Gun question for the Brits

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If they were legal, who would be saved by them? We don't really need them for self defence, so we can't really point to a number of lives saved by guns like you may be able to in the states. Now I know that is a generalisation, but by and large it is true.

The 15 people murdered, the other 2472 who have been assaulted, and the 49 who were raped, JUST in greater London, JUST in May of this year may disagree.

http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/

[mr2mk1g 10]

I acknowledged it was a generalisation in my post. But remember in collating your figures we have never had the right to conceal carry and firearms were to be kept under lock and key while in the home. So for example, you would have to exclude things like street encounters and attacks outside the home.

[Kennedy 0]

Requiring them to be kept in a safe (or with any other conditions) is not liberty. Kev was refering (I imagine) to people being free to do as they choose, rather than reverting to the partial freedom you had in the 1990s.

The one in four versus four percent that I mentioned is the likelyhood of being a victim of a crime in our respective countries, yours and mine.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That's really funny, that you imply it's not so bad to have gun violence because mostly it's criminal scumbags killing criminal scumbags. That accounts for a large percentage of the gun crime in the U.S., too.

Maybe if we let them kill each other long enough, we'll reach a point where they render each other excinct: we'll still have our own guns (we honest non-criminals, I mean) and there won't be any gun crime going on, and it'll be too hard to justify trying to take them away from us in the face of a near-zero gun crime rate. Problem solved!

I seem to recall Jeff Cooper expressing similar statements once upon a time. He wondered aloud if it might not be our civic duty to provide them with ammuntion.

Jeffrey, don't you love how over there, they tell us it's all gangs and mobsters killing each other with guns, so everything's peachy.

So why is it when we tell them that most of our crime is the same - drug violence, gang violence, and inner city ghetto thugs, our guns are blamed?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would never have a gun at home, regardless of the laws of the country. And i would never want any man of mine to have one at home either. As a nanny, I know how devastated I would be if the children ever got their hands on it, so God only knows how I would feel if a child of my own did. I know weapons are meant to be locked up etc etc but accidents happen, and i wouldn't want it to happen to me.

Children's Accidental Deaths, 1998:

Percent

Age  Cause                         Number of Total

---- ----------------------------- ------ -------- 

0-4  Motor vehicles ..............   800    36%

Drowning ....................   500    23%

Burns .......................   310    14% 

Suffocation .................   140     6%

Falls .......................    80     4%	

Poisoning ...................    30     4%

Guns ........................    30     1%


5-14 Motor vehicles .............. 1,800    62%

Drowning ....................   350    12%

Burns .......................   260     9%	

Falls .......................    80     3%

Guns ........................    80     3%

Suffocation .................    60     2%

Poisoning ...................    40     1% 


National Safety Council, "Injury Facts"

(Percentages do not total to 100% due to exclusion of "all other" 

category)

If you're worried about accidents killing your children, then you better sell your car, turn off the water and electricity to your house, remove all matches and lighters, eliminate all cleaning products, and seal off the stairwells.

[mr2mk1g 10]

If a man wants to keep poisons in a bottle with a "child-proof" lid in a high cupboard and he wants to hold his childs hand when they're near traffic and he wants to put a grill over his garden pond then people call him a responsible parent. Why do people suddenly question his sanity when that man decides to keep a gun away from where his child can reach it?

[PhillyKev 0]

I thought he was addressing their statement that they wouldn't ever allow one in their house, not that they would safely secure it.

If a man refuses to keep child proof capped medicines in his house, and won't let his child near a street ever, and won't let his children stand within site of a pond, then I'd question his sanity and that's a much closer analogy to never allowing a gun in your home.

It's an irrational and emotional choice. Feel free to make that choice, but be cognizant that it is being unduly paranoid.

[mr2mk1g 10]

A good point... as you see from my first post on this thread, I would agree with you that locking them in the house is perfectly acceptable - for me

But perhaps he has simply decided that the risk/benefit equation simply does not work out for him. If he feels the benefit of having a gun in the house is (say) 0 out of 100 and the risk having it, (even if that risk as low as 1 out of 100) is greater than the benefit the gun would provide, then perhaps having one is simply not be worth the risk to him. It's his choice afterall...

(hope my "mathmaticizing" the concept makes sense)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It's his choice afterall...

On that, I definitely agree. Just pointing out that it's based on an emotional response to the thought of the terrifying GUN, not on a non-existent high probability of an accident.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why do people suddenly question his sanity when that man decides to keep a gun away from where his child can reach it?

Because they don't know the facts, usually because they've been misled by the mass media. They've bought into the mass hysteria those entities promote, lock, stock and barrel.

There are gun safes available to allow a loaded gun to be kept in the home, instantly accessible, and yet completely secure from the hands of children. These devices use combination locks, in a finger-activated touch pad. Thus, there isn't even a key available for the children to find. Only the parent knows the combination.

It's ironic that these folks trust themselves to handle a dangerous parachute responsibly, as well as dangerous motor vehicles, and assorted other dangerous products. Yet these same capable and responsible people don't trust themselves to keep a gun in their home...

It's a good example of the irrational illogic practiced by many anti-gun folks.