We’ve talked here before about the “guns on campus” issue. Adults in the higher education environment do so (or want to) primarily for two reasons: a hedge against “school shooting” horrors, and for routine protection against muggers, rapists, etc. who consider “gun free zones” to be safe game preserves in which to hunt human victims.
Here, however, is a third good reason. It comes verbatim from one of my graduates, who spends his days at a major institution of higher education as a grad student and researcher, in a letter he sent to a state senator:
“I am a graduate student at a major Florida university. I am 27 years old. I work in biomedical research studying a condition with which my wife is afflicted. The laboratory in which I work is located on campus.
“Recently, an extremist animal activist group known as “Negotiation is Over” has been sighted on our campus. In spite of having received trespass warnings, they were recently sighted handing out fliers offering $100 bounties on the photographs and personal information of students who, like myself, conduct animal research. They have already posted on their website the name, address, home telephone number, and license plate number of a researcher in our department.
“These individuals utilize violent language and rhetoric, including the following statements taken from their website“’Every time a vivisector’s car or home — and, eventually, the abuser him/herself — blows up, flames of liberation light up the sky.’
and,
“’Students also need to understand that making the wrong choice will result in a lifetime of grief. Aspiring scientists envision curing cancer at the Mayo Clinic. We need to impart a new vision: car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear. And, of course, these students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones. The time to reconsider is now.’
“I feel that my life and the lives of my loved ones are in real danger. Other researchers at UCLA have had their cars and homes firebombed and have been the target of regular death threats. While I respect the value of law enforcement, the expectation of a sub two minute police response time is generally unrealistic – and a lot of damage can be done in two minutes as a former law enforcement officer like yourself knows.
“I am a concealed weapons or firearms license holder in the state of —— and have been since 2007. I have participated in over 100 hours of firearms and firearms safety instruction, including courses on the use and application of deadly force taught by a former chair of the firearms committee for ASLET and an ILEETA advisory board member. I have been certified by the NRA as an instructor in home firearm safety and certified pistol. Yet, in spite of all this, I am defenseless because I choose to work on a college campus. I must leave work unarmed, go to a location that is known to me to be dangerous, and return home unarmed. Any stops I make along the way on any day in which I am going to or from work must be conducted unarmed.
“For months, I have e-mailed you and other senators about this matter. I have received form letters and polite, vague responses from aides. My greatest moment of hope came when Senator —- —– proposed SB 234, which originally had language to permit concealed carry on campus – until Senator —– ——- suggested (and the criminal justice committee approved) the gutting of the bill. Their excuse had to do with an anecdote told by a family member of a young woman who was killed in a negligent homicide off campus near (a) State University. The timing of SB 234 was apparently “politically inconvenient” in light of recent events. To my knowledge, the manslaughterer involved was not a licensed permit holder and was most certainly not observing basic firearms safety.
“I am beat-down and exhausted from expressing my safety concerns and attempting to move through the proper channels. I could count up the e-mails, but there are many. Surely over 50 by now. The vague responses and form replies march on. Meanwhile, those who would harm me continue to flagrantly violate the law, trespassing on campus in spite of repeated warnings.
“Apparently, pieces of paper are not adequate defense against criminal activity.
“To be frank, I’m not sure I’m asking you to DO anything anymore. That has gotten me nowhere. Instead, I’ll ask you the following:
“Why do I, as a law abiding citizen, have less freedom to protect my loved ones than a criminal has to threaten their safety?
“Why do I feel that my compliance with the law is now at odds with the safety of my family? How should I respond to these competing interests? How would you respond, senator, if you were in my situation and had my limited resources?
“What incentive do I have to continue to respect the law and work through the proper channels when it seems that my elected officials cannot even manage to protect a freedom enshrined in the bill of rights?
“Why can I carry a firearm in Wal-Mart, where I can also purchase alcohol, ammunition, and underpants, but I cannot go armed at an institution of higher learning in a workplace occupied predominantly by advanced degree holders?
“Since I can’t go armed on campus, what measures do you propose to keep my family safe? And please don’t suggest law enforcement – (our university police department) has one of the finest response times in the nation, but if you mime a stabbing for two minutes, that comes out to a lot of knife wounds.
“If you could respond to these questions or the sentiment behind them, I’d sure appreciate it.
“With respect,
“A concerned student”
Curtis, I’m not defending the Canton officer’s actions. Neither is anyone here. Neither, for that matter, is the police department.
However, your implication that you shouldn’t trust any police officer because of the actions of one, your rotten apple in the barrel theory, fails here. Let’s remember that all 300-some-million of us are in the same damn barrel.
Folks, about the thread drift here: when Dann posted the link to the video, he made it quite clear that he knew it didn’t belong in this thread, so don’t blame him, the fault is mine.
Let’s stay on topic with this thread, because the topic is an important one. Complaints about police should be put in one of the many cop-bashing threads open in this blog over the last couple of months. God knows, there are enough of them…
Hoping to keep things where they belong,
Mas
Tim –
From what reports I have seen they have gone down. Most murder is in anycase done by family or friends. A gun wouldn’t save you. These would come out of nowhere… (or worse involve the gun).
The UK’s rate has been stable or has generally shown a downward trend. The 2009 stat being at 1.28/100,000. It’s a lot lower than the USA’s rate of 5.0/100,000 in 2009 but the USA shows a downward trend as well.
See you can do it without guns. Okay a lot of proponents of the USA’s crime rate say it is due to the huge population. The UK’s population is small making policing easier.
India’s murder rate is 2.8/100,000 (including the almost ubiquitous terrorist attacks) and is an unarmed 3rd world nation. The problem in the USA is the huge discrepancy between rich and poor and the lack of social mobility or indeed the encouragement of a good work ethic. Correcting that would stop more crime than the guns.
Guns as I said are a placebo. They won’t protect you except in some circumstances. They dont’ reduce crime and infact aid in the high murder rate. Crimes of passion are a lot easier with a gun than with a knife. (The UK has more knife crime than the USA but we are standing on that really hard.)
