Do you think you could take the spring out?

Discussion in 'Weapons' started by mkultra, Oct 7, 2011.

  1. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    You live by the sword you die by the sword. You want to live the life, you pay the price. We are talking about real people not those that got in the game.

    The Bear.
     
  2. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    Ah, so y'all are simply making extreme over-exaggerations in order to try a make a point? I do not carry a concealed weapon, I have no need to. However, if my job was such that I had to regularly enter more crime-filled areas, I would probably seriously consider getting a concealed carry permit. I'm glad that I have that choice. Likewise, I've never had to shoot an intruder entering my home. However, I am glad that I have that option, even if it never gets used.
    Now if I wanted to use the same over-exaggeration techniques, I would say that I'm glad my government doesn't force me to run away from any and all confrontations. I could also say that I'm glad I could shoot and kill an intruder that was trying to rape my wife without having to abandon her afterward to spend the rest of my life in prison for it.

    See, over-exaggerations may make you feel better about your own points, but they don't make for good conversations. :)
     
  3. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Wouldn't you rather not have to worry about those things happening at all. Sometimes I think America is a little in love with violence. The lone avenger out there fighting the monsters trying to kill his family. It's certainly a recurrent theme in hollywood movies. The truth is that building stronger community and cultural bonds is a far more effect form of self-defense than weapons.
    Random killings and rapes tend to be very rare. You are far more likely to be raped or murdered by someone you know but you are right, it's far more romantic to think of ourselves are the lone hero fighting for justice in a cruel world.

    The Bear.
     
  4. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    Hmmmm ... Doesn't seem to be working out so well for you, based upon the recent riots you folks suffered. The truth is that no matter how strong the community and cultural bonds, there will always be disenfranchised individuals who will take advantage wherever they can.

    However, like I said much earlier in this thread, most people prefer, and will argue for, the way their country's laws handle things.

    Now that's just rude. Just because I prefer not to bleet like a sheep and run like a rabbit doesn't make me any sort of a hero. :)
     
  5. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    The problem here is that the press sell themselves on using public fear and concern. Fear sells far better than comfort and we the gullible public buy into it don't we?

    Look at the figures.

    The official population rate for the UK is approximetly 63,000,000 ( but it's probably a bit higher ).

    The official violent crime against a person rate is approximately 890,000 ( but it's probably a bit higher ) that includes violence without the use of a weapon too

    So the chances are of you being violently attacked with or without a weapon is approximately 70 - 1 so not as dangerous as you would think so there is actually less need to carry a weapon than you think when you consider a large portion of violent crime on a person is all too often between two drink enduced individuals and less likely on an individual walking down the street minding their own business.

    The majority of the population go through life not having to deal with violent confrontations so is there really a need to arm yourself for self defence or are we just falling pray to the scare tactics of today's high speed press?
     
  6. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    and it could be argued that it was a lack of community and weak cultural bonds that helped fuel the riots too.
     
  7. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I agree Pat, I think that is exactly what fuelled the riots in England. Scotland didn't have the riots not because of better people but because we haven't quite reached the cultural tipping point that many cities in England have. Give it 10 years and it will be a different story.

    The Bear.
     
  8. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    It's not rude, the fact that it has offended you probably means it has struck home far more closely than you would like.
    Building culture is like farming. Are farmers cowards for tirelessly working to land to provide for their family? It takes far more courage and effort to go build relationships with your neighbours (many of whom you won't like) than it does to buy a gun and hide behind your door. In fact it could be argued that the ultra individualistic behaviour is contributioning to the atmosphere of fear and distrust.
    Despite your derisory sheep analogy, human are social animals like sheep. We are not solitary hunters. Our strength comes from our ability to co-operate. Individualism workings in specific circumstances. In your nations youth when it was untamed and very sparsely populated it was a key trait for survival but when you have 300 million people, you cannot afford 300 million individualists. You end up with brutal competition and no social responsibility. America needs to start thinking a little more socialist or face the very real possibility of it own destruction.

    The Bear.
     
  9. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    I absolutely agree with you there. A common argument that I have with people on MA fora is that they are fond of complaining that X school of martial arts doesn't teach proper self-defence etc ... The odds of any martial artist ever having to use what they've learned for self-defence is pretty darn slim, so it really doesn't matter much.

    Oh no, you've not offended me. I'm a Texan, it takes a lot more than that to offend me! :) Rather than approaching the debate from a logical standing, you've chosen to over-exaggerate in a futile attempt to sell your point, just like the popular media does. I'd much rather have a conversation than a series of soundbites attempting to create a visceral reaction. That's what I consider rude.

    While that's an interesting theory, it is only a theory, and there are many other theories on the subject. Take England for example. They have been thinking more socialist than the U.S. for quite some time, and it doesn't seem to have done much good. I think you are correct in the fact that over-population will require changes to how society is run. However, I don't believe that increased socialism is going to help the problem. I believe that increased socialism will simply allow more children to be raised without proper guidance, contributing to the drain on the goverment until it falls under its own weight.

    My own thoughts on the subject are that nature will find a way to reduce the world's population to a sustainable level. Whether this is through disease or war remains to be seen, but that is nature's way of handling problems like this, and I don't think we are yet smart enough to completely thwart our natural tendencies.
     
