You talk as if there would be some sort of mass genocide I can't see it. If people really want to get a gun to kill people they will they are not exactly hard to come by.
Sorry, I'm sure I would have recognized it if it had actually been funny. I'm sorry, but nothing I've read supports that assertion at all. You'll have to show me some solid proof before I'll believe that.
Pat, there is a massive difference to planning a murder and pulling a gun out and shooting a guy because he took your place in Mickey D's queue. The neds of Glasgow don't have impulse control. Add guns to that and you have a recipe for disaster. The Bear.
actually you are correct not to believe it there are many countries that far out rank both the UK and the USA when it comes to crime rate per capita and the USA and the UK are far down the list and the UK's ranking is lower than the USA. According to the official UN stats that is.
That's what I've seen, so I was wondering where the fellow came up with the idea that UK had a higher violent crime rate. However, there's not much difference between pulling a gun out to kill someone and pulling a knife out to do the same job. The difference comes in the reaction to said killing. If your local thug pulls a knife and cuts someone's throat because he looked at them wrong, chances are good that he'll be able to run off before those around him know what he's done. If he did the same with a gun, everyone around would know instantly, and be able to identify the person that did it (provided they didn't get shot also. ) There are good and bad points to either way of looking at it. The main thing to remember is that you can't wander amongst the hooligans without being seriously on-guard at all times. Awareness does much more for self-defense than any weapon a person can carry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html They used UN + European Commision figures to come up with the numbers, US is listed at 466 per 100,000 for violent crime, UK is listed at 2,034. To the previous poster who pointed out that gun control/lack of doesn't affect crime necessarily. This is true. My original point was not about gun control, it was about the right to be armed, especially if the weapon is solely for home purposes. I strongly believe that UK criminals will be deterred by their victim potentially being armed. Most of our criminals do not want to go to jail, they do not want to cause serious damage, they prey on the weak because they know they usually can't fight back with a weapon shoved in their face, and they also know they're unlikely to do any kind of jail sentence for commiting the crime in the first place. A lot of these guys will just give up and run if you so much as pull a pen-knife or swiss army knife out. My main concern is with the increase over the past few years of aggravated burglaries. I'm unsure about Scotland which has a reputation for fighters a lot more, but here in Birmingham the new generation doesn't care about fighting with other people in the game. They realise that they can get hold of a cheap pistol, kick off somebodies front door, and take what they want at gunpoint (usually done to get the keys to any nice cars outside). I believe we'd see a drastic drop in this if - 1) People were allowed to actually defend themselves, even without any changes in weapons law and 2) if people could potentially be armed with a lethal weapon. The second one is the big point, our criminals aren't generally crazed hardcore gang members willing to take a bullet to prove a point. They're opportunist cowards for the most part.
A criminal will be a criminal because it's profitable and you have to look at the other side of the coin. Arm the public yet it may deter others but many will just arm themselves even more. If a drug addict needs money for the next fix they will go to any lengths to get it. I they know your armed then they will shoot first before you get a chance to respond. Those who break into houses at gun point will still break in guns blazing. As for the Daily Mirror figures well as the say don't believe everything you read inthe papers they have a tendency like politicians juggle figures to make things sound better of more sensational. I looked on the actual UN site for the figures and they clearly state the UK is ranked lower than the USA and both countries are way down the list when it comes to crime stats.
I'm sorry, but what I said was "You'll have to show me some solid proof before I'll believe that." I do not consider quoting an article from the Daily Mail, a British newspaper with a reputation for stretching the truth, to constitute solid proof. For what it's worth, I agree with your stance that people should be allowed to use deadly force to protect their homes. However, I live in Texas, which has a very liberal interpretation of its home protection laws. That being said, the best protection a person can have for their family and home is to have a medium to large size dog. The vast majority of burglars, and those intent on home invasion, will avoid a home with a dog because it will cause them more trouble than they want. It is much easier for them to go to a house without a dog than it is to confront and kill one. According to the Dallas police officer that used to be a member at our dojo, thieves are much more concerned with avoiding dogs than they are high priced security systems.
Pat I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and am well aware of what they are like. I've also worked as a Glasgow bouncer and seen what alcohol and stupidity leads to. The Bear.
And yet you aren't advocating eliminating alcohol? Perhaps it would be better if we gave them all guns, but prevented them from getting drunk.
I think if you armed the streets of Glasgow and then banned alcohol what you would have is one very serious heavily armed and angry bunch of people. It would be a very, very, very bad idea. If you did it here the whole thing would last for exactly as long as it took to dig a great big hole, shoot those with the bright idea, and then re-open the pubs. paul * I do get that you were joking...
Born in Govan. Flitted between living in Govan and Priesthill in Glasgow and Hackney in London. Hung about with gangs in my stupid youth. Worked the doors for over 15 years in numerous places and didn't really grow up till my mid 20's ( I originally took up martial arts so i could hurt people more ) so yes I know what their capable of too and I still disagree with your views on them.
Those were different days Pat. I grew up in Pollok, then Possil and had my first flat in Rathlin St. in Govan. I can tell you it's changed. Gangs were bad but now it's just random drug and alcohol induced mayhem. I grew up with two Alcoholic parents but people now would drink them under the table, then pop in a couple of pills for good measure. Everyone is whacked out their skull and that's before you count the anti-depressants the health centres hand out like candy. I'm amazed they can even function. The Bear.
All the same, Bear raises a good point. Many of us Traditionalist MA labor under oversights that developed from individuals poking around for loopholes. For instance, at face value the OP represents himself as reasonable and responsible. We have no way of knowing whether this representation is true. We are also have Bear's very valid observation that OP is asking representing that he is willing to break a policy or law to accomplish his own agenda. This would seem to make a case against the OP from the git-go. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
yep my parents where that too and I ended up in what they call a broken home. Yes it was different back then. You could get a gun licence a lot easier I seen my first stabbing by the age of 7 involved in violence on a weekly basis. I got attacked for wearing the wrong colour or being the wrong sort of Christian. Yes it was different. Look at the stats. Your far less likely to be confronted with violence your far more likely due to scientific progress to be caught for murder or any crime for that matter so yes it is a lot different. It's safer. Only the media want you to believe otherwise because news travels fast and sells more papers.
Which brings me back to the OP's original posting and my answer of why do you need a sharp live Balisong knife? Personal protection in the home is no excuse as ther are plenty real and makeshift weapons in every home should you need to resort to lethal force.
Well let's not put it to the test. Even though I enjoy shooting immensely I'm willing to pass on it to stop unnecessary killings. The Bear.
I find it interesting that you believe the media is exaggerating crime in the UK Pat. I have no idea what the Scottish media is like but I feel that the English media is doing the opposite which is a part of my concern. They are quick to try and blame a political agenda, and there are many major crimes that get no news coverage at all, or very minor coverage in the middle of some obscure newspaper. Additionally to your point of there being many lethal weapons in the house - of course they are, but we are not legally allowed to use them. If people break into your house, you're supposed to lock yourself away and call the police, then pray, no? Anything else could see you go to jail yourself. .
Nope. You're meant to call for assistance, and use reasonable force to defend yourself, others and property. Shooting someone in the back as they run away isn't reasonable force - knocking them down the stairs with a baseball bat as they run up screaming at you, probably is.
