For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

once again not nessecarily, if you shoot them first you don't have to worry about running away and getting stabbed in the back

Guns are used to harm, but also to deter. A truism - I've already referred to them bringing fear.

Looking to history, any dictator disarms the population before suppressing them. Why? Because no dictator is going to make his move while the citizens he seeks to dominate are all armed and ready to fight him. Romantic fiction, irrelevant to us, here, now.

Because of this, guns protect your liberty, and as a final resort, can be used to defend your liberty. In this regard, I would say they are very much essential to any free society. No. We seem to be getting by very well without them, thank you.



So, for instance, the police officers confronting Raoul Moat should have pointed batons and pepper spray at him instead? Nobody is arguing that the police shouldn't have access to firearms, are they, so what has dealing with Raoul Moat got to do with it?

The murder rate (and general crime rate) in Switzerland is very low, and yet they mandate that all their soldiers take their service guns home with them. Good for the Swiss. This is Britain.

So how can you suggest that arming the public would magically lead to higher murder rates, when Switzerland is a prime example that it DOESN'T lead to higher murder rates? I haven't mentioned increased murder rates, or if I have it was in passing. I've repeatedly referred to the risks of accidental deaths.

"arms better"?

While gun types make a difference in warfare, one bullet at close range is pretty much as damaging as any other bullet at close range (and your attacker would need to be in close range to hit you with his concealed pistol).

Criminals who want guns will get guns, regardless of the law. Making guns legal will simply arm the law-abiding citizen who would otherwise be defenceless. It would also make firearms more easily available to criminals, as it happens.

Just don't put your finger on the trigger and only ever point the gun at something you intend to destroy. That cuts out your accidental deaths. Does it? How do you explain all the US deaths of children from accidental gunshot wounds?

If you are such a coward that you aren't able to answer a simple question about your case, then do you really have much faith in it? On the off-chance that you'll answer it, I'll ask you for a second time - If a Jew had shot a Gestapo officer who was arresting him for his crimes, what would your opinion of that Jew, specifically his use of a pistol, be?

If you think that having to defend against dreadful regimes is anything near "romantic", then you are deeply disturbed.

goodbloke you're living in never never land. I can't comprehend your defeatist logic. I don't mind debating but calling the Jew foolish for resisiting tyranny has crossed a line for me and it says alot about your mindset.

Someone was arguing that point Good Bloke. Emaemmaemily said, on the subject of guns, "There is no good reason for them being allowed". It was to her I was replying, not you. So Emaemmaemily, what would you want the police to use to apprehend Raoul Moat, if they followed they accepted your logic that they get rid of all their guns?



.

Oh?

But earlier you said there is no need for guns. So why would you want police officers to carry a heavy object they have (in your words) "no reason" to carry?

I suppose the border guards would just let a wanted criminal (which is what German legislation declared Jews to be) pass through? Well, yes. many thousands did so. Have you read no history?

It comes down to a very straight question - In your opinion, do you believe that the Jew, in our scenario, was correct to use a pistol in this way? I've answered the question.






Well, that's not the meaning of romantic, Yes it is. Google it or find a dictionary. but I now know what you are saying. If you think that being forced into taking up arms against an oppressive regime is "not based on fact"/"imaginative", then what do you think is happening with the rebels in Libya? Again, that is irrelevant to the UK. How would legalising weapons in Britain help the Libyan rebels?


We seem to be getting by very well without them, thank you.

Correct, we are doing well without them for the time being. If our Government ever decided to behave like Libya's Government, good luck asking the armed soldiers to "peacefully challenge each other in the democratic process"!



Good, so you have accepted the fact that higher gun ownership does not correlate to a higher murder rate. As I've already said, I haven't been talking about murder rates at all.

By the way, if you're trying to criticize me for using foreign countries I'm not. as an example, it may be advisable for you to stop saying "In America, as I've already pointed out..........."



And I've said never point the gun at something you do not intend to destroy, and never touch the trigger until you have a confirmed target lined-up. Er, no. Young children get hold of guns all the time. Check the American statistics. People drop guns, too. If you follow those common sense gun safety rules, and still manage to cause a death, it is no longer classed an "accident", you are intentionally shooting at that point. No it isn't.

