It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do UK members here protect themselves?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
I REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO THE MEDIA FEAR MONGERING AND PARANOIA that drives citizens to be afraid and mistrustful of each other, rather than be afraid of the real criminals -

-corupt politicians and the military-police-prison-security-industrial-capitalist-complex.


Yeh, because a member of parliament is gonna open you up like a can of beans for objecting when he steals your TV for his next hit of meth. And the bussinessmen in perth are gonna mug you at gunpoint to pay off his sommilier, right?

Idealism is well and good, I suppose, but I'd rather be paranoid than a casualty-in-waiting. Most people will never be the victim of crime in their lives, and know it. That's fine and good, and if you're willing to bank on it go right ahead.

Of course, better to be armed and not need it and need to be armed and not have a weapon. That's the difference between self-defence advocates and the more pacifistic. Go read the link I posted above, the essay. Think about it, honestly.

DE




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by Clipper
With all due respect, there are over 12,600 murders in USA a year. That's 20 times more people who have killed each other in USA since 9/11 than those who died on that day. That is a massacre.

The question should be, how do Americans defend themselves? Because whatever they are doing, it is not working.


Something the British should note- state to state, city to city, laws vary in the US. In fact, the most violent cities in the country are the ones with the MOST gun control. Washington, LA, Detroit and New York are the five cities in the country that have the most gun control, and the most crime respectively. Also, the irregularity of the gun control laws means that criminals can head two states over, buy a weapon fairly easily, adn bring it back someplace where people do not have the ability to defend themselves as easily.

For instance, Texas is one of the safest, most polite states in the country. It also provides legal protection for firearms owners, and many people in the state carry concealed. Again, look at the incident at the Texas Courthouse where a madman went on a shooting spree, and a gun owner saved the lives of two or possibly more people.

DE


I suggest those big cities might have more gun control BECAUSE gun crime was out of control. It does not prove that less gun control makes a place safer.

You illustrate how safe Texas is by referring to a madman on a shooting spree. Sorry but that doesn't instill much confidence. It sounds like a cowboy movie. Texas is a vast place. It is when you have ineffectually policed and divided cities, with high population concentation, ghettos, drugs and gangs, that crime is likely to thrive. So no surprise the cities of Texas don't compare to those you mentioned.

I have no doubt that if guns and carry knives were outlawed in America and those laws were rigourously enforced, murder rates would plunge. Carrying a gun again comes back to insecurity. I suggest, it is those that feel they need to prove their masculinity that need a weapon to compensate for what they fear they lack. They feel they have to prove something. I suggest there is a lot of repressed homosexuality in Texas and that goes to the top.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper
I suggest those big cities might have more gun control BECAUSE gun crime was out of control. It does not prove that less gun control makes a place safer.

Then again, it certainly doesn't prove that gun control is making those cities any safer, does it?

You illustrate how safe Texas is by referring to a madman on a shooting spree. Sorry but that doesn't instill much confidence. It sounds like a cowboy movie. Texas is a vast place. It is when you have ineffectually policed and divided cities, with high population concentation, ghettos, drugs and gangs, that crime is likely to thrive. So no surprise the cities of Texas don't compare to those you mentioned.

To be honest, shooting sprees are not unique to America. In comparison to the Tyler, Texas shooting spree (the case I mentioned), we have the Port Arthur Massacre, with its thirty-five dead. In both cases were maniacs with automatic weapons. The difference is, of course, that in Tyler only one person was killed.

As for other cities in America, let's think about this carefully. Let's say I'm a burglar, or a rapist, or a mugger. I might have a knife or a gun, but would I believe it's worth the risk to attack an armed target? Probably not. The higher the proportion of protection given to criminals legally, and the less citizens are willing to defend themselves with potentially lethal force, determines how much crime is likely. Criminals are stupid, not suicidal.


I have no doubt that if guns and carry knives were outlawed in America and those laws were rigourously enforced, murder rates would plunge. Carrying a gun again comes back to insecurity. I suggest, it is those that feel they need to prove their masculinity that need a weapon to compensate for what they fear they lack. They feel they have to prove something. I suggest there is a lot of repressed homosexuality in Texas and that goes to the top.

Ohh, attacks on gun-owner's sexuality now? I thought this was a debate. Pity. Well, let me tell you about here in Canada, where gun laws and carry laws are rigoriously enforced. Guess what? Our crime rate is skyrocketing. All those fancy laws that are meant to keep guns out of criminal hands don't work. They used to, sure, but now we're having crime shoot right back up as criminals figure out the basic fact that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

DE




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by Clipper
I suggest those big cities might have more gun control BECAUSE gun crime was out of control. It does not prove that less gun control makes a place safer.

