British Expatriate Network

I was shocked but not surprised really to read on Yahoo this morning that Americans are the most heavily armed society in the world.

http//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070828/us_nm/world_firearms_dc;_ylt=AnL6x2O_h_pL7nIknidAgFKs0NUE

Surely this will make the powers that be realise that something has to be done regarding the use of guns in this country?

Why? America has always been the most armed country in the world. Why an earth would they change it.

I think you mean "Why would the NRA want to change it."

Can someone expalin to me the connection between "individual liberty" and the right to own a firearm.

To me it is akin to a 13 year old boy linking sexual prowess with how high he can pee.

It's an extension of the paranoia that has probably been around since the Frontier days and continues to be useful to certain parties hundreds of years later.

I don't own a gun currently but I have in the past. I have close, normal, cool friends that still do and have quite the arsenal in fact. They grew up with them so it is not something they question. Perhaps in a few years when they have children, they may rethink although that doesn't really tend to make much difference from what I understand.

Certainly, if I was being held up or car-jacked, I could see the benefits of having a legal, concealed weapon on me but I wonder how many citizens are actually qualified and capable of using the weapon successfully to prevent loss or death.

The NRA runs a regular page in their magazine which details successful usage of legally owned firearms to either dissuade or immediately terminate violent crimes against citizens, citing sources but these stories are generally not covered in national news, just local stories, suggesting that nationally it is of no interest to suggest that private ownership of guns might have benefits. On the other side of the coin, it is always national news when a child gets hold of a legally owned gun and then either shoots themself or a sibling/friend.

Realistically, private gun ownership is not a sensible idea but it is so ingrained in the psyche of the United States that it is probably not going to end in our lifetimes.

I would consider owning a handgun. I would use it for target shooting only. It's something I used to do when I was younger in the cadets and as a hobby and I still enjoy it. I could never legally own a handgun in the UK, so I'm thinking I should do it while I have the chance.

As for self defence, well I doubt I could shoot someone. If guns start waving around in a 'situation', you have to be quick or else you'll be eating lead. I just don't think I can bring myself to shoot another human being.

It's true gun ownership is part of the frontier, wild west attitude - especially here in Texas! It works well, and is validated in that context but not in the context of city living. I too doubt it will change for a very long time. I would even bring out that cliche of 'guns don't kill people, people do'. Banning or controlling guns will do nothing unless people attitudes change.

Good point, the NRA, gun manufacturers, gun manufactures lobbyists and every conservative in the country who are not members of the NRA. When I lived in Utah everyone owned guns, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous, the one moment someone breaks into these idiots homes the first thing they will do is shoot their dick off!

I don't mind Americans having guns just don't bring up here with their filthy, sinful and depraved ways. D

There have been two instances I can recall in the past year where teenagers have broken into homes in the city near mine and the homeowners have shot at and ultimately killed them.

No charges were pressed against the homeowners, even though the teenagers were not armed. I guess this is fair as I think the law here states that you may use deadly force to protect yourself, property or family if you believe you are in danger.

Someone breaking into your house would likely qualify. I guess the point I am making is that the legal gun owners did not shoot themselves, their family or anything other than intruders or others intent on committing crimes against them. On the one hand, I find private gun ownership very worrying but on the other, it does at least allow people the option of defending their families and property with a lot less paperwork or lower percentage of justice being carried out.

http//www.democratherald.com/articles/2006/09/21/news/local/3loc01shooting.txt
http//www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2004_12_01_archive.html

Pilgrim, I think you confalte two issues here - the right to own a gun and the right to protect yourself and your property.

In England you can use deadly force to protect yourself, particularly in your own home when confronted by intruders. There have been a small number of cases in the past few years. In each one, no charges were ever brought and the criminal investigation was perfunctory.

However in England, as you know, you cannot own a hand gun (rifles adn shotguns can be legal, but we'll ignore that for the sake of this discussion).

