If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well lets think this through, your walking down a street when a man begins to attack you, do you ask him what damage to you he is intending to inflict ? No, on your terms he is dead by now, so that man could of just twated you across the face and done off with your bag or whatever. You can't shoot someone after can you ? Its no use saying as he runs off 'right, lets assess the damage here' and decided if it warrents self defence.
If your going to start shooting a mugger, its either you do or you don't, regardless of what damage he may inflict.
I suggest you reread Balddog's reply. It's as accurate as need be. Regarding your speculation, you didn't speculate at all, you drew conclusions with no basis. And you weren't told "you aren't in the military", you were told to go to the war and see for yourself. Journalists have been known to do that, and even learn something. It was a journalist who wrote We were soldiers once, and young.
"War is 90% boredom and 10% sheer terror". Hasn't changed. Doesn't matter how big or small the war is for the people experiencing the terror.
As I've said before, you don't understand the dynamics of being armed.
Let's say a mugger is foolish enough to choose me as a target, and all he intends to do is get my billfold and run. So, he attempts to strike me, at which time, I pull out my trusty .45 pistol. Now, he has a choice, and he will make it very, very quickly (fight or flight instincts). He will either run, at which point being armed has served it's purpose; or he will attack me, at which point he will be very dead. Your argument is flawed because the criminal you describe will flee.
Say he still attempts to steal your wallet ? then what ?
I bet they are armed.;)
I don't think a war zone is comparable to your average city in terms of threat.
As the debate somehwere in the distant past was about England, I can assure you no england city resembles a war zone
Don't worry, I am pretty settled on joining up. Actually, it shouldn't be long before I start working on the paperwork. And then in around three years, the real work will get dealt with...
Hmmmm..nor does any American city...
It occurs to me that those who are most concerned about the would be targeted prey being armed are the would be preditors.
Concerned that that "simple mugging" you planned might cost you your life? :eek:
Mr Ebb, meet Mr Darwin.
A mugger who choses to persue his "craft" when confronted with a firearm in the defense of the targeted "prey" has just forfeited his life, because by continuing the attack when presented with lethal force, the preditor has PROVEN beyond any doubt that his intent was other than simply stealing a wallet. It was HIS choice, not the person targeted for the attack.
So be it. The world just became a slightly safer place.
As Greenhat stated, you have no comprehension of the reality of being armed.
You must accept people would abuse the privlidge, as I say person a walks down the street and guns down person b for no real reason, blatant murder, but now he's a get out clause 'he was mugging me officer'
People steal in the first place through desperation, its not a hobby, something for a laugh, if they must have that money for their heroin or whatever they will attempt to get it regardless, if they know people are armed would it not be fair to say they will adopt more severe lengths to ensure they get the money and not a bullet ? Wouldn't they be more inclined to mug younger children, the elderly, women ? Wouldn't they be more inclined to attack with more force, taking the cowardly cheap shot on the blind side, a quick blow to the back of the head ? Even start mugging in large groups ? They certainly would arm themselves where possible ?
The type of people who commit such crimes are bog standard arseholes, they will go to any length to get their money and whilst arming the public may well make the least vunerable amongst us safer, those who are very frail and vunerable would become greater targets and be at more risk from more enforced tactics.
Arming the public wouldn't reduce the amount of people who feel the need to commit crime, as i say this isn't a hobby we are talking about.
When you put guns into society you put them amongst the more mentally challenged in society, not criminals, they in theory could get access now if they felt it neccessry (most do not), but what about the loonatics ? These types that wander around public areas aiming at anything and everything before finally slamming a bullet through their own head ? I know this happens on occasions now, but isn't the incidence likely to be greater ? The more of these types that get access to guns, the more its likely to happen ?
You place a gun in the hand of any person, sane, insane, criminal, law obiding citizen, man, woman, child, adult, rich, poor - they have the potential to kill with it, whether it be in self defence, a fit if rage, planned attack, an accident, suicide or otherwise, that my friend is the reality of been armed.
You keep doing this dance with all of your speculation, and refuse to confront THE REALITY that the safest places within the US are places that allow carrying concealed weapons, and the most dangerous are the places with the most prohibitive gun restrictions/prohibitions.
What if? What if? What if? What if? :rolleyes:
When water gets colder, it freezes into ice. When water gets heated, it become a gas.
What if? What if? What if? What if? :rolleyes:
You have the model in front of you, and REFUSE to observe it!
