6 ms·

I'm interested in hearing your thought on this in more detail. Can you explain how the police in the UK are able to get to your house fast enough in the middle

I'm interested in hearing your thought on this in more detail. Can you explain how the police in the UK are able to get to your house fast enough in the middle of the night when someone breaks in? It takes hardly even 30 seconds to kick in a door or break a window and enter a home. Are you really capable of calling the police, having them respond, enter and clear your own home before that person does harm to you and your family? What about someone who enters a business, gas station, whatever, one day and starts executing people on the spot? Is a cell phone really your best tool? Maybe you are not capable of protecting yourself or not ready to deal with that yet but if I put myself in that situation and was also not capable or ready to protect myself then I would hope that an upstanding citizen next to me or in the same situation as me was prepared to stop the threat. In a lot of situation where you can be seriously injured or killed in seconds by an evil person I really can't think of any possible way that the police can help me. Keep in mind that most criminals are surprisingly smart enough to not commit a crime with a uniformed police offer standing next to them and unfortunately you will not always have the police standing next to you.

tome 14y ago
(I'll answer in the most crude general terms without aiming for nuance just to give you an idea of the culture here. Of course the reality is much more detailed than I can describe in a few paragraphs and what I say is only true to the coarsest approximation.) UK residents are simply not afraid of being shot, because there are so few firearms. Armed robberies (with guns and with other weapons) do happen and as I understand it the generally accepted procedure is that you give the robber the material goods that he wants and then he goes away. Violent physical attacks do take place too, of course, though (without looking at the statistics) I would estimate they happen far less frequently than the US. Even when such crimes cause outrage, civilian gun ownership is never suggested as a means of reducing the crime rate. Public policy in the UK is far more focused on reducing the number of attempts at violent crime than it is focused on giving individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from such crimes at the moment they take place.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Even when such crimes cause outrage, civilian gun ownership is never suggested as a means of reducing the crime rate. I wouldn't say "never". http://www.armbritain.com/forum/index.php http://www.armbritain.com/forum/index.php
  - tome 14y ago
    A pithy response, but could you flesh it out more? In particular, are you suggesting that this organisation has any sort of substantial following? If you make your claim explicit I can disabuse you of any misconceptions you maybe carrying.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      You said "never". I provided a counter-example which disproves your argument that private gun ownership for self defence is never suggested. In particular, are you suggesting that this organisation has any sort of substantial following? I have no idea, but that's hardly the point. If they had even one member, it shows that private gun ownership is, indeed, sometimes suggested.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- nitrogen 14y ago
  This lack of fear is interesting, because Britain's violent crime rate is higher than the US. "Swann noted that in the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. By contrast, there are 466 violent crimes per 100,000 here in America." - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/10/fox-affiliate-thoroughly-debunks-piers-morgan-s-gun-homicide-statisti http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/10/fox-af... (I couldn't find a list of countries on Wikipedia sorted by violent crime, only by intentional homicide, so this is the best source I could cite in the time available for making this comment) Edit to add: I believe that abandoning fear of negative outcomes is the solution to many of our problems, not tightening the reins on society to try to prevent negative outcomes.
brazzy 14y ago
In the UK and most other developed countries, that scenario is simply not something people worry about. It just doesn't happen much. You don't feel the need to be prepared for getting hit by lightning either.
alanctgardner2 14y ago
I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? The thing about giving everyone a gun is that it makes every crime that much more likely to be fatal. In Canada, for example, if I break into your house for your TV and you catch me, we're sort of at an impasse. Maybe I have a knife or a hard-to-get, illegal gun, but more than likely I hadn't thought it out. I'll run away, you'll call the cops. Compare to the US, where I'd get a gun before I break into your house, because why not, they're everywhere. Now I want some crack, break into your house, get startled and shoot you. Or you shoot me. By introducing guns into what would have been a non-violent crime, you've significantly increased the risk of injury or death for all parties. This is not to say that it's impossible to get an illegal gun if you think it might be beneficial; as in your 'holding up a convenience store' example. But why would I cap a bunch of random bystanders, and turn my potential armed robbery charge into first-degree murder? If I do have an illegal gun, and I know everyone else is unlikely to be armed, I hold all the power. The gun is merely a tool to keep people in line, I don't have to shoot anyone to achieve my goal. If I think everyone has a concealed carry, suddenly the situation is fraught with peril for everyone. Gun control in the US is some terrible, bad-faith arms race where everyone 'needs' to defend themselves against these random, nun-toting boogey men. 1. One would argue that mass shootings are this sort of irrational behaviour. However, they tend to involve legally purchased guns, and they represent a very small proportion of gun-related deaths.
- BryanB55 14y ago
  Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars and a history of violent crime. Had I gotten up that night and walked into something unexpected I would prefer to have something to help me through the situation... Just my opinion though. To me, a gun will help level the playing field. I have some empty hand combat skills but I surely wouldn't bet my life that I could take on 3 large men armed with baseball bats who didn't want to get caught and were clearly displaying reckless disregard for other people. I just really don't think bad people are some imaginary "boogey men".
rimantas 14y ago
So, what percentage of people shot in US last year were the criminals shot by the owners defending their property?