Sometimes a calm head is required rather than being incensed about crime. A lot of crime stats seem ominous because they are reported that way.
James,
“I’m all for holding people accountable for their actions after the fact, because with freedom comes responsibility, but at the same time I’m completely against massive, draconian restrictions.”
Amen brother !!! Look, this is my sentiment also. It is very easy to fall into the trap of the Brady Bunch that what we need are “common sense” laws and regulations. Training, proficiency, storage, age, non-lead bullets, caliber restrictions, kevlar penetration, geography bans like schools, and on and on and on…..
In my thinking that is a one way street. What starts out in the Constitution as a clear straightforward “don’t mess with my guns” second amendment, gets perverted into a watered down mess.
Like the freedom of speech, which at this point has been adjudicated to allow flag burning, and even last week a case upheld the right of a guy to call for political assassinations, the Second Amendment has to be a fight for all or nothing. So I am a purist. I understand that among my brother gun owners I will be criticized. But so be it. After half a century as a gun owner I am sick of it. Just damm sick of it. Finally when we are making substantial gains across the country (something I didn’t think I would live to see btw), I ain’t taking one damm step back.
The tragedy is that at the same time I did live to see a White House taken over by radical extremists that I don’t trust further than I could throw them. That are very busy destroying this country and at some point when they come up for a breather are going to turn on us. That is going to require us being firm in our beliefs and dedicating every ounce of energy to defeating them.
Avoidance is my game. I am hard to get to, if you get past my door you pretty much have me but that’s the same even for someone with a gun.
See in the UK our criminals figured the best way to rob someone is to show up in the daytime dressed as workers with a big white van. This way no one really questions what they are doing. They knock on your door, when you open it completely they beat you up or threaten to do so, restrain you then just pillage your house.
No gun would save you, not unless you were in the habit of opening the door with gun to hand. It’s actually an epidemic in some areas. It’s very sad but what can you do? Guns won’t solve this, policing will.
I encourage my government to keep crime down, yes sometimes you are subjected to it, but I know the actual statistics. I am more likely to die of drowning in my own swimming pool than be murdered by some stranger.
My house also has some safety features such as bright automated safety lighting and there are burglar alarms that call cops should someone brave all that.
One doesn’t need guns to be safe.
Avicenna
I love when Brits instruct Americans on how best to live our lives and run our society. After several centuries of killing and destroying the peoples of the world you’re now the converts. Preaching how to love each other and why we are bad, nasty people. Thank you for the gratuitous advice but personally I think you all should spend the next 50 or 60 years paying penance for about 200 bloody crimes against humanity. From the first Anglo-Afghanistan war to Malaya. From India to Ireland. From Sudan to South Africa. Oh and don’t forget that little dust up with the American Colonies.
As your racist little island has to absorb more of the 3rd world let’s see how you stand up. Prediction. It ain’t gonna be pretty. You know the truth of that, as your little ghettos across Britain become more than little. Where the cops feel unsafe and travel in packs to protect themselves. Oh yes, it’s coming. I think it’s called “getting your comeuppance”. LOL
@Avicenna-
Most reports I’ve seen put UK’s crime right up there with the worse places in the US. Not just murder but all victimization crimes.
A good amount of crimes are committed by family/friends, not sure the exact figures. Those don’t come out of nowhere, there are signs if you know what to look for. If that occurred, there are less-lethal options available to us in the US such as pepper spray etc. However, if those are insufficient, I will not allow an innocent loved one to be harmed. If forced to, I would use deadly force to protect them.
Last I recall India does allow gun ownership and CCWs in a limited amount.
There are 2.5 million gun owners every year that would like to dispute this with you. Our own government which is not exactly pro-guns is willing to admit guns are used roughly 2.5 million times a year to defend innocent lives. Most of which don’t even involve a fired shot. No matter how you look at it, guns are used more for good than evil.
Humans cause crime (for whatever reason) not tools. Places inside and outside the US with strict gun laws in effect see little change in crime, sometimes the weapon changes but not the rate.
Yes a calm head is good to have. I know my city and state have a pretty low crime rate. I also know it is unlikely I’ll ever need to perform CPR on someone and I’ll probably never have to draw my firearm for self-defense. Yet, I practice CPR and own and carry firearms.
If I ever need to perform first aid, I am prepared and will not let a loved one die before my eyes. Neither will I allow my loved ones to be subject to violent criminals.
Again, no firearm will solve all your problems. But neither can a first aid kit or AED solve all your problems. But they can solve the problems they were designed for and you can bet I have those at hand always and am prepared to use them to save innocent lives.
Those who live on hope, usually die hungry.
Feel free to delete this post if it’s off-topic Mas.
Tim from CO You are correct crime is increasing in the UK I should know I live there. However we do not have a gun ban. All handguns are banned as are automatic weapons. Owning a rifle requires a firearms certificate on which rigerous standards are enforced such as security, where you intend to use it(your own land is fine, your back garden isn’t), no criminal record and any mental health issues. Owning a shotgun requires a shotgun certificate again which has checks. Incidentally 99% of gun crime in the UK is carried out using illegally held weapons the vast majority of which are imported or modified blank firers, very few are using stolen legal weapons.
I myself own a 7.62,an enfield .303, a 5.56, two 12 bore shotguns ,one fully moderated and a .410.
Not quite sure where Avicenna lives because I have never heard of a crime like that occuring even in the national press.(i live in Wales myself) However fitting a steel door restrainer(like a safety chain but stronger) and actually using it prevents most distraction/ home invasion crime. Policing is on the whole is reactive not proactive and will be more likely to be picking up the pieces than preventing crime. Unfortunalty many in the UK think having a police force excuses them from thinking for themselves.
Damn leftist intelligentsia doesn’t know or care about the results of their ideology. The free fire zones at schools and colleges shows it. It makes no sense so many must live in fear and danger because of the delusions of so few.
Avicenna says “I encourage my government to keep crime down, yes sometimes you are subjected to it, but I know the actual statistics. I am more likely to die of drowning in my own swimming pool than be murdered by some stranger. ”
Yes and you are also more like to be murdered by a relative than either of the above. In fact nearly 8/10 murders in the UK are domestic but that is little comfort to those that are not!
