Olsen the latest victim of armed thieves targeting football figures

It would certainly emphasize to the scum not to bring a machete to a gun fight. 🤷🏼‍♂️😡

Bang-bang, you're dead, think again next time. Oh, I guess there won't be a next time. 🙀

If there's a genie that I think could do with being put back in the bottle, it's the proliferation of guns in the US but when you have more firearms than there are people, you're way too far down the road to reverse it.

I very much feel for Robin and his family, particularly his kids. Can't be many greater feelings of violation than being held up in your own home. I hope they catch the bastards.

Genie or no genie, a man has a God-given right to defend himself in whatever way he deems fit.

The government has no business telling me if I can or can not buy and own a firearm. At least in this country. And that is probably the single most important thing that differentiates us from other countries. And the Second Amendment is something I adore and cherish beyond words.

What happened to Robin Olsen shouldn't happen ever. If it does, it's a crying shame he can't defend himself.

I legally possess a concealed carry permit. I carry all the time. People where I'm from are very, very polite. It pays to be polite. It pays to not cause physical harm to another human being. It pays to not break into someone's home and terrorize and mentally scar their children. If you try any of the above, odds are you'll be meeting the Maker in short order.

I honestly have the hardest time with this subject with the Cousins Across the Pond. I truly don't understand their position on firearms, and frankly probably never will.

The county I'm from, Hertfordshire, just outside London, has a population of 1.1 million. In our gunless society, guess how many murders we had last year?

One.

I live now in Kansas City, population of 500,000, with guns aplenty to "keep us safe". Guess how many murders in the same year?

Almost 200.

Thankfully.

I won't wade into the 2nd Amendment issue, as I cannot claim to fully grasp the complexities and the context surrounding that.

However, law and order, and keeping the peace in any community or country, requires a multi-pronged approach. Sometimes, if the punishment does not 'fit' the crime, deterrence is not sufficient.

However, the one-sentence 2nd Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers has been perverted beyond all recognition by the simple dismissal of the first half of the sentence. Our gun zealots proclaim their right to "keep and bear arms" while discarding the preceding (and therefore prioritized) invocation that the right must be "well regulated", and the right to defend one's home and family has been warped into a strutting, boasting, threatening assertion of the right to take life at will. Those who possess and brandish combat weapons that can kill a dozen people at a range of a quarter of a mile don't own them to defend against criminals... but against imaginary racial armies, their own government, and police (who are recurrently ambushed by ARs and AKs).

Our bullet-ridden American society today is certainly not what Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Australia and Canada, two nations with similar firearms-impacted histories to the US, have established a proper balance of gun rights versus gun regulations. We in the US, with even a Constitutional amendment ingraining both, have irretrievably botched the balance.

I'm not advocating or condoning this behaviour, but the crazy amounts of money these people and other celebrities earn, is going to make them a target. Not sure what the answer is, apart from maximising security, which makes a home more of a citadel and less of a family dwelling.

Incidentally as with many ground-breaking news stories, there is a mass of publicity, just after the incident, but rarely any follow up. You wouldn't read a thriller or murder mystery and then not continue to the end. Don't suppose anyone has any update on Carlo's similar incident and were the perpetrators caught?

Maybe actual individual people in the USA need to take responsibility for the gun-owning and gun-using crisis they've all been inadvertently party to ever since that now shitty 2nd Amendment was adopted as a cause celebre well over 200 years ago.

Don't sell your gun, Mike, get rid of it irrecoverably. By doing that, you'll make the world a better place, especially in so lawful a place as Oregon, as you say.

Although I live in Latvia, I come from Northern Ireland where handgun ownership remains legal and several of my mates are Glock owners – for home defence purposes. It has one of the lowest rural crimes rates in Europe, along with one of Europe's highest rural gun ownership rates. Maybe there's a cause-and-effect relationship between those two points, although I can't be sure.

In any case, people are not meant to be helpless victims, cowering in fear if some lowlife breaks in demanding treasure. For me, it's more than a mere right to bear arms or use extreme force in self-defence; it's a moral duty. After all, who can judge in a split second what is "excessive" and what is "reasonable"? Neutralise / incapacitate first and ask questions later.

The problem is that there's this pervasive culture of fear in America, reinforced by Rupert Murdoch — a hypocrite as he advocates gun control personally but is happy to profit by scaremongering by feeding into the NRA money-grabbing founding father (as in The Purge movies) mentality.

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle. It's like saying Britain should give up its nukes to set a good example. Every kind of wacko has a gun at this point. Unless some kind of figure like Gort from the Day the Earth Stood Still shows up and melts every gun with his laser beam, there's no way out.

Obviously, if people are armed, it's harder to kill them but I hate your example of using the Jews. Firstly, it assumes Jews didn't fight back. Some were armed and did but a pistol versus the Third Reich only goes so far.

The sad fact is that, in many countries they were second-class citizens with few rights at all – much less guns – which is why the Nazis were so easily able to commit atrocities. Let's not forget, in the United Kingdom in the era up until World War I, gun ownership was common place but for one caveat: you had to be a Protestant. Catholics and Jews could not own guns.

The evil doers, always find a way to slowly reduce the rights of their perceived enemies... then, when they're at their weakest, they strike. The Nazis were a culmination of 100s of years of anti-Jewish, anti-Polish, anti-communist policies. The real problem was all of the “lawful” gun-owning middle-class church-going Germans who happily went along with the insidious plans of a bunch of psychopaths.

Secondly, "middle class church-going Germans who went along"... obviously their churches were utterly dead and worthless, but don't let that get in the way of leftist anti-logic. The Nazi regime was atheistic and exalted the state's official narrative above the position of the Word of God as ultimate moral authority. Which latter point is pretty much where we are again today in the West, where evil is called good and good is called evil, and backed up by the full force of the law and the coercive pressure of social media lockstepped groupthink.

Yeah privately the Nazis were atheistic or occultist but they played along with Christianity initially and then Protestantism specifically because a) it was German, ie, not under the Pope; and b) because Luther was anti-Semitic. Germany was a majority Protestant country founded on the back of racist anti-Slav anti-Catholic anti-Jewish bigots like Bismarck.

Obviously the churches were as you say “worthless” – just as they were in East Germany when the Lutheran church was infiltrated by the Stasi. But the fact is, the majority of church going (worthless or not), middle-class 2.4 children household Germans were complicit in the Holocaust. The Jews, armed or not, had no chance.

And that's just Germany, throw in the Slavs like Ukrainian nationalists who were too stupid to understand the Nazis viewed them as subhuman, so eagerly turned on Jews, Poles and Russians.

But of course, you're living in Latvia – a country that was pro-Nazi, where the pagan Nazi myths are still popular today. So presumably you're getting history lessons from your neighbors who, like the middle-class folks of Hamburg and Berlin, were clueless about the Holocaust.

Like most Jews, I have a personal connection to the Holocaust. My mother's family had relatives in occupied Europe, none of whom survived. As it happens, I have also studied the subject of the Jews and guns there, specifically the Jewish rebellion known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (not to be confused with the Warsaw Uprising by the Polish Underground a year later).

Two resistance groups, the Jewish Combat Organization and the Jewish Military Union, were armed, self-trained and desperate to fight when the German army came in to complete the deportation of the entire population of the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto to the extermination camps. They fought to the last man with no surrender. It was no contest -- civilians against the most efficient army the world had ever seen up to that time. The ratio of resistance casualties to German casualties was about 70 to 1. Only a handful of the 7,000 Jewish fighters escaped to tell the story.

The idea that other, much smaller Jewish communities elsewhere in Europe might have mitigated their fate with household pistols and shotguns is utterly discredited by historical fact. It is also a foul and deeply offensive politicization of the Holocaust.

The statistics prove that in countries where gun ownership is banned or tightly controlled there is less gun death. I live on the other coast from Jamie and even a bit of road rage provokes a bit of shooting at each other but I feel no need of a gun in the house. Just a baseball bat under the bed and a note on the bedside cabinet saying "Make it quick" in case I'm asleep when burglars get in.

Personally I think everybody should have a Big Dunc in the house. Even if the villains had guns they would quickly see the error of their ways.

This country has a gun culture that is dangerous, deadly, and deeply misconstrues the intentions of the framers of the second amendment. Those framers were not making universal statements or truths, they were making a statement that was meanginful for the very different times in which they lived in 1791 and was meant for defesive purposes in a nascent infant state. Originalists are another dangerous group in this country; who don't accept the passage of time, the turning of cultures, and the potential for unanticipated developments at home and overseas that changed everything for good (wonder what James Madison would have made of the atom bomb?)

There can be no doubt that the second amendment has made America the murder monster of the so-called western world. Here in Chicago there were 51 killings in January. There were 774 in 2020. Admittedly this windy city was top of the killing league last year but all the usual suspects were there as well. One city in a gun-toting counyry! Think of that.

The UK had 809 killings in 2020; Germany 720 in 2019; Italy 278 in 2019-2020; Spaon 290 in2018; Sweden 47 in 2020; Ireland 55 in 2019; Canada 678 in 2019, France 779 in 2018.

One city, Chicago, in one country with scores of million-people-plus cities with 8.6 million New York at the top of the tree. A single city that outguns entire countries with populations of 60.36 million. 83.02 million, 67.06 million, 66.65 million, 46.94 million, little Sweden (10.23 million)and last but not least little Ireland (4.9 million).

The second amendment is a killing machine in a country (sadly) of killing fields. The framers never meant it to be a license to kill but Americans have made it that over the passage of time. Not all them, needless to say. Canonising and lionising gun ownership in the land of the free over time has created cold-blooded killers. One of them for every 1,000 for whom a gun protects hearth and home is one too many.

Does the National Rifle Association ever express empathy and sympathy for the slaughtered?

Might have been best not to have brought in America on this thread Jamie. But once you did, in the context that you did it in, I know that you, a good man without any shadow of a doubt, would have been nothing but surprised if it had slipped by unremarked.

I will say, I think there are *way* too many people here in the States who entertain these Charles Bronson fantasies over how an encounter with an armed intruder is likely to go.

I won't comment on the theme that has taken this thread off on a 90-degree tangent, as it is completely disrespectful (regardless if Olsen or anyone connected to him reads any of these comments or not).

I am a psychotherapist specialising in treating people for trauma. I can assure you these children won't forget this (assuming they were present and awake at the time). I hope Robin and his wife get the support they might need to overcome the experience and help the little ones to feel safe again.

High levels of psychopathy required to burst into someone's house this way, a complete inability to understand the psychological impact of their behaviour. I won't rise to any of the above comments about guns being the answer to crime – and as for the 'bring back hanging' comment... :(

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.
- Richard Henry Lee

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.
- Alan Dershowitz

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
- Karl Marx

Self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty.
- Ronald Reagan

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
- Thomas Jefferson

Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.
- Andrew Fletcher

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- The Constitution of the United States of America

I live in a rural area and have fired various guns. We have a very low crime rate but are ripe for the picking of city criminals. People talk about the high gun-ownership in the States but some European countries (the Swiss have 2 million private guns in a population of 8 million with incredibly low death rates). Obviously in the States, there are lots of other factors involved other than simply gun ownership. Considering the amount of people with guns, there were very few weapons discharged in the recent political trouble in Washington – perhaps that is because everyone realised that it would turn very nasty, very quickly.

