MontyB... you live in a different nation with a different culture. Here in the US of A we are proud that we can defend ourselves. This great nation was founded on the principle of armed citizenry fighting a tyrannical government and gaining their freedom. It's our skill as marksmen and our arms that have kept us free from a despotic government.

In the United States of America, if you look at the crime stats you will see something. The States with the least amount of reported violent crimes usually are also the States that have the most liberal gun laws. While States with a higher crime rate has more restricted gun laws.

Washington DC and Chicago have a very high violent crime rate. Murder and Rape are very high. They are both major cities with a very large population. Miami is also a major city with a very large population. Yet we have a lower crime rate then the two listed cities. Why? Because in the State of Florida it is legal for the citizenry to own and carry a firearm on the person for self defense. In Chicago you cannot carry a firearm and are severely restricted from owning firearms. In Washington DC it is against the law to own a pistol after 1976 and if you wish to own a long arm you must have it disassembled and you cannot move it from room to room without Police Authority.

In fact, because of that there is a Case in the United States Supreme Court over that very issue and if the Washington DC is legal.

Self Defense is a right. Period. Sadly in today's world you have firearms, knife, and other weapons that criminals use. But why should you or I, the law abiding be restricted in our ability to defend ourselves? Our armed forces use the same level of force in it's self defense against it's enemies. Why should the people be restricted from using the same level of force against the criminals?


They should not. In 1987, when the State of Florida passed the Shall Issue Conceal Weapon Permit. People said that Florida and Miami would be a wild west shoot out. In fact they were dead wrong. The crime rate in Florida dropped like a rock being thrown from the Empire State Building.

Is everyone out there capable of defending themselves. I'm not talking about whether they can do it physically. I mean can they do it or are they cowards. Yes, some people are cowards and you know what. A knife of firearm in their possession would do them no good. Why? Because they are cowards and they cannot stand up for themselves. Sadly that is what the criminal scum of society preys on. The weak and timid.

But when you give someone that is not a coward the tools to defend themselves then I 100% believe that doing so is the correct course of action.

I've meet 5'1" 110lbs women that are meaner then junkyard dogs. They can kick ass and take names. But if you have them face off a 6'2" 250lbs guy. It would be a easy fight. She'd fight with all of her worth but the guy would win. Why would you restrict her from having a tool to defend herself with?

911 is a great thing. Call it and the police will be there in 5 minutes. Trust me.... it takes me five minutes to respond to a call. I cannot be everywhere at once and a lot can happen in five minutes.



God Created Man, But Samuel Colt made them equal.

Owning firearms is not just about recreational shooting or hunting. It's also about self defense from a unjust government to protecting one's self or one's family from criminal threats.

Originally Posted by major liability

A) Why do such weak-minded individuals have a weapon in the first place?

Because creating an environment where people have to be armed to feel safe gives them little option, arm themselves or become even less secure.

B) Some criminals are crazy and will start a gunfight. Most want your money, not action.

Depends how you look at it, I would suggest that people use a weapon in crime to give them the advantage and will do whatever it takes to maintain that advantage, so what is the next step after pointing a gun in a robbery?

C) Yes, it would actually make me feel better. Except for a few certain individuals.

Weird I don't know 90% of the people I encounter in a day, most are probably quite normal but they aren't the problem, the problem is the fraction of that 90% that are not normal but haven't been picked up by the system.

All I know is I'm definitely getting a 10mm Auto pistol for self-defense when I turn 21, alon with some thorough training to ensure I can handle it well.

Personally I would be questioning the merits of a society where I felt I needed a 10mm Auto pistol to feel safe myself.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Owning firearms is not just about recreational shooting or hunting. It's also about self defense from a unjust government to protecting one's self or one's family from criminal threats.

Umm I don't have an unjust government, it might be incompetent but not unjust and I really hate to say it but if my government does come after me it will be backed by a police force and army and no amount of guns will help me in that case.

As far as protecting myself and family from criminal threats goes once again I would question the social standards of any nation that requires its private citizens to arm themselves to give the illusion of safety (and unless you are prepared to be proactive in the use of your gun all you have is the illusion of safety).

But you are right we live in different worlds, I can use my common sense and avoid trouble I don't need Samuel Colt to do it for me.

This debate has been somewhat misled. The important point is not whether the number of firearm related crimes is going up, it is the number of firearm related crimes per capita. If you compare the rate in UK with that of the US, it's not surprising that the rate is rising, with figures as low as they have, it could hardly go much lower, the same cannot be said for the US.