“Crimes of passion are a lot easier with a gun than with a knife. (The UK has more knife crime than the USA but we are standing on that really hard.)”
Erm no were not in fact Ken Clarke was advocating early release for prisoners till recently. It is also a fact that less that 20% of those convicted of knife crime get a custodial sentence.
“India’s murder rate is 2.8/100,000 (including the almost ubiquitous terrorist attacks) and is an unarmed 3rd world nation. The problem in the USA is the huge discrepancy between rich and poor and the lack of social mobility or indeed the encouragement of a good work ethic. Correcting that would stop more crime than the guns.”
Would this be the Indis where over 300,000 lee enfield rifles are in circulation still as well as masses of old soviet weaponry. Just because its no legal to own something doesn’t mean people don’t. A quick visit to the Kashmir border would be a revalation for you.Also you should be aware that many of the deaths of the lower castes and rural peoples go unreported particularly those of children. I think you must have a wonderful sense of irony as the gulf between rich and poor in India is far and beyond anything experienced in the USA. Social mobility with India’s caste system? I cannot think of a poorer example of social mobility other than maybe some of the Islamic countries.
12Bit— The UK has its problems but as europe goes Norway, Sweden and Switzerland all have greater nanny state tendencies than us. In Switzerland it is even illegal to flush your toilet after 10pm and you can be fined for doing so(if you live in flats). though the EU project where most of our dumb laws originate is living on borrowed time anyhow. The Euro is doomed and the EU with it thank god.
Avicenna, Just what is wrong about answering the door with a gun? Especially with crime as high as it is in G.B. Why would you open the door because someone was dressed as a worker and drove a white van? You seem to have the mindset of a sheep. Self reliance, self determination, self defense are what is needed in a mind set today. Unfortunately Brittan will let you have none of that How far the empire has fallen. May your chains rest lightly on you.
Another Brit and a largely – though not entirely – armchair gunslinger.
Some thoughts on the subject and the comments issuing from said subject:
Good advice to the Concerned Student about alternatives to concealed carry as aids to self defence.
Well done to Avicenna for sticking their head above the parapet on what on this forum would be a controversial subject. And I’m very sorry to hear about the attack on you and I hope that you make full recovery. That said if I was the subject of a threat I would greatly appreciate to be able to *legally* carry the means to defend myself, even if it was just an OC spray.
Point though; having the means to defend yourself may not be much use if an attacker sneaks up on you. Situational awareness?
An armed society is a polite society? Hmmm . . .reports of events from Texas this morning, very sadly, do not seem to support this. Perphaps Heinlein meant that a society of armed individuals who all fully appreciate the responsibilities that come with carrying arms would be a polite society.
Actually it might be worth looking into the context of that Heinlein quote.
As to the actual threat hardcore Animal Rights Activists pose, I regard them as a bunch of dangerous nutters. However I don’t have enough knowledge to give fully informed opinion of just how dangerous.
Well FWIW that’s my two-pennyworth.
to James and long island mike, no one wants draconian restrictions on gun ownership. Mike, I hope your statement about extremists in the white house does not just include Barack Obama and his cabinet. The Bush administration and the republican party have done just as much to pull this country down by their wanton lack of fiscal responsibility. You see, I do not have to impose draconian laws to take your rights. I can do it in a more subtle way. Make the cost of living day to day so difficult that the average citizen cannot afford the necessities yet along high priced gun and ammo maintenance. Loss of jobs and/or inflation can paralyze you as easily as any draconian law. However, this paralysis will still make you feel like you have your so-called freedoms and rights intact. The rise of globalism infiltrating our national identity, and a growing corporatocracy is the true Brady bunch. Our freedoms and rights are nothing we have earned, they were given to us on the backs and blood of others who came before us. It is our duty to preserve them and stop acting like it is an entitlement just because we happen to be born in America.
Long Island Mike – Did I ever insult the USA in my post? I understand different nations have different problems, the USA’s issue with drugs and guns are ones we don’t have because we aren’t as heavily armed and our social system reduces the driving force for crime. What does that have to do with anything I said?
I am a british indian, and you are what we lovingly refer to as a wanker because you thought I was white. Half tempted to refer to you as home slice or cracker now… I am brown and look like apu and speak like Daphne of Frasier. It’s confusing but there are around 1 million of us in the UK.
See the UK has come a long way in the past 60 or 70 years. We admit our past of colonialism and use it to improve ourselves. Much like another large nation filled with lots of english speakers with funny accents. Lest you forget, your nation’s history is filled with racists and slavery and colonialism too. For every Rodney King we have a de Menezes.
Tim from CO –
Indian gun owners mainly live near the jungle and the license involves shotguns and rifles. Semi-automatic rifles are needed in some areas since tigers, leopards, elephants and bears often need more than one round to kill.
However 2.5 million in India is a tiny tiny amount considering India has a population of more than a billion. It’s roughly 0.25% of India. To put it into perspective, the population of India is 1,155,347,700. If you remove gun owners you are still left with 1,152,800,000 non users.
Roger – I study here as a medical student. Murders may not be well recorded in the north in Kashmir as it is a war zone but even if we allow an improvement of the rate by 50% (as in only two out of three murders are reported!), the rate is the same as the USA’s.
You need ammo to fire an enfield and many indians won’t fire the older ones (India fought a rebellion over the cartridges as they were believed to be greased with pork/beef fat.) India is a third world nation, of course you are better of than it. Roughly 60 children per 1000 die at childbirth. Only 6 die per 1000 in the USA (which we still regard as unacceptably high since a rate of 4 per 1000 is the world leader). I put up India as an example since the socio economic status of people is poor, the gap between rich and poor is huge and despite the social issues the murder rates are lower or the same as the USA. I feel the presence of guns in kashmir spiral the murder rate as it is easy to act out of anger.
And I keep pointing out I am living here as an expat. And as I stated the USA’s murder rate (unless you are seriously suggesting that people aren’t reporting 1/3 of murders)
I am only indian in ethnicity. It would be like roping up some bostonian and badgering him about the actions of the IRA!
The Swiss law of flushing toilets is a local apartment law rather than a national law. It’s like how some apartments allow pets, in switzerland some apartments don’t like people flushing after a certain time. I have swiss friends, apparently that’s an urban legend.
Look, I just came here to point out some perspective on Camille and her cronies. Not to get into a fist fight about whose flag is the best. (It’s obviously Nepal! Holy moly, that thing isn’t even square!)
Long Island Mike Says:
“As your racist little island has to absorb more of the 3rd world let’s see how you stand up. Prediction. It ain’t gonna be pretty. You know the truth of that, as your little ghettos across Britain become more than little. Where the cops feel unsafe and travel in packs to protect themselves. Oh yes, it’s coming. I think it’s called “getting your comeuppance”. LOL”
“Racist” Mike brave words from a country that didn’t even give the native americans citizenship until the 1920’s and still treats then like dung even today. Oh yes and separate drinking fountains and bus seats for anyone with dark skin till the 60’s. Very inclusive. As for ghettos we have got nothing like yours. Our black and asian politicians don’t seem to accumulate the death threats that yours do either.
As for the British Empire a recent survey in Jamaica overwhellmingly wanted the British back is charge a similar sentiment found in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and many parts of India.
As for war crimes etc one only needs to mention Vietnam! Have you finished apologising to them yet?We won’t mention all the other tawdry little wars the USA has also started or even the systematic destruction of the Native Americans.After all if we are responsible for the sins of our forefathers are not you also?
@Roger- I’m surprised you’re so armed but I’m glad. I was aware of some of UK’s provisions for gun ownership but it sounded bad enough where you might as well call it a gun ban.
If you ever tire of the UK, feel free to move out to the US. For a lot of states, it’s a background check and you’re done, depending on the amount of applications be processed it might be 20 minutes to an hour or so. Concealed carry is going strong as well with a majority of states recognizing it as a right and issuing you a permit unless they can document why you shouldn’t (criminal history etc).
Avicenna says”You need ammo to fire an enfield and many indians won’t fire the older ones (India fought a rebellion over the cartridges as they were believed to be greased with pork/beef fat.)”—– At no time were .303 cartridges as such and they still see regular use in India today. The 1857 rebellion occured may years before the .303’s invention and involved paper cartridges. The reason for the lower murder rate in India( having spent considerable time there as an observer with the Indian army) is that the majority Hindus are a peaceful people as largley are the Sikhs. Incidentally regiments of both acquitted these with distinction during WW1 and 2. Many of them taken prisoner by the Japanese were treated hideously and used as human target practise. Despite knowing this their commitment to defeating the Japanese never wavered. The Indian forces are just as professional today and commanded considerable respect by the UK.
The willingness to settle matters under the rule of law seems strong in Indian society and this has a greater bearing on the murder rate than gun ownership. Something that we British could do with remembering!
Tim from CO we did once consider it as we both love Montana but the process is a nightmare and to be honest now with the TSA we don’t even fly through the USA if we can help it.(I think they have a special school where they train them to become rude halfwits because I have never met an american would behaves like them before). We are off to New Zealand a country where on the whole sanity still rules and most of South Island looks like Wales too but with out quite so much rain;-) There is also an abundant deer population too and a strong hunting ethos too.
Roger… I assure you, no one in India wants us back. British are kind of supervillains in India. You know how hollywoood uses “just add british” for their villains? India does that too on a sillier scale.
Everyone has their issues. It’s identification of similar ones and solutions that help rather than waving flags.
To fruit bat 44, there was a statement you made which hits this nail on the head. An armed society that understands the responsibility of carrying firearms is the essence of balance between the right to bear arms and the right of the community at large to be safe from increased gun violence. All the individuals who do not have that responsibility make it harder for those who are responsible. Ever since the days of John Dillinger and Al Capone in America this country has moved toward at an accelerated pace of trying to strike this balance. The fire arms act of 1934, gun control act of 1968 etc. I do not agree with gun control that restricts my right to bear arms. If you look at most western nations that have enacted stricter gun control on its citizens ( some pre- WWII but mostly post WWII) it often happened due to individuals that do not have this responsibility. Look at Australia, and the United Kingdom. In the UK the 1937 firearms act was inspired by the 1934 act in America. In 1968 the UK compiled their restrictions, and after the Hugerford massacre further restrictions were enacted in 1988. The Dunblane massacre in 1996 led to further enactments in 1997. In Australia the Milperra, Hoddle street, Queen street, Strathfield, and especially the Port Arthur massacres led to profound changes in Australian gun restrictions. What am I trying to say? I am saying that irresponsibility when owning and carrying a gun just adds fuel to the media and anti gunners for stricter controls. The population can be more easily indoctrinated by the media against guns, which makes it easier to enact legislation that is more restrictive. How many stories do you hear on the news about an armed citizen stopping a crime? All you hear are the horror stories of the irresponsible. Responsibility my friends, responsibility! Responsibility involves many facets. Knowing how to be safe with a gun, how to competently use a gun if you have to, and a unity for not only gun rights, but being advocates for the safety of the community. If the individual American refuses to do this, then they are begging for the government to do it for them. Trust me they are trying to do just that. Let us take the power from their hands and regain it like our fore fathers intended. The reporting of the media is truly a problem here also as most of them are anti gun. Finally Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were examples of the extreme, where totalitarian governments took advantage of gun control to disarm the citizenry.
Roger
I guess I’ll just respond with the old saw of people “voting with their feet”. The US has a heck of line of immigrants from all over the world trying their best (legally and illegally LOL ) to get in. We ain’t that bad are we? Here is a poll from a couple of years ago on racism in Britain. Guess what it found?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1993597.stm
As for your pols getting threatened…well you might have forgotten N. Ireland. But that would be inconvenient wouldn’t it.
