Russian gun laws become more permissive...

[ordnance]

 

Quote. That's a big statement.so what's your history then.shot a few fox and the odd rabbit now your fully equipped to shoot a human.

 

I will try again.

 

If you were in a situation where it was you or them, and possibly your family, and had a firearm for self defence would you use it. Or think I am just going to let them kill me in case killing someone might leave me mentally scarred. ? Are you a pacifist and don't believe in defending yourself and family if you had to. If so I respect that it up to the individual. ??

Edited November 23, 2014 by ordnance

[Steppenwolf]

I can't believe anyone can think that the right to carry a concealed weapon is a good thing.

Of course it is.

Not in this country you don't.you hold your weapons for sporting purposes.it is illegal to shoot people fatally or not.and you are right i do not know much about conceal and carry.because I have no interest in handguns and it is not a legal action in this country.

I was talking about a hypothetical situation where the firearms laws would be relaxed and then yes you could legally carry a gun for protection. I know that is not the case right now.

Is there any empirical evidence that demonstrates concealed carry actually reduces incidents of violent or deadly assault? Not anecdotal evidence, but real verifiable evidence.

 

It is easy to cite anecdotal evidence of how having a gun may have stopped someone being beaten/killed, but equally there will be as many examples of where carrying a fire extinguisher would have stopped someone being burned/killed.

Yes read this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

I suspect that if evidence was available having concealed carry weapons would increase the number of deadly force incidents and would be counter productive.

 

Just now we have the luxury of a relatively small number of crimes using a firearm. If you allow concealed carry then you have to afford that opportunity to everybody by and large, so massively increasing the number of guns in circulation, massively increasing the likelihood of gun crime and you also move the lowest common denominator to one that now includes a firearm.

 

People will still be murdered and beaten just the same. The bad guys who want to mug/beat/rape you still want to do that and they have a gun too, if they think you have one they will just shoot you first.

You don't understand. The bad guys now have guns since nobody can stop them since nobody else is armed, not even the regular police. Yes more criminals would cary guns but so would law abiding people. There are more law abiding people than criminals so the criminals would be outnumbered and outgunned, now it is exactly the other way around since me and you law abiding people are left defenceless.

[Steppenwolf]

I would expect that they perhaps have rather more reason to believe someone would want to do them in than you do, unless you claim public expenses for a duck house in your pond and to clean your moat, but I understand your point

I am sorry but politicians are not more important than my family and if they can have armed guards then I want some armed guards too, if not at least give me the opportunity to have a gun for defense.

[bostonmick]

Quote. we should all give up our firearms, less firearms less chance of gun crime.

 

no we should have sensible gun laws that try to reduce the risk of gun crime but does not prevent the average person from enjoying a legitimate sport for pleasure.

dont me we already have that.

[bostonmick]

I will try again.

 

If you were in a situation where it was you or them, and possibly your family, and had a firearm for self defence would you use it. Or think I am just going to let them kill me in case killing someone might leave me mentally scarred. ? Are you a pacifist and don't believe in defending yourself and family if you had to. If so I respect that it up to the individual. ??

 

if only I had a pound for everytime I have heard that tired old saying.no I am not a pacifist.i believe that capital punishment should be returned.i do not believe that the general populous should be armed to the hilt when going about their normal lives.and what is the cut off for who is allowed a gun to protect themselves and who is not.or would you prefer a completely open system where in real terms there is no control.at the moment there is nothing to stop you when at home having your guns alongside you loaded for protection.well that is except your wife and family wanting to get you sectioned.the last time I had someone who I did not know call at my home to ask if I would allow them to shoot over the land he was dressed in head to toe camo it was getting a little dark so should I have greeted them with gun pointing at them or maybe just be safe and shoot him on the spot.who is to say that I was not feeling threatened.where does it end

[bostonmick]

I am sorry but politicians are not more important than my family and if they can have armed guards then I want some armed guards too, if not at least give me the opportunity to have a gun for defense.

indeed they are not more important than anyone else.maybe a great deal more delusional.