Reject all culture vs. culture aspects. Perhaps the US is really more violence prone than the UK. Eliminate variables, and examine the data within a single country/culture. Devoid of experience within "scientific experimentation"?
CONFRONT THE ISSUE! The safest places within the US are with the most relaxed gun prohibitions, and the most dangerous are with the most stringent gun prohibitions.
Is it stubbornness or stupidity which causes you to refuse to look beyond your ingrained prejudice?
I'm sure you don't need telling America is not England, American culture is not English culture, one size does not fit all. Just because America decideds its the best way it does not automatically mean it is the best way for everyone else.
There has always been the presumption on THIS side that the UK represents an intelligent group of HUMANS (although suppositions are subject to change).
"Scientific investigation" usually tracks tendencies within a control group. You want to introduce many variables. Which would you call it? UK is not intelligent? Or UK is not human? Or...?
Or simply you refuse to look beyond the propaganda you have been force fed?
Look at the effects of gun legislation within a single country, were there are areas with pro gun/anti gun pockets, and compare them within that country. That is going to allow you the most control over a given group to study.
The English public is typically very 'polite' its a walk on by society, any sign of trouble, confrontation or even attention and people tend to wander away, that certainly isn't the case with americans, you fight your corners and say what you think, similar to australians. I'd be inclined to believe the vast majority would choose not to own a gun, the minority been those intent on using them for undesirable purposes (males 14-40). For your system to work, people need to have guns, a sufficent amount to sow the seed of doubt in any potential attacker, that wouldn't be the case here, its those and similar fundamental differences in the respective ways of life which suggest to me that identical laws won't neccessarily have identical results.
In my state you must be 21 years of age and pass a handgun safety course to carry a hand gun. You must also have signed and noterized statements from 3 people who are not convicted felons, you yourself must not be a convicted felon. Im not sure if it passed but I think if there is a restraining order against someone they must hand over their guns, that was in the works but not sure if its in effect.
Its also illegal to carry any gun out in the open. Shotguns and rifles should be in cases of some sort. Though you dont need a license for them you should have a good reason to be carrying them around if stopped by the police, going to a gun club or hunting, which you need a license for also.
That requires a hunters safety course, and a fee which goes to conservation. The hunters have contributed more to conservation than any other group.
Ignorance is Bliss (maybe) but knowlege is power.
Guns dont kill people people kill people. Sometimes they dont even use guns, imagine that.....
Sorry thats all the cliches I can come up with at the moment, Ill come back if I think of more.
One more thing, youll find the most shootings and illegal hand guns are where guns are ILLEGAL. Gee whizz....thats because ONLY the criminals have them and they are fully aware of it.
Just like england.
This is an interesting article from medics that goes directly to the point...if your interest are serious and not just psycho/emotion driven give it a read.
And for a reply to that we'll pop along to see Mr Eddie Izzard.
"Yeah, but i think the guns help. I know, let people have guns, but don't let have any bullets. Bang boom rat-a-tat boom":D
No shit Sherlock:rolleyes:
Rubber skin, what happened to your cute spastic smilie? It liked it.:p
Dis you read the wonderful document posted by Diesel? It gives you your answer.
How many lives are SAVED by guns, thats the real question.
The truth is, if I had the desire and the nature and were so inclined I could bash your head in with a rock, or kill you" Texas Chainsaw Massacre" style(its a movie in case you dont know.)
But thats not me. Im no killer, unless your messing with me or my family or friends Im a very peaceful person.
Do you propose that we ban and confasgate all rocks and garden tools? Dont forget pushing people in front of trains. Maybe trains should be banned as well. Cars too.
Yes i do, tough on rocks, tough on the causes of trowels.
Now that's not very PC is it? It's not spastic, it's Scope now, thank you very much. And if you remeber i gave it to you coz yours feel off.:p
I dont care about PC, Id love to have it. coz I like it.:p
do I detect a bit of Jealousy? You come off as saying YOUR way is the only way.
There are several threads in this discussion dedicated to criticisizing how America is and what it does in America. And alot of slanted propoganda blameing America for just about every Ill exisiting in the world.
Before we Americans came into this discussion to defend ourselfs Im sure you had quite the field day trashing us with few willing to defend us.
I personally could care less what you do in your own country. BUT dont mess with mine. Its not perfect but I believe we must be doing something right or so many wouldnt hate us so much?
Ohh Im wounded.
Im sure all of america is crying her little eyes out.:rolleyes:
Well THAT sums you up in a nutshell, think about it:p