Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun?

[rapter 0]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun?
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday
Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).


How worried should we be about gun crime?
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns

Multimedia
Sky News video from latest shooting

Background
Factfile: teenagers gunned down across UK
Three murders in four days in South London
We Shall Overcome, protesters sing at peace vigil
America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

thank you Tim and Dave,

Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,

[Amazon 7]

John Rich is gonna make a boo boo in his jeans over this one...

[kelpdiver 2]

esp when he sees it didn't come from the Sun.

[Nightingale 0]

I'm not british, but do I feel safer with my gun? No. Allow me to explain:

I own two guns at the moment, a Winchester Defender 20ga shotgun and a Ruger 22/45 Mark III .22 caliber handgun. I'm currently considering the purchase of a third, an HK USP Compact 9mm and will be applying for a CCW sometime next year.

I've been practicing street-oriented martial arts for 18 years, and have used martial arts to defend myself against an attack. I taught women's self defense classes for years. Martial arts provides an option where there would be no option. And I still want to carry a gun, because self defense isn't always enough.

Knowing martial arts doesn't make me feel safer. Owning guns doesn't make me feel safer. If anything, learning about martial arts and learning about guns has made me feel less safe, because I've removed the "it can't happen to me" insulation that many people walk around with. I've met people bad things have happened to. I've been attacked myself. Although there are other things that can be done, such as not walking alone, that can help prevent being a victim, these aren't absolute guarantees that crime won't happen to you. Owning a gun or knowing martial arts is not going to prevent crime from happening to you. However, guns and karate give you options to deal with trouble when it does appear. And I like options.

Do I feel safer? No.
Do I feel more ready to deal with a bad situation? Yes.

[AWL71 0]

My pistol is like my American Express card. I don't leave home without it. A gun may not make you safe but it makes you prepared and I like that. Guns just don't cause violence, they deter it. I was at a gas station late one evening and a 4 gangbangers approached me and told me to hand over my wallet. I reached into my car and instead of grabbing my wallet I reached into my glovebox (legal in the state of GA) and grabbed my Sig Sauer 228. I did even point it at them. The mere appearance of it made them turn tail and run. Like I said, being prepared is the way to go.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Nightingale 0]

I'd have given them the wallet rather than start a confrontation. You never know if they might be armed too. If all they want is money, it's not worth your life.

[AWL71 0]

I disagree. I refuse to be a victim on any level. Where do you draw the line? Why carry a gun if you are not willing to use it? Criminals rely on their victims to be passive. I refuse to fit that mold. I understand where you are coming from but if i had it to do all over again I would not change my actions.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Nightingale 0]

I draw the line when someone I care about is personally in danger. Wallet, car, whatever, not important, let them have it. Real, physical threat that could result in injury or loss of life: important. fight back.

[AWL71 0]

So what happens after you hand over the wallet? What if the thug assaults you or shots you in the stomach point blank? Is that a chance you want to take. If you are in a situation like the one I mentioned you have to do whatever it takes to get the upper hand. That is the 1st tenet of self defense. Do whatever it takes to give yourself a leg up. You need to put yourself in a position to decide the outcome of the conflict. If you do as the assiliant says then you are giving them control of the situation. Just my 2 cents.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[masterrig 1]

I agree with you. You have the pistol, the permit to carry it... why give some two-bit gang-banger the upper hand? Just the mere sight of your pistol was enough to deter them. I've read so many stories in the papers about someone who just gave-up their wallet or purse and wound-up getting the crap beat out of them and their car stolen. Why be an easy mark? That's just one example. I'm like you... I won't leave home without it. Good for you!!!


Chuck

[Nightingale 0]

The first tenet of self defense is to not get into a situation in the first place. The second is to get out of it without risk to life/limb. If handing over your wallet will make them go away (and most of the time, it will!) do it.

[AWL71 0]

I agree that we need to stay out of places where there is a potential for danger. The situation I relayed happened at 10:00 PM at night at a gas station in a very nice side of town. So I could not control the fact I was in the situation. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simple as that. But I could control the situation once Sig Sauer was on my side.

Most of the time the thugs will leave once they get what they want but I am not willing to play the odds.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do I feel safer? No.
Do I feel more ready to deal with a bad situation? Yes.

Those two things seem contradictory, to me.

If you're better prepared to deal with trouble, then that should make you feel safer. Just like driving with a seat belt and an air bag make you feel safer - it doesn't stop a drunk driver from running into you, but it helps save your life if he does.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John Rich is gonna make a boo boo in his jeans over this one...

I love all these personal insults I've been getting lately. That's about the fourth one in the last two days.

I'm saving them all up, and then maybe I'll send them all to the moderators for action.

I could have one big fell-swoop forum-banning party for the whole lot of you, all at once. Woohoo!

Anyone else want to join in, while I'm at it?

[Amazon 7]

Awwww poor Mr Sensitive..

Its about GUNS..

Its about guns in your Favorite country to deride endlessly...

With that track record.. we all thought for sure... that this report gave you a stiffie ...

