Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

I'm armed and I don't live in fear..... I live without fear. I'm just prepared.

This is called a false sence of security. You can't prepare yourself against someone who will shoot you anyway. He pulls up to your car and blasts you in the face and you'll never know what hit you. And with so many guns out on the street, they are easy to abtain. And if the bad guy knows you armed he'll be less inclined to threaten and more to use instant deadly force...

Originally Posted by 5.56x45mm

The idea of "It might save one life and that's worth it" is a waste of time...... By removing arms from the public. Yes, you might save that one kid form shooting himself with a firearm that he took from Mom's room. But thousands might die or be injured because they didn't have the means to defend themselves from the criminals, rapists, murderers, and psychopaths.

Have you read the newspapers the last few years? I reckon we can safely asume that the numbers should be turned around.

I have been a law abiding citizen for the past 38 years and never encountered a bad guy with a gun. Burglars in Holland are rarely armed because they enter houses when nobody is home. People who have "burglars" who end up shooting them are usually not very law abiding. Criminals deal with their own kind by using deadly force...

Maybe Monty, but until then, legalizing firearms is pretty much what you have.
Doesn't require much to build an arsenal to do some serious damage. Heck, you could do that with a sword you can buy for decoration.

Ted, what you said about criminals not using deadly force or what not really depends. It may not be the case in Holland but the same rules don't apply in many other parts of the world.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Maybe Monty, but until then, legalizing firearms is pretty much what you have.
Doesn't require much to build an arsenal to do some serious damage. Heck, you could do that with a sword you can buy for decoration.

Then explain why in a country that has a high rate of firearms ownership per household lets say Switzerland, France, Canada or Sweden you don't see anywhere near the same levels of gun crime (certainly a level of crime disproportionate to the level of ownership)?

Here are the top few countries (households with firearms)...

United States 90.0
Yemen 61.0
Switzerland 46.0
Iraq 39.0
Serbia 37.5
France 32.0
Finland 32.0
Canada 31.5
Sweden 31.5
Austria 31.0
Germany 30.0
New Zealand 26.8
Saudi Arabia 26.3
Greece 23.0

Certainly you would expect that the more firearms and people you have the more firearm related crime that is neither a surprise nor of any confusion to anyone but what no one seems to be able to explain is these figures based on a per capita or proportional basis (excluding war zones and states in rebellion of course).

5.56's argument always falls back to "an armed society is a safe society" whether it be guns, knives or axes seems irrelevant yet in reality if you compare the figures this does not ring true and a more accurate argument would be that a "stable society is a safe society" because in a stable society you have order and that order allows for effectively policed weapons laws and responsible ownership.

Now I am not going to argue whether Britain has gone too far or not, in my opinion they seem to have but I can't honestly say that it is a problem I have to face however I am certain that the "devolution" into anarchy (people seem to think is happening) has nothing to do with a weapons ban and a lot more to do with a breakdown in the cohesion of society itself.

Basically it comes down to a choice, violent crime is rising do you:
a) Hand out weapons by the thousand and let nature take its course.
b) Reduce the number of weapons available and upgrade your policing policies.

If option B is not feasable in regards to criminals, option A would be what you'd have to go for. But "let nature take its course" seems like a crass way to put it. Sounds like everyone will have a free for all shootout until people run out of ammunition.
I agree that a stable society is a safe society.
But a less stable society can be a safer society with guns for self defense.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

If option B is not feasable in regards to criminals, option A would be what you'd have to go for. But "let nature take its course" seems like a crass way to put it. Sounds like everyone will have a free for all shootout until people run out of ammunition.
I agree that a stable society is a safe society.
But a less stable society can be a safer society with guns for self defense.

But this is where Ted's "false sense of security" comes into effect you only believe you are safe because you are armed however so is everyone else so how much safer are you?

In the end a balance has to be struck between the freedom to do as you please and what is best for everyone as a whole and I would suggest that in the end the more people are required to be armed for their own safety the bigger the failure at societal level.

You could be pretty safe if people didn't mess around because they knew if they tried to do anything like mug someone, everyone around you would be armed and among those one or two might even intervene and suddenly any assailant would be badly outgunned.

You have a good point and may even be dead on the money about societal problems of a society that requires citizens to be armed to be safe, but that's another discussion. This one's about how being armed can make you safer in some countries.

Actually we were talking about pointless knives. Considering we're talking about the UK where it's hardly the safest country in the world, I'd say it's utterly useless.

This is political correctness run amok, but if someone wants to buy it, good luck to them. Me I'll stick a knife with a blade and a pointy bit - that way I can emphasise my point (pun intended).