Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Given that, here, the criminal probably won't have a firearm, you won't need one for that purpose.
    what the hell do you mean probably won't? those 14 year old kids had guns in the article did they not? I'm glad you're so quick to rely on luck and faith in the mercy of criminals. what about knives? how we meant to defend ourself against a knife? its not like we can even own cs spray or stun guns so how we meant to defend ourselves against a knife attack if we can't even carry a similiar object around without being charged with possessing an offensive weapon


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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Yes but the point is no-one wants to go clay shooting, or join a club... It doesn't apply to the general majority of people, and no one does that. Plus there are restrictions on it about exactly how they should be stored etc.
    I know, I've had to go through this procedure, but thanks for reminding me. True not everyone wants to take up shooting as a sport but it doesn't help with the media demonising it constantly :mad:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how some people can't understand.
    In our kinds of societies (those of the USA, UK, and other western countries) gun posession directly links to higher gun crime, and higher deaths caused by fire-arms.
    USA - Homocides with firearms = 46%, that's 2.97 per capita of pop. Their over-all homocide rate is high too, 7.13 per capita.
    England & Wales (cos that's how it's recorded by the UN) - Homocides with firearms = 8%, 0.12 per capita. (only higher than singapore and slovenia). Our over-all homocide rate is also lower, 1.45.

    Switzerland have a completely different society to ours, so I don't know why people are trying to compare them. The country is run differently, people's ideals and morals are different, etc... Even though it's irrelevent when comparing to us, their homocide rate is still higher (1.52 per capita,) with the percentage of firearms being used for murder at 37%.

    Statistics aside... If guns are allowed to be carried and concealed by the public, this just means that the criminals will have guns too (where almost all don't now). It means your chance of escape from any encounter like this is reduced dramatically to almost nothing compared to now, and so makes the streets actually more dangerous.
    That's not even bringing into account accidental deaths (which are a big factor in the USA also).

    It seems pretty clear to me. American's live (mostly) under some illusion that by having guns they have their "right to defend themselves" and so are safer... When it's making their country actually more dangerous to live in (generally speaking), and means just about any confrontation can turn extremely dangerous/fatal.

    We still have the right to defend ourselves in the UK... And seeing as criminals will almost definitely not have a gun, that's much easier to do here.
    We should probably be allowed pepper spray and stuff again, but that's a seperate issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    what the hell do you mean probably won't? those 14 year old kids had guns in the article did they not? I'm glad you're so quick to rely on luck and faith in the mercy of criminals. what about knives? how we meant to defend ourself against a knife? its not like we can even own cs spray or stun guns so how we meant to defend ourselves against a knife attack if we can't even carry a similiar object around without being charged with possessing an offensive weapon


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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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...le-505487.html

    thats more than enough to arm every criminal in the country
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    You're saying one thing yet this news article here says otherwise

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...le-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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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...-store-robbery

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

    http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/loca..._store_robbery

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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And I've said never point the gun at something you do not intend to destroy, and never touch the trigger until you have a confirmed target lined-up. If you follow those common sense gun safety rules, and still manage to cause a death, it is no longer classed an "accident", you are intentionally shooting at that point.
    Here are some gun accidents where the shooter seems to follow your foolproof safety rules:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okzKO8x6XGY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3zlll0prA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7GyYrJMd4s

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqJ78sGIPk

    http://www.draftsmen.com/videos-gun-...l-m4i4M%5D.cfm

    Even you must agree that some these were dangerous situations that only avoided injury by sheer good luck. If nothing else, these videos illustrate how ownership of weapons does not guarantee either intelligent use of them or even commonsense around them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2011
Poll
If a uni gives me an unconditional offer they....
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.