[AWL71 0]

Treat the insults like a duck treats water on his back. Let them roll off. Ignore the insults and they lose their power. When you give them a reaction you are giving them exacyly what they want.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Zep 0]

The English can't play with guns because it would offend people like Mary Whitehouse
and the people who run the country are real Mary's

Sarcasm aside, if the English want to arm themselves make golf courses dangerous places to be.
As it seems the government an local authorities will bend over backwards to please Golfers

Gone fishing

[SpeedRacer 1]

Use 'em for target practice.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Nightingale 0]

I don't feel "safer" because in researching guns, I've seen the crime statistics, and in learning martial arts, I've talked with victims. A lot of them. A lot of people feel silly being scared to walk down a dark street alone. They tell themself "nothing is going to happen." and walk there anyway. And most of the time, nothing does happen. And that just reinforces the naive bubble that nothing bad will happen, so they do it again and again. And eventually, something does happen.

I don't feel safer because I've taken a hard look at the part of society that wants to hurt other people. I know they're out there, and I know that it's possible that I might be a victim of that someday. I feel more prepared to deal with the situation if it does happen.

Putting on a seatbelt doesn't make me safe from drunk drivers. Carrying a gun doesn't make me safe from crime. Both do a little more to prepare me for a situation, should it arise.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Anyone else want to join in, while I'm at it?

You're a liberal Democrat Yankee. And you root for the New York Giants.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Anyone else want to join in, while I'm at it?

You're a liberal Democrat Yankee. And you root for the New York Giants.

Oh my, now that one was really low down and dirty.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

I agree that we need to stay out of places where there is a potential for danger. The situation I relayed happened at 10:00 PM at night at a gas station in a very nice side of town. So I could not control the fact I was in the situation. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simple as that. But I could control the situation once Sig Sauer was on my side.

Most of the time the thugs will leave once they get what they want but I am not willing to play the odds.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with Nightingale on this one.

Had they been armed you could have started a shootout in a public place injuring anybody in the vaccinity for what? To prove that "i'm a big, tough guy with a handgun and nobody is taking my wallet".......that's ridiculous. The contents of your wallet aren't worth your life or anybody else's.

Now if they were threatening your life or somebody else's than that changes things, but they make more wallets and they're printing cash like it's going out of style, it also only takes a two minute phonecall to cancel any credit or debit cards.

Simpe solution....When you hand over the wallet take out your ID so they don't get your address or just don't keep your id in your wallet and make it a point to not carry cash......then what did they get......nothing but a wallet and some plastic cards that will be no good 2 minutes after they leave and you call the police.

Besides if all of them are armed you still don't have the upper hand and you just made things worse by pulling a gun and escalating things by forcing them to use theirs. And put everybody else around in greater danger.....not smart my friend, not smart.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[AWL71 0]

I disagree. Your attitude of compliance plays right into their hands. There is more crime because of it. Most criminals know that people will react like you and Nightingale so why not give it a try. It is not about being a tough guy. It is about right and wrong. I will protect myself and if I had to fire a shot I would not miss. I am not some schmuck that has guns to make me feel tough. I have been shooting guns all my life and I am very comfortable with them. Letting yourself get walked all over....not smart, not smart.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

I disagree. Your attitude of compliance plays right into their hands. There is more crime because of it. Most criminals know that people will react like you and Nightingale so why not give it a try. It is not about being a tough guy. It is about right and wrong. I will protect myself and if I had to fire a shot I would not miss. I am not some schmuck that has guns to make me feel tough. I have been shooting guns all my life and I am very comfortable with them. Letting yourself get walked all over....not smart, not smart.

You're missing the point. You're only thinking about yourself.........you're not taking into account other people that could just be there by chance. You start a shootout a kid or adult gets shot and dies..........who's at fault? You are. You started it by pulling a firearm. Now if they pulled a firearm first, then that changes. You simply put everybody else in danger by pulling that handgun out in public. In this instance you got lucky that it didn't escalate, your move was not the smart one. It's like fighting fire with fire....it's doesn't work, it just creates a bigger fire. You fight it with water and it gets put out.

The guys take your "empty" wallet and walk off and nobody got hurt.......you're out a wallet and a few days without a couple of plastic cards. You call the cops afterwards, the guys are on videotape from the gas station surveillance tape that covers the pumps and they get arrested later on. Now, you start a shootout people get hurt.....you chance getting shot, bystanders could get shot, even the "thugs" could get shot, and you could still get your wallet taken. Which is the smarter move? The one where nobody gets hurt or the one that could start a whole bunch of unnecessary chaos and a large amount of people getting shot?

Also it doesn't matter if you state that you're a good shot.........a group of people shooting at one individual, which has the better odds the group or the single person?

It's not about making the choice to be macho or to be compliant, it's about making the best decision for everybody........yourself, the bystanders, the gas station attendant, and yes...even the thugs.



PS - this is an egotistical decision, not a logical one ---> "Letting yourself get walked all over....not smart, not smart."

Just in case that's not getting through (number 3)....

e·go·tis·tic –adjective
1. pertaining to or characterized by egotism.
2. given to talking about oneself; vain; boastful; opinionated.
3. indifferent to the well-being of others; selfish.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The guys take your "empty" wallet and walk off and nobody got hurt

Unless the scumbag decides to shoot you to get rid of a witness.. or just because he does nto like your looks..it happens... too bad.. so sad.