Bri Thai,
As many times as you can ignore the questions that are posed that you don't want to answer . . . It's OK to act a victim to this never ending question . . . but you know that you would rather have your own family have this level of protection if they so CHOOSE. I have always argued over the rights of citizens to protect themselves,
without the need to depend on the police to protect them....not just guns.
It's not up to government officials to decide that people should only be protected by the police. The UK is different the need for ability to self-protection is not.
Many, many people in the US choose not to protect themselves.
The DIFFERENCE is that he has a CHOICE. The UK government does not believe in CHOICE for its citizen's own defense....it's unbelievable that you can't get this through your thick skull...but then again, you have some choice and training that the average citizen is unable to lawfully recieve....
Another way:
Let me make a few other points (have been made before):
1. Violent criminals are strong people for the most part (or perceive themselves to be). This may be by virtue of the individual or the group.
2. If #1 is not true, the are quickly weeded out the "profession".
3. They will not listen to the laws as written, or future laws.
There are many weak good guys that can't stand up to a fair fight in their own defense.
Therefore, they must have the opportunity to have an equalizer to protect themself and their family.
This set of scenerios was given to you a long time ago....you ignored them....here they are again:
I will post the scenerios again (edited slightly for clarity). BTW, the axe scenerio came directly from UK news stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4730559.stm http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17262526?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/01/03/story82871.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. A violent assault is going to be committed against you -- with an axe -- by an goblin [criminal] that overwhelms you in size and strength -- you are intimate danger, the goblin has stated he is going to kill you, and you have no possibility to retreat.
You are competent in using the following and have each of the following available to you stop the attempt to kill you (e.g, you have time to use the weapon you choose):
a) your empty hands
b) a blunt weapon
c) an edged weapon
d) handgun
e) rifle / shotgun
2. A violent assault is going to be committed against your Dad -- with an axe -- by an goblin [criminal] that overwhelms him in size and strength -- he is in intimate danger, the goblin has stated he is going to kill him, and he has no possibility to retreat.
He is competent in using the following and you have each of the following to give provide him so that he can stop the attempt on his life. (e.g, he has time to use the weapon you choose):
a) empty hands
b) a blunt weapon
c) an edged weapon
d) handgun
e) rifle / shotgun
3. A violent assault is going to be committed against your grandmother -- with an axe -- by an goblin [criminal] that overwhelms her in size and strength -- she is in intimate danger, the goblin has stated he is going to kill her, and she has no possibility to retreat.
She is competent in using the following and you have each of the following to give provide him so that she can stop the attempt on her life. (e.g, she has time to use the weapon you choose):
a) empty hands
b) a blunt weapon
c) an edged weapon
d) handgun
e) rifle / shotgun
Americans don't refer to the Brits as sheep because they have a different weapons culture. The term "sheep" is used because it appears to us here that the British governement is determined to disarm their citizens until they have no weapons left at their disposal.
It began with draconian gun laws for private citizens. Then it was a ban on tear gas and sprays etc, tasers, extendable batons, and in fact anything designed as a weapon for personal defense. It's now going to include kitchen knives and so, the logical question is, where does this end, if indeed it ever does. Perhaps it will be screwdrivers next.
Once the entire population has been disarmed thus you are in effect "sheep" due to the fact you don't have any "teeth" with which to fight back with.
The Americans, rightly or wrongly, enjoy their "right to bear arms" and can't fathom (especially here on a forum devoted to self protection and the right to self defense) how a group of people would allow their government to do that to them without fighting back.
The Brit government believes that if there aren't any weapons to be had there will be less violence, and, if some raises its ugly head they'll quickly take care of business with their cctv cameras and police officers. We both know that isn't the case and all they've succeeded in doing is depriving honest, law abiding citizens of any effective means with which to defend themselves.
The gun laws in England have been in effect for a long time. If they worked like they're supposed to there wouldn't be any gun deaths in the UK and of course there are. Obviously their theory therefore is shit. Instead of admitting that and giving the people back their right to defense they keep hammering away with more asinine and stringent rules. The people over there seem happy to accept that which is why here, we think they're sheep.
You've stated this in another thread Bri Thai: "What should a UK potential victim use? Thats already clear (after a little study), as much force as he deems reasonable in the circumstances. No, this is not rigourously defined because, if you think about it, it cannot be. No two circumstances are ever the same, so the definition would be endless."
UK citizen have no right to defend themselves in an unreasonable force circumstance - only through same level of physical force or modified daily use object (e.g., vehicle).
Take off your spiffy yellow jacket and think about the rights of individual citizens to defend themselves. It is about freedom of choice in self-defense - not guns - choice.
Thus Endeth the Lecture.
Author
Topic: For Bri Thai: Guns as a Choice in Self-protection (Read 2113 times)