It feels much safer living in a country were neither crimes or police use guns. You can't defend yourself if someone shoot you, but if they try to hit you in the face then you can dodge, block and fight back until help arrives. Much safer that way
It feels much safer living in a country were neither crimes or police use guns. You can't defend yourself if someone shoot you, but if they try to hit you in the face then you can dodge, block and fight back until help arrives. Much safer that way
FinnJak wrote:
Its true. In modern democratic societies there shouldn't be a need to carry weapons. If there are then something is wrong
Not just democracies. You want to go to a nice safe totalitarian state like Singapore or China. Then you really don't need to carry a gun.
All you liberals on this thread will have some significant cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile your anti-gun themes/ideas with this article below. Probably best to either (1) ignore or (2) create an exception for black people.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-sacramento-gun-training-black
Like merica?
Wacka wacka ding ding wrote:
All you liberals on this thread will have some significant cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile your anti-gun themes/ideas with this article below. Probably best to either (1) ignore or (2) create an exception for black people.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-sacramento-gun-training-black
The black community isn't armed??? That's news to me
If I had a banned gun that's what I'd use. Just sayin'.
Wacka wacka ding ding wrote:
All you liberals on this thread will have some significant cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile your anti-gun themes/ideas with this article below. Probably best to either (1) ignore or (2) create an exception for black people.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-sacramento-gun-training-black
This may be shocking to you, but the so-called "liberals" (whatever it means) oftentimes have a brain of their own. It is possible to be sympathetic with the overall cause of the BLM movement and not to agree with some of the people that is part of it.
Personally, I think this is going to make a bad situation worse; on the other hand, the NRA should be pleased that some of the BLM people is finally seeing the light and and should be strongly backing up this effort.
Just to echo the many comments on here from outside the US, I'm from the UK and never felt the need to carry a weapon for self defence, the closest I've come is the desire to have something to keep dogs away from me on my runs after being bitten, not sure a gun would be appropriate there though. The only times I've ever had problems with other people as an adult I've definitely been at least partially to blame, drunk in a night club and in a very aggressive game of football/soccer (I got headbutted in both occasions and still have a chipped tooth from the latter). If I just go about my daily business no-one bothers me ever. I live in the North East not London though. I'm also a 6'2" 185lb male so probably not a very attractive target I guess?
Regarding the various posts about UK knife crime, yes it is an issue that needs to be tackled, but far fewer people get caught in the crossfire by stray knives and, in the very rare occassion that firearms are involved there are specialist firearms officers.
I find it staggering the arrogance of many people who think their few hours at the range is comparable with combat training. Chances are the "good guys with guns" are more likely to shoot some innocent bystander in the event that they ever need them. Randomly firing after a car speeding away looks cool in the movies, but they never show where those rounds end up. Anyone that can accurately hit a moving target with a handgun at any considerable range whilst coping with a massive adrenalin surge is likely already in law enforcement or the military - leave it to them.
dave_ wrote:
nonary ant wrote:
just some fantasy like Batman origin story. Never happens to anyone you know irl, always some random strangers giving those 'bad neighborhoods' their reputation.
Same for cancer or hiv, right?
I'd be very surprised if Cancer didn't "happen to anyone you know". Between relatives, friends, work mates and neighbours , etc I think most of us have experienced the effects of cancer.
I've lost friends, parents and work mates to cancer - whereas I'm one of the lucky ones who had my own tumour resected 15 years ago.
Assaults are statistically much higher in some demographics, and the same can be said about HIV. So many people can be unaffected by them, but cancer is a leveller - it can affect some demographics a bit more, but in general affects a very wide community.
Wacka wacka ding ding wrote:
All you liberals on this thread will have some significant cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile your anti-gun themes/ideas with this article below. Probably best to either (1) ignore or (2) create an exception for black people.
(3) Still be against gun ownership regardless of skin tone
track chick wrote:
trollism wrote:
In the UK, generally you only need to carry any sort of item for self-defence if you're the sort of person who deliberately puts themselves in situations where it could be required.
