egafd.com

So out of interest Sam, if a civilain were to undergo the same level of training as a police officer, I assume you would have no objection to their being armed, since you seem to be so concerned about how "untrained" people would respond?

You will notice that I don't insult you, because I give you the benefit of the doubt. You are rather an arrogant sort though I must say. Anyone who disagrees with you is thick? Come off your high horse.

I didn't imply you were thick for simply disagreeing with me, but because your rebuttal in no way refuted anything I'd said while you laid out your reply as if it did.

All you keep saying, in summary, is: "Nutters with guns target gun-free zones."

That in now way explains, then, why major gun-free zones like the UK aren't continually targeted by gun-toting nutters. It doesn't really address my point about untrained, panicky civilians and how this may actually increase the likelihood of bystanders being killed, it doesn't address my point about more guns contributing to more deaths per year from accidents and petty arguments escalating into gunfights, and it didn't address my point that strict gun controls means nutters find it harder to get their hands on said guns.

I debate, or argument, goes along the lines of points being expressed and counter points exchanged as refutations in an ongoing exchange. I get none of that from you, which could mean you're just thick or you realise you have nothing but you're hoping I'm too thick to notice.

But to answer your question: Yes. I would prefer trained civilians carrying guns to untrained civilians. I can't imagine anybody would think differently. It's like asking if I'd prefer untrained drivers on our roads or trained drivers, isn't it? The answer's so obvious, it's a waste of energy asking the question.

What's your point? That we should all go on some sort of government firearms course at 18? That gun owners should be made to pay for some sort of extensive course and test -at their expense- before being eligible to own a firearm (which I think is a good idea actually). That still doesn't negate the facts that seem to show the more guns in a society means more deaths by guns. Accidents on the roads happen every day, despite extensive training and testing.

I look forward to my points being refuted, or at least a set of points that stack things back in your favour.

Sam:

You seem very fixated on the problem of panicky untrained civilians with guns. Obviously, since you are not speaking from any experience, it is difficult for you to imagine how an armed citizen might resolve a situation like this, though in fact every day in the USA armed citizens do indeed thwart crime and protect their lives. Many US states which issue concealed carry permits also mandate a training course. But we have, it seems, established that you would not object to a suitably trained civilian keeping a gun for self defence, and indeed the defence of others.

As an aside, I would point out that police firearms training in this country was often rather perfunctory, and keen officers often used to practise in civilian target clubs with their own pistols. Since the pistol ban this has not been possible, as even cops could not keep their own guns. But historically it has been private shooters, free from bureaucratic diktats, who have made most advances in the teaching of defensive psitol shooting. A well trained civilian could easily have better and more frequent training than the average cop.

[quote]You seem very fixated on the problem of panicky untrained civilians with guns. Obviously, since you are not speaking from any experience, it is difficult for you to imagine how an armed citizen might resolve a situation like this, though in fact every day in the USA armed citizens do indeed thwart crime and protect their lives.[/quote]

Why would it be 'hard for me to imagine'? I have never seen a pink unicorn, and have no experience riding them but I'm perfectly capable of imagining it.

Have you ever seen a fist fight where 50% of the punches thrown miss, despite said individuals have experience using their arms all their lives? Have you ever seen a person about to be hit by an oncoming car and freeze for that second before the car flips them up in the air; that second which could have given them ample time to jump out of the way? Have you ever noticed how many professional strikers can score goals from impossible angles and miss open goals? Ever noticed how plenty of men, who can yap perfectly fine all their talking lives yet stumble and mutter over a best man speech?

It's a combination of stress/fear/pressure/anger, Robches. Does funny things to us at times. Some of us cope better than others. You do not seem to realise this point (among others). Perhaps it is you who lacks imagination.

And, anyway, the homicide rate in the US compared to the UK doesn't seem to indicate all those civilians you're talking about are any safer for having easier access to guns. Those civilians might feel safer but the numbers tell a different story. Yet another point of mine you've skirted around.

Robches wrote:

> in fact
> every day in the USA armed citizens do indeed thwart crime and
> protect their lives. Many US states which issue concealed carry
> permits also mandate a training course. But we have, it seems,
> established that you would not object to a suitably trained
> civilian keeping a gun for self defence, and indeed the defence
> of others.


Robches, this link tells us that in 2010 there were 8,775 murders committed using guns in the USA (and that's just murders - accidental deaths etc. are not even included).



That's the equivalent of 24 gun killings (or 2 Colorado "Batman movie" spree shootings) each and every day.

So unless you can come up with statistics showing that 8776 (or more) deaths were prevented that year by people "thwarting crimes" and "protecting their lives" with guns, you do not have a case and are pissing in the wind.

