![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Simon Robbins
writes "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash. Trouble was, having concentrated on Practical Pistol, it would have been a fairly awkward shift in both hardware and technique to go over to shooting black-powder pistol (even if a LeMat makes a fairly awesome weapon: nine rounds of soft lead .36" ball plus a shotgun, any intruder still standing after *that* has earned the right to pillage while I reload: if I wanted one I could get one, legally and fairly easily) but as someone else said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people. That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people (hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either). For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears were only ever designed for killing!). Sports grew out of military competition: so we should also ban all martial arts from boxing onwards (dedicated to learning how to batter an opponent insensible!) Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary. Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding. But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the novelty value of owning a "piece". No worse than in the US. The electable viewpoint there is that the costs are worth paying, but there the genie's out of the bottle and it's a fair assumption that any casual burglar or opportunistic mugger might be carrying a firearm. Unfortunately, the reaction to to that gets them a lot of stolen weapons, domestic accidents and other grief, but the current consensus is that the gain outweighs the cost. For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel. Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the US for very different reasons ![]() -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
[ boiled down to a single point...] [...] it's a fair assumption that any casual burglar or opportunistic mugger might be carrying a firearm. That's true anywhere; criminals obtain their firearms illegally, after all. The big difference is that in the US, the intended victim is much more likely to possess a firearm - and thus, could be lethal to the criminal. Combine that with the usual escalation of punishment when a crime involves the use or threat of a lethal weapon (not just guns) - and we have the amazing fact: Wherever a US state has enacted a liberal policy for issuance of handgun permits, crime has decreased. Criminals are cowards; they will invariably choose a weaker target for their crimes - and avoid locales where their victims may be in a position of greater strength to ward off an attack. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
... I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash. I meant without restriction and licencing. That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people (hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either). For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears were only ever designed for killing!). I have no problem with offensive weapons in sport. I'm not against ownership either, so long as you can guarantee responsibility. But, bear in mind you're going to get in serious trouble walking down the road with a bow, sword, or even a javelin in the UK these days. As it happens I think the government was dead wrong in banning the legal ownership of handguns for sport. It was complete overkill driven by media hysteria. Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary. Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding. Don't know about that. It would take such a shift in the legal rights of home owners to enable them to use a potential deadly force in defence of their property, and I just don't see a change in the law coming that'll stop favouring criminals. (I think the government's too worried about loosing out on all that VAT they get from burglary victims having to go out and buy new appliances.. :-) For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel. Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the US for very different reasons ![]() I agree with you, but it comes down to: I'd be happy for everyone to own a gun if I new that they were as responsible as I know I am! But then there's no test for respect or responsibility and sooner or later kids will get access to the guns carefully stored in their parents' safes, and the genie would be out of the bottle here as well. Trouble is that it's a one-way massive culture and legal shift, and it's much easier for society and government to try and cope with the status quo rather than open Pandora's Box. Si |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |