More Yob Britain..fighting back

[Matty the Damned]

Interesting perspectives. I live in a very strong hunting area. Seeing people carrying around Bowie knives and the like is routine. In fact, there are a pretty decent number who conceal or open carry firearms in these parts. Then again, I'd say a significant portion of us were schooled in using knives and firearms from an early age, mostly through camping and hunting (I don't hunt though).

I personally see little need for firearms. However, they are legal here. So I have a wakizashi in my vehicle, and a concealed carry permit with which I carry a handgun. I wish we didn't have guns, but I'm not going to get caught unprepared. I went to high school with people that have been gunned down (obviously not the apex of humanity), but one cannot be too careful when anyone could be packing.

I don't mean to be forward but you say you have a CCW permit. Are there particular circumstances under which you carry concealed?

MtD

[RPizzle]

Interesting perspectives. I live in a very strong hunting area. Seeing people carrying around Bowie knives and the like is routine. In fact, there are a pretty decent number who conceal or open carry firearms in these parts. Then again, I'd say a significant portion of us were schooled in using knives and firearms from an early age, mostly through camping and hunting (I don't hunt though).

I personally see little need for firearms. However, they are legal here. So I have a wakizashi in my vehicle, and a concealed carry permit with which I carry a handgun. I wish we didn't have guns, but I'm not going to get caught unprepared. I went to high school with people that have been gunned down (obviously not the apex of humanity), but one cannot be too careful when anyone could be packing.

I don't mean to be forward but you say you have a CCW permit. Are there particular circumstances under which you carry concealed?

MtD

I'd have to say that no, not really. I simply carry in that very off chance that a life threatening situation would transpire. I would rather all guns outlawed, but as they are not, its simply for self-defense. I have also taken martial arts for many years, however, a common saying around here is,"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

It's crap, but the dangerous elements have guns, so you have to maintain parity for safety. This is why I have a 12 gauge in my house. I don't like guns, but I trust other people less.

*I'll have to add that a local Subway sandwich shop that I eat at was robbed at gunpoint and the staff murdered a couple months ago. Even though the chances are long, you simply never know.

Edit: *Addtion

[AshtonBlack]

Interesting perspectives. I live in a very strong hunting area. Seeing people carrying around Bowie knives and the like is routine. In fact, there are a pretty decent number who conceal or open carry firearms in these parts. Then again, I'd say a significant portion of us were schooled in using knives and firearms from an early age, mostly through camping and hunting (I don't hunt though).

I personally see little need for firearms. However, they are legal here. So I have a wakizashi in my vehicle, and a concealed carry permit with which I carry a handgun. I wish we didn't have guns, but I'm not going to get caught unprepared. I went to high school with people that have been gunned down (obviously not the apex of humanity), but one cannot be too careful when anyone could be packing.

I don't mean to be forward but you say you have a CCW permit. Are there particular circumstances under which you carry concealed?

MtD

A good friend of mine, an ex-Navy SEAL, living just outside of Vegas, explained about his CCW (We go range shooting everytime I'm there.), and basically he carries a .38 special when travelling anywhere by car. He has a glock 19, loaded and made ready by the bed and a LARGE safe containing things of a larger calibre (and rate of fire.) But, a more pragmatic and sensible chap you will never find. He assures me the ONLY reason he is so stocked, is that this, "The cat went out the bag when we wrote the constitution. Here, the default state you must assume, for any car jack or house invasion is that the perp is armed."

Sad but true.

[Matty the Damned]

Cheers for the answers.

Here in Oz firearms are highly restricted. Graziers are permitted to have bolt action long arms for obvious reasons and sporting shooters keep competition weapons too.

But the idea that a body would pack heat in a public place is an interesting one.

MtD

[RPizzle]

Cheers for the answers.

Here in Oz firearms are highly restricted. Graziers are permitted to have bolt action long arms for obvious reasons and sporting shooters keep competition weapons too.

But the idea that a body would pack heat in a public place is an interesting one.

MtD

My community is rather safe, but the local city is not. I run on the ambulance and do hospital work to get intern hours so that I can get into medical school. Eventually you just take carrying firearms for granted once you see enough GSWs.