In sedate European countries with low gun ownership, the ordinary folk are much more vulnerable to gun-toting lunatics or terrorists as nobody has a gun to fight them. And yet criminals get hold of weapons fairly cheaply, making the law-abiding citizen powerless to stop them.

If a (legally) armed intruder is threatened by a (legally) armed homeowner does the intruder have the right to protect him/herself using their own weapon?

Kim, in Texas... and probably a few more places... it's compulsory to shoot intruders – allegedly.

Anyone care to guess how many there were in the UK?

They had a bit of a war about it... only lasted 30 years.

I have many intelligent American friends but on this issue they are outliers. Mass shootings no longer news... just normal life, down to mental health issues.

It really isn't normal. Mental health is no bigger a problem in America than elsewhere, but prevalence of guns is.

There were 33 deaths in 2019 by firearms across the UK.

1 in 2 million people were killed by firearms in the UK

1 in 24 - 36 thousand (varying reports for firearm deaths) people were killed by firearms in the USA.

I for one am glad we don't have the right to bear arms over here.

Many years ago on a Saturday afternoon in Sydney, it was my turn to do the shopping. I went to the bus stop and two buses turned up, one to Strathfield and the other to the next door suburb of Burwood. As the rush was for the first bus, I decided to take the second, the one to Burwood, after all, they both had equally good shopping centres.

That afternoon a gunman went mad in Strathfield shopping arcade and killed about a dozen people.

That isn't the point but, on the Monday, a letter appeared in the biggest morning paper saying that if people were allowed to carry guns then somebody seeing this gunman could have used his own weapon to stop him and possibly have saved lives.

A day or two later, another letter appeared on the subject saying that if more of us carried guns, then the first gunman could have been shot by another armed shopper but, if he was seen by a third armed party, then he might mistakenly have shot him. And then a fourth armed shopper, then a fifth.

Need I go on?

Perhaps no guns and a more noticeable police presence may be more efficient.

I think these gangs might be sharing information so the police and clubs better buck up their ideas and find these buggers.

It is also (or was) a matter of fact that Switzerland has the third highest suicide rate by gunshot in the world.

Make of it what you will but it is not a choice of less gun possession or better mental health treatment but maybe a combination of both going some way towards helping the situation decrease the number of deaths.

Jay Woods, if only some of my relatives in Eastern Europe had had a shotgun or a 0.38, they could have stopped Hitler's einzatzgruppen from burying them in a ditch. What a wonderful idea!

As for gun control, the word 'Dunblane' is enough to get people in the UK despising the pathetic gun fetish the Americans have. The 5-year prison sentence for having an illegal handgun here needs to be increased.

Don't the Swiss hold their weapons at home but ammunition is distributed from a central source (police etc.) if an when the need arises. Which I'm not sure it ever has.

The gun thing in the US astonishes me. As an ex-member of HM Forces, the idea of being able to carry something round a supermarket that only military personnel would get anywhere near in any other country is beyond insane.

Andrew (#48); Obviously they have access to ammunition either by other sources or possibly from reserve duties.

In my experience, the perpetrators are often numbskulls who are doing the dirty work for fence types who have cased the joint and have an outlet for the stolen goods. If caught, they just do time until they come out again to do the same dirty work.

This knocks the whole gun thing on the head as a solution, since the people involved are seen as expendable anyway, by those who organise them.

Does the level of burglaries in the US support the idea that arms deter burglaries? Where there are burglaries, who normally comes off the worst?

Genuine questions.

Having been burgled myself in the last two years when all that was taken was a not unhealthy amount of foreign currency which I regarded as my "funeral money", money left over from attending funerals overseas, I quite occasionally have a feeling of disgust and hopelessness in my own home.

Even if convicted, they will then face a sentencing system that is based on prison capacity rather than the severity of the crime. Good behavior (ie, not setting the prison on fire or killing any warders or other inmates) then guarantees that often lenient sentences are halved. The odds are so much in the criminals' favour that pre-Covid gangs were flying in from as far away as South America to exploit the rich pickings here.

The victims are left to fend for themselves by a police force whose first question at the crime scene is often 'Are you insured?', followed by a crappy leaflet and, in the worst cases, a quick visit by a victim support officer. Job done.

I just hope that Olsen and his family recover from the trauma and that this despicable act doesn't completely taint their experience of living in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948-2Vzgi3w&ab_channel=bricktamland1681

Also very sorry to read the American ToffeeWebbers views on guns.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, it was obvious America would never change.

If the mass slaughter of 5- to 7-year-olds at Sandy Hook Elementary School was not enough to create change, I don't know what would.

Me personally I am delighted that we don't have the same liberal gun laws as they do in America.

If you do defend yourself and let's say do a Bruce Lee on the scum, it's you who goes to jail also, remember you must be politcally correct at all times, they have wonderful wonderful human rights, even if your children are being threatened with a machete in front of you!

Let's just say the boys in blue do arrive in time, there was an attempted buglary at my home and it took them 15 mins to arrive! Let's say they arrest them, they go to court, they get maybe 8 years and it will be halved for good behaviour. They get a tv in each cell, the internet, decent food, warm cell, easy access to narcotics inside, sports facilities and, above all, a place were they can improve their skills and make new contacts.

There is absolutely no fear of prison (especially in this country).

Brian, it's very sad to see these terrible fatalities, but it's one side of the coin.

The other is what Olsen went through, if he has a firearm, he can blow the bastards to hell and ensure the safety of his family.

Place a pistol in Olsen's hand while facing the potential that he and his young family might be hacked to death, he'll be thinking thank God or God bless America (if it was in America).

Kieran Kinsella: In my middle-of-the-night insomnia-induced haze, I failed to notice your perfidious sleight of hand in equating middle class "church-going" people with Nazis. That's a trick straight out of the Neo-Marxist playbook and one that will be amped up more and more over the next few years as the rabid Left homes in on its openly admitted (in modern western communist literature) target: the so-called "ultra right", which they define as evangelical Christians.

It just seems we have less rampages (but they do still occur) involving guns, and most gun shootings (especially in urban areas) are gang-related.

Incidentally, our Police Services are all armed as well.

The US is hardly a beacon of light with law and order, in fact if ever there was a country of how not to do law and order, it's the US. Prisons are big business in the US, making corporate firms a lot of money so it's counter productive to get rid of guns and this stupid 3 strikes and your life is finished farce. Then you have the NRA wielding such power, it's just an absolute nightmare system. Yes Olsen may well have had the opportunity to blow the intruders away but at what cost? He will have taken someone's life, regardless of the justification that's a huge deal. All those advocating this, have any of you had to do this? I haven't and I don't want to either. Legalizing guns creates more problems than it solves. Long may it continue that the UK doesn't indulge in this ridiculous idea of letting the general public arming itself

The glory of ToffeeWeb.

Dumbest idea I've ever read on these pages. Hands down.

The notion that the UK should adopt a similar stance on gun ownership is nothing short of preposterous.

Not sure about your Marxist plot but if involves Joel Osteen no longer being on TV then I'm all for it

"They get a tv in each cell, the internet, decent food, warm cell, easy access to narcotics inside, sports facilities and, above all, a place were they can improve their skills and make new contacts."

Think your getting mixed up with Pontins there mate

There's nothing like a snarling bull terrier type / mastif to put some doubts in these bastads, although I recall Patrick Viera was burgled and they poured gas into his house while he and his family were asleep, this knocked out everything including his dogs.

But, if they can do so for nuclear weapons, they can surely do so for firearms?

Its all a bit of a conundrum.

Yeah so aside from being gassed, what happens to our gun owners if they're asleep or on the can when the burglars arrive? Unless they have biomorphic weapons built into their arms it's not like they're ready to roll. Burglars don't usually schedule appointments with householders ahead of time. I mean I guess maybe they wear gas masks at home and have motion detectors to alert them to intruders but it seems like your losing quality of life if you are masked and armed 24/7.

Why do I get the feeling that all this is not all Black and White but more likely Blue and Red??

So my advice to Robin, is get a dog and make sure your property is signed to let intruders know you have guard dogs on the property. It's a great deterrent.

Fingers crossed you get a nice friendly burglar who's happy to wait before you defend your castle from invaders.

The alternative is to illegally keep your loaded gun under your pillow or by your side while you sleep. Because that's a great idea.

That's in the UK but not in the US, apart from Massachusetts

And my other take
Rifles kill game; Shotguns kill birds/vermin

Handguns kill people; Assault Rifles kill lots of people.

I can accept people having the first two.
The third not in the UK but if you must in the US
The fourth - I can see no reason and it may reduce the number of mass killings and allow the subject to be buried - rather than the victims.

Thanks for all those quotes.

I note that you have posted the entire quote from every source except the Second Amendment.

In my opinion, proper respect for the Constitution demands acknowledgement of the entire Amendment, not just the carefully selected second half of it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That the Constitutional dictate of gun regulation -- preceding the right to keep and bear, and therefore prioritized ahead of the right by the Founding Fathers -- is deliberately ignored and even sabotaged by the modern gun rights movement is the direct reason for the mass slaughter of schoolchildren at Parkland and Sandy Hook, police officers in Dallas and concertgoers in Las Vegas. It's also a pretty good example of your Dershowitz quote about eliminating portions of the Constitution they don't like.

BTW... the Thomas Jefferson quote is spurious: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-carrying-armsspurious-quotation

If I was a burglar. I would probably target someone who was newer to the area so they are less aware of their surroundings etc and threats. I suspect that is probably why Carlo and Olsen were targeted as opposed to because the burglars wanted to derail our season. Unless of course, the Liverpool fan base has a chapter dedicated to organized crime in which case maybe part of their strategy is to derail other teams. But, if that were the case they'd be very busy with burglaries right now because a lot of teams are above them. They also missed the chance to rob some of the Chelsea players ahead of that six pointer.

I haven't got a clue what I'd of done if I had a gun when two little rats came in through my bedroom window while I was downstairs. With a lead pipe in my hand I tried to usher them out till I was confronted by another couple coming in the front door. I managed to push them out the way and lock myself in a bathroom. To this day I wish I would of cracked their fucking heads open. I have done ju-jitsu since age 7 and I'm 16 stone but still... I probably did the right thing. They have to catch these scumbags and double up the sentencing. What kind of people they must be to come into someone's home. They deserve what they get, whatever that is.

I had some weird experiences in the States. Flying into San Fran and getting a taxi to the wrong hotel. My first sights were of some 6' 5 ladyboys, carting my luggage up the biggest hill I've ever seen... then there were all the homeless, which still blows my mind.

I made my way to a place called Carlsbad closer to San Diego and got locked in the small front door of a bank becaue the pins in my shoulder set of the internal alarm. After me screaming let me the fuck out (which didn't help) I got out into the street and got pulled over by a cop because I skipped over the corner of the street instead of walking right to the end. Again... saying haven't you got anything better to do (didn't help either).

What I took from my time there was how big an arse can get. I saw some gigantic arses during my time at Disneyland, probably the span of my arms.

At least its not anywhere near as bad an experience as I had travelling Africa. I can't go into that here. Cucumber Pizza I can laugh about though.

I don't know why I just wrote any of that. Anyway - here's hoping Olsens wife and kids are okay. Imagine having that job though - house robber. How do they sleep?

Another serious question would be is it appropriate to kill a burglar? It could just be a guy with a starving family who broke in to steal a loaf of bread. Does he deserve to die for that?

To try and answer sincerely would take me, Mike and Jamie to weigh in because of the differences across regions although I'm not sure we cover the rural areas. There are some states where open carry is the social deterrent although that seems to create as many incidents as it is intended to dissuade. It is somewhat rare to hear of burglars shot but that could be other news drowning out local stories or it could be that video cam setups have drastically increased the risk to the culprits.

But overall the US Bureau of Justice Statistics says armed citizens prevent about 70,000 crimes a year of all kinds, both violent and nonviolent.

Given that there are 8 million crimes committed in the US each year, it could be argued that guns in civilian hands prevent about 1% of all crimes.

That doesn't account for how many crimes are prevented in advance by the criminal's fear that the intended victim may be armed.

But it also doesn't account for how many robberies are about guns themselves -- more than a quarter million guns are stolen in the US every year, and there's a massive black market for stolen weapons.

For clarity by "appropriate" I mean ethically. Like if a man broke into Jamie's house to steal a loaf of bread, does that man deserve to die morally speaking for that offence. If it's say as OJ Simpson alleged, some violent people broke into his house and ended up committing murder, then in that type of instance it would be self defence. But if it's just like a kid stealing a pot plant off Jamie's drive for a prank, would shooting the kid dead be something that seems appropriate morally speaking.

It's a very naughty crime that, especially when children might be present, and the reason I asked that question before, is because if guns were legal in this country, then people carrying out these bergs, would probably carry more than a machete, but this is the way life is sadly going, I'm sure?

The attempt to rewrite the meaning of the Second Amendment by focusing on a "well regulated militia" is humorous to me.

The militia is the people. Having followed up that line with "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes it abundantly clear.

One can dislike firearms. But one doesn't have any right, stated in the Constitution itself, to keep another from bearing arms. It's just dead simple for me.

Focusing on things out of context is an excellent and effective debate technique.

Hello Thomas,

You're the one who is "ON HOLIDAY AT PONTINS!".

Read the article:
"TV in prison: What men and women watch in their cells"

A Prison Service spokesperson said: "In-cell televisions are funded by prisoners from rental payments.

"They can only watch free to air digital channels on small televisions. Individual prisons decide which channels are available and ensure they are suitable for viewing in a prison."
"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19572726

Thomas it's a bit cold for Pontins this time of year but atleast you've got tv in your chalet!

The sign outside my house says "Beware, ToffeeWebber Residence". Even the postman is scared to deliver.

Ive been to both.
Trust me its not like Pontins.

Your argument needs some clarification, and a quick lesson in ballistics.

You're ok with shotgun and rifle ownership for hunting purposes? A shotgun wound is a grizzly thing - horrific. If you allow shotgun ownership you're advocating for a weapon that literally tears someone apart if used in self defense.

If you're ok with allowing rifle ownership, most "Hunting" rifles shoot. 30-06. Most AR-15s shoot a. 223 /. 556. The AR-15 projectile is much smaller than the standard hunting rifle. The. 30-06 simply messes you up.

In short, you're conditioned to allow a ballistic that is far, far more deadly because you've been told it has a hunting application. You're conditioned to hate AR-15s because "nutters" like me have a picatinny rail, red dot, iron sights, a mounted tripod, and a flash light strapped to it. In short, it looks scary, ergo, it should be banned.

The reality is that a "scary" looking gun isn't nearly as deadly as the semi-automatic "hunting" rifle. Not even close.

If you're going to attempt to make the argument that some guns should be allowed, you really can't do that if you understand how firearms function and the ballistics of the firearms you mention. The firearms that would be banned by anti-gun people aren't as deadly or grizzly as the ones they'd allow.

Phil -

The above isn't an argument. It's simply pointing something out. You and every other person who abhors firearms are entitled to your opinion.

In America, some of us draw the line on whether people of your opinion have a right to disallow those of us who disagree with you based upon our Constitutionally protected right to own a firearm and defend ourselves in a manner we deem fit.

The only argument that makes sense to me, in terms of limiting firearm ownership - and again I'm crystal clear I believe that to be a terrible thing - is to ban all firearms sans the handgun. And the handgun then needs to have magazine / round restrictions, as well as most importantly ballistic restrictions.

Ten round maximum capacity (as in California, NY, MA, etc.), coupled with. 22 or 9mm maximum allowable caliber projectiles for civilian use. This would make the massive calibers in hunting rifles illegal, as well as the AR15 style rifles.

Again, I don't agree with that. I believe the government has no right to tell a free person how they can defend themselves and their loved ones. But if the left embraced the above, it would probably be a much quicker path to gun restrictions in this country.

Then there's the argument of whether or not gun restrictions help at all. In the USA, that cat is out of the bag. The areas in this country that have the most stringent gun laws - CA, NY, Chicago, etc., have the most deaths via firearms. But that's another step down the rabbit hole.

But you're absolutely right, picking and choosing what part of the 2nd to embrace and what part to ignore has been effective. In particular, it has prevented the proper and appropriate regulation of the right to keep and bear. The Amendment ensures the right and dictates that it be regulated. If gun ownership was intended to be completely unencumbered and unregulated, the Founders wouldn't have written that inconvenient first phrase. But they did.

So gun advocates simply pretend they didn't. Or don't even know. I recently had a discussion with a guy fixing my deck who truly believed that any and all regulation of gun ownership (or what weapons are legal) was unconstitutional. Turned out he'd never actually read the Amendment and didn't know that first part existed. When I showed it to him on my phone, he stormed off the job and never came back. Talk about humorous... that was really funny.

I see a lot of comments with people absolutely baffled as to how a person can, in good conscience, own an instrument who's implicit purpose is to kill. They wonder aloud how a human being can, or would even want to, own something to snuff out life. That's one perspective.

The real challenge is to look at it from my perspective.

I am absolutely baffled why people wouldn't want to own a firearm. I see a world with bad people, and I see my role as protector of my family. I can not understand why in the world every person wouldn't want a firearm to protect his / her property and loved ones.

Are you scared of things that go boom? Do you want to be robbed? Do you prefer the power to be in the hands of those who don't follow the rule of law and the rules?

Do you really want to sit by, powerless, while men armed with machetes break into your home and threaten you? Scar your kids or God forbid kill them? Or maybe sit powerless while they take your wife? Why do you allow this possibility to exist? Would you rather not be armed to protect your possessions and family?

I sincerely don't understand it. If that makes me crazy, fine.

But I'll sleep well with my armament, knowing that if anyone tries to do me or my family harm, I will have the necessary means to protect them.

I'm 5'11" and 160 pounds. I can not defend my family against multiple assailants with a golf club, pipe, or my bare hands. But I can use a 12 round magazine to drop 4 assailants in about 5-6 seconds - two in the chest, one in the head. I won't stand idle and helpless when evil knocks.

And I can't understand anyone who thinks it's ok to let anything that wicked ever occur.

Olsen could have stopped these machete wielding thugs. He was not afforded the opportunity to do so by his government. That's a shame in my opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

However, I struggle to see (sorry, culture) where handguns and especially assault/semi-automatic weapons are used in sport, and not target shooting. Yeah, riding around on a horse with a pack of dogs after a fox has killed all the chickens is somehow called sport. I'd just kill the fox with the shotgun or rifle.

We were over in Autumn 2018. They had just had the mass shooting in the synagogue in Pittsburgh. Flags half mast. A week later we had got as far south as KSC and the flags were at half mast. Still, we asked the waitress? No another one in CA and it included a police officer. We told her that the police were not armed in the UK (apart from special units in special cars in major cities). After we picked her up off the floor, she pulled out a chair and sat and talked. She took the order and went into the kitchen and came back and said they were all astounded and most wished it could be the same in Florida.

Recognise your right, but I agree with Mike that the 2nd amendment is selectively used as justification. Too many powerful financial interests.

Stay safe.

There are too many of them (moose that is not friends)

Very good! I laughed out loud.

Stay safe.

Oh I will, Phil, I will.

True story, and no attempted burglaries I believe.

I am not going to get into the particular rights of someone to defend themselves. That kind of gets to the 'do what thou will shall be the whole of the law' until the consequences come later. I grew up in Oklahoma so I can see both sides of the divide there. However, the obvious mass events that have been brought up by Phil Kelsall Roberts are the point at this stage. Any discussion of the individual right must account for the risk of non-defensive atrocities to society at large.

That millions of Americans have willingly absorbed the brainwash of "They're coming to take your guns away!" is something I find emblematic of the general loss of courage in this nation. Fear of "them" has become a core value in a big part of our society. It's sorta pathetic.

Not where I live, mate. The showers wouldn't happen. If they're on your property, and armed, they're fair game.

And I'd add, as soon as they leave your property, even if they've stolen something, it's off limits. Let them run. You can always buy more shit.

Now if they've killed someone you love, I'd shoot them at distance on principle, and bend over to pick up the soap if that's what the end-game was, pun intended.

Safety is one thing, avoiding trauma is another. So you don't think that Olsen's kids might have been even more traumatized if instead of allowing the burglars to leave peacefully, Olsen had whipped out an assault rifle and blown their heads off? The kids would next day wake up and see dried blood stains on the carpet, or find bits of brain tissue or bone splattered about the living room. But they'd be absolutely trauma free from that aspect?

By the way, my neighbor the cop suggests you take that "one to the head" out of your planning. Even in stand-your-ground Florida, that coup de grace will take you away from your family for a looooong time.

Anyone entering my home with a machete clearly isn't dealing with a full deck.

I'd rather ensure the kids were alive than butchered, and deal with the psychological effects afterwards.

Or maybe you hesitate, thinking, "Oh no, the kids might see this?" All the while your arm is chopped off while hesitating.

No. I sympathize with your point. But I'd not hesitate. Not for a millisecond.

If the kids witness their father defending them against armed aggressors, so be it. Trauma is going to occur. If I had to shoot an intruder, my trauma would be quite real as well.

But I didn't invite trauma into my home. It will be thrust upon me and my loved ones inevitably. That ship sailed the second dudes with machetes entered my home. They brought trauma with them, quite uninvited I'd add.

And the eradication of the threat outweighs the trauma to follow in my opinion.

It takes me 2 seconds to fire off three rounds.

8 seconds with 4 assailants. And that's generous, as you need to re-acquire your target(s).

And yes, I'd probably miss a few. The adrenaline would be so great I'd surely miss. Even at close range.

Bravado, it seems, has creeped its way into my words.

John Wick, no. Capable, yes. If you like, I'll send you video of me shooting.

On a technical level, how does the on property thing work specifically? Is it where the perp is when you fire or where he is when the strike impacts him? For example lets say the RS fan with his machete is running across your yard, you fire just as he is about to step onto the public sidewalk. Does that count as a fair strike if in the time it takes the bullet to travel to him, he is actually on the sidewalk. Or if it was say a bow and arrow or a boomerang you launched that took a little longer for impact, would he be fair game?

That's a question for an attorney, but my knowledge of it boils down to this:

If they're in your house, shoot. If they are out of your house, hold your fire you're going to jail.

Brent -

Two to the body one to the head is a commonly taught technique and quip. It completely eliminates the threat. Two to the body doesn't always do the job.

And I guess I just lost the pun competition. Damn it Kim!!

I've been thinking about this. Send your email to Lyndon.

The next time I'm out shooting I'll set up targets and video myself shooting 4 targets at 5-7 yards with a timer.