  10. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    The UK hasn't had a socialist government since 1979. Funnily enough almost exactly when people started talking about moral decline.

    Wow it's like the Rick Perry appreciation society in here. Invade Mexico!!!!

    The Bear.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  11. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    You really can't have a conversation without your sound bites can you? Are you in television or advertising by any chance? :) I'm sure my family in Mexico would not appreciate it if we invaded.

    Actually, I firmly believe that Rick Perry is a moron, and should be forced to live on a deserted island with Sarah Palin.
     
  12. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    It's called Wit, something us Brits like to cultivate. It allows you to be smart and funny while still being poignant. Perhaps it's only available in the coastal states. I guess who needs wit when you can have a silverado grill on your escalade and a M-16 on the rifle rack.

    The Bear.
     
  13. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    and what a **** time we had then. A rise in football hooligans. The rise of the national front NF. 3 day weeks. Power out by 10pm. 33.3% tax on your wages. Yeah power to the people my ****. Socialist is just another way off fooling you into believing your not getting fleeced.

    Oh don't get me going.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2011
  14. Teflon

    Teflon Valued Member

    Your statistics focus solely on gun murders Bear, if you expand this to murder in general the rate in the US is around 4 times that of the UK. The restriction on weapons doesn't lower murder and violent crime in my opinion, it just switches the method. Is it any different to the victim whether they were killed by a legal weapon or an illegal one? Or wounded for that matter, considering the overall violent crime.

    The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world per capita, higher than the US. You say our hotspots raise our figures. Our hotspots have nothing at all on US hotspots, of which there are also many more. Their gang culture is still beyond anything the UK has seen, despite what the media is trying to say about them being comparable. Despite all this, their rates are overall lower than ours still, so how do our hotspots alone raise us to this level?

    Yes the restrictions prevent the use of guns often, but they are still shown for purposes of robbery and intimidation. Also, you pretty much admit there that the gun control doesn't prevent the ownership of guns, just the willingness to use them in public. I'm unsure that it's raised their prices much either. In fact, a quick look at a couple of US based gun-dealers would indicate our prices are actually lower than their legal guns.
     
  15. Teflon

    Teflon Valued Member

    One final point as I don't think this discussion is really going anywhere, and by now we are far off topic. During the riots I talked with a vast array of people, many of whom took part. They openly admitted they were going to take part as it was too good an opportunity for them to miss, free stuff. There was no political agenda at all in any way. The problem in the UK is the youngest generation has been raised with these ridiculous rules we have, and they know that if they engage in crime, they will likely get away with much of it. Victims are not going to be armed, they are not allowed to use force, few cases end in convictions, and many convictions will not result in jail time. It's not about being in the game or not, as the majority of victims are not.

    Also, as you were quick to dismiss Switzerland and Serbia's statistics, here's a few more-

    Saudi Arabia, lower murder rate than UK, over 1/3rd of the population owns registered firearms.
    Sweden, 30%+ own registered firearms, lowed murder rate than UK.
    Norway, less than half our murder rate, 30%+ ownership.
    Austria, 30%+ ownership, less than 1/3rd our murder rate.
    Iceland, 30%+ ownership, less than 1/4 our murder rate.
    Germany, 30%+ ownership, murder rate around 80% of ours.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2011
  16. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    All too often people who are in favour of gun ownership often cite countries such as Switzerland etc but the fact of the matter is gun ownership is not the reason for less murders by gun or otherwise. You could also argue with stats from other countries that have gun control that this reducesses the murder rate yet this is not strictly true either.

    Take the Philippines for instance where there is a much higher rate of gun ownership per head thN the USA and yet the murder rate is far in excess of that of the USA and even more surprising to the gun ownership lobby is that the vast majority of the murders are non gun related.

    So does gun ownership reduce the murder rate or increase it? No. The truth of the matter is it is more likely a cultural approach that has more to do with it than anything else.

    Figures show that even before England had gun control it's murder rate was still much lower than the USA. As a matter of fact since Victorian times the murder rate has fallen in the UK where as it has risen in the USA and there is no evidence to prove or disprove gun control has anything to do with it as you will always find other countries around the world that will contradict each argument. So citing other countries in favour of or against is not proof of either side of the debate.
     
  17. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    If you make guns commonplace on the streets of Glasgow, I'll guarantee you an increase in the murder rate. Parts of the city would be like the wild west.

    The Bear.
     
  18. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    And on the other side of the coin murders may become less common place because everyone is tooled up. The evidence around the world shows that both gun control and lack of gun control have no real bearing on the murder rates. It differs from country to country regardless of control it is I believe how much value the community as a whole values life.

    We humans as well as being very sociable we are also very violent for many reasons which is one of the reasons we dominate the planet.

    If an individual wants to kill someone they will do regardless of any weapons control that is in place so I think whether you have it or not it will make no difference.
     
  19. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I reckon after the first year or two the murder rate will go down but then the population will have dripped somewhat too.

    The Bear.
     
  20. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    Would it go up at all? Bearing in mind you would think twice about attacking someone who may be armed. But then again your more likely to use lethal force if you think they are. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. For that reason I don't think it would change to any real degree.
     

Share This Page