Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[redskies]

I'm not in favour of uncontrolled guns, but I do think that things are maybe not quite as they should be here; there's a level of corruption that will allow those that maybe shouldn't to get certificates which, at bottom, makes those certificates worth less than the paper they're written on.

There's also the ease with which it's possible to aquire guns without the relevant bits of paper in the UK. I'm not going to go into details here, but if I wasn't, at heart, a law abiding sort of soul, I'd have my own personal arsenal, and it wouldn't be hard at all to aquire it.

We're in a fairly rural location and rabbits are just one item I'd like to add to our pot, not only for eating now but to freeze dry for later. The hoops I'd have to jump through to get even a .22 for that put me off. I'm very anti paperwork, won't have a passport or any other form of photo ID, which doesn't help. But I will be investing in an air rifle powerful enough to take small game. Should I want the larger stuff, like deer, I'll speak to a ghillie.

I don't need a gun for self defense; we don't lock the doors anyway, there's no need! But I do see why others in cities would want one; we lived in a city before we came here, and I would have felt much safer with some sort of weapon. I learned to handle guns safely as a teen, so I'm pretty comfortable around them - respectful, just so no one calls me on it, but not afraid of them unless I'm staring down the business end!

I'd rather that we had something like the Swiss model, where it's a legal requirement to have a rifle and know how to use it. Their gun crime stats are very very low, and every male is taught from, I believe, about the age of 12.

Thing is, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws have guns. We've had far too much personal responsibility removed from us in the UK. I hate it. I'm a grown up, I'm not stupid, and I don't need the state to care for me as if I'm somehow incapable of taking care of myself. That's not to say that there shouldn't be help for those that need it; there should. But the key point is that not everyone needs it. We've been groomed to think that food comes from shops, we need the latest gadget, that we should buy new, 'fashionable' clothes every year, and that we couldn't possibly fend for ourselve - and nor should we have to. And until the majority recognise that this attitude is a huge part of the problem, nothing will change. More and more are waking up, I just hope enough do in time!

[12mp82]

I'd rather that we had something like the Swiss model, where it's a legal requirement to have a rifle and know how to use it. Their gun crime stats are very very low, and every male is taught from, I believe, about the age of 12.

Some of that is correct, some of it a bit dubious. And the reasons there are so few problems in Switzerland are cultural as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

So they tend not to have gang problems and dodgy drug dealers, and most people are not so short of money that they turn to crime. That is a big reason why gun crime is so minimal.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/sw ... id=8301804

But they also have the highest gun suicide rate in europe.

But lets not let a few interesting facts get in the way of the debate

[redskies]

I don't actually have a huge problem with gun suicide numbers. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will. Yes, it would be great if they could be helped but there are lots who don't want that, don't talk about their intentions and succeed in their goal. I think that one is kind of a red herring to throw in there; they don't hurt anyone else, just themselves, if you see what I mean. Gun crime is something else entirely.

I'm not entirely sure of your point? I posted in general terms, which are, from your own link, accurate, with the exception of the age; I got those digits back to front. I also acknowledged that, generally, the biggest problems we face in the UK are from a societal PoV. Could you clarify for me please?

[12mp82]

My point, is that Swiss is not a good model to relate too particularly, it is like saying there is little gun crime on the Falkland Isles even though a lot of people have them.

A bit like comparing apples to oranges, if you look a bit deeper into the why's and wherefore's.

I'd rather that we had something like the Swiss model

without saying or looking into why it works.

It is almost a utopia in some ways, they don't need to rob as they have money to buy with, they don't have gang problems with internal power struggles and they have little or no major drug problems, what are some of the major causes of gun crime in other parts of the world? Money, drugs and gangs.

I guess that you haven't been directly touched by suicide? otherwise you might not have made the comment they don't hurt anyone else, just themselves If you read through the suicide link you will see that easy access to guns in Switzerland is a problem as they tend to be quickly acted upon feelings rather than a slow thinking process.

From 1996 to 2005, 3,410 suicides, or between 24 and 28 per cent of all those in Switzerland, were committed using firearms.

That percentage trails the United States, it is true, where 57 per cent of suicides involve a gun. But few European countries come anywhere near Switzerland.

And of other English-speaking countries, the highest rate is in Canada, where 19 per cent of suicides were by firearm in 2000. In England and Wales the figure stands at 2.8 per cent, and in Scotland at 1.8 per cent.

“In Switzerland, firearms are like pesticides in developing countries. They are accessible,” Ajdacic-Gross explained. “Many suicides are impulsive. In other words, the decision is taken very quickly.”

At such moments, availability – or a lack of it – is crucial. “If somebody has to make a lot of effort to find something that will kill them, that’s a strong preventative factor.”

Hope that helps?

[Triple_sod]

it is like saying there is little gun crime on the Falkland Isles even though a lot of people have them.
A bit like comparing apples to oranges, if you look a bit deeper into the why's and wherefore's.

and a bit like comparing...the US and the UK?

[12mp82]

it is like saying there is little gun crime on the Falkland Isles even though a lot of people have them.
A bit like comparing apples to oranges, if you look a bit deeper into the why's and wherefore's.

and a bit like comparing...the US and the UK?

Maybe

[redskies]

To say that something like the Swiss model is desirable, without going into screeds of detail on what was already a long post isn't, I think, comparing anything. It's simply stating an opinion, without going into the hows, whys and wherefores. Of course, if you want to have a discussion about the differences, and why it wouldn't work here at the moment, and what we'd need to do and change to make it work, I'm happy to go there - but I think you might need to open another thread for it, because that one is going to take rather more than the twelve pages this one is on just now!

As for suicide, I'm afraid you're wrong. I've not only been directly touched by it, I've spent a considerable amount of my time talking people around from it - successfully in most cases. I was speaking in terms of gun crime, but you knew that! I still say that it's a red herring to put a suicide rate into the mix when talking about gun crime, not least because suicide is no longer a crime.

[Triple_sod]

but yeah obviously there are many more compelling factors when it comes to gun crime than mere availability, which does raises the question, do the laws actually make much difference on a country by country basis?

So like in Britain,

In the 1950’s gun crime was practically un-herd of there were a few notable incidents in the 60’s that lead to the 1968 firearms amendment act, and it been on the rise pretty much ever since…

The latter 3 amendments weren’t even particularly motivated by crime, but the very specific instance of a nutter running amok with a licenced firearm yet even there;

First came Hungerford and they banned semi-autos
Then 10 years later you had Dunblane, they banned handguns
13 years on and it was Cumbria….

[redskies]

The laws that came in after those incidents were knee jerk reactions, and that's not the best way to legislate anything.

I agree about the availability; I'm a forty year old parent of five, a respectable member of my community, yet I know I could very easily obtain illegal firearms. The only reason I haven't is because the risk vs reward doesn't work out for me. Clearly, it does for others. In an apocalypse scenario, I know which houses to target to find weapons, it just needs a bit of local knowledge. It would actually be easier for me to go that route than the legal route.

[Plymtom]

I reckon all along the main part of the problem is over associating the tool with the dead, high gun suicide rate = guns fault etc, not being heartless as such I know suicide like murder leaves more victims than it takes, my oppinion on guns and ammo is simply that they should be in seperate locked places, to at least force a little more thought than easier access would to ending it all, perhaps even when a couple own them for one to hold the key for one and the other to hold the other key? It's kind of beside the point but I am trying to demonstrate that education and awareness campains are needed, just like with road safety and knife crime, where the banning of the object doing the harm is not so easy, we try to minimise tragedy and crime in other ways, I dont think we ever did do that with guns in the same manner.