Why do criminals in other countries obey gun laws?

Perhaps if you can suggest a demarcation line between public-friendly gun and public-risky guns, we can re-examination the issue...
I suggest however, that this is merely splitting hairs nd just a waste of time

 

So you admit its a dangerous object... then what is its purpose other than to be dangerous to human or animal life?

 

I expressed a preference and I thought your response opposed that position

 

I've never said guns weren't dangerous objects. The Cricket is designed for target shooting for small framed shooters. It puts holes in paper.

 

I have defended my life with both a knife and a gun. I carry both daily.
In my past, I have taught self defense with a knife, my methods considerably different that those I have seen teach knive SD; many of the so called experts I have seen teach knife SD would get someone killed in real life... most have never tested their methods in a real fight. I have; I carry the scars from a couple close calls...scars from over 80 some stitches... each one a lesson in real life.
For several years, I advised various officers that attended martial arts training where I was training on how to approach suspects that might have a knife, how to improve their safety when trying to restain people, and how to improve awareness, spotting potential signs someone might have a knife (or small gun like a NAA .22). I used to challenge an officer to put me in resrtaints, showing how dangerous someone with my background can be, particularly to a solo cop in that situation and then show how to maximize safety in such a situation when doing so solo; having another provide cover vastly improves safety.
More than once I have demonstrated to high level martial artists, including Wally Jay years ago before he passed, how many of the 'scripted' methods of disarmament won't work in real life.
In one such demonstration at a police seminar, a fellow with extensive hand to hand experience, a Black belt in one style or another that I don't remember, and I were standing in front of a group of about 30-40 people where he was explaining what we were going to demonstrate and how he was going to disarm me. I had a rubber training knife and during his explanation, I proceeded to attack and land over a dozen rapid hits while he never attempted to defend himself with his methods. I suggested he lost and in real life would be dead... he replied, 'but I wasn't ready (for the demo)' to which I said, 'exactly, yet, you knew I had a knife, most of the time you won't see it coming and you won't have the opportunity to prepare'.
I would always recommend a gun over a knive and suggest, distance is your friend, if possible. I would also suggest, as many good instructors do, that if you make the choice to pull the trigger, keep pulling it until the threat is ended (As I have posted several times, I witnessed a fellow get shot 8-10 or more times with a 9mm, one through the heart, and manage to kill the shooter with a steel pipe before dying).
I carry the largest bore with personally tested ammo I can effectively conceal given my clothing choices for the weather. And, I do carry one or two knives as backup (another gun when possible depending on the situation). BTW, a choice for a knife is something I often advise on... there are a lot of considerations such as handle choice, blade/edge geometry, retention, and more... and there are a number of good knives available... one of the worst is what Hollywood often depicts and what I carried when young... an Italian, picklock, switchblade; terrible knife for anything but looking Hollywood scary.
One last comment, I am always armed (even without a gun) and carry the means to meet various levels of aggression before the last resort of deadly force. I have been in fights while carrying a gun and never resorting to or showing it. Having multiple options is something I advocate.

 

I started shooting a .22 at 4yrs, under supervision and started my girls about the same age, both shooting and gun safety at around 4 or 5. My Da' started subtle training early even with the toy guns I had.

 

All firearms are equally "friendly" in that all of them are inanimate objects.

 

I have successfully defended myself from knives from a very early age, the first time, I was 10, and a 16 year old tried to cut my throat standing in front of me, I waited till he was almost slashing me, stepped back so he missed me, I caught his arm passing me, and prepared to snap his elbow, being young and stupid, I felt bad about breaking his arm and merely pushed hard enough to make him scream and drop the knife.
I then pushed him hard and he hit the ground, rolled and ran, a lady yelled why did I attack that boy ?
I told her to call 911, yelling he tried to kill me.
Police report etc..... he was never caught.......
Funny incident.
I never carry a knife for defence, just My Glock 17........
Perhaps I should.
Recently, I killed a very large rat in a kitchen with a large hunting knife.
A Sheffield Rogue.
Rat & knife were around the same length, a very scary Rat, I have killed many Rats that way over the years.

 

1. Is it ordinarily capable of killing someone in performing its intended function
2. What is the purpose of putting holes in paper in this way? Is it efficient or otherwise beneficial in some way to use a .22 calibre rifle to punch paper? (I had a momentary thought of a new office essential)

 

And therefore all of them would be equally "unsafe". Equal is equal, after all.

 

I would do the same if I were living in a place that had looser gun control. In fact I managed to get my girl some formal rifle training when she was a bit older, as well as fundamental driving skills in an empty car-park, archery, sailing, canoeing rock-climbing etc etc. The sooner the better in my book, you just never know when these things might become useful...

 

Chainsaws are unsafe, as are hammers, ladders, and life.

 

Looser gun laws?.... I was raised in the North of Ireland.

 

Yeah, I can't understand why people on this thread seem to be suggesting otherwise. Seems obvious to me...

 

We went through this before with cars. The primary use of these objects is not for killing, so there is a broad economic case to run with the risk to public safety. With these items, manufacturers use their best endeavours, within commercial parameters, to minimise the public risk. But with gun manufacturers, the opposite is true. If you had a ladder that couldn't kill, that would be a good thing. Same even with cigarettes or drugs, which have no broader economic benefit. If you had a gun that couldn't kill, you'd take it back to the store for a refund...

 

I don't think your da would be able to do the same thing with you today.... maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but I suspect from media reports that most of the public on both sides are on board with general public disarmament.

 

Most of the public of what Country ?

 

Da

If you are referring to the North of Ireland... the news you get in the US is filtered through the BBC propoganda machine; reality is somewhat different.

 

Northern Ireland

 

Indeed, which is why I caveat-ed. There's not much point in posting links...

 

If I had a gun that wouldn't shoot bullets, I'd take it back. Using it to kill is up to me, and even as an avid hunter most of my guns will never be used to kill, as that wasn't the purpose for which they were purchased.

 

Exactly. All of them are completely safe, just like every other inanimite object.

 

When I worked U.C. I met many really disgusting people criminals and perverts, molesters, that would rob rape and kill without mercy.

That is why guns are needed.

 

For most, carrying a gun in the wild for protection against 4 legged predators is acceptable. Yet, 2 legged ones are far more often encountered and far more of a threat and somehow that isn't acceptable. Never made sense to me.

 

Nice try, but you had already buried yourself there. If all are equally safe, and if one is unsafe, they are all unsafe.