It's all rather pointless. Usually the criminals can afford better weaponry than the honest citizen, so all that happens when the citizens arm themselves, is that the criminals arm themselves even better.

Also the criminal is the person who chooses the time and place of the crime putting the best armed citizen at a distinct disadvantage. Knowing that his target is probably armed, only makes the criminal more likely to shoot first then snatch the money.

I'm sure we've had this debate before.

I must agree with Monty regards defending oneself from the government. That's a highly romanticised view and would never work. There have been lots of persons in the past who disagreed with government policy, and decided to duke it out with Uncle Sam, all of them are either dead or in the pokey, and will be there for a long, lonnnnggg time.

If the general public get too uppity, the Government will just completely bypass the Jail option and shoot you on sight. You've seen these movie clips on YouTube of the Iraqi insurgents getting brassed up with 30mm rounds?.... Just substitute yourself for the insurgent and you'll get the idea of how you would be handled. It might be great fun for the first ten minutes, then your worries will all be solved.

Believe me, as hopeless as it seems, you've a lot got more chance at the ballot box when it comes to arguing with the Government.

I don't need armament to feel safe (coming from a 16-year-old who has good experience of the "streets" today)

i've been battered a couple times, and if i'd have been armed i wouldn't have come better off either time. they'd have mobbed me, either at the time or later on. As it was, i took the punches and walked off okay. However, if i'd have been fighting for someone i care for, i'd be more lethal than any weapon. It's not a matter of weaponry, it's a matter of how much you care for what you're defending.

We have to think of crime, violent crime, murder etc. in real terms, and 'it could hardly be lower' is obviously not a sensible approach. Are the figures rising? Is the situation on the streets dangerous; is it getting worse? These are the problems we have to wrestle with. Here, we have children armed with powerful weapons shooting children. Gangs, particularly associated with drugs, using children as hit-men because they are to a large degree outside the full force of the law.

Liverpool and London have been examples, and it is good to see that the police are re-acting.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021022/Police-forces-zero-tolerance-strategy-slashes-crime-Liverpool.html

All else aside, it appears that this "news" is 3 - 4 years out of date for firearms offences, with the official figures from the Home Office clearly showing a DROP in firearm related crime every year since 2004, dropping 5 - 10% per annum.

To which "news" do you refer ? (There are many links on this thread ).

I don't need a 10mm Auto to feel safe where I live. I just want one, because I enjoy shooting as well as long walks in to the woods, and there are a lot of bears and some mountain lions around here. I wouldn't shoot a bear unless he was charging me (usually they just stare and walk away), but mountain lions will go after you just for a meal so you always aim for instant incapacitation.

But like I said, I don't need it to feel safe. I go all throughout the woods (and bad parts of Poughkeepsie and New Haven) unarmed. Prospective robbers can tell just by looking at me that I probably have less money than they have in their pockets in my savings account.

I just like the idea of being able to employ lethal force from a distance. 10mm Auto is my favorite because it was designed from the ground-up for the FBI to be a "one shot stopper," though anyone can tell you shot placement is the most important factor. It's especially handy if the guy who comes after you is not after money, but blood. Or I could load 230gr. hardcast rounds for protection from wildlife. The fact that it has a very flat trajectory out to 100 yards also makes it great fun at the range.

As a side note, nothing pisses me off more than the liberal who assumes that you were in a bad neighborhood putting yourself in jeopardy if you get robbed/killed/raped. That's simply stupid. Criminals don't operate with borders, they pick targets of opportunity and stalk a huge area... at least the ones I've had the displeasure of talking to.

Most pro-gun people will say that guns actually prevent crimes, but in fact I think they increase the number of killings. But it is necessary. Not everything can be perfect and orderly in any human society, and restricting the rights of the lawful because of the actions of the criminal is not something I can ever support.

Is simple. A perfect society cannot be achieved. There will always be that glitch in the system. It's just the matter of whether the glitch is constructive or destructive.

Yeah, also for clarification I was not saying that legal firearms would increase crime, actually I believe it would cause a decrease. But you will of course see an increase in crimes of passion if everyone is armed. Like I've said in other threads, I don't think America as we know it can survive if our soldiers are the only ones willing to make sacrifices for freedom. If all you want is total security, this isn't the country for you.