tome 14y ago

(I'll answer in the most crude general terms without aiming for nuance just to give you an idea of the culture here. Of course the reality is much more detailed than I can describe in a few paragraphs and what I say is only true to the coarsest approximation.) UK residents are simply not afraid of being shot, because there are so few firearms. Armed robberies (with guns and with other weapons) do happen and as I understand it the generally accepted procedure is that you give the robber the material goods that he wants and then he goes away. Violent physical attacks do take place too, of course, though (without looking at the statistics) I would estimate they happen far less frequently than the US. Even when such crimes cause outrage, civilian gun ownership is never suggested as a means of reducing the crime rate. Public policy in the UK is far more focused on reducing the number of attempts at violent crime than it is focused on giving individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from such crimes at the moment they take place.

mindcrime 14y ago
Even when such crimes cause outrage, civilian gun ownership is never suggested as a means of reducing the crime rate. I wouldn't say "never". http://www.armbritain.com/forum/index.php http://www.armbritain.com/forum/index.php
- tome 14y ago
  A pithy response, but could you flesh it out more? In particular, are you suggesting that this organisation has any sort of substantial following? If you make your claim explicit I can disabuse you of any misconceptions you maybe carrying.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    You said "never". I provided a counter-example which disproves your argument that private gun ownership for self defence is never suggested. In particular, are you suggesting that this organisation has any sort of substantial following? I have no idea, but that's hardly the point. If they had even one member, it shows that private gun ownership is, indeed, sometimes suggested.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
nitrogen 14y ago
This lack of fear is interesting, because Britain's violent crime rate is higher than the US. "Swann noted that in the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. By contrast, there are 466 violent crimes per 100,000 here in America." - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/10/fox-affiliate-thoroughly-debunks-piers-morgan-s-gun-homicide-statisti http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/10/fox-af... (I couldn't find a list of countries on Wikipedia sorted by violent crime, only by intentional homicide, so this is the best source I could cite in the time available for making this comment) Edit to add: I believe that abandoning fear of negative outcomes is the solution to many of our problems, not tightening the reins on society to try to prevent negative outcomes.

brazzy 14y ago

In the UK and most other developed countries, that scenario is simply not something people worry about. It just doesn't happen much. You don't feel the need to be prepared for getting hit by lightning either.

alanctgardner2 14y ago

I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? The thing about giving everyone a gun is that it makes every crime that much more likely to be fatal. In Canada, for example, if I break into your house for your TV and you catch me, we're sort of at an impasse. Maybe I have a knife or a hard-to-get, illegal gun, but more than likely I hadn't thought it out. I'll run away, you'll call the cops. Compare to the US, where I'd get a gun before I break into your house, because why not, they're everywhere. Now I want some crack, break into your house, get startled and shoot you. Or you shoot me. By introducing guns into what would have been a non-violent crime, you've significantly increased the risk of injury or death for all parties. This is not to say that it's impossible to get an illegal gun if you think it might be beneficial; as in your 'holding up a convenience store' example. But why would I cap a bunch of random bystanders, and turn my potential armed robbery charge into first-degree murder? If I do have an illegal gun, and I know everyone else is unlikely to be armed, I hold all the power. The gun is merely a tool to keep people in line, I don't have to shoot anyone to achieve my goal. If I think everyone has a concealed carry, suddenly the situation is fraught with peril for everyone. Gun control in the US is some terrible, bad-faith arms race where everyone 'needs' to defend themselves against these random, nun-toting boogey men. 1. One would argue that mass shootings are this sort of irrational behaviour. However, they tend to involve legally purchased guns, and they represent a very small proportion of gun-related deaths.

BryanB55 14y ago
Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars and a history of violent crime. Had I gotten up that night and walked into something unexpected I would prefer to have something to help me through the situation... Just my opinion though. To me, a gun will help level the playing field. I have some empty hand combat skills but I surely wouldn't bet my life that I could take on 3 large men armed with baseball bats who didn't want to get caught and were clearly displaying reckless disregard for other people. I just really don't think bad people are some imaginary "boogey men".

rimantas 14y ago

So, what percentage of people shot in US last year were the criminals shot by the owners defending their property?