Meeting armed criminals? Let me think....erm...probably the same odds as dying in a plane crash. You obviously don't realise, but you're confirming the thread title.
And what are those limitations? Automatic rifles has been restricted since 1934. Any efforts to ban any class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes is unconstitutional, and any effort to reduce the number of guns by legal coercion is gun grabbing.
you ought to study the case of a particularly brutal crime in CT where a doctor in a very wealthy neighborhood was clubbed to unconsciousness. His daughters raped, his wife forced to withdraw money and then she was raped and all three women were killed when a fire was started to conceal the crimes. It was near Yale, and my late aunt and uncle-both professors at Yale Medical school knew the victims well. As my late uncle noted-after meeting the survivor, they never thought it could happen to them. How many people die each year in plane crashes how many people are robbed, mugged, raped or murdered in the USA do you want me to embarrass your comment or do you concede the major fail in your analogy
plane fatalities USA https://www.airlines.org/dataset/safety-record-of-u-s-air-carriers/ check the last ten years Less than a weekend in Chicago armed robberies 2021 https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/ There were 37,899 robberies with a handgun in the United States in 2021. A further 9,702 robberies were perpetrated with a knife or other cutting instrument in that year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191231/reported-aggravated-assault-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/ In 2021, the rate of aggravated assault in the United States was 284.4 cases per 100,000 of the population. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, when the rate of aggravated assault stood at 286.7 cases per 100,000 of the population. lets see what that would be for 300 million citizens. I am not going to bother with rapes, burglaries or murders. I think I have established that the chances of dying in a plane crash is much much lower than being confronted by a violent criminal
You should know because to take part in a debate, you've read up on UK's gun law. I'm well aware of the USA's 2nd Amendment and the differences in various states on open/conceal carry etc.. As for gun grabbing, just seems to be a freakish saying for those, let's say, mentally challenged. So by your definition, certain cars are grabbed, certain tools on construction sites are grabbed, and various electrical equipment are grabbed. For those that are mentally challenged know that the vast majority of every day lives, especially inanimate objects are regulated for safety reasons. So for example, regulations don't allow Formula 1 cars on the road, you call those grabbed. You can't use 240v power tools on construction sites, they have to be 220v, so you will think 240v tools grabbed. Electrical installations and equipment have come to the 18th edition, you probably think an item just upto 17th edition standards is grabbed. Or is saying "grabbed" just like saying the cold weather has "gripped" the nation, the winds "ripped" through the city? Is it to emotion, horror, intensiveness to the topic?
I know, crime everywhere. So who's the crime between? Which ethnic groups suffer the most and from which other ethnic groups? In the UK, 70% of recorded crime in London was by immigrants, and the bulk of that was between the immigrants themselves. You will have gang on gang stats amongst your figures too. The actual crime itself you would/could suffer is a negligible percentage. Just like in the abortion debate, it's all about rape. Abortion rate stats don't even hit 1%, yet it's the most flung response thrown about. I recently watched a video on YouTube, a martial arts guy restrained a guy in New York until police arrived. He didn't use a gin. The perpetrator was harassing a woman. So why do you feel a gun is needed to shoot "people"? Is it because Americans are weak and they feel they need to gun to resolve every confrontation? Just have a think, how many times have you suffered crime in your lifetime? How many incidents did a gun save your life? So yes, Americans are obsessed and paranoid
I reject your silly blanket statements As to me-I grew up in a very wealthy area ultimately living on what was the last 7 acres of land that had been in my paternal grandmother's family since the early 1800s. Home from Yale in 1979 for Xmas, some mope tried to break into our house. My parents were out of town, but I was playing chess with my two brothers-we all obtained shotguns from the gun cabinet and when we flipped on the flood lights on the porch, the mope broke the cincinnati record for the 400 run in stolen nikes. I shot a mugger while a graduate student a few years later. His last victim was still in the hospital when I shot him. I also detained at gunpoint-in a very safe area according to the DA, a guy who tried to break into my apartment the night before I was awarded my JD
Blimey, been other this crap that many times over the years, just can't be digging out the same links, so you feel it's blanket statements. I can just relay the facts to you and of course you will diss everything, because it doesn't support/agree with your beliefs. I'm all for people finding a link to some stats, you often find when you drill down those stats, their argument falls apart. I used to have shotguns so let's take your potential burglar. You put the floodlight on, I put my floodlight on. Your burglar ran off, mine ran off. I claim I interrupted a burglar and then ran off. You claim your shotgun saved you and the burglar ran off. Harvard in the States looked at all these alleged "my gun saved me" self defence stories, and they were a hell of a lot. But when they drilled down the evidence in each story, you were down to a tiny percentage that held true, the vast majority were debunked. Your example would be in the debunked pile. As for muggings, yes, muggings happen everywhere on the planet. You feel they need dealt with by a gun, and if it was you getting mugged, you probably wouldn't have had the time to get a gun out of your Y-fronts. And again, the chances of being mugged.... One tactic is, if you're paranoid, is carry a spare wallet. If you're gonna be mugged, throw it past the mugger and run off. I've never bothered with that advice, because I'm not paranoid, and the chances of being mugged...... If I was paranoid, I would carry a gun, but I'm not paranoid. I've been to Florida and North Carolina countless of times, never felt the need for a gun. I have only seen 1 gun in America in over 30 years, it was on a policewoman. My relatives in the state's don't own guns, hence why never seen any other guns. They've never felt paranoid to have them. They probably feel they don't have as many enemies as you do, or perceived enemies. Sounds like gun owners in the States would benefit from CBT therapy
If I have a right to a thing, and you change the law to remove that thing from my legal ownership and possession, or require I obtain your permission to possess it making it a matter of privilege rather than right (thus abrogating my rights), you have "grabbed" the thing which you removed from my legal ownership and possession.