Then again, it certainly doesn't prove that gun control is making those cities any safer, does it?

You illustrate how safe Texas is by referring to a madman on a shooting spree. Sorry but that doesn't instill much confidence. It sounds like a cowboy movie. Texas is a vast place. It is when you have ineffectually policed and divided cities, with high population concentation, ghettos, drugs and gangs, that crime is likely to thrive. So no surprise the cities of Texas don't compare to those you mentioned.

To be honest, shooting sprees are not unique to America. In comparison to the Tyler, Texas shooting spree (the case I mentioned), we have the Port Arthur Massacre, with its thirty-five dead. In both cases were maniacs with automatic weapons. The difference is, of course, that in Tyler only one person was killed.

As for other cities in America, let's think about this carefully. Let's say I'm a burglar, or a rapist, or a mugger. I might have a knife or a gun, but would I believe it's worth the risk to attack an armed target? Probably not. The higher the proportion of protection given to criminals legally, and the less citizens are willing to defend themselves with potentially lethal force, determines how much crime is likely. Criminals are stupid, not suicidal.


I have no doubt that if guns and carry knives were outlawed in America and those laws were rigourously enforced, murder rates would plunge. Carrying a gun again comes back to insecurity. I suggest, it is those that feel they need to prove their masculinity that need a weapon to compensate for what they fear they lack. They feel they have to prove something. I suggest there is a lot of repressed homosexuality in Texas and that goes to the top.

Ohh, attacks on gun-owner's sexuality now? I thought this was a debate. Pity. Well, let me tell you about here in Canada, where gun laws and carry laws are rigoriously enforced. Guess what? Our crime rate is skyrocketing. All those fancy laws that are meant to keep guns out of criminal hands don't work. They used to, sure, but now we're having crime shoot right back up as criminals figure out the basic fact that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

DE



The fact that violent crime might be rising in Canada, does not mean the answer is to arm the entire population or that the reason for that rise is that the people are not armed. If you have school bullies picking on other kids, is the answer to give every child a catapult? And yes, unfortunately the vast majority of violence involves men, so an element of sexuality and and gender is a factor. Boys with their big toys is about insecure men feeling they have to prove their manhood, typically poorly educated men who feel inadequate.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
You know, Clipper, that you can tell us how you feel all you want, but the numbers paint a much better picture.

You say damn the numbers, damn the facts, guns spawn violence.

You say look at the big cities and ignore "vast texas" with disregard to san antonio, houston, dallas ft.worth.

You bring up gender, so do this for me look at my avatar and tell me that doesn’t explain it for you. She looks good, and without the gun most men could take her without permission. With the gun, she is your equal, she can defend her self. Sam Colt called his invention “the equalizer” for just that reason.

Just tell me that you think a woman bloodied half dead and mentally scared and a rapist looking for a new victim is morally superior to a woman standing of the dead body of the monster she justly shot when he tried to rip her pants off

How bout that?

We know you think all guns should go away already, so just tell us which one is morally superior, the rapist or the woman who shot him, so we can see which side you cast your lot with.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Back on track?

Guns (legal ones) in the UK are for sporting and / or vermin control use only. Anyone mentioning self-defence during their interview for a firearms/shotgun certificate would be refused.

As discussed using a legal firearm in a burglar situation would be very dodgy and place the user in a very difficult legal position - whether fired or not.

So being aware while out on the street and having a 'reasonable' item to hand if you're ever surprised in the house is all you can do.

This, to me, is preferrable to being able to buy assault rifles at Wal-Mart.

Now if only our Govt would really crack-down on illegal firearms we could get on with our, largely, decent society



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper
The fact that violent crime might be rising in Canada, does not mean the answer is to arm the entire population or that the reason for that rise is that the people are not armed. If you have school bullies picking on other kids, is the answer to give every child a catapult? And yes, unfortunately the vast majority of violence involves men, so an element of sexuality and and gender is a factor. Boys with their big toys is about insecure men feeling they have to prove their manhood, typically poorly educated men who feel inadequate.


If you have schoolyard bullies, you teach the kids to defend themselves and put them on at least equal footing. That's what self defence is, putting yourself on equal footing. Bad guys have guns, ergo equal footing is what?

Your focus on genitalia is disturbing to say the least, Clipper. Statistics show that the average legal gun owner is better educated than his peers. Inadequasy doesn't have much to do with wanting to live another day, and not being subjected to violence.

DE



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join