[Trolldor]

Thing is, in OZ, firearms are much harder to get your hands on.

[Matty the Damned]

Thing is, in OZ, firearms are much harder to get your hands on.

Depends on who you know Dawg, aight?

MtD

[Thinking Aloud]

It's because knives are easy to conceal, and the inaccessibility to firearms (also comparitively easy to conceal from the naked eye) means the people with the intelligence comparative to that of the gas released by a corpse need to find another 'respectably' fatal weapon that requires minimal experience to kill someone.

I am sure you have a point, but the issue of most concern to me is why young people seem to have ratcheted up their anxiety to increasingly resort to carrying weapons and what lays behind the apparent increase in violence of this type.

If I were to find a soapbox, I'd probably go on at length about "standards" and "respect" and stuff, but if you asked me to summarise, I'd say "rights and responsibilities".

Over the last few decades, "rights" have been enshrined in all kinds of laws and standards here. But there seems to have been precious little "responsibility" to go with them. Children now have the right not to be physically punished - lay a hand on one in a classroom and they know that they can take it to court. Once upon a time, not all that long ago, being sent to the Head's office ran the risk of a swift whack on the hand or behind, and generalising to an extreme, if you then went home and complained to your parents, they'd probably nod sagely and say, "you got what you deserved." We're now onto a second generation of kids who've not received any effective discipline for misdemeanors - suspension and expulsion become prized goals, rather than something to be ashamed of.

I guess what I'm saying is that the lack of school discipline and home discipline, for certain sections of the population, has led to a generation who feel they can't be touched. They've got all these rights not to be touched, but none of the responsibility that goes hand in hand with that. They've learned that bad behaviour at home and school has next to no consequences, and as they've got older, that lack of consequence has continued. "Happy Slap" someone in the street - whatcha gonna do about it? If you try anything I'll knife you.

I'm not sure that I've actually made a point here ... but the rant felt good!

[Trolldor]

The problem with suspension and expulsion is that the parents don't discipline, or can not because of work commitments. The child effectively gets a day off school. For most children in these situations, there is very little difference between being at home and being at school, socially.

[Thinking Aloud]

The problem with suspension and expulsion is that the parents don't discipline, or can not because of work commitments. The child effectively gets a day off school. For most children in these situations, there is very little difference between being at home and being at school, socially.

And that perhaps there's no shame involved any more in some cases. My parents would have been embarrassed and mortified (as would I) had I received so much as a detention - and that potential shame was a huge motivator for me not getting into trouble (perhaps excessively so in my case, but that's another story).

[klr]

It's because knives are easy to conceal, and the inaccessibility to firearms (also comparitively easy to conceal from the naked eye) means the people with the intelligence comparative to that of the gas released by a corpse need to find another 'respectably' fatal weapon that requires minimal experience to kill someone.

I am sure you have a point, but the issue of most concern to me is why young people seem to have ratcheted up their anxiety to increasingly resort to carrying weapons and what lays behind the apparent increase in violence of this type.

If I were to find a soapbox, I'd probably go on at length about "standards" and "respect" and stuff, but if you asked me to summarise, I'd say "rights and responsibilities".

Over the last few decades, "rights" have been enshrined in all kinds of laws and standards here. But there seems to have been precious little "responsibility" to go with them. Children now have the right not to be physically punished - lay a hand on one in a classroom and they know that they can take it to court. Once upon a time, not all that long ago, being sent to the Head's office ran the risk of a swift whack on the hand or behind, and generalising to an extreme, if you then went home and complained to your parents, they'd probably nod sagely and say, "you got what you deserved." We're now onto a second generation of kids who've not received any effective discipline for misdemeanors - suspension and expulsion become prized goals, rather than something to be ashamed of.

I guess what I'm saying is that the lack of school discipline and home discipline, for certain sections of the population, has led to a generation who feel they can't be touched. They've got all these rights not to be touched, but none of the responsibility that goes hand in hand with that. They've learned that bad behaviour at home and school has next to no consequences, and as they've got older, that lack of consequence has continued. "Happy Slap" someone in the street - whatcha gonna do about it? If you try anything I'll knife you.

