• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: More kids and guns

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "More kids and guns"

Collapse

  • original PM
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by tomtomagain View Post
    Seriously?

    A criminal is going to rob your house or you regardless. If they think you are armed, then they are definitely going to armed.

    If they think you might shoot. They will shoot first.

    It's a simple cycle-of-violence.

    If having a heavily armed population resulted in a low crime rate then the USA would be much safer than it is.
    Well that logic seems very unintuitive to me, but as I say - there are stats which strongly suggest that you're mistaken.

    Leave a comment:


  • GlenW
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    But, but, that's no good when "they" burst into the office with AKs & uzis.
    Wrong! That's perfect, I don't want a gun in my hand when I'm tulipting myself and may actually shoot someone, or worse the bad guys get their hands on my guns and shoot me and my family.

    Leave a comment:


  • tomtomagain
    replied
    Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
    I think the idea that a defended house results in an armed robber is ridiculous.

    Seriously?

    A criminal is going to rob your house or you regardless. If they think you are armed, then they are definitely going to armed.

    If they think you might shoot. They will shoot first.

    It's a simple cycle-of-violence.

    If having a heavily armed population resulted in a low crime rate then the USA would be much safer than it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • GlenW
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    The only good thing about this thread is that the stupid people in it are safely in the UK away from all the guns they seem to think are a good idea.
    Not all us stupid people are away from guns completely, mine are locked up in a cabinet at home.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    The only good thing about this thread is that the stupid people in it are safely in the UK away from all the guns they seem to think are a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    If you're a burglar, and you think the homeowner is likely to have a loaded gun, you're going to take a gun. Most burglars in the UK don't come armed with guns and will run away if discovered.
    Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is the case? The only stats I'm aware of (i.e the ones im aware of - not that there aren't any other ones) from the US where gun ownership is common (and in regions therein where common compared to where it is not), show that that not to be the case at all.

    I think the idea that a defended house results in an armed robber is ridiculous. It's like suggesting that a robber who knows that a house is occupied by a champion kickboxer will bring a champion thai boxer with him on his robbery, rather than just rob the neighbours instead. Except that bringing the thai-boxer is more credible as the potential loss is smaller for the same potential gain. An armed confrontation only increases the potential loss without increasing the potential gain.

    It's basic economics, and violence is very expensive.

    Leave a comment:


  • GlenW
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Now here's some people you really wouldn't want to burgle in a hurry:

    Charles Ommanney looks at the many faces of gun owners in the United States (Photos).

    You certainly don't want to mess with Millicent Hunter.
    Christ! I wouldn't fancy living next door to the Bakers! They don't look like they should be allowed to keep sharp cutlery never mind firearms!

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    If you're a burglar, and you think the homeowner is likely to have a loaded gun, you're going to take a gun. Most burglars in the UK don't come armed with guns and will run away if discovered.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
    ...

    In countries where gun worship is legal they tend to come when they think that you're out, because the robbery isn;t worth the chance of someone shooting at you. In this country they just hit you over the head with a metal bar if you put up a fight. ...
    a gun IS a metal bar. with an 'ole in it

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevie Wonder Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
    Burglars beat pensioner to death in front of wife | Daily Mail Online

    Took me all of 3 seconds to google. I posted the link because clearly you're from a different country, if not planet.

    Here's another which took another 3 seconds:

    Armed robbers steal cash and phones in raid on Iceland in Altrincham - Manchester Evening News
    Again, don't think this is the same as the US in terms of scale and frequency. The US seems to be having a Hungerford type of incident every month now.

    BTW: I chose California for the Google as it has roughly the same population as the UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevie Wonder Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
    Wow. Your personal anecdotes are now the objective standard? Lol.

    And you can't read either - my point is, again, that you wouldn't NEED to shoot them.

    In countries where gun ownership is legal they tend to come when they think that you're out, because the robbery isn;t worth the chance of someone shooting at you. In this country they just hit you over the head with a metal bar if you put up a fight. If you;re unlucky you get it anyway. Either way you have to suffer the experience.
    Google -> gun deaths california home burglary
    It seems a bit ironic that you are throwing stones at Sue Ellen and respond with exactly the same type of argument.

    Again, I've lived half of my life in both the UK and the US. The UK is much safer by far. Due in no small part to the gun licensing and regulation in the UK. I know this doesn't fit your view of how society should work, but it does seem to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevie Wonder Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost




    Hardly. IIRC there were estimated to be about a million illegally held handguns, there are now estimated to be about 3 million illegally held handguns.
    How do they know???? Seriously how are they counting them? -> back to my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • tomtomagain
    replied
    Originally posted by jmo21 View Post
    Eh?

    My post is an argument AGAINST teachers (or the general public carrying guns).
    Sorry. I must have misread it. I'd normally blame the alcohol but it was the middle of the day ....

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Your points are guns make society safer. You also seem preoccupied with the fact you can't shoot intruders in the UK or wave a gun around to frighten them.

    As someone who had an intruder in her house the fact he got disturbed by voices was enough to make him flee. No guns needed let alone any other violence needed. If guns were legal he would have come armed.* Even in other cases I know intruders didn't use violence.

    *He was caught while trying to flee and had nothing on him.
    Wow. Your personal anecdotes are now the objective standard? Lol.

    And you can't read either - my point is, again, that you wouldn't NEED to shoot them.

    In countries where gun ownership is legal they tend to come when they think that you're out, because the robbery isn;t worth the chance of someone shooting at you. In this country they just hit you over the head with a metal bar if you put up a fight. If you;re unlucky you get it anyway. Either way you have to suffer the experience.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X