As for Vietnam I don’t apologize at all for that. Why would I? I didn’t see the Brits expending treasure and lives defending the free world against the Russkies for half a century. Did we now. You can’t even fight the Libyans without running out of ammo. LOL
As for Avicenna
“because you thought I was white”
Nope, never thought that. I just thought you were the typical left wing useless Brit who wants the gov’t to do everything for you and who has abandoned all your human dignity. Was more a commentary on the British society and its racist roots. That didn’t btw end 60 years ago. Rather that still plays a significant factor in the way you’ve treated others. (note link above) As for crime. Been to London. Family member was nearly stabbed to death in a street robbery there. Won’t even mention Scotland these days. I won’t be trading you anything in the US for it. You can dig thru the following link for official stats, Trust me I wouldn’t be so proud.
http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/
As for me…well you have no idea if I am a wanker do you…silly rabbit…Its funny that when I look around my household it just happens to be filled with Asians. I could care less about your race. See I’m just a freedom loving American. A unique breed in the world and proud of it. And that is what the socialist left doesn’t get. But hey, hope springs eternal. There is a core of worthy folks in Britain still. Small but still breathing. See, America is all about hope (and charity, as we keep saving your butts). Try out Daniel Hannan for some insight into your society from a homey.
I’ll agree there is no perfect nation on this Earth. But for sure there is no nation more appreciative of human potential and dignity. Plus we play real football.
On second thought…I apologize for the football dig…
and with that I won’t bother Mas with our little spat any further.
Speaking as a Brit, I consider Britian to be the best country in the world to live, but I reaslise it’s not perfect and I respect that other people have similar views about where they live.
Sadly there is NO country in the world who’s history doesn’t have at least some aspects they’d rather forget.
I am concerned about the views expressed which seem to imply that a man who doesn’t carry gun is a coward, or a “sheep. ”
I’m especially concerned about the term sheep. It seems to imply, though I am sure that is not the intent of people using this term, that a man not carrying gun is prey. That criminals have the right to job or kill him, but as said I’m sure that’s not what anyone was implying.
I don’t beleive that a man who does not want to kill another human being is automatically a coward. But if you are carrying gun for defence, you are ready to kill another human being.
Point one: I have personally carried weapons while on active service.
Point two: I am sure, or at least I hope, that all posters on this blog would only kill another human being out of duty, or in the gravest extreme e.g. an enemy combatant on the battlefield, or a violent attacker intent on doing evil to them or their loved ones.
Well those are my views.
Roger, our countries have a somewhat common heritage and we share some of the same problems. That’s one of the reasons I find the trends in the UK so scary. We also have a lot of people here like Avicenna who seem to believe self-defense is impossible and that we all must only rely on the government for our protection.
Tell me though —my impression of the UK is that self-defense has been virtually outlawed. Can you use one of your guns to shoot someone invading your home in the manner described by Avicenna or would you go to jail? We have the Castle Doctrine where I live, and the law allows me to use lethal force under such circumstances. According to the BBC your law says that you may use no more force than is absolutely necessary, an impossible standard that effectively means you have no right of self-defense.
Avicenna, you’ve apparently convinced yourself of the impossibility of self-defense. However, reality contradicts your belief every day. As just one example, in Houston a few months ago a jewelry store owner killed four men who police believe intended to kill him and his wife. They were all armed and had the drop on him. He had to pull his weapon from behind his back at gunpoint. It’s true that in some circumstances a gun won’t do you any good, and it’s also true that there are some circumstances where you and your loved ones are dead without one.
For the moment anyway, perhaps the criminals in the UK are nicer than those over here. Criminals who invade homes over here sometimes rape and/or murder the occupants. While you may be willing to entrust your own life and the life of your loved ones to thugs, I am not so inclined. I don’t open my door to strangers simply because they’re wearing uniforms. And I do answer my door armed –in fact, since I’m licensed for concealed carry I’m usually armed everywhere– so anyone crashing through it is going to get shot. In a truly free country that’s what the law allows and the government doesn’t require you to submit to the supposed mercy of thugs.
@Avicenna- Sounds like I didn’t phrase that statement too well… What I meant is in the US, firearms are used roughly 2.5 million times per year is justifiable self-defense.
A vast majority of those incidences, don’t involve a single shot. Merely the sight of a gun deters most attackers. And that’s only what’s reported, so actual usage could be much higher.
Furthermore, even the US government accepts that figure (Congress and several agencies have used that figure). And our government isn’t exactly pro-gun.
No matter how you look at it, firearms do protect the innocent in the US and outweighs any abuse of firearms by criminals.
@Roger- I hear New Zealand is a very pretty place!
@12bit- I’m inclined to believe the UK is also anti-self-defense. That fighting back against your attacker can get you a similar sentence. I might be wrong but it’s sort of like that in places in the US. Public schools are a good example, defending yourself usually is the same as picking a fight. I recall for my public education, teachers made this clear. If you fight back, you get the same punishment as the aggressor. Great thing to teach kids, eh?
@Fruitbat44- While I can’t speak for everyone’s use of “sheep”. I’ve never used the term to describe someone who doesn’t or can’t carry a firearm.
Common usage as well as my own usage, it applies to a Victim By Choice if you will. Someone who cannot or will not accept the fact that there are bad people out there and ultimately, you and you alone are responsible for your life and well-being.
I’m sure there’s a whole study of “sheepology”, the people who are impervious to their environment. I’m sure we all know people who don’t lock their doors. People who drive their expensive cars in bad areas. The “It-Can’t-Happen-To-Me” people.
That’s what we usually call sheep.
Fruitbat, you say: “I hope, that all posters on this blog would only kill another human being out of duty, or in the gravest extreme e.g. an enemy combatant on the battlefield, or a violent attacker intent on doing evil to them or their loved ones.”
First, you consider it acceptable to kill “out of duty?” I find that highly disturbing, especially coming from someone trying to claim the moral high ground. Where is there any “duty” to kill? Even our police here, under law, have no “duty” to kill anyone –they may use lethal force under various conditions defined by law, and not with the intent to kill. I didn’t consider myself as having a duty to kill even when I was in the military. Perhaps you meant duty in some other sense?
