Right to concealed carry of firearms for self-defense

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.

Why is this idea important?

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.