For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Original post by Hardballer

what planet you on bro? Germany tried to invade Britain, it was called the battle of britain

Planet Earth. They certainly intended to try but they didn't invade, and the Battle of Britain was a pre-cursor to an invasion - not an attempted invasion.

Reply 342

Hardballer

OP

Original post by Emaemmaemily

There are SO FEW guns in the UK, that it's silly to justify making them completely legal to carry based on "needing to defend yourself against guns". Making this legal will just mean ALL of the criminals will have guns, rather then a tiny minority like now.

You're saying one thing yet this news article here says otherwise

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/up-to-4m-guns-in-uk-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-505487.html

thats more than enough to arm every criminal in the country

Reply 343

Emaemmaemily

18

Original post by Hardballer

You're saying one thing yet this news article here says otherwise

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/up-to-4m-guns-in-uk-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-505487.html

thats more than enough to arm every criminal in the country

And yet, there are hardly any crimes commited with guns...
It's all hype.

Reply 344

Emaemmaemily

18

Original post by GwrxVurfer

Anyone can get their hands on a knife and use that to kill/attempted murder. I'd feel far more comfortable having a Glock to defend myself. And as it is for self-defence, the only people who have reason to be scared of it are those who wish to cause the owner criminal harm.

Emae, you say that the police have reason to carry guns for their safety in situations like the Raoul Moat confrontation. But the only person Raoul Moat killed was a civilian, and the first two people he shot were civilians. Moat never hurt an armed police officer, and yet he blinded an unarmed police officer. Perhaps you should ask yourself why he didn't "just go on a shooting rampage" at the armed officers, despite having gone on a shooting rampage at unarmed civilians and unarmed officers. Could this be an example of the deterrence theory in action?

The criminal was armed, so according to you he was easily able to "just go wildly shooting people" which you allege would happen even if everyone else was armed. But the only people he attacked were unarmed. Do you seriously still question why that is?

I've said nothing about "just going wildly shooting people"... Ever.

I've also not mentioned Raoul Moat.
Guns are SO uncommonly used in crimes here... Not enough to justify needing one yourself to defend yourself against it.
And I've explained how it's much easier to escape someone with a knife than a gun. Obviously not always possible, but much easier.

Reply 345

Original post by GwrxVurfer

Could this be an example of the deterrence theory in action?

It doesn't seem likely. He committed suicide so he wasn't afraid to die, and he must have known that he would eventually be caught when he started on his murder spree. More likely is that he knew he would be caught and was either remorseful enough to kill himself (which seems a bit unlikely) or didn't want to give the forces of law and order the satisfaction of putting him away. Another other possibility is that he had become insane, of course.

Reply 346

AwsomePossum

12

Indeed for a laxation of firearms rules we would need some stringent security checks. A psychological examination, a weapons handling test EVERY 6 months for each class of weapon owned, a home visit from a firearms officer to ensure premises are secure, EVERY WEAPON should have a ballistic reference on the police database (Bullet finger prints), additional licence for a conceal carry weapon, and three or more referee's of a respectable profession.

I like how this thread degenerated into a slanging match, no wonder we cant even carry a stick down the street anymore.

Reply 347

Original post by Hardballer

but what if we used the same licencing system as here but also allowed for self dfence that way?

How would one go about proving that the reason to own an FAC controlled firearm is for self defence? Self defence with a registered firearm is already a very murky legal area with an unsure future...

If we made self defence a valid reason for owning a firearm it would be somewhat of a moot point. Currently to own a firearm you need a firearms safe and a lock box which you store your ammunition separately. The current system does not allow for very quick or easy access of legal guns- so even if self defence was a valid reason to purchase one it would be ineffective for that purpose.

So really you need to change the law to allow for concealed carry of handguns- something that is fankly (and rightly so) not going to happen in the forseeable future.

In which case if your THAT concerned about self defence and believe yourself to be at THAT much risk you can purchase a crossbow that outputs 120ft/lbs without any problem (4ft/lbs is recognised at lethal under 10m).

If we made it easier to purchase guns how many people would buy them 'just cause'?

Reply 348

Original post by GwrxVurfer

There is no such thing as a "conceal carry weapon", they are ordinary weapons that you carry around on you hidden from view.

All guns must be transported concealed from view when in public. ie a gunslip- However carrying one must have justification such as returning from a hunt, or a range. Not on the off chance you mightv popped in to the range.

I think this refers to the additional license needed to currently carry (generally a handgun) concealed from view with no just cause (because self defence is not a just cause). It is reserved for very specific circumstances related to policing and military purposes.

Reply 349

Original post by GwrxVurfer

The important thing to learn from all of this is that the deterrent works.