Second, I’d like to know just how you will determine that an attacker is intent on doing evil to you or a loved one? And what is evil? Should a woman allow herself to be raped instead of killing an attacker? Should robbers just be allowed to roam through your possessions while you stand by? Home invaders in this country rape and/or murder the occupants on occasion. If three thugs come crashing through my door am I supposed to somehow divine what evil they intend? Perhaps they will merely beat my wife and I a little and then rob us, but perhaps they will rape my wife and murder us?
Just how will I determine their “intent” before it’s too late to defend myself? Your government appears to expect the law abiding to submit to the supposed mercy of criminals, and it appears to value the life of criminals more highly than the lives of law abiding citizens, since it places the onus of determining intent on the victim rather than the criminal. Ours, so far, doesn’t, and I want to keep it that way. Here, breaking down my door or climbing through my window to steal is considered a sign of evil intent, placing the onus on the criminal, and such acts justify the use of lethal force (and by the way, the law in the US does not allow you to kill anyone, it allows you to use lethal force to stop an attack –a significant distinction).
Third, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at when you say: “But if you are carrying gun for defence, you are ready to kill another human being.” That’s an arguable assertion in the first place….some may be ready, and some may face a situation and find they are not. But what exactly are you getting at? Your wording suggests you believe there is some kind of moral equivalence between a predator out to rob, rape, or kill, and the law abiding citizen with a carry permit. You seem to be expressing the same kind of philosophy that leads to 21 year maximum sentences for mass killers like the vicious thug in Norway. To me that kind of equivalency is itself immoral if for no other reason than it always leads valuing the life of the criminal above the life of his victims.
I think any kind of sane morality requires me to place a higher value on the lives of those who are “innocent” than those who transgress against others, and that someone out to rob, rape, or kill has forfeited his right to the same consideration given other human beings. That’s his choice, not mine. I carry a gun. I don’t want to shoot anyone and I do my best to avoid trouble. But if I find myself in a situation where the choice is to kill or be killed I have no intention of getting on my knees and taking a round to the back of my head.
I see quite a bit of British media –movies and TV shows– and they appear to depict a criminal class emboldened by weak law enforcement, lax penalties, and citizens powerless to defend themselves and their property. The law here is still pretty reasonable outside places like the People’s Republic’s of California and New Jersey, and even there the law still allows us to defend ourselves, while generally placing the onus of intent on the transgressor, where it belongs. I want to keep it that way.
BTW Fruitbat, I think you misconstrued the Heinlein quote about an armed society being a polite society. The killing you’re referring to didn’t occur in an “armed society.” Just because a lot of people may have guns back at the house doesn’t make it an “armed society.”
A nut gunned down unarmed defenseless people, mostly women. By armed society, Heinlein meant everyone being armed, so that anyone pulling a gun to murder someone will be doing it with the certainty that people will be shooting back.
The police can’t protect you. They sure didn’t stop this family from being gunned down. Guns are strictly controlled in Mexico –doesn’t stop daily murders by drug cartels using everything from machine guns to grenades. Citizens can’t carry guns in Norway –but criminals apparently can. The nut in Norway wandered around an island for an hour killing people who had no way of defending themselves. The Norwegian authorities are saying their response is perfectly acceptable. He get what, about 100 days in comfortable “prison” for every person he killed? That’s what “liberal” governments think of their citizens –very Stalinesque (one death a tragedy, I guess 68 is just a statistic).
@Tim in CO –there’s no doubt that the UK is anti self-defense. That’s a signature of collectivist thought. According to the BBC their law actually says you can use no more force than is absolutely necessary to defend yourself. Practically speaking that means self-defense is illegal.
@12bit: The example I mentioned in “out of duty” was an enemy combatant on the battlefield.
And someone doing murder, rape grevious bodily harm on on innocent victim is, IMHO, a fairly reasonable definition of evil.
I seriously do not believe that any poster to this blog (or at least I sincerely hope so) would kill another human being for any other reason e.g. like that (right-wing) nut job in Norway did. And yes it would have been nice if someone had had the means (and will) to stop that nutter dead in his tracks.
UK does recognise the right to self-defence, we are however a little picky (too picky maybe) about the definition of it e.g. shooting an unarmed intruder in the back as they are fleeing the scene is a hard sell for a plea of self defence.
@Tim from CO
Thank you for explaining your usage of the term “sheep.”
I do find the attitude of “Be a nice person and nothing bad will ever happen to you” exasperating. And yes, I can understand “So you left your BMW parked in THAT neighbourhood and you’re surprised that it wasn’t there when you returned!!??”
But, it can come across as implying that people who, to be charitable, have faith in the basic decency of humanity are less than human. 🙁
On a extreme (and warped) pro-gun POV “They were carrying a .32! They had it coming!” (Said with tongue firmly in cheek.)
FYI and FWIW the Heinlein quote originates from his 1942 novel “Beyond this Horizon.” The following comes from Wikipedia:
“One sub-theme of the book is the carrying and use of firearms. In the novel being armed is part of being a man; otherwise he wears a brassard and is considered weak and inferior. Women are allowed but not expected to be armed. Duels, either deadly or survivable, may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted, a custom that keeps order and politeness. ”
I read the novel a loooong time ago and I don’t recall much of it, althouh I do recall one character, a man from far before the setting of novel i.e. the twentieth century, caused a rumpus by settling a dispute by punching someone’s nose rather than by challenging him to a duel.
While looking up that “Armed society” quote, I came across this quote from Heinlein, which, I suppose, is worth keeping in mind:
“I never learned from a man who agreed with me. “
Long Island Mike I cannot begin to describe the irony of a so called freedom loving american using the socalist BBC as a reliable source for anything! If the BBC were any further left they would fall off the edge of the universe. Their loaded surveys and programming is ridiculed in the UK. They even fix question time by selecting people that reflects the BBCs ideals!