I'm not sure that I've actually made a point here ... but the rant felt good!

No, I dig the rights v. responsibilities mismatch - it happens to be one of my favourite hobby horses. Along with everything else, a lack of responsibility means a lack of maturity. Being forced to make real-world decisions with real consequences is the key to growing up, yet there appears to be a desire to shield teenagers from this. This to me is what "nanny state" actually means in practice, whereas forcing someone (say) to foot the bill for an alcohol/drug-induced visit to the local A&E would be the exact reverse.

[Thinking Aloud]

No, I dig the rights v. responsibilities mismatch - it happens to be one of my favourite hobby horses. Along with everything else, a lack of responsibility means a lack of maturity. Being forced to make real-world decisions with real consequences is the key to growing up, yet there appears to be a desire to shield teenagers from this. This to me is what "nanny state" actually means in practice, whereas forcing someone (say) to foot the bill for an alcohol/drug-induced visit to the local A&E would be the exact reverse.

Oooh! Same language! Yes, it's as if we don't want to worry kids with such trivialities as making decisions and facing consequences - and if we're allowed to rant to the extremes, one could argue that the fact exams are apparently getting easier is another extension of this. Don't worry about learning anything - we know it's hard, so we'll make it nice and easy for you to get good grades. (Giving kids bad grades makes them feel worthless - must be avoided... Where's the cotton wool?) Rant rant.

Mind you, I have a tendency to extend the A&E idea to lung cancer treatment... Which might make me unpopular.

[klr]

No, I dig the rights v. responsibilities mismatch - it happens to be one of my favourite hobby horses. Along with everything else, a lack of responsibility means a lack of maturity. Being forced to make real-world decisions with real consequences is the key to growing up, yet there appears to be a desire to shield teenagers from this. This to me is what "nanny state" actually means in practice, whereas forcing someone (say) to foot the bill for an alcohol/drug-induced visit to the local A&E would be the exact reverse.

Oooh! Same language! Yes, it's as if we don't want to worry kids with such trivialities as making decisions and facing consequences - and if we're allowed to rant to the extremes, one could argue that the fact exams are apparently getting easier is another extension of this. Don't worry about learning anything - we know it's hard, so we'll make it nice and easy for you to get good grades. (Giving kids bad grades makes them feel worthless - must be avoided... Where's the cotton wool?) Rant rant.

And repeat again on this side. I've worked in the higher education system for nearly 20 years. I can give first-hand evidence on all this, and I also have masses of statistical data to back it all up (were it not for pesky data protection legislation ). The desire to insulate kids/young adults from any sort of unpleasantness or onerous work is very wide-ranging. It goes well beyond obvious things such as "grade inflation" , and permeates every aspect of student life. The stories I could tell ... :twisted:

Mind you, I have a tendency to extend the A&E idea to lung cancer treatment ... Which might make me unpopular.

So do I, where there is a causal link between someone's smoking and said cancer. Big can o' worms there.

[Feck]

TA -"Mind you, I have a tendency to extend the A&E idea to lung cancer treatment... Which might make me unpopular"

But the NHS should give free fertillity treatments ? reconsruct ligaments for sports players ? treat obese people ?
Just where do you draw the line TA ........ Fine no free treatment for smokers ....I'll have a TAX refund then oh and don't bother to treat me
when my liver packs in .....cool the tax refund on my boose will be handy too .


Edit : cost to treat smokers 1.7 Billion . tobacco Tax income 12 billion + income tax +coporate taxs etc

That's a pretty sweet deal And You get to be smug and self-righteous into the bargain

[Thinking Aloud]

TA -"Mind you, I have a tendency to extend the A&E idea to lung cancer treatment... Which might make me unpopular"

But the NHS should give free fertillity treatments ? reconsruct ligaments for sports players ? treat obese people ?
Just where do you draw the line TA ........ Fine no free treatment for smokers ....I'll have a TAX refund then oh and don't bother to treat me
when my liver packs in .....cool the tax refund on my boose will be handy too .

I know... That's why I'd never seriously suggest it. There's nowhere to draw a line, unless you abolish state health care completely.