phemohilia wrote:
dogsmilk wrote:
And does this single mother know how to use this here handgun? Has she spent days on the shooting range, or is she going to ineptly plant a few rounds in the skirting board.
That'd really be THE only way to enable an effective and responsible course of action, otherwise acquiring a gun would be pretty useless. Training should come as a mandatory aspect of gun-purchasing, at least for the first-time buyers, those not familiar with how to properly use a firearm.
dogsmilk wrote:
I once read a book about Manchester gangs. I can't say if this is true, but the author claimed there had been relatively few deaths because the kids who ran round tooled up hadn't got a fucking clue about how to use a gun and kept missing when they shot at each other. They bought them for power and status but didn't realise it's not like the movies where you can pick up a gun and instantly become the Terminator.
What can ya say? Some people are just stupid.
dogsmilk wrote:
And isn't the real question why these meth heads have nothing to lose? As Oioioi suggested, the reasons why the situation arises is surely pivotal?
Of course, but there are a million and one different scenarios that can and do play out in the real world everyday. I just gave an example for one such scenario.
dogsmilk wrote:
And that particular example is far removed from some guy going on a killing rampage - it smacks more of the poor and desperate turning on each other.
It still illustrates a valid reason why the average (AND eligible!) citizen should have the right to own firearms should they choose to do so.
dogsmilk wrote:
Countries full of armed homeowners nervously cradling their pistols in case the barbarians are at the gates is surely not the answer.
No, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
dogsmilk wrote:
People are going on about the dread spectre of gun control - let's face it, in the US that is not going to happen - people will just talk about it for a few weeks - but the other side is the fear of each other, the fear that some nutcase is going to barge down the door and murder everyone. And this line of thinking wants us to live in fear of each other because 0.01% is a loon who may just lose their shit in a big way.
You're not wrong. But there's (like
novum has said) a LOT more to this than just a cut-n-dried "Guns or No Guns" kinda solution. Ultimately, in my opinion, this stems from an emotionally vacant society awash in the aftermath of spiritual disconnect.
I'm originally from Texas. I now live in the UK. Before moving here, I'd NEVER owned a firearm. Nor do I own one now. (Duh, they're illegal over here, haha.) I wouldn't own a gun of ANY kind if you paid me! Guns give me the heeby-jeebies, just holding an unloaded gun makes me queasy. (I never liked fireworks either, even as a kid. Something about loud noises for nothing, just went against my grain.) BUT, I DO wholeheartedly support a persons right to own firearms (legally, all aboveboard) if they so choose. I wish it could be any other way.
I wish there weren't the need for guns in the hands of a citizen population, but until the psychotic criminal factions running the planet have a change of heart and allow things to operate on a global-scale the way that they should, then I'm not gonna be able to see a world without guns. As long as heartless, soulless entities walking this Earth have weapons that can kill or any kind of access to said weapons, I don't think it's right or fair to take that ability away from those of whom would only use such a weapon as a means of protection against those, that would in nearly all cases, see them robbed or dead.
I hear what you're saying. '.
But I reckon it's worth thinking about this whole thing of "It still illustrates a valid reason why the average (AND eligible!) citizen should have the right to own firearms". Whether we should have the 'right' or not is something of a moot point. America is going to keep its guns - there m\ay be periodic debates but no president s realistically going to try to ban gun ownership - even only because it would be political suicide. And the UK is not going to get guns back.
But
why does some random nutcase mean people should have guns?
Firstly, though you can get guns here in the UK, you have to know the right people. You can't just go and buy one in the shops. Having guns also makes it easier for
them to have one in the first place - you really have to be connected with gang people otherwise.
Secondly, though this sort of thing seems to happen with depressing regularity in the US, it's still pretty rare. It's huge news exactly because it doesn't happen every day. They say every 11 seconds a child dies from hunger - that's not news, it's 'normal'.
Yesterday was Saturday night and I'd wager there were thousands of fights just in the UK - that's 'normal'. You
may get struck by lightening, you
may win the lottery, you
may have a random embolism - like they say, it could be you. But it's not very likely. There's really no point cowering under the table wearing your wellies every time there is a thunderstorm. Like my aunt used to.
Why are people going to burst into your home? There may be
some instances of a deranged rapist breaking in, but this is about as worth worrying about as if a serial killer is going to target you - the odds are vanishingly small. Most people are going to be engaged in property theft. Ok, they may get nasty if discovered, but what's interesting here is the notion of the
primacy of property - if some crack head broke into my house to steal my telly I reckon I'd want to batter fuck out of them. But
shoot them? A life for a telly? Because let's face it - unless you have some beef with someone, it's more than likely people are going to break in to steal stuff. And we slip into this thinking it's ok to put our property before anything else. The end result is making human life mean less than goods. I know that isn't what you meant, but that is the end result based on what you're actually likely to face. And it's an insidious slide from the remote chance of an armed psychopath to it being acceptable to use deadly force in defence of
stuff -
Git off mah property *
Blam!*
So yeah - if you have a gun you should know how to use it. So you invest time on a range. Training yourself for the remote possibility someone might try to bust into your house and rape or murder you. You're spending hours investing in the vague possibility of something that's very unlikely to happen. And you've got a gun in the house. So what if
you lose your shit? What if your teenage child does and pulls a Columbine? What if you or your child feels really down and the thought occurs they have an instant suicide tool available.
I understand your notion of protection, but I think there is a danger that becomes a preoccupation with fearing other people on the remote chance you might be very unlucky. And say if you shot some 19 year old who'd broken in to steal your DVD player to buy heroin and got aggro when you confronted them - personally I'd rather let them have the DVD than live with the knowledge I'd killed somebody over some manufactured product - and again I know that's not what you meant, but again that's the sort of situation you're realistically looking at. It's like a scaled down version of nuclear deterrent - you have the protection, but do you really want to use it? And where does it all end?
Guns are designed to kill. It's what they're for. And it's an enormous industry. And the more normal they are, the more we accept them. And the notion we should be armed just in case is exactly how governments sell us the notion of armies. For our protection.
