Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by PhotonGuy, Oct 3, 2017.
Strawman argument. Nobody ever said carrying a gun was a 100% effective defense.
Well, I would just point out that I wasn't arguing that point.
that opinion piece seem to have a little bias to it. Japan has always had a much lower crime rate than most places in the world.
Japan vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
the reason has little to do with samurai and swords VS guns. the samurai used guns all the time. they just had trouble manufacturing them.
low crime rates in Japan is more about their culture of "obligation and duty" they would never want to put shame on their family for a crime they did. we are talking about a society where a little old lady will berate a stranger on a bicycle who goes thru a stop light at 4 am in the morning when no one is around but her as she sweeps the side walk. then turn him in to his employer who will again reprimand him because he represents his company and cannot behave that way.
The difference in cultures seems to be ignored when people compare countries and gun crime/control.
I'm still waiting for someone to demand an explanation of why someone liked or agreed with their post.
No kidding. So exactly like a criminal could use a plane or a bomb or something.
Which is the point. Except we just go with one but argue the other.
And what if they wont discuss it?
Saying the people don't want armed civilians is relative and can mean many different things. For instance, I understand that in your country when they don't want armed civilians that means specifically that they don't want civilians armed with handguns, but they're OK with long guns. (Although I do believe in northern Ireland you can get handguns). Not wanting armed civilians can also include a ban on long guns, a ban on other weapons such as swords and knives and sticks, it could even mean a ban on martial arts. So its meaning can vary quite a bit.
Then I guess you would have to let it go or call them out some way. I would be careful about the latter.
Then they don't have much to say. At that point I figure I have to assume what part they disagreed with.
Dangerous. I’d recommend just noting they disagree with something, and leave it at that. Too much assuming goes on around here. Tez3’s on again/off again love affair with me is largely off again because she incorrectly assumes things. I’m 100% sure if she lived in our neighborhood she’d love me, because she’d form her opinion based on more than gossip and the occasional post where I call her on some wackiness.
And for the record, I am never guilty of this myself. I am immune.
Then don't worry about it. Plain and simple.
I'd they won't discuss it they won't and it leaves people to draw their own conclusions as to their silliness.
Your information seems quite odd. The people of the UK don't want people walking around armed with any gun, they aren't 'ok with long guns' as you put it. People can keep shotguns if they get a licence and keep them appropriately which doesn't include walking around with them.
You absolutely not have handguns in Northern Ireland. I have no idea why you'd think that. There is a horror of guns there that unless you've lived there during the Troubles you likely wouldn't understand. For this reason the police force there are armed all the time and are allowed to take their guns with them when off duty. The police are targets of the terrorists so it makes sense. 340 officers have been killed and almost 9,000 injured in paramilitary assassinations or attacks.
I was talking specifically of the UK and specifically of guns. I wasn't and am not widening the subject any wider.
Accountability. Pretty much the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dumbasses and in the control of people who are going to use them properly.
So it is gun as a privilage that you earn rather than a right.
So the idea is if you have a reason for carrying a gun. Hunting shooting whatever you can have a gun. If the reason is becasue you just want to walk aroung with a gun you cant.
Now we could argue the semantics. Whether gun control goes too far. but I like the basic premis of that.
As I said earlier in this thread responsible gun use.
See I cant support peoples right to do this.
This might surprise you but the U.S. has also seen a dramatic downward trend in violent crime spanning about the same time period, in spite of the fact that the number of guns in the U.S. per capita has continuously grown and the fact that many of the restrictions on gun use in the U.S. have relaxed.
What you have just demonstrated is that gun laws do not have a strong correlation to violence in society.
Peace favor your sword,
They are weapons and everyone knew that.
I haven't demonstrated anything other than ability to post data from the Home Office.
I don't have an opinion on gun crime or gun control in the US, my answers were in response to comments made about the UK. My comments are only about the UK. There's enough people arguing the toss about the US without me adding anything, I don't live there and domestic policies don't affect me. People who want to drag other countries into their arguments for or against gun control are mistaken, as I've said many times, different countries, different people, different cultures.
That may not have been your intention but it was one of the results, even if unintentionally.
Peace favor your sword,
What I meant was, people could own long guns. I don't know of any developed country where you can walk around with a long gun and that includes most places in the USA. Even a CCW will not allow you to carry around a long gun openly in most places in the USA.
Than I suppose Wikipedia was wrong. Wikipedia can be a good source of info but it isn't always reliable.
Gun ownership might be a privilege in your country, I believe you're from Australia, but in the USA it is a right as defined by the constitution. I also don't support what the drunk guy did in the video just like I don't support drunk people driving which you will find way too much of in the USA.
Separate names with a comma.