I'll email you the video, with the time, and you can ask your Treasury and Cop buddies what they think.

It'll be fun.

Jamie, you're on video? Yep, I'd enjoy that. The only video I have of myself shooting is from one of my youth smallbore competitions from 1972, and that's on 8mm film. My dad had a pretty cheap camera.

Terrible for Olsen and his family, I hope they catch them somehow but that won't fix the mental trauma.

On the gun debate.
I can honestly say, if I had have had a gun in my possession in certain "scenarios" in my life back in the day I could have been in trouble with the law !

That's the danger and who knows what can set some individual off, the list is endless.
Guns are dangerous, and in a split second decision people can die.

Jamie Crowley describing " I carry all the time. People where I'm from are very, very polite. It pays to be polite."

So i'm thinking If I lived there, me being me I would be dead then !
Being on your guard all day in case you might offend is quite a fucked up way of living is it not.
I'm sure it's not exactly like that Jamie ?

Scumbags are scumbags, I detest them - fuck this "they might be starving and looking a loaf of bread " - what, armed with mechete's !

Now If someone entered my home illegally, if I was able, I would have no hesitation in shooting them.

I know a farmer who has "chased" a few burglars off in his time with his shotgun and dogs.

On his farm gate and entrance to his house he has the deterrent signage at the very top of my post - fair enough warning I say.

This from the Scientific American:

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

It's a fairly long read but it answers a lot of the questions raised in this thread – especially the largley spurious "self-defence" claim beloved of all gun-touters.

And quite honestly, I'd love to get feedback from professionals as to the time and technique.

Lyndon has my email.

It might take a bit - the cost of ammo has skyrocketed, so I don't go as frequently as I used to. Buying 1000 9mm rounds used to set you back around $225. It's now like $.75 per round!

But I'll take video and send it. Not only to see if my above claims are in the ballpark (they will be 😜) but to see what pros actually think of the technique. I train with a Jacksonville SWAT officer now and again, he likes my form but can always give suggestions on improvements.

Your boy's feedback would be welcome.

You'd like to think the club will now up the stakes in respect to players security.

I was watching that Pawn programme last night, on ITV, and it's all about the very affluent people selling Rolexs etc. There's a big demand due to COViD19 for expensive cars and watches etc.

The coppers must surely be looking at this latest incident, and it remains to be seen if this has put a Robin and his Family of staying in the north west.

Hopefully the Olsens will get all the help and support they need from Everton FC.

2. They say, and I would not like to be the the one testing the theory, that anything under 7 foot range, the knife wins.

and a third bonus point: Daddy killing some subhuman vermin in the house, no matter what the circumstance, increases the trauma on the kids, as does Daddy being killed by SHV because he forgot to take the safety off.

The point about blasting them away with a gun is ridiculous. If regular people regularly had guns in Manchester in their homes, then the criminals would come armed, heavily armed. The result would be far worse than psychological scars and I appreciate that in itself is horrendous.

I suspect most would not bat an eyelid if a criminal entering a home was blasted away or ate by dogs. But stating the answer in the UK is that we should have the right to arm ourselves to protect our homes is nonsense - most of us don't sit here wishing we had America's gun laws in fact we look at our neighbours across the pond and think WTF.

He missed with the shot though Fortunately for all concerned.

The usa is surely fucked.
DONT TAKE MY GUNS

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&t=380s

It's a fantasy to think that simply having an armed householder resolves the situation nice and tidily in his favour. Real life is far messier than that, and you're far more likely to find yourself amidst actual violence instead of the threat of violence and economic loss.

A quote from your article:

Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the leas

You'll forgive me, I eye-rolled with the source. I'm sure Harvard has no anti-gun agenda or bias.

Also, that copy and paste got somewhat messed up, but anyways...

I'll read the rest of it later

This has some deluded posts I've ever seen in 24 years on ToffeeWeb - and we had posts which hailed Marco Silva as the next messiah!

Being on your guard all day in case you might offend is quite a fucked up way of living is it not.
I'm sure it's not exactly like that Jamie ?

It's actually not like that at all. Honestly, I forget I'm carrying all the time. You don't walk around like some paranoid nut, on your guard 24/7.

By the way, you remember you're carrying the second you sit behind the steering wheel. I appendix carry and it's godly uncomfortable sitting down.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

Maybe? (maybe not?).

One thing is for absolute certain though (indisputable!), when these evil bastards turn up at your house wielding machetes and threatening to hack your family up into little chunks, after you've looked around at your kids screaming in blind terror, watching your wife pulling them close to her, you'll wish you had a flamethrower strapped to your back.

Another indisputable certainty will be that if you had a Glock in your hands firing high velocity rounds, giving them no chance of survival, you could send them to hell and ensure nobody else has to suffer again what you've just been through.

Why is it a shit show? It's what I adore about TW.

Different cultures having a discussion about sensitive subjects, viewing all opinions. It's a worthwhile learning exercise, and something I personally enjoy immensely.

The shit show is the people weighing in with nothing of substance or any thought-provoking contrarian views.

It bores me. It's deluded.

This is an extract from the New Scientist article that Michael references: " Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence."

"several dozen peer-reviewed articles" gives me a lot of confidence in this summary of the research evidence.

"Peer-reviewed."

So they had their like-minded buddies at Yale, Dartmouth, and Princeton have a gander, and they agreed?

Then surely, it's unanimous!

You're making a lot of assumptions. There is no evidence he threatened to hack Olsen's kids into little chunks. They may have said nothing at all and just had the weapons there as a way to get compliance. For all you know, it could have been a kebab shop owner. An otherwise lovely man whose never done a wrong deed in his life. Quarantine caused his kebab shop to close, he went under and the bailifs cleaned him out leaving him with only his meat clever. In a moment of hunger fueled despair, he decided to break into Olsen's house looking for some scraps to feed his kids.

Kind of like the numerous economic emeritus types who backed the Big Banks in multiple written pieces in 2007?

If any peer reviewer backs a flawed piece of research, they put their reputation and career at stake

Watch the latter part of Inside Job and see how Academia actually functions. Very interesting. People pay you to write research into topics.

They pay you well. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

Quick clip if you can't be bothered:

Link

I'll bet you a bunch of the people inside Academia that were interviewed in Inside Job are still "respected" and making millions.

So yes, there is gun control on a level. If that's your point.

Moving on, a 25 year-old steroid abusing "macho-man" called Greg Chamberlain, was fatally stabbed in the chest in his own home in Blackpool allegedly by his terrified young girlfriend in 2008. She was arrested.

Evidence then came to light from independent folk who'd seen him drag the girl out of a taxi, slap her to the ground, drag her indoors by the hair and boot her up the hall into the back kitchen. She told the police she'd felt so terrified that she picked up a kitchen knife to ward off any more assaults but he ran straight at her. She said she was back to the wall and as he collided with her the knife handle was on her chest, the tip pointing out. He impaled himself on it. She was never even charged, given the terror she must have been in.

It's all about state of mind in this country, literally in the moment.

As for hunger driving theft, I'm sure you're right these days, amid all the greedy thieves of course.

"I will not allow violence against this house!"

For all you know, it could have been a kebab shop owner. An otherwise lovely man whose never done a wrong deed in his life. Quarantine caused his kebab shop to close, he went under and the bailifs cleaned him out leaving him with only his meat clever. In a moment of hunger fueled despair, he decided to break into Olsen's house looking for some scraps to feed his kids.

Congratulations, you've won the most disingenuous post on TW award.

Sure, exactly spot on. Four dudes - four - with machetes enter your house. I'm sure they're all despondent butchers.

For all I know, monkeys will fly out my arse, too.

Keep it real man.

That's good to know.

Watch the movie, watch the interviews, and as someone with experience inside Academia, explain to me how the hell that happens?

Also, if it happened on a scale involving collapsing the world's economy, might there be other areas where "academic research" is colored by bias, prejudice, or downright money-kickback-greed?

My guess is you're an outstanding person - and I mean that and practically know it to be true, you're a good man of that I have no doubt - so you weren't introduced to anything spurlious because your peers would know you'd not abide in anything of the sort.

But I'm quite sure those types of shenanigans exist inside Academia.

We're moving to quantum mechanics shortly. Stay tuned.

Like, I presume there is a data base of DO NOT SELL FIREARMS to this person or whatever?

But seriously, academic studies apart. Statistics readily available show there are far more murders and violent crimes in the US than in the UK or Western Europe. If there's not a correlation with guns. What is the cause? More bad people? Bad luck?

Is it true what they say, the bigger the gun the smaller the dick?

Some pretty scary comments from our American friends, the thought of a gun battle in my home with armed robbers is the stuff of nightmares. It's only stuff, insured stuff at that - I would give it up straight away if faced with a mugger or a home invader armed with a knife.

If you are wealthy, as these guys are, the answer has to be top-end home security, including dogs if you don't mind the smell.

I can only speak of my state, Florida, which is very, very pro-gun. So please note that.

In Florida, every firearm purchase must undergo a background check. The buyer must clear a background check.

Any purchase of a firearm has a mandatory three day waiting period.

The three day waiting period is waived if you possess a Concealed Carry Permit. So using myself as an example, I can buy a firearm and leave the store with it immediately, because I possess a Concealed Carry Permit. The CCP has a stringent background check and takes 3-4 weeks on average to be accepted or be denied. As such a stringent check has been performed already, that enables the buyer to forgo a background check when purchasing.

Insofar a firearms are concerned, the only thing I've seen in shops are handguns, rifles (hunting, AR15 variants, etc.), and shotguns. I've never seen any "massive" guns or anything of the like. Then again, I never looked for them because honestly they're ridiculous, I have no need for that kind of firepower.

That's the basics.

If you take suicides into account, you are over 60 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the USA than the UK.

In 2019, 1 out of every 8,200 (ish, there's varying figures) people in the USA died as a result of a gun. That's not 1 in 8,200 deaths, that's 1 person for every 8,200 in the living population died as a result of a gun.

To put it in perspective, if the number of deaths from guns in the UK was the same percentage wise as the USA, Liverpool alone would see 63 deaths per year while the country as a whole would see over 8,000 deaths. We currently, as a country, see around 130.

There really is no debate.

But it's a massive leap to dismiss, as you seem to do, all of the research from all those universities you reference. Some footballers have been found cheating by taking bribes to throw matches - it's a massive jump to conclude that all footballers are at it.

I can neither confirm or deny the size-to-compensation ratio of the firearm to the penis.

I would argue that people who do not take firearm responsibility and safety seriously and as gospel are more likely to buy a bigger gun, and consequently have a smaller cock.

But I can't prove that.

I've enjoyed getting very little done today, and this thread greatly. I've never minded being a lone or minority voice, and I enjoy the debate.

Be assured later this evening I will revisit this thread and address any posts to the "'American Gun Nut" that is Jamie Crowley.

Don't be scared, I'm no where near any of you. If my thoughts and ideas on gun ownership disturb you, it won't be coming to a theater near you any time soon, or probably ever.

I once went hunting with a gun nut in Wyoming years ago. I'm a (was) pretty decent shot but I couldn't bring myself to kill those defenceless deer. I don't get your obsession with fucking hunting either!

How are the boys, Jamie? Converted any more to the blue cause?

If that's meant to be humour? I guess it's marmite homour, you either love it or hate hit, I'm not seeing it.

I'm not going along with those ridiculous suppositions you've put forwared.

