that Great Commercial they've had! Back round '87 or so. Where the Crook's sitting at home, -watching TV, -Beholding some Politico Pledgeing "to Break the Back of Crime!", -*via a Ban*! The Crook just Sits there and Laughs!, Laughs!, Laffs! That Says it All So Very Well! Better than any other "NRA Preaching" could! They Really Outta Go Back to that! the Shame of Really Good to Great Ideas! Just Inexplicably Going Off onto the Shelf!, -Somewhere!!! Someone Please maybe Get the Hint!

For much of my Life so far, -I had been typically at sort of a Middle of the Road position on this, -at Best! Way back in my Young, Starting Out Day, -(RFK, MLK, '68, etc), -I even Fell for the Standard, Liberal, Gun Control and Bans, of a Line! At least I soon enuff Graduated to Middle of the Road.

But in Recent Years, -as World and Crime News has Increasingly and Much Gathered here at Home and Abroad!, -I've since Moved Over to a Full, -or at least Darned Pretty Near Full!, -*Advocacy*! Of the PRO Gun Views and Camp! The Decent Citizenry so Needs to be Able to Protect Themself! As well as of their Loved Ones!

As such, I actually "Feel Sorry For"!, -Feel a Sore and Crying Sense of Loss!, -at the latest "Gun Give In" Drives! "All those Priceless Enuff Firearms!", -I think, -"May Someday be Really and Sorely *Needed*!, -Here at Home or Abroad!"

The longstanding Crime Wave!, -has Grown More towards that of a Tsunami!, -as I see it! People are going to *Need* their "Like Spirited Protection"!, (and I *Don't* mean the Wrongness and All of Crime here!), -Should any such Wave Come to Break Over them! "Crime is Grime!".

Whatever happened to my 60s Days as a Kid!? When it seemed that the only Real Crime round Town!, -was your Average John Q Dumbo Burglar, -Jimmiing Open a Window!? Drive Bys and Stuff!, -We had None of that that I ever heard of!!!

I guess, -that when *Everybody* in this World, -and in All of our Neighborhoods, -Becomes and Remains "a Good Girl and Boy"! -That we can Then and Only Then, -Prevent some 25,000 Annual Gun Deaths, -via the Banning of the Cause of such Deaths! On further Thought again, -the Gun is Not the Cause! But rather the Means! The Implement. The *Person* and the Hand *Behind* such!, -are of course the Real Cause! That Person and Hand *should* only be of the Good and Decent Citizenry. In that it will of course Not be Fully that, -even here, -then that Good and Decent Ciotizenry Subset, -should be Fully Protected and Armed!

Otherwise, -I have Read, -and *Do* Acknowledge, -your Pro Gun Protection Views, -as you State! But to Read what you said was the *Cause* Behind our 20,000 to 30,000 Annual Gun Deaths!,...,-I just had to so Respectfully Differ and Answer here!

Again, -We *Should* be like Scotland and the UK here! In that we can *then* Do it in your Different and Better Way! But Sadly Enuff Reflecting Fact on us is, -that we are Not! And so the Good Guys too!, -Not only just the Bad Guys, -have Got to be Armed! Protected and Armed!

I guess, (at least as Far as the Domestic Crime and Social Scenes are Concerned), -that there's Really No Need for one to have their own Personal Howitzers, or Nuclear Weapons! So the general, Pro Gun Principle, -may Not Apply here in a more Practical Sense. In this way, -I think I still come down somewhere on a Middle Ground, -on this all round Matter and Issue.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/29/07 11:19 PM

I have now Finished Reading your last paragraph of your Thoughtful Post.

So as to a National or Public Debate around the Underlying Cultural Cause, -I again Respond that our "Armed Punk Subset" of it all, -just should Not be so! In that they should just Refrain from such! And that we could Then and Thereby do it!, -as you Commendably do it in the U.K.!

But in that we In-Commendably Don't!, -Our "Better Spirited Ones", -are just going to have to be Armed and Ready!, -for their own Self Protection!

This Remains so, -in Light of the Fact that some of us, -just *Won't*, -be Good Girls and Boys!, -to Start with! Even in a World where we "Banningly" Deprive them of the Ability to say!, -"Well Good Ole Mr Jones over there has a Gun!, -Thats the Only Reason I have one!". Frankly its just Because some of us want to be Punks and Crooks to begin with! Therein lies your Underlying Cause!