- Eric

Flat_Eric wrote:


> > of others.
>
>
> Robches, this link tells us that in 2010 there were 8,775
> murders committed using guns in the USA (and that's just
> murders - accidental deaths etc. are not even included).
>
>
>
> That's the equivalent of 24 gun killings (or 2 Colorado "Batman
> movie" spree shootings) each and every day.
>
> So unless you can come up with statistics showing that 8776 (or
> more) deaths were prevented that year by people "thwarting
> crimes" and "protecting their lives" with guns, you do not have
> a case and are pissing in the wind.
>
> - Eric
>



Thank you for your kind words Eric. You really need to look closely into US crime statistics, which is scarcely possible in a forum such as this. The vast majority of violent crime in the USA is concentrated in a small number of major urban areas with the usual problems of drugs, family breakdown etc etc, almost always involving illegally owned guns. As against that, crimes thwarted by armed citizens do not make the homicide figures, but I have seen evidence that this happens about a million times a year in the US. Homicide figures in the USA have also been falling, during the 70s I believe they stood at over 30,000 a year. The fact that the figure now is less than a third that, despite gun ownership being wider than ever, implies the link is not as direct as you imagine.

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> Why would it be 'hard for me to imagine'? I have never seen a
> pink unicorn, and have no experience riding them but I'm
> perfectly capable of imagining it.
>
> Have you ever seen a fist fight where 50% of the punches thrown
> miss, despite said individuals have experience using their arms
> all their lives? Have you ever seen a person about to be hit by
> an oncoming car and freeze for that second before the car flips
> them up in the air; that second which could have given them
> ample time to jump out of the way? Have you ever noticed how
> many professional strikers can score goals from impossible
> angles and miss open goals? Ever noticed how plenty of men, who
> can yap perfectly fine all their talking lives yet stumble and
> mutter over a best man speech?
>
> It's a combination of stress/fear/pressure/anger, Robches. Does
> funny things to us at times. Some of us cope better than
> others. You do not seem to realise this point (among others).
> Perhaps it is you who lacks imagination.
>
> And, anyway, the homicide rate in the US compared to the UK
> doesn't seem to indicate all those civilians you're talking
> about are any safer for having easier access to guns. Those
> civilians might feel safer but the numbers tell a different
> story. Yet another point of mine you've skirted around.
>

Sadly, pink unicorns do not exist, your views on the matter are as valid as mine, but they can never be verified. If you had knowledge of gun use and target practice, your views would be coloured by experience rather than fear and prejudice. As it is, your views on guns are more akin to the views of a non driver addressing speed limits.

In the case of a spree shooter such the one in Aurora, the problem facing an armed citizen is fairly simple. The shooter is clear, and he is fixated on executing as many unarmed victims as possible in his own time. He is replaying a fantasy he has probably run in his head many times. What he is not expecting is for anyone to shoot back. Comapred with many courses of fire in training, it is not a difficult one. But I don't expect you to believe me, and of course in Britain there is no way for you to find out for yourself (unless you move to Northern Ireland, where pistol ownership is still legal).

Robches wrote:

<<As against that, crimes thwarted by armed citizens do not make the <<homicide figures, but I have seen evidence that this happens about a <<million times a year in the US.


Really - then why not link us to this "million times a year" evidence then?

- Eric

You're talking out of your arse. Firstly you do not know my experience with guns, and since I was talking about what fear and pressure does to a person, I find my knowledge of guns irrelevant anyway. Secondly, you do not know what the shooter was expecting. They don't frisk people for guns in American cinemas (at least they haven't when I've frequented them) and since this shooter lives in a state that has very liberal gun laws I'd put forward the argument that he must have at least considered the possibility of running into someone who also had a gun. And if he hadn't, it's not because the cinema was a 'gun free zone' but because he was overly confident and a bit mental (as most nutters are). He might have also realized that even with very liberal gun laws, most people don't exercise their right to bear arms.....especially when taking their kiddies to the cinema.

I tell you now, Robches: if you think a a better world is where parents in cinemas, supermarkets, parks and play areas come armed to the teeth because their laws makes it easier for any nutjob to get access to enough weaponry to start their own mini-war, then I feel sorry for you.

It is your obsession with every tom, dick and harry being allowed to walk around like some Wild Bill Hickok that shows where the real, problematic prejudice comes from.

And you STILL haven't addressed my point about the UK (and many other similar nations) failing to be some massive gun-slinger's paradise, where they can go around ruling the place because most normal folk don't carry guns. And you STILL haven't addressed the fact that just as many people die per year from innocent accidents with guns as homicides with guns. And you STILL haven't fully realized the danger from armed, panic-stricken, frenzied civilians who feel there's a real possibility of being killed that very moment, and how they'll shoot anything that moves and startles them.

Do try and address my points. Thanks.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> make the happens about a
>
> Really - then why not link us to this "million times a year"
> evidence then?
>
> - Eric
>



I am basing it on Professor Gary Kleck's 1993 study for Florida State University, which found 2 million defensive gun uses per year, and US DoJ's 1994 study "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" which identified 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.