It's probably easy to say that as a male.
I relate to what Coevett says and I don't live in London.
It may be easy if you live in certain areas to make these statements. Do you not know places (areas people live in) where a lot of people have been either robbed, attacked?
Places vary fast from street to street. We can't talk about 'London' as a whole - how many people does it have? 10 million?
Its nuts to think people who get attacked are 'putting themselves deliberately in the situation' because a hell of a lot of those people aren't. We have no idea, Coevett could have just been walking down the street.
Maybe Northern cities are different then, I dunno.
Which is weird considering you lot get all of the money.
I was being nice to Coevett anyway, most people would (with good reason) have just called him a liar.
I’m an American, former Marine, gun owner.
I’ve never felt the need to carry a weapon when out in public. Unless you want to count my ever present pocket knife which I see more as a tool than a weapon. I haven’t been if a fight since I was 15 which was just schoolboy posturing.
The guns I own are not kept around the house loaded. Too many 2nd amendment types are just frightened little people who need a gun to feel bigger. Fear and guns are a bad mix.
Actual Irishman wrote:
As someone living in Northeast Ireland (please don't turn this into a debate about the constitutional status), support for the IRA and other paramilitaries is tiny. Almost everyone in the country recognises that we have moved past the stage of armed struggle, and the paramilitaries are now just organised crime groups.
I assume you're referring to 'punishment shootings' dealt out to drug dealers etc - the most common occurances you hear about are actually from the INLA, not the IRA. This is a newer group which didn't even exist during the 'freedom fighter' stage before republicans started taking a more earnest approach politically. Loyalist paramilitaries like the UDA/UVF also commit the same sorts of crimes - it is not just on one side of the divide.
While in the past the paramilitaries may have been able to justify their actions as fighting against (or for) the British state, these days they only make our country a less safe place to live, by trying to cling to a remnant of that past. Trust in the police service is reasonably good, and they do a much better job of 'keeping people in line' without resorting to shooting them in the knees.
I know you're quoting the poster to whom you're replying, but 'Northeast Ireland' is an odd term - strangely specific and inaccurate at the same time (maybe autocorrect??). However, yes your name is apt - that other certainly doesn't live in Northern Ireland (I do).
A few observations: 'gun control' doesn't mean that a) hunting licenses can't be obtained and guns used as this is a very large market, or that b) criminals or terrorists can't access guns - semi-automatic or otherwise. They have quite a few.
It's a long, long time since paramilitaries (be it IRA/INLA/UVF/UDA/UFF etc) had any moral or even patriotic grounds for what they do - if they ever had. It's organised crime as above, and/or turf warfare, and localised pockets of control. No-one unless they have actual tangible links to these organizations themselves, endorse them. People associate themselves with them out of a) misfortune to be born in certain areas and indoctrinated early in life - i.e. long before teens, b) desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves even if patently negative and not having a lot going for them in life (read: vulnerable and influenced easily), c) need for personal safety and not being able to move far enough away, d) hunger for power by violence in a local area. See a pattern? I'm sure there isn't much difference to USA city gangs. The NI paramilitaries cite religious history and patriotism, but both of these are just convenience.
The relevance to the OP though, is that these have plenty of guns, ability to create IEDs, despite the UK laws.
Nobody at all 'approaches' these entities unless, as above, they are already tied to them. They care too much for their life and health to do so. Think the mob, but with even less tact/honour/morals/intelligence/realism, and at best are legends in their own postcodes (zip codes).
What do people in NI do for self-protection? Call the cops/PSNI, run, fight with fists, video document, comply, buy a dog, any of the above that applies.
I'm sure most know, but the two countries are "The Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". the latter a part of the UK.
To speak of anything in "Northeast Ireland" is like saying that the dollar is the currency of Northeast America. Technically yes, but an odd statement
As "Actual Irishman" could tell, anyone who uses "Northeast Ireland" clearly does not live there or know much about the islands.