Northern Ireland you mean the terrorists that many in the USA financed, of course to you they were “freedom fighters” then 9/11 happened and the USA suddenly realised what the PIRA and the unionist groups really were. the huge irony again was that most irish/americans as they like to style themselves had never read the manifesto for the PIRA or its political arm Sinn Fein. They are left wing extremists advocating state ownership for almost everything of importance in Ireland. The evidence ,as well, that the PIRA are one of europe biggest drug/lillegal arms and conterfiet goods smugglers in europe who even today buy drugs from certain people in Afghanistan and thus funding the deaths of both the UK and US soldiers. Still I am sure you must feel pride with an association with such people!
As for Vietnam you fought the Russians? I think you might find that the Chinese were their biggest backers. But lets face it the USA mudered masses of civillians and condemned many to a long lingering death. The use of agent orange was particularly a heinous crime and vietnamese children still lose limbs today from leftover munitions.
In answer to your question Yes if our lives were in danger and I used a firearm to protect my family it would not result in charges.
12 Bit and Tim. The UK law on self defence is quite clear if you feel your life is in danger you may respond accordingly. What you may not do for example is follow an unarmed burglar out into the street and beat them to death as happen in the UK last year. However a man in Manchester recently stabbed a burglar who was breaking and entering(as a gang of four) which is classed as self defense.
You say that British TV reflects our criminals in a certain light. if we flip the coin a second TV depicts US criminals as all being armed to the teeth,regular gunfights in the streets with police firing back with fully auto M16s( not to mention ensuing explosions ,kidnappings etc). Is this what the USA is really like or is it just like the UK just tv?
As for football. Why do you call it football when you carry the darn thing. Surely the name football implies frequent contact with the foot? We have one similar but we call it Rugby lol.
As said we have many common traits in our nations. one of which is for people to believe that the police can fix everything and be everywhere. The reality is that they can’t and a lot of the onus falls on the individual.
Mark the first firearms regulations in the UK occurred at the end of 1918 after the russian revolution. After WW1 the UK had hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers many of whom retained trophies from France. The fear was that the same revolution could happen here and a licensing system was brought in for rifled weapons. Shotguns were exempt. Sadly its been downhill since!
@Roger and Fruitbat, shooting an unarmed intruder in the back as he’s fleeing the scene is not legal in the US either. Technically, in Texas, you can shoot someone fleeing with your property after dark (the presumption being that you can’t tell if he is armed, since it’s dark, and you have the right to recover your property). I wouldn’t do it myself, and I highly doubt most gun enthusiasts would either. I also think you’d have a very good chance of being prosecuted if you did it, and the outcome would be uncertain –you might well go to jail.
@Fruitbat, yes, exactly, Heinlein was talking about people actually carrying weapons. By that standard no place in the US is an armed society, except the inside of a police station. The nuts tend to pick targets like the one in Norway where they are certain no one will be shooting back –they tend not to walk into a police station and start shooting. There are about 400,000 carry permits in Texas (last time I checked anyway). That’s less than 2% of the population, and probably the bulk of those 400,000 carry sporadically, so we’re very far from an armed society.
@Roger, my reference to media depictions was not intended to be quite so direct as you suggest. I am referring more to the social climate and attitudes conveyed or implied than to the physical depiction of criminal activity. So, for example, I’m not thinking at all of fare like “MI5,” “Layer Cake,” or “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” but something like the IT Crowd, or Peep Show, that isn’t about crime at all, but depicts prevailing social attitudes and conditions –in the case of Peep Show, through irony and satire (even period shows like Foyle’s War). Comedies are particularly good for this because they don’t work if their references don’t reflect some core truths and beliefs. And I’m not just referring to video media, but also to British authors as diverse as Anthony Burgess and Dick Francis.
As far as depictions of crime in the US media are concerned, yes, most of what is depicted is over the top. I don’t know that I’d consider anything in the movies or on TV as “realistic,” (any more than I do what I see in British media) but there are indeed some that depict things with enough realism to be reflective of social attitudes and conditions in the US. The two that come immediately to mind are “The Wire,” (towards the more realistic end) and “The Shield” (more towards the over the top end). Both of these shows are reflective to some degree of attitudes and conditions in the US.
We both know that “reality” in entertainment is concentrated, intensified, exaggerated, and falsified to make it more interesting. A show like “The Shield” concentrates events from different places over a longer period of time than show time, but I can’t recall much that is so over the top it hasn’t happened at some time and some place in the US –just not all at the same time and in the same place. Some entertainment is closer to a reality than others and such distinctions can generally be sorted out with good judgment. Literal interpretation will definitely lead to false conclusions but it is possible with other context added to make intelligent interpretations of fictive depictions.
Roger I will give you this, you have pluck ! Coming back for more after I gave you a thrashing already. See there is a little bit of spine left in the sceptred isle! Good on you.
But really this is getting old now to me…oh well…
“…socalist BBC as a reliable source for anything!”
I trust it implicitly for my latest Tardis travel plans. Don’t you?
“PIRA or its political arm Sinn Fein. They are left wing extremists advocating state ownership for almost everything of importance in Ireland.”
Yup, your right on that. Perfectly justifies what the SAS did to them. Don’t apologize. Really.
“the Chinese were their biggest backers.”
Nah, hit the books again. Was really a proxy war with the Russkies. They supplied the air defense systems, flew missions, interrogated our POWs (even took some home), etc…Chinese and Vietnamese have historically hated each other and in fact in early ’79 China kicked Vietnam’s ass. Did what we should have done. In two weeks driving right up to the door of Hanoi and declaring “the myth of Vietnamese invincibility has been destroyed”.
As for Agent Orange etc, again I have no regrets at all. War is … well its…war. What a shock. I am of the opinion you kill all the enemy. Air Marshall Harris was spot on. Sad to see napalm, mines and other very nice weapons frowned upon today. Although the US Marines still will pull out the napalm when needed (as they did a couple of times in Iraq) but they call them Mark 77 firebombs now.