That is a ridiculous thing to claim from those circumstances. How you can draw that conclusion - that the officers being armed acted as a deterrence to Moat shooting them - baffles me. Deterrence relies on the perpetrator being himself afraid to be hurt or die, and Moat quite clearly wasn't. How you can ascribe definite motives to someone who died is also beyond me - unless you have access to his spirit from beyond the grave, of course. If you expect your arguments to be taken seriously (and I don't mean just here on TSR) you'll need to think things through more carefully and analyse the evidence more analytically.

I think that debunks the absurd claim that everyone having guns will somehow increase casualties.

Again, not thought through. This is a preposterous claim and completely devalues any credibility you might have earned, which wasn't much. Clearly, there wouldn't be fewer casualties if there were more guns, as the same ones that are out there now would still be there. More people would be likely to have them and it beggars belief that this wouldn't give more people an opportunity for both deliberate murder and also, just as importantly, accidents. Hence, there would inevitably be more casualies. Now, you might argue about the scale of the increase or whether the extra damage can be justified, but nobody in their right mind would argue that putting more dangerous items (of whatever nature) into circulation in the same society would lead to a rise in injuries and deaths.

Reply 350

teadrinker

Haven't bothered to read the whole tedious thread, so this point may have already been made, but:

Almost every household owns a gun in Switzerland, yet gun crime there is almost non-existent.

Things are not always as simple as they seem.

Saying that, the OP is obviously a ****wit.

Reply 351

Original post by GwrxVurfer

When was the last time you heard of someone trying a robbery in a gun shop

You must lead a sheltered life; they are very common. Are all your claims as inaccurate as this one?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fab_1195132074

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Teens-questioned-in-gun-store-robbery

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a3_1217036710

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/041509_leesburg_gun_store_robbery

http://www.keyt.com/news/local/40752592.html

Reply 352

AwsomePossum

12

Original post by GwrxVurfer

That's seems fine. I'd take firearm handling tests whether or not they were compulsory. I'd be happy with current firearm legislation (The bit about licenses and ballistic numbers) IF "self-defence" was finally accepted as good reason to own, and carry one.

There is no such thing as a "conceal carry weapon", they are ordinary weapons that you carry around on you hidden from view. Would the requirements for a concealed carry license be different to the requirements for a ownership license, and if so, what would they be?

The gun itself adds additional security to the house, but precisely what do you mean by "secure"? I wouldn't sleep with a pistol loaded and under my pillow if that's what you mean, although I'd likely have one in the room.

A conceal carry weapon licence means you can carry the said weapon "concealed" and in america you need this licence to carry the gun on your persons, and not left in your vehicle or home.

Indeed for self defence normal safety rules may not be applicable :s usually all weapons should be stored unloaded in a locked gun cabinet bolted to the wall.

However, in the interest of self defence leaving a weapon un cocked and with the safety engaged would suffice.

Also weapons usable for self defence would have to be appropriate. No doubt someone will want a "Desert eagle .50ae" or a "Nitro Mag .500" In urban areas it should be law that frangibles or hollowpoints are mandatory in pistol calibres and only buckshot is allowed in shotguns. Rifles should be at allowed for home defence with calibre and ammo types at the discretion of the local government

Reply 353

Original post by Good bloke

You must lead a sheltered life; they are very common. Are all your claims as inaccurate as this one?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fab_1195132074

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Teens-questioned-in-gun-store-robbery

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a3_1217036710

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/041509_leesburg_gun_store_robbery

http://www.keyt.com/news/local/40752592.html

Also theft at rifle ranges is quite common. More prolific in america HOWEVER i have heard of it in the UK. Shooting into the night isnt uncommon and when the range is fairly empty they wait for you to empty your magazine (not an issue with single shots) then come and 'stick you up' with their gun. Which may not be loaded but who wants to take that risk!?

I visit an outdoor range where if you leave your rifle people wander from the sides and simply take them. Uncommon when everyone knows what rifles belongs to who, but it has happened.

Reply 354

AwsomePossum

12

Original post by L-J-B

All guns must be transported concealed from view when in public. ie a gunslip- However carrying one must have justification such as returning from a hunt, or a range. Not on the off chance you mightv popped in to the range.

I think this refers to the additional license needed to currently carry (generally a handgun) concealed from view with no just cause (because self defence is not a just cause). It is reserved for very specific circumstances related to policing and military purposes.

good job sir :biggrin:

And another thing for the other guy. Companies do manufacture conceal carry weapons such as the ASP(**** off call of duty fans) which has been specially made with no protruding parts, the S&W bodyguard series are hammerless double action revolver, made hammerless so that the operator can stick it close into the asailant whilst engaged with fists and knives and such, without obstructing the hammer, and thus preventing the weapons action from failing to actuate :tongue:

Reply 355

Just to throw it into the mix, how about RAM air pistols (legal to buy and used to train people how to use handguns as they have similar recoil). They fire .43 callibre rubber balls pretty hard (200mps i think but correct me if im wrong). Under 10m (an effective pistol range unless your in range like circumstances) thatd give your attacker something to think about? And it is generally not lethal.

Reply 356