In the Face of that, -Decent Citizens just have to be Self Protected!

So at least our 30,000 Figure is Not a 60,000 one!

And Virginia Tech *could* have had Far Less Woundings and Deaths, -had some Decent One(s) there had a Firearm in their Own Protection!

Further!, -Many Punks *wouldn't* even Try such! In such a Pro Protection Environment! To the Great Contrary!, -VT was such a Ripe and Tempting Target, -to the Very Opposite! *Via* such a well Intentioned, Outright Ban!

Again, -if we Ban Guns, -Who will be the Only Ones to *Have and Use* such!?...

Lets take your own Country for example. Had during the Very Real Nazi Threat to Britian, -there in the early days of WW2, -Guns had been Outlawed throughout Britian, -and the Nazis had come Across the Channel!, -rather than going Eastward to Russia! -Then *How* would you have!, -to cite Churchill, -"Fought in the Streets, Hills...", and so forth!, -*Without* Guns!!? Here it would be Wise and Well for Britian to *have* some Guns!, -in its "Common Guy Culture"! While it is Admittedly Wise and Well of us!, -the U.S.!, -to *Not* have "Trigger Happy Punks" doing their thing, -to Begin with! These latter again, -are our Underlying Cause!
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/29/07 11:57 PM

It *is* "Due to the *Need* to own a Gun because *Criminals* *HAVE* Guns"! To use some of your Own Words as you Raise, (with some of my own Emphasis added).

Again, -It *is* Adviseable of us that we have No Gun Wielding Criminals to begin with! But we *Do*! Sad Fact on us (and Others in the World), -is that we do!

It would be Good, Great, and Adviseable!, -if in a more Perfect, Peachy World!, -we *thereby* COULD put many Criminal Justice Folks, -Off to Other, Useful Work! But again, -this Neccessary Condition, -just is *Not* so!...

True, -Many Enuff Kids and others *Do* Die / Receive Wounds, -in Gun Accidents. Part of the Collateral Effects as you talk of. Very Regrettable and Unfortunate!, -of course. But it 8does* just happen to be part of the Price we Pay, -in our Over-Arching, Neccessary Protection!

And as to where Guns for the Badfolk originally Come From, -Even under a Perfect Domestic Ban, -Guns still Could and Would, -Filter in from Outside! Why!, -some Criminal or other Shady Gunsmiths, -would even Make some for them! There could be a Firearms Equivalent of our 20s Booze Running!

And again, -I See Potential and Possible Needs as could sometime Arise, -to Protect our Constitutional Freedom -and/or ourselves from Enemies Foreign, -via the Need and Right to Keep and Bear Arms! And Not Only as Neccessary Protection from various Common Street Punks. ("RKBA", by the way, -as appears a number of times in this thread, -means the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms". It took me several "Meetups" with that, -to Get It myself!).

Even with our often Splendiferous, Professional Armed Forces, -our Common Citizenry Still Needs its Rightful Guns! For Many a National Army or Govt around the World has been involved in a Coup! Or other such Mischief! I and Many Others of us!, -*Wouldn't* want that Possibility to ever be Occurring here!

On that preceeding, -I know that you may Respond, -of an Equal Danger of a "Wrongful Public Revolution"! Mob Rule and such! *Backed* by such Guns thruout our Culture and Public! Duly Noted! But here again though!, -I Beleive that the Greater Neccessary "Balanceout"!, -is and should be in Favor of the Public owning Guns, against Governmental Abuse and other Threats! *Over* Threat Possibilities Arising from the General Population!

I *Do* See much Constructive Value and Criticism, -in both the Substance and Spirit of such Views of your's, -from your "Outside Vantage Point"! Sometimes such an Angle of View, -is Better and Best!

But I also see Very Much actual NON-Applicability of much of it to us here! For the Reasons that I here and elsewhere in this Thread, variously Reply with and State.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 12:10 AM

"There have Always been Wolves Preying on the Sheep!". Perfectly Said!
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 12:25 AM

Good and Great once again that you have Very Few Punks *First* Wrongly Using such Firearms! Your Ban is by Happenstance, -Successfully Coupled with that! This once again is the ONLY Way!, -that such a Ban, -could have such Actual or Apparent Happy Results! Again, -There is Not Neccessarily a "Happy Connection" there! Rather, -I Very Much think it is "Happy Happenstance"!