And regards this CCP and the STRINGENT background check, like is this permit forever or has it a time frame for renewal ?

It all seems crazy to me to be honest in how you can buy the gun so easy and presumably every state might have different laws.

Most or at least a decent number of us like to think we would defend our home to the hilt. Not sure it's quite that easy in reality and probably, by far, the most sensible option is to let the intruders have what they want (in materialistic terms that is) particularly if they are armed. It may not end well if they are confronted - what if they injured or worse a family member as a result of you attacking them? Of course, they may just run off, but there again they may not.

Thank goodness you know all this stuff.

As you say, my good friend, keep it real. It's good have someone on TW who is, as Winston said to his friend Jonathan, “Para bellum.”

So you advocate arming children and telling them to pull their guns out if stopped by policemen?

Tom

In all probability the burglars are wankers. But I'm not a fan of killing people. Even in America burglary isn't a capital offense. There are many people who commit crimes and some change their ways. Just assuming every criminal is an insidious demon and summarily executing them isn't the way to go.

I noticed those you quoted way back on this thread are mostly from a different era :
Alexander Hamilton died 1804.
Richard Henry Lee died 1794.
Karl Marx died 1883.
Thomas Jefferson died 1826.
Andrew Fletcher quote from 1698.

Thankfully the free world has evolved and has 'mostly' moved on from those dim and distant days, with the health and welfare of it's inhabitants now front and centre.

TY for the kind words.

Oliver -

Not too sure about details of what the background check entails. The CCP lasts for a period of 7 years. If at any time you're found guilty of any gun misdemeanor, or any felony (clearly...) your CCP is revoked. There's a bunch of other rules as well I don't have time to list - can't carry on Federal property, at a school, in a bar, to a sporting event, etc.

Mike @ 207 -

You can have the last word.

Frank @ 212 -

They don't teach anything in the schools about guns to my knowledge. I'd argue that's my responsibility as parent. Finally, yes, most of my sons hold the same view as I do. My oldest abhors firearms. He won't shoot, he doesn't like them, but he does believe I should have a right to own and carry. He's actually very, very liberal and we disagree on most things politics. The rest of the boys (5 in total) are all very pro-gun, pro Second Amendment.

"Dale that's just an recent example do you think that only happens once a year?"

Tragically as Kevin pointed out it happens 130 times a year in the UK. Which is 130 times too many but much less than the 8,200 figure for the US where guns are available.

But, you indicated you'd like to serve vigilante justice. You don't need a gun for that. Criminals are not hard to find. Maybe not the specific perp for a specific crime but criminals in general. I don't know where you live but right here now, or when I lived in Manchester or London, I knew exactly when and where I could find criminals.

My wife and I actually have spoken about, and had at one point in time, made tentative plans, to "live" in Liverpool for a year.

I then found out, through the wealth of knowledge that is TW, that I'd only be allowed to stay in England for 6 months if I wasn't working. Fair enough.

The topic of not having a firearm did come up, interestingly enough. I can tell you I'd feel naked, and I'd not like it at all.

But - your roof, your rules. The desire to make it over there, stay for months, and attend as many Everton games as possible in that time frame, outweighs any sense of comfort I'd have carrying. By a long shot, I'd add.

But I'd not like it. Usually, when the family travels up north to New England (ancestral Crowley grounds), we stay in New Hampshire. New Hampshire recognizes Florida's CCP - there's reciprocity. So the gun stays with me. When we've travelled to Cape Cod in Massachusetts, the gun stays home. My permit isn't recognized, and it's against the law for me to have my firearm on me.

Different States, different rules. I'd follow the laws of England were I there, just as I'd follow any law of any State I'm in, over here.

Paul Ferry @ 22 I missed your post entirely! Apologies.

I hope you are well, sir!

Might have been best not to have brought in America on this thread Jamie. But once you did, in the context that you did it in, I know that you, a good man without any shadow of a doubt, would have been nothing but surprised if it had slipped by unremarked.

This is admittedly true.

Paul, I've said my peace in what must be the single most highjacked thread in TW history - and I stand guilty on that count. But clearly I couldn't disagree with you more, or your assertion that pro-Second Amendment supporters view the Amendment as a license to kill. That's simply not accurate or true.

It's a topic I have a lot of passion about. I see it as a fundamental human right. There's nothing misconstrued about the Framer's intentions on the Second Amendment. I've made my argument above, been taken to task by multiple persons, and stand by my interpretation of the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment. I would argue you're interpreting the verbiage and meaning of the 2nd incorrectly.

We've been down this road. If you do some research you'll find a lot of very intelligent, level-headed politicians, philosophers, etc. who agree with me. Likewise, you'll find a lot of the same folks who do NOT agree with me and agree more with your view of the 2nd.

All I can say is I am personally relieved beyond words that my side of the argument has stayed the test of time, and for now is the interpretation that's won the day. And again, I see the right to defend oneself in whatever means he or she deems fit, to be a basic fundamental human right that can not and should not be prevented by any government.

Cheers. Always good to see you post, I wish you did so more often.

I'll be sure to stir the hornet's nest in the future to bring you out of your TW hibernation.

I'll give you one thing, you can debate (literally) matters of life and death with people who have polar opposite views without getting under anyone's skin or seeming dislikeable. Others on here can't seem to offer comment on Carlo Magnifico without inciting WWIII

Thank you.

I will concede a point, and then I swear to God above I'm done with this.

Individuals who oppose the Second Amendment are arguably better people than those who support the 2nd. They don't want to see people die. They don't want violence. They want and yearn for peace and a peaceable society.

Those are, inarguably, positive human characteristics.

Conversely, there is a degree of positive human quality in those of us who want and yearn for the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, and our way of life.

The two opinions clash, as opinions do. But by and large, the individual persons debating the topic on both sides are good folk.

It's the demonization of my side that I take issue with.

I have a whole set of cousins, aunts, and uncles in and around New England who despise my stance on the 2nd. They are some of the most decent human beings walking earth. That doesn't change because I disagree with them. And I see a lot of TWers I've come to know over the years (as only one can come to "know" someone on a website admittedly) disagree to their very core with my stance.

They might disagree vociferously, and throw in the occasional personal barb. Hell, I do it all too often. But that doesn't mean or equate to those persons not being decent, good people. Far from it, they're probably better people than I.

I simply see this argument in a different light than they do. And I'm not alone.

Defending the 2nd on TW is like, in the words of the immortal Davey Moyes, taking a knife to a gun fight. Hope you've enjoyed that rather shitty pun.

I hope Carlo, Olsen, and their families are well, sleep soundly, and are safe in their homes.

The 2nd Amendment was interpreted incorrectly via DC vs Heller. It was written at a time prior to a professional regular military, most vociferously supported by slaveholding colonists after several revolts. I could go on.

Having said all that, I could support the privilege of gun ownership, limited to weapons and ammunition designed for home defense, hunting, and other marksmanship activities. But that's what we used to have before paranoid radicals took over the NRA.

Instead, what we actually have now is a paranoid suburban and rural populace fighting a conjured tyranny, slinging military weaponry in shopping malls around children. Many states have extended the Castle Doctrine, (a set of legal principles defining home defense,) to one's car operating in public space. Gun ownership has exploded.

I don't know where Mr. Crowley lives but I live in one of those scary cities you've heard about. Somehow record levels of guns have only increased criminal activity. Gunshots are frequent. Murder and robbery at record highs. They're not fighting tyranny here, but rather each other. This is the real motivation of the gun lobby: make millions on the slaughter of urban populations.

You don't want this, British friends.

I guess it depends on how many lives a society is willing to sacrifice to safeguard historic rights, norms or beliefs. 15,000 deaths per annum strikes me as an atrociously high price to pay.

To out my comments a little bit more succintly:

Jamie, the 2nd amendment was from hundreds of years ago. We should be a much more civilised society, the idea was guns helped to keep the peace, I'd argue that the number of deaths from guns in the US and innocents at the hands of the Police (protect and serve?) is completely unacceptable and not 'peaceful'.

Jay, genuinely shocked with your comment about the Jews. I can't even think where that assertion has come from mate. Trained soldiers would have massacred the shop keepers, lawyers, jewellers a hell of a lot more quickly than they did.

I can't believe the police don't know who is doing these robberies, it must be the same gang.

Why would you feel naked and uncomfortable in an environment where there was little - statistically at least - threat to you and your family? For me, this is perhaps the true crux of the argument.

Judging from your posts (correct me if I'm wrong) you feel that you have the sole and inalienable right to be judge, jury and executioner in a conflict. That's what the gun gives you, right?

In the UK we don't recognise that as an individual right (or human right as you call it). We don't adhere to that process. Our social contract determines that institutions do that for us. Conflict resolution, for us, is best managed through the trained agents of law and justice. For better or worse we trust the system. Of course, there are times when the system doesn't deliver but on balance it does. The stats show it. And should our system need amending (as all good systems do with the passage of time) we have a process for that.

In a society where there are more guns than people, on what basis do you believe justice is better served to the people? If indeed there is ‘due process' inside the heads of gunslingers then it isn't well described (I may be wrong), certainly isn't uniform and couldn't possibly be implemented as an equitable system of law and justice. And in many ways after each mass shooting in the US the ‘It's not the gun it's the person' excuse is testament to the conundrum. Jamie, how many ‘guns in the wrong hands' cases are there, at this moment, as we speak? My guess is that it's running into the millions.

Gunslinging may well be exciting, exhilarating and in some cases self-affirming, but it's no way to ensure justice in a mature society.

An interesting discussion to be sure Jamie and no matter our differences we all stand together under the royal blue flag. UTFT

Programmes of violence,
As entertainment,
Brings the disease into your room.
We know the germ,
Which is man-made in metal,
Is really a key to your own tomb.
Prevention is better than cure,
Bad apples affecting the pure,
You'll gather your senses I'm sure
Then agree to,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more to fire them.
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more desire them.
Children will want them,
Mothers supply them,
As long as your killers are heroes.
And all the media
Will fiddle while Rome burns,
Acting like modern-time Neros.
Prevention is better than cure,
Bad apples affecting the pure,
You'll gather your senses I'm sure
Then agree to,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more to fire them.
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more desire them.
I'm speaking to the Justice League of America.
The you S of A,
Hey you,
Yes you in particular!
When it comes to the judgement day and you're standing at the gates with your weaponry,
You dead go down on one knee,
Clasp your hands in prayer and start quoting me,
'cause we say...
Our father we've managed to contain the epidemic in one place, now,
Let's hope they shoot themselves instead of others,
Help to civilize the race now.
We've trapped the cause of the plague,
In the land of the free and the home of the brave.
If we listen quietly we can hear them shooting from grave to grave.
You ought to,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more to fire them.
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
Melt the guns,
And never more desire them.

Sending Peaceful Cosmic Waves to you all from New Brighton.

It's interesting to read to opposing views - particularly from the pro gun lobby. I don't know, Jamie, where you were bred, born and raised but if you had spent most or all of your life in say New England, do you think your views would be the same?

Florida is renowned for it's gun stance and reading the various comments on here and interfacing them with past history and perceptions I found myself asking "Is it the state that maketh the man, or the man maketh the state?"

If you had grown up in one of those states with more stringent or less liberal gun laws, do you think you would have been motivated to relocate simply to live somewhere that worked better with your own narrative? Or do you think you would have accepted things as they are.

