Rich Wyatt Talks about America and Gun Ownership.

[Dark Skies]

It is amusing me that a lot of these posts seem to ignore the fact that you'd be taking a knife to a gunfight. :)

Back in the day, when it was considered acceptable to carry arms to defend oneself, there was a fancy for pepper-box pistols set into belt buckles and operated from a cord or chain let into a pocket. You could also have them fitted on the back of your belt when caught unawares from behind. Nasty mess you'd make of an assailant's soft dangly collection with a setup like that.

[saddler]

...or using the knife to open the long sealed box you're carrying.

[safetyfirst]

I loved the show. But he's deluded about civil defence.

We'd just end up with a lot more people shot if everyone carried guns for defence.

...based on what facts/evidence?

I thought Civil Defence did quite a good job during the Blitz

Based on people killed by firearms per 100 people in countries that allow people to carry firearms for personal protection.

It's a complex and confounding issue, there are lots of cultural factors, poverty plays a huge stake in the debate, to be honest it's a complete quagmire.

[saddler]

...and these data tables are published where?

Do they differentiate in deaths by category too?
(Lump in the non-crime ones to bump up the stats)

[Demonic69]

Look at states, not America. State by state those with more guns and concealed carry have fewer deaths. Simple, fact up!

[nickb834]

I loved the show. But he's deluded about civil defence.

We'd just end up with a lot more people shot if everyone carried guns for defence.

...based on what facts/evidence?

I thought Civil Defence did quite a good job during the Blitz

Based on people killed by firearms per 100 people in countries that allow people to carry firearms for personal protection.

It's a complex and confounding issue, there are lots of cultural factors, poverty plays a huge stake in the debate, to be honest it's a complete quagmire.

Regardless - I'm prohibited because people are stupid? Hardly seems fair does it - State knows better and all that, pfah, give people the choice.

I do however know what you're getting at - there are likely some people too stupid / unsafe to be permitted to have access to firearms in any capacity, but then that's why we have the current process (however inefficient it is and how rediculous the restrictions) the only change to meet my self defence criteria is allow anyone trustworthy enough for an FAC the right to 1) a handgun 2) concealed carry it 3) permitted to defend oneself with it.

It'll never happen of course.....

[saddler]

Never?

Already par for the course in one part of the UK...has been for decades.

[safetyfirst]

I hope to hell we never allow society to descend to the level where we require firearms for personal protection.

It's an admission of failure. If you don't feel safe unless you've got a gun, your society has failed you. It's failed to provide you with an environment where you're safe.

If it has provided you with an environment where you're safe and you still want a gun for personal protection then you've failed to embrace the values of your society.

Either way something has failed.

Love guns, build them, shoot them, admire them, glad the pub's not full of them.

[nickb834]

I hope to hell we never allow society to descend to the level where we require firearms for personal protection.

It's an admission of failure. If you don't feel safe unless you've got a gun, your society has failed you. It's failed to provide you with an environment where you're safe.

If it has provided you with an environment where you're safe and you still want a gun for personal protection then you've failed to embrace the values of your society.

Either way something has failed.

Love guns, build them, shoot them, admire them, glad the pub's not full of them.

I hope the same regards society - however, whether it's required or not for personal protection - we're prohibited regardless. Why can't I have the freedom to choose? Why does the state know better? I'm not arguing for a free for all "guns for everyone" but, why not carry for those deemed to be trustworthy.

As it stands there are individuals authorised to carry firearms in the course of their duties (and I don't mean military or police) and those considered at high risk - so we've already got it - but, I'm arguing that it should be open to anyone deemed trustworthy as opposed to anyone with a "need".

Knowing that society has failed me because I needed a gun and couldn't have one, well, that only matters for the rest of your life in whatever situation you find yourself in - I'm sure me and mine will feel better "ah well, it was society wot failed 'im"

I too would feel uneasy in a pub full of armed people - but there's a middle ground that doesn't require a blanket ban - for eg, we're already one of the if not the most law abiding groups of people, so - "no guns in premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises" ought to do the trick.

In summary, not a blanket free for all, but not outright prohibited either.

[safetyfirst]

Nick. An excellent and well constructed argument.

I've met enough people with a firearms certificate that I'd not trust with a a sharp knife yet the police deemed them safe persons to possess firearms, so in the case of our society, as the need is not present, I'd rather not risk it.

I'd wager that there might be a situation where a well trained armed population might be required, I hope not but I certainly don't see our society as stable and safe, I think it's predicated on a great many fragile things.

I wonder how we Brits would "do" carry, it's an interesting one.