Here, -We (and Others in the World), -to our Discredit, -Just *Do Not* have that Happy Happenstance or Luxury! We have Plenty More Wolves Roaming About than you! And *Therefore* the Far Higher Numbers!

THAT is the Cause!, -the Underlying Cause! NOT our Second Amendment, Plentiful Firearms, and Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

Were that we WERE as you and Japan so Admirably Are! We just are in Large Measure Not!

You don't need to say much more (as you've said), -regarding your Own Admirable Situation. But you Can't Apply that Same to us! In that our Underlying Causes *Are* Different!

You cannot so Apply your Apple to our Orange! Should we be an Apple here rather than an Orange? Yes! But *While* we have Plenty Enuff "Bad Oranges" Roaming Around!, -We *Cannot* be your "Admirable Apple"!, as such!
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 12:35 AM

When I speak of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys", -I'm speaking in a General, All Round Sense! Black and White generally Very Much Holds True here! But there are also in some Times and Places, -some Shades of Gray!.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 12:42 AM

Yeah, -we Can't Outlaw Cars and other Common, Everyday Implements!

And a further Backing of your Points toward Ben. -Our WW2 Forces Fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan! Were we to Morally Recuse ourselves from being Armed!/ Andv USING such in our Own Self Protection!? They so could have Walked Right In!, -on Both Coasts, -on Pearl Harbor Day! Meeting Up and Dividing the Country at the Mississoppi!
Posted by: DBAGuy

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 05:40 PM

Quote:
I'm not aware of any British equivalent to Project MKULTRA.


I am sorry, but among many of the silly things bentirran has said, this takes the top spot.

I shall now indulge myself : BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 05:55 PM

We might not of had Project MKULTRA but we did have the BBC indoctrinating children in the early 1970's, called the 'The Clangers'
Posted by: BrianTexas

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 06:24 PM

You post reminds me of a discussion I had with my students regarding the theory of "just war".

One of my students disagreed with the need for a "just war" by claiming that she was "anti-war". I informed her that no sane person is "pro-war", that is "wants to see war". The premise of just war is that it should be avoided unless no other alternative to self defense is available and practical.

All people should be against war. However, war is sometimes the "necessary evil" needed to stop a greater evil.

For more info, I recommend that people read C.S. Lewis' essay, "Why I am not a Pacifist." His theory is that pacifism cannot stop absolute evil (think Hitler in Lewis' era). Perhaps the same applies when dealing with sociopathic and psychopathic criminals.
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 09:00 PM

"The Obvious Fact that the Virginia chap would have Simply used an Illeagal Gun is Never Mentioned".

-A Very True and Telling Point!
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 09:15 PM

I Differ with you on Tony Blair! You are Very Lucky to Have / Have Had him!
Posted by: ScottRezaLogan

Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself - 05/30/07 09:40 PM

Indeed!, -If one could Call it that! That particular Subset of Current Day American "Music" and Pop "Culture"!

And we *are* to Blame for Directly or Indirectly Importing that Bad Influence over to your Shores! Where its to some extent, -having the Effect you Describe!

OK, -Some of you Listen to it and Buy it, -so we are Both to some Blame. But the Greater and Initiating Blame here is Our's!

As an American, -I do Own Up to this and Apologize!

As for me, -I Long and have Always Been!, -into the Likes of Glen Campbell, Jackie DeShannon, your Petula Clark, the Peppermint Rainbow, Bobby Goldsboro, Joe South, the Fifth Dimension, Karen Carpenter, Gary Puckett & the Union Gap, -and a number of such Special, Topmost, Others! Real Music! I'm into Other such Great, Meaningful, and Tasteful Styles too! But these as I've mentioned, -are the Centerpeice and Core!, -of my "Musical Onion"! You've Very Well and Tastefully have Imported Petula Clark on over to us! Thanks a Million! We should NOT be Importing (what in my Personal Opinion is) the Absolute Bottom of the Barrel!, -on Back to you! (At least we've sent you some Tops of the Barrel too! Glen Campbell, for instance, -has Met your Queen! On your Home Soil.). And to a Certain Member here whose Username I think begins with an "S", -(I Forget just what his is!), -that I've Communicated with in the Past, -I Hasten to Say that -"LL Cool Jay is Allright!" At least Not every Last Bit of Rap et al, -is (in my View) Bottom of the Barrel Bad! Plenty Enuff Other though is! Enuff on this particular Aside for now!