The NRA will tell you that this undermines your right and ability to protect yourself. However, this is a fallacy. In reality most people do not carry their weapons constantly around the house and thus if they are surprised by the intruder, possession of a gun is of no help because it is in a ;ocked cabimet or, worse, in a drawer somewhere. This needs to be balanced with two other common truths:
1. The number of children who access guns owned by adults in the home (these are the idiots who leave them in drawers), who then use them to harm themselves or others (think of all those cases you've heard of where kids take guns to school).
2. The number of illegally held weapons used in crimes that originate from the burglarization of the homes of law abiding gun owners. (do not have the Statistic, but the FBI put it at thousands per year).

In NH we actually do have a right to bear arms (as opposed to the fictitious federal one :) ) and I have had this discussion with a couple of NRA members, one a client, one a fellow attorney. The one thing that I find facinating is how they misrepresent English law, particularly as it pertains to self defense. What is more they really believe what hey are saying and get quite indignant when I point out that not only are they wrong, but as an English solicitor, I happen to know what I'm talking about. My point here is that politicians in this country are swayed by an argument that is based on wholly incorrect information.

As an aside Pilgrim, you may be interested to know that I have successfully defended two "gun rights" cases - people wrongly charged with illegal possession(with the help of an NRA related lawyer).

Good answer Rob - yeah, that is pretty interesting so you've probably got a lot more background than most that discuss this issue.

Still not sure how you would defend yourself without a gun, unless you were formerly a Navy SEAL or something. In fact, I bet a lot of ex-military own a gun for protection - probably hard to give it up after you've sampled it in the past. The case I linked to above included an armed homeowner who had children, retrieved his gun from near where he was sleeping and was ex-military.

I have a baseball bat for protection but let's face it - if it's me and the bat against some druggie with a loaded gun, I'm probably toast.

The English cases I'm thinking of involved kitchen knives.
An whilst I agree that 'bringing a knife to a gunfight" is not a wise move, I stillthink you need to balance the potential benefits against the potential harms.
Also, I think people fear of crime is way out of whack with reality. I also suspect that many people who own guns for protection have no real idea of how to actually use them to protect themselves.
I do not have firearms training or a gun (an my hand/eye coordination is such that it would be best for all if it stayed that way) but I do have friends in the UK - police officers - who use guns. They were able to articulate reasons that are beyond my capacity as to why keeping a gun on you or in your home was unlikely to provide effective protection.

One story, which I'm sure I've told before, relates to a US intern we had, from Detroit. She whined about not being safe because she could not have her gun in her purse. One of my armed police friends answered her complaint succinctly - "bugger all good stopping a bag snatcher".

As ex-military, I'd be interested in your take on this element.

I have no experience with handguns - nothing, never tried one, only handled unloaded examples since I have lived here.

My experience is mainly with semi-automatic rifles, one sub-machine gun and a light machine gun which were reaching the point of becoming obsolete at the time.

I definitely agree that the vast majority of gun owners here probably don't have the training or experience to have custody of a weapon and I guess this is borne out in the news reports we see when a weapon is misused or stolen to be misused.

The 'fear of crime' point is a good one. When I first moved here, I was wary of the "fact" that everyone was armed, if I got in an argument, I'd get shot, all road-rage incidents would lead to me or my car getting shot etc. That simply hasn't been the case at all. I very rarely see guns and gun crime is relatively low where I live - in fact, the major talking point lately has been with city police officers shooting first and asking questions later or mistaking their service piece for their TASER, with obviously tragic consequences.

My state permits concealed carry (and open carry without a permit, although I have NEVER seen a gun carried this way in almost ten years) but you have to get a permit and this involves taking some weapons handling training. However, this state law gets trumped at the university where I work and weapons are not permitted at all. This causes all sorts of complaints from students in dorms, staff that like them in the glove box etc. but to give the university its dues, it has staunchly stuck by this regulation and no one has been able to change it.

Your police friend is spot on I think - a weapon in a purse is useless and even the NRA recommend various body holsters and jackets designed to accommodate a handgun. Supposedly a shotgun is best for domestic defense because you really can't miss and the distinctive 'click' of a shell being chambered in a pump-action model has been recorded as a good home invasion deterrent, without the need for discharge.

You lucky, lucky .......