Here in the UK, up until a relativly few years ago it was unusual to see armed law enforcement on the streets but that has changed markedly and broadly speaking we know the reasons why. I have used various guns and rifles in my lifetime, but God forbid that we ever steer remotely towards the sort of gun laws you have in the US. The statistics speak for themselves.

One of them attended the police firing range every month and said his worst performance was 9 bullseye out of 10 shots.

One day police received information that a TAB (Oz betting shop) was to be held up and they set up a stake out. The armed robbers left the premises and shots were exchanged and the marksman officer said he fired 6 shots but hit nothing but his final remark was that he was surprised at how difficult it was when the target shot back.

I've only ever fired weapons at Altcar and the TA range in Aigburth and can say that there is quite a buzz in letting off a burst from a Sten gun but not enough to want me to walk around armed.
I just hope we never reach the time of the preacher or the year of 01.

I lived in a gun-toting county in North Florida and there are are Rights and there are are wrongs.

For me the 2nd Amendment is a wrong and an anacronysm and could be amended again if not deleted

However people in the UK forget that America is a foreign country and like the UK doesnt like others interfering with their sovereignty

Its a vicious circle people carry a gun because he s got one because shes got one etc therefore the risks are very high and the statistics bear this out unfortunately

Yes we are all entitled to free speech and opinions but please stick to supporting the Toffees on this website !!

I am so glad here in the uk, our gun control is strict, not that som are still being used, but not as bad.

If we allowed guns in the uk, every criminal organisation around the uk would be armed, it would be like the opening scene in saving private Ryan within a Month.

It is rife all over the uk, one word that is more powerful than the word racism, is the word grass, such a powerful word, not to be broken by anyone who sees unjust crime.

The reason I say the word grass is because racism is so wrong, and we stand up and speak out, yet the word grass, people remain silent, that for me is a more powerful word.

How can such a word be so protective, that is the world we are living in my friends.

Crime prevention by arming civilians is such a proven model.

Brian #236, so when you come to visit me on the beach, you don't want to go to the local rifle range?

Kevin #229, I understand your complaint, but this was never a thread about football. Were you expecting comments on how the crime would affect Robin's game performances?

More to the point, there are always 3 or 4 active threads on this site where football is the topic. Off-topic discussions like these are, in fact, one reason I cherish TW. I have learned much about history, music, literature, food, travel, politics, fish species and the people here from these debates. I have books on my shelf, songs on my I-Phone and historical knowledge in my head that I would never have become acquainted with except for threads like this. And I have forged valued friendships along the way. It would not be an exaggeration to say that an off-topic medical discussion here a few years ago became a life-changing experience for me.

You can click away if you want to, but I suggest you embrace these exchanges and participate in them. You might just derive great value.

If you'd been meaning to explain the escalation of gun ownership you couldn't have done a better job.

I got one because they got one. And I don't necessarily blame you.

But of course the psychology of gun ownership in the US is far more complicated and the problem is way too deep rooted for easy fixes to be found.

Suffice to say suggesting that US gun legislation be introduced into the UK is beyond risible.

Good point and ties in with the knife is better at 7 feet than a gun. People who are serious about self defence should go to the gym and do some martial arts. With the right moves you could easily dispatch 3 or 4 invaders pretty quickly without anyone getting killed. If you kill a killer there's the same number of killers in the world. No guns. No Killing.

I spent most of last night investigating about the pros and cons of being able to buy a gun in the (as Bill Gall says) DSA.

Jamie Crowley has been very informative and he feels comfortable having his gun, and I guess if it is allowed then the choice is his, but there has to be more wanting to carry a gun 24/7 - your business and I;m not asking Jamie.

Having read the likes of this (below 2020), my opinion is we are better off not being able to buy a gun. Now I don't live there I know, maybe if I did my opinion may change, but knowing you could be walking down the street and get into a row with let's say, a Liverpool-supporting "out of their face" stranger who has a gun doesn't really appeal !

I think we should leave the guns to the professionals – perhaps being allowed to have your gun at home for protection sits better, but the amount of tragedies from accidents in the home is unreal.

2020:

This year, many Americans have experienced significantly higher levels of violence both wrought on and within their communities. Gun violence and gun crime has, in particular, risen drastically, with over 19,000 people killed in shootings and firearm-related incidents in 2020. That's the highest death toll in over 20 years, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), an online site that collects gun violence data, and the Britannia Group's non-partisan site procon.org.

This total includes victims of homicides and unintentional deaths but does not include gun suicides. And despite there being no “large-scale” shootings in 2020, the number of mass shootings—which are classified as an incident in which four or more people are shot and injured or killed—has actually risen, drastically, to over 600, the most in the past 5 years and a nearly 50% increase in 2019's total.

2020 has also been a record-breaking year when it comes to Americans buying firearms. And there is fear amongst activists and experts that this violence will continue in 2021 unless evidence-based, community-led initiatives that can quell the problems are enacted. Sustained financial investment within communities that face daily gun violence is seen by many as the most necessary first step.

“Gun violence is a problem that is really hard to deal with. It's hard for social service agencies to deal with, it's hard for other community organizations to deal with. Let's emphasize the investment needed for an alternative model built around residents and community organizations” Sharkey says. “That should be the starting point.”

Mike, only if I can have an AR-15!

To me, a gun belongs in the house for defense, on the range for competition, or in the field for hunting. Never, ever to be carried in public, either openly or concealed... unless it is your profession to do so.

Brian #245, no problem, and I'll get you a sleeveless t-shirt and a headband so we can take some Rambo photos of you.

Mike G, can I come as well - I have my own and it will be either my R2D2 or my C3PO and I'll decide which when I get to yours.

This is not meant to sound critical but when you talk about carrying a knife for self defence do you not realise how fucked up that is?

I've lived all over the UK mostly in the major cities and at no point would I have ever considered carrying a knife. You just don't need to.

My now-wife was recently subjected to racial abuse which could easily have become physical, and I consider myself responsible for her safety, but at 65 my skills aren't what they used to be. So when I'm with her I occasionally carry the knife, with which I have also had considerable training. Yes, it sucks, but that is the world we live in, especially if you are a minority. Or someone with an instinct to protect people being bullied. Both of which I am.

Brian, that's not the first time I've been asked that question 😉

"Sorry, love, did not realise you were there, my dear, thought it was an intruder."

Right, that's Come Dine With Me, Corrie and Don't Tell The Bride sorted.

I'm actually not taking any moral high ground. You do what you need to do in the circumstances presented.

I'm suggesting that arming civilians undoubtedly makes violence more likely. It's been clearly demonstrated that people who are armed are more likely to be violent.

The US is where it is for a whole load of cultural, socio economic and political factors. I don't pretend there are any easy solutions, although they should be sought. What I am saying to actually consider introducing guns into a country that has none of the same factors would be utter fucking madness.

I once got attacked by 3 lads (all about same age as me - I was 20 at the time) unprovoked, whilst walking back from a party to another party at midnight. It was without doubt the scariest time of my life.

I had the biggest bottle of whisky in my hand and instinctively twatted the guy over the head with it. Don't know how fucked up the guy was - don't really care, however

My point is thank god I didn't have a knife as I didn't think, I just reacted instinctively and without doubt would have just used a knife out of sef-defence. The guy could be dead. And if I had a gun - I'm sure I would have killed all 3 men. Clearly, I would not have wanted that to happen.

I'm not being critical of Mike G or anybody else as a different kettle of fish if defending also a wife and family (it was just me and a random bird I had pulled) - particularly in a minority (I'm white and English - although this happened in Wales 😂). However, I've had mates who sleep with knives under their bed and metal bars and personally I just wouldn't do it - I think it's more likely to escalate and end up in a worse situation than the threat of taking a beating and being robbed.

I hear you. I have been involved in such incidents myself and as you say, you kind of go into auto-pilot when attacked and use whatever physical attributes of weapons on hand. I can also guarantee that a lot of kids in Harlow, Essex near where I grew up that I knew wouldn't be alive now if guns or even knives (bigger than pen knives) were prevalent as there were always violent, often alcohol and I guess hormone fueled violent fights every weekend.

Death Wish 4.
Mike Gaynes is obviously up for the Charles Bronson role.

Dirty Harry.
James Crowley in the starring part.

Go get em boys!

This country is different. America's gun laws go back centuries and back to the days they were protecting themselves from the British.

Now, it's a fad to own a gun and petty arguments can be settled with the hasty decision to draw the gun. (Give everyone a gun and most people will want to see what its capabilities are...)

Why take that chance in this country? That is how our government see it. Even the most privileged and educated people can be swayed by the power of a gun.

Olsen's family are scarred by scum and I wish he himself was allowed to shoot them all but the risk of arming households is very scary.

Then I found Penn and Teller on Youtube. ;0)

I have to share this. Well worth a watch. Only 1:26.

Link

So much for not weighing in. UTFT beat Burnley.

Penn and Teller? The bit part ass clowns from Sabrina The Teenage Witch? The Meatloaf-looking muppet and his creepy-looking mute? I take back my prior compliments, by invoking the name of these two weirdos, you are thus exiled from the land of Kinsella.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In other words, government firearms regulation -- as identified by words "well regulated" -- is, without question, Constitutional.

Jamie, in your post #7 which "triggered" this debate (pun intended), you stated: "The government has no business telling me if I can or can not buy and own a firearm. At least in this country."

The late Justice Scalia says you're wrong, and so does the Second Amendment itself.

Are you familiar with Paul Daniels? English ToffeeWebers; Jamie Crowley is justifying his gun views based on the US equivalent of Paul Daniels. Case rested.

It was funny. I shared it. There are numerous other intellectuals out there, outside of slapstick magicians, who side with me. It just so happens the slapstick magicians boil it down in a way that is so clear, and so down-to-earth and hilarious, it was worth sharing in my opinion.

It's a shame you can't poke fun without such a literal response.

Mike -

"Well regulated" refers to the militia. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. End of. I know you disagree, but unfortunately for your viewpoint, there's like zero chance enough politicians will agree with your assessment and overturn an Amendment in the Constitution. And I'm almost 100% positive the current sitting Supreme Court, if any law to overturn the 2nd Amendment were presented to them, will agree with my way of thinking.

I simply unequivocally disagree with your reading and interpretation of the Amendment. You can cite the (superb) Justice Scalia all you want. His words make it quite clear - he refers to felons, mentally ill, and carrying in places where there are children are and in government buildings. All of which are currently enforceable / illegal and all of which I – and every law-abiding citizen – adhere to. He says nothing controversial. He was a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms. Nothing he said in your quote would overturn the right to bear arms. He cites reasonable instances where that right should be regulated.

He also says, as you quote:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

The key here is the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, you could buy a canon. The Founders knew this.

Also, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the Founders were, I'm quite sure, aware of the fact that the firearm itself would evolve. The Kentucky Long Range Rifle won the war for us in no small part. An evolution of the musket.

And it was?

A sniper rifle. Again, an evolution of the musket. A sniper rifle. One they loved, one that won them independence, and one they didn't dare make illegal for the populace to own. They knew, full damn well, firearms would only grow in potency. Yet they still made it a fundamental right for the citizenry to have one and own one.

Canons, sniper rifles, AR-15s. 'Merica. Come and take it when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Why?

Because a free man is only a free man when he can defend himself in whatever means he deems fit.

The second amendment does not "give" the right to private citizen to bear arms. That right was always there. The second amendment guarantees that right will not be infringed.

