Should the civilian population of all countries be disarmed? (1 Viewer)

[KenHigg]

It still needed a person to arm it then drop it. But please note that I don't think people should be allowed to carry pistols or any other weapon, and never cease to be amazed that they are allowed to carry them concealed, what's that all about?

Brian

I don't know. In a lot of cases I guess some people feel threatened or vulnerable in public? When I used to have to go to public housing complexes I thought about carrying one under my coat for protection. I think you have to have a permit to do that. (Here anyway)

 

[Rich]

Nonesense, people can kill with a baseball bat or a car.

Nonsense, people can defend themselves and take evasive action when faced with your alternatives

 

[KenHigg]

Nonsense, people can defend themselves and take evasive action when faced with your alternatives

Nonesense, what's the defense for sneaking up behind someone with a baseball bat? A hard hat or helmet?

 

[Rich]

Nonesense, what's the defense for sneaking up behind someone with a baseball bat? A hard hat or helmet?

One down, one to go, what evidence do you have to support this is a common event, Hollywood?

 

[Mike375]

Why should you be required to take a lesser action to defend yourself.

I can tell you that our place is about the only one in the immediate area that has not been broken into BUT it is very obvious that the house is heavily armed. I must admit that at different times of a night when I hear a noise I have been disappointed that it is not an intruder.

 

[Brianwarnock]

What's the correct spelling nonesense or nonsense or is one American and one proper English?

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

I think the reason why your place has not been broken into has less to do with this...

I can tell you that our place is about the only one in the immediate area that has not been broken into BUT it is very obvious that the house is heavily armed.

and more to do with this...

I must admit that at different times of a night when I hear a noise I have been disappointed that it is not an intruder.

 

[dan-cat]

Nonsense, people armed with pistols kill, and in actual fact there are reports of people being killed by simply dropping an armed pistol, therefore the original poster was correct

I'm sure the pistol negotiated a plea bargain.

 

[KenHigg]

What's the correct spelling nonesense or nonsense or is one American and one proper English?

Brian

I'm the one that probably spelled it incorrectly

 

[KenHigg]

One down, one to go, what evidence do you have to support this is a common event, Hollywood?

So if we reached a certain nember, say 1000 attacks (or insert whatever number you want), with a baseball bat a year then your answer to the problem would be to ban baseball bats?

 

[Alc]

people can kill with a baseball bat or a car.

Ignoring cars - as I've yet to hear of anyone suggesting them as a means of home defence - the key difference between a bat and a gun is that the former allows you a degree of control over how much damage you inflict. You hit someone with a bat, using X amount of force, you do half as much damage as if you hit them using 2X of force. Shoot someone and you don't get to tell the bullet when to stop.

Obviously the argument is going to come out that 'trained shots' have the specialised knowledge required to know where to hit someone to wound as opposed to kill, but the same can be said about using a bat, so that's a moot point.

 

[Alc]

I don't think people should be allowed to carry pistols or any other weapon, and never cease to be amazed that they are allowed to carry them concealed, what's that all about?

The argument seems to go 'I need a gun for my protection. I don't want to be attacked, I just want to know that I can look after myself if I have to'.

It would appear that the best way to achieve this would be to have said gun on show. After all, if you were looking to pick on someone, would you do it to a person who has clearly decided that they're incapable of defending themself without a firearm and so openly carries one? Not likely.

Why then, hide the gun? It's only usefulness, if hidden, is once you've been attacked. Perhaps the stereotypical wishes-he-were-Charles-Bronson gun nut image isn't too far from the truth?

 

[KenHigg]

You're overlooking the fact that you may be in and out of areas that are dangerous. Having it in view in a dangerous area may be a good thing but then having it in full view in other areas may not be the better option. - ?

 

[Mike375]

Ignoring cars - as I've yet to hear of anyone suggesting them as a means of home defence - the key difference between a bat and a gun is that the former allows you a degree of control over how much damage you inflict. You hit someone with a bat, using X amount of force, you do half as much damage as if you hit them using 2X of force. Shoot someone and you don't get to tell the bullet when to stop.

Obviously the argument is going to come out that 'trained shots' have the specialised knowledge required to know where to hit someone to wound as opposed to kill, but the same can be said about using a bat, so that's a moot point.

With a rifle like a 387 Weatherby or 30/378 Wby it just needs to be pointed in your direction and the muzzle blast will send you straight to your knees. You might however suffer a few hearing problems for sometime

If loaded with something like the 150 grain fat point used in a 30/30 it won't go too far as far as the neighbours are concerned. It will be already coming apart as it exits the muzzle due to the excessive velocity.

A few years ago I thought I heard and intruder and said to the little woman to stick her fingers in her ears and I stuck in ear plugs and got up with a 378. If someone would have been there i would have just fired the rifle into the floor. They would be completely fucked by the blast.

I would have then dragged them into the street and left then there

 

[Alc]

You're overlooking the fact that you may be in and out of areas that are dangerous. Having it in view in a dangerous area may be a good thing but then having it in full view in other areas may not be the better option. - ?

Why?
Decent people who don't know the carrier will, at worst, call the police.
Decent people who do know the carrier will feel that bit safer that such an armed he-man is present.
Unsavoury types will not attack anyone for fear that he will spring into action.

 

[KenHigg]

Then again an unsavoury types may try to get the gun first from the person carrying it if it's in full view and hurt someone.

 

[Alc]

Then again an unsavoury types may try to get the gun first from the person carrying it if it's in full view and hurt someone.

If the people there are that unsavoury, it sort of discounts the idea that it was a safe area to begin with, no?
I just feel that a gun nobody knows about can't be defined as a deterrent and smacks of someone wanting to invite an attack so they can act out their heroic fantasies.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Just come back to the thread and ALC is saying all of the things I was thinking when I posed the question regarding concealed weapons.

The danger of an unsavoury character stealing the gun from somebody carrying one is another argument for nobody carrying them.

Brian

 

[KenHigg]

If the people there are that unsavoury, it sort of discounts the idea that it was a safe area to begin with, no?

You're the one that made that assertion, not me.

I just feel that a gun nobody knows about can't be defined as a deterrent

I've already agreed that having it in the open in a dangerous area where it may indeed be a deterrent may be a good idea.

and smacks of someone wanting to invite an attack so they can act out their heroic fantasies.

That's why you have to go through a screening process to get the permit

 

[Alc]

Did you mean an unsavoury type in the bad area? If so, I misunderstood.

That's why you have to go through a screening process to get the permit

Yes, well, I'm sure the process itself is fullproof.