When I refer to "grab", I'm referring to the confiscation efforts by the UK government after Dunblane, and what would be required in the US if the US were to adopt similar laws as the UK as part of a gun control effort. We have about 130 million handguns, very few of of which have 12" barrels; all of those would be made illegal and the lawful citizens who owned them would be required to turn them in to avoid going to jail. Likewise, all of the 25 million ARs and semiauto AKs would have to be turned in or suffer legal prosecution. It's unlikely that the gun ownership process used in the UK, imposed on the US, would allow for all of the 80 million or so current gun owners to qualify as legally approved gun owners going forward. Every legal gun owned by those previously legal gun owners would have to be disposed of by those owners. So, yeah, effectively under the UK scheme the US government or state/local governments would be taking guns away from people who have committed no crime.
Because I'm not a 'martial arts guy', neither is my wife or mother or my father for that matter. Or my brother or his wife. In point of fact my brother actually does study aikido, and he knows for a fact he'd rather not get in hand to hand with anyone. I'll take his word on that. You're literally saying the handicapped or less physically fit must always be at a disadvantage to a criminal assailant. Its quite disgusting really.
In a different incident, a woman drew her pistol and shot a man firing a rifle into a crowd. Should she have used martial arts instead? https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party Should the CCW holder is this story have used martial arts against a man with a shotgun? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50952443 If we had to wait until we were the victim of a violent crime to be able to carry a gun to protect against violent crime, there'd be fewer applicants alive to submit to carry, wouldn't there?
And it's your false belief in the word, "Right". Here's a two part question - You tell me, you are washed up on a deserted beach, island in the middle of nowhere, no one within thousands of miles, what are your Rights? So you've stood there and reeled off a list of Rights, now what?
With Dunblane, the government changed the regulations so hand guns below a certain length became illegal. To be honest, I don't know if there was a buy back scheme or not. All you had to do was take your "too short" handgun to a gunsmiths and get the barrel and/or grip lengthened. No grabbing there, just regulations. Or alternatively, just put in a drawer and keep quiet, unless it was registered. Everytime UK police forces have amnesty hand in schemes, you will be surprised what's handed in. If you don't mind me saying, do some research on UK guns as opposed to guessing. Here's an informative video, so you now know you can own an Uzi in the UK -
I'm not a martial arts guy either, I restrained a shoplifter. When the police arrived, they found a knife on him. I didn't feel the need to shoot him. If I felt the need, I would be the first person to say that I'm one of the worst candidates to own a gun. The problem with people getting shot is that people are willing to shoot others. The irony is, they feel they're the good guy!!
Re: At least 3 times that I know of. How many times do you have to have a firearm save your life before you're not "obsessed and paranoid" ?
No, she should have took cover, the American gun culture produced/manufactured the guy shooting into a crowd
I would guess those were 3 fictitious (fictious in American speak) times No obsessions or paranoia in the UK, no need for guns in the street, no use for a gun. I think we must be sterner material in the UK.
Adding length to a barrel of a handgun is a non-trivial exercise; I'm not sure where you picked that up. We do know that handguns under 12" barrel length were made illegal and about 260,000 collect by HM's law enforcement. Confiscation by threat of legal action is grabbing, whether you like it or not. Sorry, I don't watch videos. Do you have another source? Can I own an AR-15 in the UK? A Stoeger semiautomatic shotgun? A standard Glock 19?
Shoplifting ain't a shooting offense in America chief. You think you don't need a gun? Don't own one then. Don't presume to make that choice for the entirety of the world's population. The sheer arrogance that is part and parcel to your desire is abhorrent. Sometimes people deserve to be shot. Sometimes, they even provide a genuine legal excuse to do so by assaulting their fellow citizens. In such cases, it is both legally and morally correct to shoot them as many times as is reasonably necessary to achieve a stoppage of their felony.
Your criminals don't have guns like criminals in the US do, and the best defense against someone with a gun is a gun.
So rather than stopping the shooting, she should've let him continue to massacre people and cowered in fear hoping he wouldn't walk around and massacre her too? And you think THAT is the morally correct position?
So optimally, lots of dead people is your ideal solution. By the same token I presume that the armed church attendees should have just let the intruder shoot other church goers until he was satisfied?
No, I have that right recognized explicitly as part of the positive law. Its a right, if you'd like to change that see Article V. There are rules. Abide by the rules. I have all the rights I had previously. Being shipwrecked doesn't abrogate my rights. Having nice men with guns remove my property on pain of death or imprisonment does. My turn for a two part question: Do you always use invalid analogies as deflection when you feel you cannot respond to an argument? Or is it just in this case?
Re: Nonsense, If you in the UK were of such "sterner material", how did the Germans manage to chase both you AND the French to Dunkirk without breaking a sweat where they graciously allowed you to retreat? Re: Then you would have guessed wrong. Do you usually accuse other forum members of lying?
