Editor's Note: BFG

[Candidus]

If neither of those people were armed in the first place, there'd be a lot less violence.

This appears to imply that gun control is a satisfactory way of keeping both parties unarmed.

It's easy to say "two people get in a fight, nobody should be armed"... Two people. We're not really talking about anybody or anything there are we? It is very convenient for the anti-gun march to strip the world of all contexts, it allows them to make an idea that applies to almost *no* violent situations suddenly apply to violence in general. Seems good enough for some lawmakers too, sadly for us.

There are areas in everybody's country where you're at risk of coming under random attack by habitually lawbreaking, tough, intimidating thugs who're quite likely to be armed whether the law says they ought to be or not! Try *any* city.

I'm not saying "I need a gun because everybody's got one". I'm saying- and I'm right- that circumstances exist within the contexts of which any individual should be entitled to bear arms.

 

[Goro]

Gun control is a way to curb escalation. There are people who will obtain weapons no matter what (I meet them regularly) and they can be countered only by overwhelming force. I don't deny the average citizen has the right to defend themselves. But what I am saying is that assault rifles, large calibre weapons and armouries to rival a FOBs do not belong in the average citizens house. I'm also saying that if everyone had a firearm, everyone would use them. You'd shoot people who drove off without leaving their details after hitting your car, you'd shoot people who threw litter onto your lawn. And if you doubt that, come to my work, I'll introduce you to those offenders.
I'd prefer it if no-one, AT ALL, had firearms. But they're out there, and they need to be kept by people who are responsible, trained, and have sound judgement. There are few crooks who foot that bill, that's not in doubt. But there are a lot more law enforcement officials.
I don't understand your second paragraph; I'm talking about a two person fight, the most common type. What do you think I've missed in terms of context?
If someone is robbing you, they have no entitlement (or right, depends on whose constitution we're working from) to bear arms to do it. You have no entitlement (or right...) to carry weapons on the off chance you'll get jumped. You have the absolute right to defend yourself, but I have found time, and time again, that people who carry to 'defend themselves' are the primary mis-users of any weapon system.

 

[Candidus]

I agree, if someone's robbing you they've got no right at all to bear arms, and if the government or whoever wants to tell me I shouldn't be armed in the day-to-day could gaurantee that they wouldn't be, I'd accept what I was being told: "no arms on the off chance", okay. Until that assurance can be made, I just don't see it.

I'm not sure what constitutes misuse of a weapon system, because legally, where I live, just employing a weapon system in defense of yourself, inside or outside, is usually considered to be "misuse", by virtue of it being illegal.

Obviously, that perception of misuse is nonsense.

I'd say misuse is shooting or stabbing at someone who cuts through your garden, sure.

If everybody had a weapon, would everybody use them for that? I know you say so, and I know you say your work involves people who have- I've got no reason to disbelieve you work with people who have, but from my perspective, those people are just another sort of criminal. Not the sort of person I'm talking about protecting with the right to bear arms.

I've carried for years without stabbing people I've *fought* with, let alone stabbing people who've dropped a sweet wrapper on my grass, and I'm certainly not alone as a weapon-bearer who is strict with himself about when it comes out, that would be preposterous. The source of the illusion here, from my perspective, is that only the misusers get on the radar- because of the very nature of what they wind up doing.

 

[Goro]

Until that assurance can be made, I just don't see it.
You should be part of the society that works to make it so, rather than another fear-monger.
I've carried for years without stabbing people I've *fought* with
Define fought. You've not once mentioned the number of times you've been robbed. You only carry because of a fight you were in. Fights are voluntary, assaults are not. Either Wales is just this side of purgatory or you need to change your lifestyle.
Misuse means application of unnecessary and excessive force. As I described. I believe in defending yourself, just not through the carriage of weapons. Ironic I know, I'm a soldier turned policeman, all I know is weapons. The first thing every martial art and self-defence system teaches you is to disengage and run the hell away. I think the average civilian is not capable of the judgement and restraint required to own firearms. That's my opinion. I've had enough experience to make that my opinion, and that's after reading studies and all that crap that just bored me anyway. I also believe the average person isn't smart enough to drive a car or be trusted to walk down the street in a straight line, but that's just cynicism.