More guns, less crime

[FoxEye]

Criminals who burgle frequently go armed already, perhaps not with guns but certainly with screwdrivers etc.

I would contend that firearms are a great 'leveller'. Assuming both burglar and home owner are armed with the same weapons, a 60 year old home owner hasn't much chance against a 20 year old burglar if both are wielding knives, but if both have firearms any physical advantages in terms of strength etc. are immediately lost.

I'm not sure you know.

The burglar is already a desperate animal. Let's assume he's so desperate that he will attempt to rob you whether he thinks you are armed or not.

Now, if he thinks you aren't armed, he is probably less likely to get trigger happy should you come face to face. He has less to fear from you, and really, you don't want this person to panic or flip out, do you? He's just there to rob you, presumably he really doesn't want to kill you.

On the other hand, if he thinks you're armed, and he wakes you up and there's a confrontation, what are the chances he'll shoot first just to make sure he doesn't end up dead himself?

 

[FoxEye]

To add to my last point, if you legalise guns you increase the risk for those without guns, thus mandating that everybody has to have a gun.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

To add to my last point, if you legalise guns you increase the risk for those without guns, thus mandating that everybody has to have a gun.

Wrong.

You do not increase the risk for those non-firearm holding law abiding citizens from firearm holding law abiding citizens. The risk from criminals is there now.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I'm not sure you know.

The burglar is already a desperate animal. Let's assume he's so desperate that he will attempt to rob you whether he thinks you are armed or not.

Now, if he thinks you aren't armed, he is probably less likely to get trigger happy should you come face to face. He has less to fear from you, and really, you don't want this person to panic or flip out, do you? He's just there to rob you, presumably he really doesn't want to kill you.

On the other hand, if he thinks you're armed, and he wakes you up and there's a confrontation, what are the chances he'll shoot first just to make sure he doesn't end up dead himself?

I'm sure I have a better understanding than you do.

He does not have less to fear from me, regardless of whether I am armed or not. The risk to me increases if I am not armed of course, but that's a different matter.

I don't care whether he panics or flips out, my only focus is to protect my family by either scaring away someone who is in the process of or who has illegally entered my home, or by offering whatever level of violence I can to negate any threat.

To shoot first he has to have some idea where I am. I am confident of my own ability to negate an armed threat, it isn't like it's something I haven't done before.

 

[FoxEye]

Wrong.

You do not increase the risk for those non-firearm holding law abiding citizens from firearm holding law abiding citizens. The risk from criminals is there now.

You're more likely to get shot if the criminal believes you could be armed.

How could that be wrong?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

You're more likely to get shot if the criminal believes you could be armed.

How could that be wrong?

I don't accept that. As I have posted already, the risk to the criminal increases massively if I am armed. On the basis of risk and reward, is he still likely to burgle me, knowing I am armed, or is he more likely to think 'Bugger that' and go and rob Mr Tree Hugger down the street who hasn't got a gun?

 

[FoxEye]

To shoot first he has to have some idea where I am. I am confident of my own ability to negate an armed threat, it isn't like it's something I haven't done before.

But not everybody has the ability to deal with an armed intruder. Not everybody wants to shoot an armed intruder anyhow. I'd rather just let them have my stuff, tbh, as long as no one gets hurt.

Introducing guns on either side means the likelihood of either party getting hurt is much greater.

 

[quackers]

if the bans on guns were lifted, how many on these good forums would purchase one?

 

[FoxEye]

I don't accept that. As I have posted already, the risk to the criminal increases massively if I am armed. On the basis of risk and reward, is he still likely to burgle me, knowing I am armed, or is he more likely to think 'Bugger that' and go and rob Mr Tree Hugger down the street who hasn't got a gun?

So you admit that the risk to people who choose not to arm themselves is higher... which you refuted just seconds ago?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

if the bans on guns were lifted, how many on these good forums would purchase one?

I'd purchase several as soon as I legally could.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

So you admit that the risk to people who choose not to arm themselves is higher... which you refuted just seconds ago?

Learn to read

I said:

You do not increase the risk for those non-firearm holding law abiding citizens from firearm holding law abiding citizens. The risk from criminals is there now.

Meaning that the risk from criminals is there now and isn't going to change if people are armed, but the risk for the criminals is obviously different. Where have I refuted the fact that the risk to those who choose not to arms themselves is higher?!

 

[Swi1ch]

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war

 

[Tefal]

Wrong.

You do not increase the risk for those non-firearm holding law abiding citizens from firearm holding law abiding citizens. The risk from criminals is there now.

except in the cases of these mass killings (and the much smaller guy flipping out at work ones), they're nearly always committed by legally held firearms.

 

[Cybermyk]

You could easily kill more people quicker with a box of pencils than you could with a target pistol or rifle. I really don't understand the current laws regarding firearms. Knee jerk reactions to media pressure really. A massive injustice to the majority of responsible sportsmen IMO.

 

[marv]

guns are easy obtainable to the crim, i would buy a gun if they were made legal only if they allso changed the law that a english man can protect his home no matter what like they have in the states, ie: if some 1 broke into my house and i felt threatened i could leagly blow them away to protect myself and my family.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

except in the cases of these mass killings (and the much smaller guy flipping out at work ones), they're nearly always committed by legally held firearms.

Accepted.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

...ie: if some 1 broke into my house and i felt threatened i could leagly blow them away to protect myself and my family.

This is what we should have.

 

[Tefal]

guns are easy obtainable to the crim, i would buy a gun if they were made legal only if they allso changed the law that a english man can protect his home no matter what like they have in the states, ie: if some 1 broke into my house and i felt threatened i could leagly blow them away to protect myself and my family.

you can, you will still be arrested though for questioning., which is what gets reported


They never follow up the next day with "man released"

No they just tout the "man arrested for defending loved ones".

It's only when you go well out of the reasonable bounds, ie gathering up ner by relatives and chasing them before beating them into a coma in the street.

Then you'll be prosecuted.


people have stabbed intruders plenty of times and never been charged.

 

[FoxEye]

Where have I refuted the fact that the risk to those who choose not to arms themselves is higher?!

So what would you say to someone like myself, who does not want to own or carry a gun, to compensate for the increased risk you will have burdened me with?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

So what would you say to someone like myself, who does not want to own or carry a gun, to compensate for the increased risk you will have burdened me with?

Grow some balls?