God bless. Goodnight. UTFT beat Burnley.

YEEEE HAAAAWWWW!!!

AM A GOIN GID ME A RAFLE NOW DANN GOIN WRASSLE A GATOR!!!!

I find it a shame you won't defend your family and possessions against those who would do you harm with a show of force. You don't allow those who will do you harm the upper hand. It's a shame you're naive enough to think the harmless way will protect you and your loved ones.

Your point is valid and has been recognized previously in this thread. There's no reason to be condescending. "It's a shame" only pertains to your opinion. And talking down to people will get you no where.

The subject matter goes back to this:

Four men with machetes break into your home with your wife and kids present.

Machetes. In your house. Machetes.

At that point I'd feel the need to have the easiest means of causing death, justifiably, for my self defense and more importantly the defense of my family.

If you don't like that way of thinking, don't break into my home.

I was just giving you shit mate not being serious

I don't judge how you live your life and any choices you make under the laws of your country.

I'm just glad I live in a country where guns are not completely out of control and have no desire to see them introduced.

Out of interest there are about 300 justifiable homicides each year compared to about 13 000 gun murders in the US.

I'm just glad I live in a country where guns are not completely out of control and have no desire to see them introduced.

That's fair mate. Totally.

Citing death statistics is sobering, and sad. It is true, the USA will absolutely have more deaths via firearms than England. The mere proliferation of firearms will ensure that we will always lead in that sad statistic.

Si -

You, and apparently thousands of other Americans are perpetually living in fear

I live in great comfort, without an ounce of fear, because I can defend myself and my family.

If I've grinded your gears in any way, I'd argue that's a good thing. Your initial disgust at what you see as offensive equates to a desire to not see people blown to bits. No one wants that. But a peaceable, law abiding citizen should not be deprived the right to protect himself, with a show of deadly force I'd add, because others find it "disturbing". Which it definably is not I'd add. If you lived here, you can make your choice to be unarmed. But you can't make that choice for me, and I'd argue you don't have a right to, again guaranteed in the Constitution.

The larger, real gear-grinding issue of whether that right is inalienable or God-given, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

I honestly had no idea - and this is why these conversations are such a fantastic thing for me - that you could own a crossbow or a compound bow in England.

What it meant then has absolutely no place in today's society.

That is simply your opinion, and one I'd argue is flawed beyond belief.

The 2nd has a very, very meaningful and rightful place in today's society. The right of an individual to protect him or herself has not changed in 200+ years. In fact, if anything, it's grown in significance.

Again, to say the Founders didn't understand the fact that the firearm would evolve when they wrote the 2nd is simply insulting their intelligence. Do you think they didn't consider the evolution of weaponry when they wrote it? Of course they did.

And they still made sure that no one could take that right away from the people.

You speak of "rules" and I speak of "rights".

Again, the right to bear arms always existed in this country. It's how we - and I'm quite sure you know this - won independence. The 2nd guarantees that right will not be taken away. Like forever.

That concept is not outdated.

Most on here are UK based and find your "right" totally alien.
We're allowed to, that's our "right."
If you were posting on an American sports website mostly populated by Americans things may be different, but you're not.

My last word on the subject, which has hijacked the thread too much already IMHO.

Perhaps it is to do with American national identity. At heart they like to think they are frontiersmen, just like Frenchmen like to think they are small farmers in la France profonde.

As to your statement that "...a free man is only a free man when he can defend himself in whatever means he deems fit"... you need to add the words "as the law allows". You may deem it fitting to put a bullet in the attacker's head after the two to the chest (your self-cited technique), but if you do it, you won't remain a free man very long, and you won't be one again for at least ten years.

But -

If we take my two to the chest, one to the head approach (quip), The laws here allow the use of deadly force inside my home against an aggressor.

That's the landscape we are discussing with Olsen. I'd not go to jail for a single millisecond in this state if 4 dudes armed with machetes entered my home and I eliminated the threat with 12 bullets - 2 to the body and one to the head, for each aggressor. So you're not 100% accurate, but you are absolutely right to say, and I concur with, "as the law allows."

Thats the key bit, you're spot on there.

Brian @ 293 -

Most on here are UK based and find your "right" totally alien.
Yes. I realize that clearly.

We're allowed to, that's our "right."
Agreed. 100%.

If you were posting on an American sports website mostly populated by Americans things may be different, but you're not.
Agreed. 100%.

Then to give you context on the crossbows and compound bows, just like specific firearms, they are perfectly acceptable for sporting purposes in the UK. You can even get away with target practice on your own patch of lawn, though in most urban situations in the UK you're likely to be told to desist in no uncertain terms for the safety of your neighbours.

You can't openly carry anything strung (and therefore ready to shoot) in public so cross-bows and compound bows must be cased. Absolutely no hunting of any creature is permitted.

Personally I have a competition standard recurve bow that could certainly be a deadly weapon if I ever had that inclination, an uncustomised air rifle and a couple of fencing swords in the cupboard but they certainly wouldn't be my first option if anyone broke in to my flat. I have a nicely weighted socket set wrench and a sturdy pickaxe handle which I reckon could do enough serious but non-lethal damage to deter anything other than genuinely homicidal intruders. Not that I keep them under the bed or anything. I really do go to bed at night not ever thinking it at all likely that someone will break in with me at home. That's the peace of mind that I thank God for.

My cache of weapons are purely for sporting endeavours although they are a useful back-up plan for the zombie apocalypse or the collapse of society and a Mad Max style dystopian future.

Like I've said I like firearms. I've shot Sterling sub-machine gun (smg), Enfield 303, SLR, lmg (Bren), gpmg, over and under shotguns, Parker Hale target rifles and trained on Browning 9mm and a few different anti-tank weapons and enjoyed every second on the range. But if I ever thought my average day-to-day existence relied on having a deadly weapon loaded and ready to use then my God would be getting an earful of stern words not fulsome praise and gratitude.

Personal favourite is the Bren. What a piece of craftsmanship that is, a joy to shoot. Very clever, those Czech chappies, to have come up with a weapon that pretty much got retired early (after decades of faithful service) because it was too accurate in bursts!

Your last two posts are simply wonderful. Brilliantly posed, intelligent, compelling.

After 6-7 drinks while at the beach this evening, and typing on my phone and not at my computer, please know I'd like to respond, but now is not the ideal time.

I will tomorrow evening / Monday morning. My kid has a game tomorrow in Tampa and we will be on the road all day.

But I will respond. Just know I doff my cap to you. And I appreciate your alternative viewpoint - it's really well stated.

My answer will run deep, and not for the feint of heart. But your post is so superb, I feel an obligation to try to respond now out of respect.

No matter what I say tomorrow in response, well played. And I mean that in all sincerity. It's that exact type of post that is worthy of thoughtful rebuttal and respect.

Tomorrow. Cheers. Respect.

It was a wartime incident, entirely legitimate, and without doubt a “kill or be killed” situation. Nevertheless, he carried the pain and horror of the act with him until his own death many years later.

This will become a trend.
Players need to do themselves and thier families a favour.
Stop the social media photos showing them wearing watches that cost more than the average man earns in two years.
Its an open invitation to the scum burglars.

Maybe they should up their game an adapt a mind your house mate on match Days.

Another option being clubs could adopt a type of Brookside type close, but better houses and a gateway you have to enter, with the properties having protection from the outside, panic buttons fitted around the house, that will alert the police, if you keep the players closer in one area, it will be that much harder to target a property, than one out on its own.

It is happening more and more now, and will keep on happening, until something is done.

I agree with some who mention players wearing expensive watches and putting them on social platforms.

Take a leaf out of Ronnie O, Sullivan, he wears a £2.99 Casio watch, his reasoning, it tells him the same time as any other watch.

What I do know. We DONT do the above and it will be a real good hiding

After 11 hours - yes ELEVEN - in the car with horrific traffic on Sunday for a single youth soccer game, and being exhausted Sunday night and basically all day Monday, I'm now getting back to you.

I'll address your issues with two separate posts.

The first -

I think I need to be more clear about the use of a firearm. If I'm mugged in a park and someone wants my wallet, and I'm carrying, do you know what I do? I give the dude my wallet and back up, then I let him get away. I then open up a couple of apps on my phone, cancel my credit cards, and call the authorities. Why?

Because I don't want to harm or God forbid kill another human being.

There's a rule about drawing your firearm I personally love.

If you can run, run.

I strongly believe that the vast majority of persons who own firearms feel the exact same way.

In the context we are discussing, we are faced with a scenario of four (presumably) full grown men wielding machetes with your wife and kids in the house. You have to, quite quickly, assess the situation and contemplate what is the appropriate response. You also need to know your local and state firearm statues, or have a damn good working knowledge of you exposure should you choose to draw your weapon. Once that thing comes out, for lack of a more professional phrase, shit gets serious.

Where I live, if four armed men came into my house with machetes, I could use lethal force. I would argue, personally, that response is more than justified under the circumstances. Unless they are down-on-their-luck butchers as Kieran suggested earlier in the thread. 😂 [Joke]

You say:

the first duty of any man is to be a decent and compassionate human being so that his kids can grow up to be that way too. Society needs rational and proportionate responses to any given situation. That doesn't exclude providing security and protection for your loved ones.

I can tell you reading that is where I basically was moved by your words. You are, without question in my opinion, 100% spot on. Just because you arm yourself, however, doesn't equate to being a decent and compassionate human being, or making your kids grow up that way.

I carry in large part to protect people around me. Before you or anyone starts screaming insane vigilante, the only thing I can say is that if a good man or woman is proficient in firearms, and someone was violent or there was an active shooter situation, I personally would become engaged - without a second's hesitation of thought - attempting to neutralize the threat and protect innocents around me.

If that seems goody-two-shoes or silly or inane to you or anyone else, I can't help that. Someone starts shooting - and we know all too well that can and does happen, I half hope I'm there to MINIMALLY take the attention off of an innocent target and place it squarely on me. It might save lives.

But the idea of simply "drawing your weapon for fun" or when you're simply confronted? No. Never.

A good friend in college of mine, his Dad was FBI. He infiltrated major drug rings. He told his son, Brian Killgalon, "Never point a weapon at someone unless you intend on killing them."

Firearms aren't a toy. They are nothing to be taken lightly. If there are people in society that don't take that responsibility as seriously as I do, that shouldn't equate to nullifying my right to arm myself.

Now, part 2...

I'm Catholic. I attend Mass every week. I have 5 sons because my wife and I practiced natural family planning. I attend Confession. My sons were all Altar boys. I unabashedly believe in the existence of God. There's a deep, deep dive after what I'm about to say I won't entertain as it runs so deep Michael will immediately jump in and shut 'er down.

The Catholic Church maintains that the right for a human being to defend himself must be proportionate to the threat posed. It's very gray. But one thing that isn't gray is this:

It is not a mortal sin, by the teachings of my Catholic Church, to use lethal force in situations that are warranted.

the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the right to use lethal force in self-defense, including on behalf of others, when the use of this force is moderate—i.e., when it is not practical to use less force (CCC 2264-2265).

God's greatest gift is life. Thou Shalt not Kill - indeed.

But standing by and doing nothing while people around you could be killed is tantamount to not respecting life itself.

And that last sentence you can dissect all day long. But for me, backed by my Catechism, I'm A-OK to carry and use that weapon when faced with four wicked men armed with machetes while my wife and kids are standing by basically powerless to stop them.

“Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

Be well.

Jamie, with all the respect in the world to your save-the-day intentions, this is another in the category of your 12-shots-12-hits assertion. According to my friend the retired Treasury agent, you can't have the slightest idea whether you would become engaged or not -- nobody knows how they will react to being under fire until it actually happens -- and absolutely no one without extensive training will ever react to that situation "without a second's hesitation or thought".

Even four of JFK's Secret Service agents hesitated under fire when Oswald started shooting -- including the head of the detail, who had 21 years of training and experience but froze and failed to throw his body on the stricken president before the fatal shot.

You just can't know.

If I heard shots, I'd be on guard and do what I can, including shooting (assuming the line of sight behind the aggressor was clear of innocents) to minimally draw attention.

The SS for JFK had to hesitate - there was a crowd of civilians. They can't just turn, light the place up towards the area they think the shots came from, and "do the whole village" Mike!

What I'm communicating is I'd have no compunction to open fire if that situation presented itself. And the concept of carrying to protect people around you I'm trying to convey as well.

Hopefully that phraseology works better.

If you heard gunshots, would you be shaken? Not stirred?

Hang in there mate.

You have the right to defend your family regardless of this amendment or that ruling.
Nobody can take that away from you.
Im all for gun control, but if someone burgles your home, when your wife and children are home, the gloves are off.
That is the bottom line.

Jamie, it is obvious to glean from your entire TW posting history that you are a good man. Intelligent. Eloquent. Humorous. Hardworking. Self-employed. Passionate and devout to your family, your God, your Church, your sports teams, your nation.

Other than put up the link I did to Jim Jeffries' very funny skit on US Gun Control, I deliberately refrained from contributing to your sub-theme on this thread. However, your reference to Catholic Catechism piqued my interest, so I did some digging.
Why? Because a bit like Si Copper I struggle to understand how devout Christians (and other faiths) in the US square their religious beliefs with that of a perceived ‘right' to possess and use of deadly weapons.

Like many who are pro-gun in the US, the second amendment is the cornerstone in your defence of private gun ownership. The single most powerful lobby group in favour of guns is the National Rifle Association (NRA), so I did some digging into that also.

Let me start with the NRA. Founded in 1871 in New York State, originally it was a local club intended to provide a shooting range for riflemen to improve their marksmanship. Its primary stated goal was to ‘promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.' Very gradually, the NRA opened similar rifle clubs in other states for gun enthusiasts. It most definitely was not the aggressive gun lobby association it is today.

In 1934 its then President Karl Frederick addressed a congressional hearing which was considering the introduction of the National Firearms Act (NFA) intended to restrict certain types of weapons. Frederick testified 'I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.'

In 1968 the NRA also supported the Gun Control Act (GCA), which placed restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms

In the 1970s the NRA – until then a non-partisan group – increasingly aligned itself with Conservative politicians and the Republican Party in particular. In 1975, it moved to be more politically active and established an influential lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

This is when NRA activists started tying the Second Amendment to the movement and a schism developed between incumbent leaders who wanted to adhere to GCA, the existing gun control legislation, and radicals who wanted no such restrictions.

Indeed, in 1957 when the NRA moved into new headquarters the motto at the building's entrance, read, ‘Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.' NOTHING about freedom, self-defence or rights.

Only in 1977 did the NRA motto change to its existing one: ‘The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.' A parred down excerpt from the Second Amendment omitting the ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State'.

In the decades since then the NRA have successfully chipped away at US gun control legislation such as the overturning of a ban on Assault Weapons in 2004.

This politicization of the NRA became ever more influential in the corridors of power. In 1976 it established the Political Victory Fund which continues to this day. In 1999 Fortune magazine considered the NRA the most powerful lobbying group 3 years in a row. In 2012, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats in Congress had received a contribution from this NRA fund at some time. Those numbers overwhelmingly in support of the Republican Party remained high in the most recent elections, as these link shows:

NRA Republican Support 2020

The NRA is now hugely influential in shaping American gun control policy. It has not lost a major battle over gun control legislation since 1994. It successfully lobbied Congress in the mid-1990s to effectively halt government-sponsored research into the public health effects of firearms. It helped ensure legislation in 2005 to immunize gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits, as well as deregulating guns at state and local level (eg inhibiting local governments ability to regulate/restrict guns in public places such as bars and campuses).

I make a point of presenting this brief history of the NRA Jamie because in this thread you offer the extremely (IMO) naïve opinion that ‘The government has no business telling me if I can or can not buy and own a firearm.'

My response to that is: ‘Oh yes they fucking do, Jamie. They have an obligation to govern for the common good'. And evidently the NRA does all in its power to influence government on all levels to implement policies that serves THEIR interests, and not for the common good.

As for the Catholic Church's position on gun control, this article Catholic Church on Gun Violence on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) site is very explicit, listing how it supports different measures to address gun violence, including:

* A total ban on assault weapons (the NRA successfully opposed this)
* Measures controlling the sale and use of firearms
* Universal background checks for all gun purchases
* Limiting civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines
* Regulating and limiting the purchase of handguns
* Measures to make guns safer

They ask that ‘Catholics and all people of good will are urged to contact their Senators and Representative to support policy and legislative measures that uphold the safety and wellbeing of all persons in our communities.'

This Catholic News Agency (CNA) article discusses What the Church Does – and Does Not – Teach About Gun Control

Following yet another mass shooting in 2019, US Catholic bishops issued this statement: ‘We encourage Catholics to pray and raise their voices for needed changes to our national policy and national culture as well.'

The article quotes two moral theologians on the question of gun control as viewed from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Fr. Thomas Petri makes it clear, as you did Jamie, that there is the principle of self-defence as part of the Church's moral teaching. You have a right to defend your life and to defend the lives of those under your care, such as your family.

Fr. Thomas added that ‘If it ends up being that you, inevitably, must kill an assailant to protect your life or the life of those under your roof, then that is a moral choice you can make. That would be a legitimate choice.'

Another moral theologian Dr. Kevin Miller echoes this sentiment, that self-defence falls under the Church's teachings about the respect for life.

'You are commanded to respect the life of others. You are also commanded to respect your own life - love your neighbour as yourself. So out of love for your own life, you're allowed to protect your own life.'

Both make an important distinction about ‘intent'. That you must never intend to kill someone as an end, or as a means to an end. It is only morally permissible to apply lethal force when someone intending to defend themselves or their family must apply lethal force because it is the only thing deemed reasonable to stop the assailant.

The article quotes the same Catechism as you do Jamie - Paragraph 2264 – but more fully:

‘Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.'

However – and this is very much tied into the full text of the Second Amendment – the Catholic Church does NOT morally support the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government.

Fr. Petri notes ‘there is no amount of firearms that a private citizen could collect or gather that would overpower a government.'

Both theologians also comment on states protecting the common good. Dr. Miller said:

‘The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community, hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.'

He even quotes another Catholic Catechism, Paragraph 2316:

‘The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and undermine the international juridical order.'

Dr. Miller makes a clear distinction here, which may or may not appease you Jamie:

‘If the state were to say, ‘you're never allowed to defend yourself in any way,' or ‘you're never allowed even to do anything that might involve using lethal force as self-defence,' that would simply be to take away a basic right, and the state even in the name of the common good would not be allowed to do that, that would be unjust.

‘However, it would be fair to conclude that the rights of states to ensure the common good could include gun regulations, including what kind of guns people can own and under what circumstances people can own them.

‘For the state to say, for example, that widespread access to certain kinds of guns might end up endangering the safety of people more than promoting the safety of people, therefore we're going to regulate to some degree what kinds of guns can be bought and sold, and under what kind of circumstances they can be bought and sold, I think that would be also absolutely in keeping with what the Church teaches.'

Fr. Petri concurs saying: ‘The state is regularly entrusted to regulate other things that affect the common good, such as who is and is not allowed to own and drive cars, or who is allowed to distribute and obtain certain kinds of medicine.

'When you talk about firearms, you're talking about a larger impact on the common good precisely because guns can be all the more harmful to others and to oneself than, say, simply driving a car.

‘A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what's the reason for that? Well, it's to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. The Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they're in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.' [my emphasis]

On the question of the right to bear arms Fr. Petri said nowhere in its teachings does the Church state that people have ‘an inherent natural right to bear arms', even though their legitimate use could fall under the principle of self-defence.

Conversely, Fr. Petri says the Church is not absolutely against the possession of firearms. ‘I don't think you can go that far to the other side, because it's not a settled question. Possessing firearms is not an intrinsic evil. It's a prudential matter.'

Dr. Miller concludes, given the Catholic Church's broad teachings, that Catholics need to use their own best prudential judgement on gun policy. That each individual should ‘inform him or herself regarding the evidence on what kinds of gun control measures are or are not helpful in making communities and states safer rather than unsafe places'.

Yes, there is a lot of conflicting studies and claims, but Catholics [all of us] must do their best to be ‘intellectually honest' and seriously consider ALL evidence on gun policy when making these decisions.

Basically, be honest with yourself. It requires a mini examination of conscience.

Miller makes the following appeal:
‘Ask yourself, ‘Am I really doing my best not to be an idealogue or partisan about this? Am I really doing my best to try, based on the evidence that I have access to, to figure out what policies do and don't make sense?'

In conclusion, bringing this all back to your posts within this thread Jamie, in any search for ‘intellectually honesty', I would suggest each individual needs to question US culture which Fr. Petri describes as ‘our culture is one that seems to glory in excessive violence, seems to promote excessive violence…when you have a culture that doesn't seem to value life intrinsically anymore, it should be no surprise that we have these [violent] events happening.'

I'm not trying to diss you Jamie when I say you appear very much a child of US culture, as one would expect.

You ‘see a world of bad people'. ‘Absolutely baffled why people wouldn't want to own a firearm'. Portray yourself as a Charles Bronson, able to ‘drop 4 assailants in 5-6 seconds when evil knocks'. That ‘not having a firearm makes you feel naked'. That you take issue with ‘the demonization of your side of the gun debate' (that one cuts both ways, Jamie).

I am a product of a different culture where ‘guns' were simply your index finger and raised thumb playing ‘goodies and baddies' as a kid. Nor do I have your religious faith, much to my wife's chagrin. That's why the ‘God, Guns and Family' phenomena is such an intriguing one for me perhaps.

I now live in a culture in which violence and guns are far, FAR more prevalent than you there in the US. For a quick comparison, in 2018 Brazil once again led the world in total homicide numbers – 57,358, a rate of 27.38 per 100,000 inhabitants. Around 33,000 of those were gun homicides. The US total homicides were 16,214 at a rate of ‘just' 4.96 per 100,000 inhabitants. The vast majority of US homicides – 14,000 – were gun homicides.

Since coming to power two years ago here in Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro has dangerously made home gun ownership even easier, even though 67% of the population oppose such a move.

Take a guess where of the three – the UK, the US or Brazil – I feel safer in?

Your church, your constitution, the US culture, endorses your right to carry and use a firearm. As the moral theologians I quote demonstrate, that doesn't equate to meaning you have to. But if you choose to, do so with intellectual honesty rather than ‘YeeHaa' partisan emotion.

Finally, thank you. You've inspired me to research and learn more on a number of issues. So for that I'm grateful. But on the core issues you raise, I am so pleased to be diametrically opposed to you Jamie.