Long island mike , you gave me a thrashing? You are a card. The SAS operated against the IRA with far greater restrictions than both Iraq or Afghanistan and certainly far more than the US forces. Does this mean that the US think that different rules apply for those with a different skin colour pr religion. If as many fanatasists in the US believe, we did operate a shoot to kill policy the there would have been just over 300 deaths in less than 36 hours and the IRA would have been no more. Sadly in your deluded state to cannot comprehend that the IRA are just a much terrorists as A Q are and that the UK showed great restraint in dealing with them as we knew that at some point peace would be achieved and we would once more have to live as neighbours. Vietnam you had your ass handed to you on a plate by the Chinese and a bunch of blokes in rubber sandals and pyjamas. Please don’t try to kid anyone that because the USSR supplied some of the weapons you were fighting them. If you lack of concern over civilian casualties were and indication of the US mentality then you really shouldn’t be surprised when some one flies the next lot of planes into buildings. After all if you regard all your enemies children as fair game so will they!
Roger, you appear to know little about the Viet Nam war.
The United States consistently won the military side of the conflict. Even the Tet offensive, which the media misreported either through incompetence or malice, was a catastrophic defeat for the Viet Cong. The war was lost in the media and in Washington. Lyndon Johnson was a terrible wartime president. Nixon, for all his personal failings which ultimately drove him from office, understood how to fight a war and had the guts to do so. But, by the time he became president, the domestic political situation was beyond salvaging.
Although North Viet Nam supplied the manpower, they could not have fought a protracted war without massive materiel support and that came from Russia. Where do you think they got the stuff they moved down the Ho Chi Minh trail? Surely you don’t think the state-of-the-art air defenses around Hanoi were home grown.
The vast majority of Americans despise all terrorists. This includes both the IRA and their counterparts on the Protestant side. To get the flavor of the American opinion of the IRA, read Tom Clancy’s book Patriot Games.
If you want to see people who don’t care about civilian casualties, look at the ones the US fights. This was true of the Nazis and Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans and Communist Chinese in Korea, the Viet Cong in Viet Nam, and now Al Qaida and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of them did and do use terror tactics against civilians. Americans didn’t and still don’t. I get sick of people who focus on isolated American failures while ignoring deliberate, wholesale slaughter by the other side. In Afghanistan, it’s not Americans who throw acid in little girls’ faces to scare them out of going to school.
Kendahl, you misunderstand my reference about civillian casualties I was refering to Long Islands Mikes comments over killing all his enemies regardless not US policy.
As for Vietnam yes just as in many proxy wars Russia supplied equipment but what defeated the USA was the same thing that defeated Germany on the eastern front. Communisms total lack of regard for their own casualties. The USA lost around 60,000 and those losses broke the US’s will to fight a war there. The Vietnamese lost over one million and their leadership did not care if they lost a million more.
This is also the reason why Afghanistan is such a difficult war for us all too, as not only do their leaders not care about the deaths of their men or civillians they actually believe that they all go to heaven as martyrs. Where as the west has to fight a war contrained by our moral framework.
For the record the FBI knew of several shipments of arms to the IRA and of the players involved,yet did nothing. The information was recieved years later when Ronald Reagan became president due largely to the close relationship between our two leaders.
Roger, I don’t agree that US casualties were the critical factor in its defeat in Viet Nam. The country suffered far worse casualties in previous wars yet persevered long enough to win. Instead, I believe the critical difference was LBJ’s lack of commitment to winning. His primary interest was his Great Society social programs. He regarded combat operations as diplomatic signals to persuade Ho Chi Minh to back off, not as a campaign to defeat him on the battlefield. Ho, on the other hand, was a war leader who went all out for unconditional victory. A country’s willingness to accept combat casualties depends heavily on its leaders’ determination that those casualties are not suffered in vain.
The war in Afghanistan was won decisively in a few weeks mostly by Afghans organized by US special forces. Then, Bush ran off to Iraq to fight Saddam leaving Afghanistan wide open for the Taliban to return. Bush threw away a golden opportunity to build up the country and make it an example to shove in the extremists’ faces.
Compared to World War II, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought on a shoestring by inadequate forces. I poked around on the internet and came up with some statistics on casualties, war expenditures, US population and the size of the economy. We now have about 1.5 million Americans in uniform. During WW2, it was 16 million. If we scale the WW2 number up to match today’s population, that would be 38 million in uniform. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq have claimed less than 50,000 dead and wounded. Total casualties during WW2 were nearly 1.1 million. Scaled up, this would be 2.6 million today. It has been estimated that Afghanistan and Iraq have cost $3 trillion. In today’s terms, WW2 cost $30 trillion. The kind of Muslim fanaticism exemplified by the Taliban has been called an existential threat to western civilization comparable to that posed by the Axis during WW2. I see no willingness to commit the same amount of lives and treasure to defeat the Taliban that it took to win WW2.
I’ll take your word for it that the FBI ignored illegal arms shipments to the IRA. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this occurred while J Edgar Hoover was FBI director. He ran the place to suit himself. However, I still maintain that the majority of Americans despise terrorists and shed no tears over the manner of their demise.
Kendahl it is not the number of casualities that was the factor it was the willingness of the voting population to absorb them. Democracy forces our countries leaders to govern by public opinion. It is one of our greatest strengths but in times of war our weakness as our leaders try to flip flop to public opinion to ensyre they get reelected.If LBJ had doubled the troop numbers by expanding the draft, well you can imagine the rest.
Personally I was amazed that Bush did not nuke the Tora Bora cave complex at the start of the Afghan war. And yes you are right they are being fought on a shoestring(though an expensive one) again because the people of the US and certainly the UK will not make the sacrifices to ensure a decisive and speedy conclusion. In doing so it would probably vastly reduce our casualties. Poloticians will go to extreme lengths to ensure they look good. In somalia Clintons administration would not authorise heavy armour as they didn’t want to look heavy handed! Our forces in Bosnia had the same problem. Absurd!
It was under Carters watch when the arms shipments took place.
[…] Exposing their crimes creates such fear in abusers that a student move to carry concealed guns on campus has begun: […]
Why, you ask, did I approve the item you see immediately above this one?
The answer is: to show you how batshit crazy some of the animal rights extremists are.