The armed criminals are already armed. At close range, a bullet is a bullet is a bullet - There is no "armed better" at this close a range. An illegally-owned Glock will do the same job as a legally-owned custom built M16 in such a confrontation. Allowing the law-abiding victim to arm themselves does aid in a) deterring an initial attack, and b) aid in helping the victim to have a fighting chance.

I do understand where your coming from, but I think your fear is irrational. As we've already seen, higher gun ownership does not correlate to higher murders.

Just got one point I want you to clarify. Why would you want police officers to carry quite a heavy object that you said people have "no reason" to carry?

But the same can be said of a knife attack - If an attacker draws either a pistol or a knife at you at such close range and doesn't want you to get away alive, then there will be a fight. Pistols are only really effective at close range.

Reading between the lines, you seem to be saying that there is "no reason" for members of the public to have guns, but there is reason for the police to have guns. If this is the case, let me remind you that the first people Raoul Moat shot were two citizens, and only the third victim was a police officer who, according to you, is more at risk.



Guns don't automatically appear, there is always a human element that does this. People can buy knives here which will make the situation "SO much more dangerous", as a knife can do the same job as a bullet at the ranges you are talking about.

I can understand if you don't want to repeat yourself. I haven't found your earlier post, I may look for it later.

Hopefully I'll catch you before you go to bed. If not, then whenever you read this, I want you to answer something else.

The person with a knife could have "just knifed you" as you tried to escape. He made a choice not to. Maybe because he was willing to risk being done for possession of an offensive weapon, but not willing to face a murder charge.

Firearms aren't like what you see in the movies, where people get headshots from 50 metres while jumping through the air. Beyond a certain range, the accuracy is terrible, and you have a slight chance of escaping. Also, perhaps you, or a passer-by, could raise the alarm and get you to a hospital to get your bullet wounds treated.

I have lived in the USA, so I know all about guns and what I'm talking about, I'm not basing this on what guns are like "in the movies".

what state did you live in? because someone who lives in california might have a different perception of guns than someone who lives in virginia for example. Living in the states isn't enough by itself to make you a firearms expert. But you still haven't answered if you think non lethal weapons like pepper spray should be legal to buy over the counter? and if not why not? they're purely defensive weapons, you can't spray it at the back of someones head whilst chasing them and expect any results

Nope. Only in the movies is a gun all about "simply" pulling the trigger. This classic misunderstanding of the operation of firearms is what led me to conclude that you have no experience of them in reality. Outside of the movie world, you have to draw your gun, aim, take the movement of the target into account in your aim (The bullet will not end up exactly in the middle of the crosshairs like it does in games). After having got the target in sight, and making your calculations, that's where the trigger comes into play.



Yes, at just outside arms reach, he could have shot you. And you would have been injured, maybe even be permanently disabled, or at absolute worse, you might even have died from the gunshot wound.

You imply (although you don't directly say it) that gunshot wound = death, but this isn't really the case in real life. This is another reason leading me to believe you have no firearm experience.



Which guns have you fired? (It's OK if you can't remember the names, just a general description like "pistol" will do)

I lived in Florida, California, and Nevada.



In the senario I was talking about, the gun was already drawn and pointing at my head... So yes, they would just have to pull the trigger (or if I moved, possibly re-aim a little).

You agree in my senario I would almost definitely have been shot, whereas if it was a knife I could escape much easier... Guns don't automatically mean death, but they are more likely too AND if not they still cause a much more serious injury.
No gun in this encounter = a much better chance of me escaping + even if they manage to hurt me it's not as bad as if it had been a gunshot wound.

I personally have shot a lever action rifle, and a pistol. But that's pretty irrelevent to the conversastion.

Oh yeah, someone asked if I approve of pepper spray... Yes I do, silly that it's not allwoed.

if guns were legal though there'd be a **** of a lot more for you to need to defend yourself against... somebody breaks into your house, they're gonna have a gun. why wouldn't they? somebody mugs you, they're gonna have a gun. why wouldn't they? it's a lot easier to accidentally shoot someone than it is to accidentally stab someone. no to guns.