[wildrover77]

if only I had a pound for everytime I have heard that tired old saying.no I am not a pacifist.i believe that capital punishment should be returned.i do not believe that the general populous should be armed to the hilt when going about their normal lives.and what is the cut off for who is allowed a gun to protect themselves and who is not.or would you prefer a completely open system where in real terms there is no control.at the moment there is nothing to stop you when at home having your guns alongside you loaded for protection.well that is except your wife and family wanting to get you sectioned.the last time I had someone who I did not know call at my home to ask if I would allow them to shoot over the land he was dressed in head to toe camo it was getting a little dark so should I have greeted them with gun pointing at them or maybe just be safe and shoot him on the spot.who is to say that I was not feeling threatened.where does it end

I do not know of anyone who advocates allow firearms for personal protection who advocates the Wild West scenario.

 

I have a friend who just moved to France, had the police out for his French firearms license for a rifle and shotgun. Police officer told him he should have a pistol on his application as he was very rural and it took them half an hour to get to him, ' he needed to be able to help himself'

 

Why would you shoot someone just because they were wearing camo? That would be reasoable attire for a pest controller.

[bostonmick]

 

As it would a terrorist. Burglar or anyone who wished to conceal themselves. But not for cold calling at someone's door. I have pest companies at times baiting the yard they do an effective job dressed in ordinary workwear or boiler suit.I myself have shot pigeons and other pests in jeans and t-shirt no problems.

Edited November 23, 2014 by bostonmick

[jam1e]

Russians can carry guns for self-defence

http://rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/

This is very big. A former comunist country eases gun controls and says that people can apply for he US equivalent of a conceal carry license. This is welcome news. I wonder when we will get similar laws in the UK?

Very funny.........

[ordnance]

 

I have greeted them with gun pointing at them or maybe just be safe and shoot him on the spot.who is to say that I was not feeling threatened.where does it end.

Then you would end up in jail for murder, just like you would if you stuck a knife in them. If it was not self defence then it would not matter what you used.

[grrclark]

Of course it is.

I was talking about a hypothetical situation where the firearms laws would be relaxed and then yes you could legally carry a gun for protection. I know that is not the case right now.

Yes read this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

 

Thanks for that link, I would have to read the book to comment, but good to know that there is something out there.

[grrclark]

You don't understand. The bad guys now have guns since nobody can stop them since nobody else is armed, not even the regular police. Yes more criminals would cary guns but so would law abiding people. There are more law abiding people than criminals so the criminals would be outnumbered and outgunned, now it is exactly the other way around since me and you law abiding people are left defenceless.

 

I do understand that if the bad guy has a gun and we don't then we are placed at a disadvantage, however not withstanding that we still live in a country that has a very low level of crime committed with firearms. The absolute vast majority of aggression shown toward people in this country does not include a firearm and as long as that remains the case I cannot see any justification of why we would want to take steps to allow people to carry concealed weapons, there is absolutely no need.

 

It is not a debate of principle, it is one of need.

I am sorry but politicians are not more important than my family and if they can have armed guards then I want some armed guards too, if not at least give me the opportunity to have a gun for defense.

 

I would never suggest a politician is more important than your family, I merely suggested that they may have greater reason to fear a hostile armed attack then the regular populace, hence based on a simple risk based decision they may have a greater requirement to require a a more robust defence.

[bostonmick]

Then you would end up in jail for murder, just like you would if you stuck a knife in them. If it was not self defence then it would not matter what you used.

But it would be my word against.? Our society is not equipped for guns in public places by the masses. It's been a long time since this was the case.also of the seventy million or so people living here there is no sizeable concensus for this either.

[bostonmick]

so here it is sunday raining not a lot happening in the shooting world so.can somebody tell me how this self defence and concealed carry would work

lets say dad has his piece to protect wife and children.thats fine.now when dad is at work and mum alone with kids does mum have a gun also,then when the kids are at school do teachers have guns or at the shopping centre when the kids are out with their friends without mum and dad.do we in fact arm the children in which case at what age do we arm them.would there be any no gun areas and if so who would police these and how.there are so many spin offs to this I doubt we as a small country could afford to have this system in place.there are moves now towards gun restriction on America because of the recent tragedy's in the schools and shopping areas so does their system really work,it seems to be a little broken at the moment.this is a serious question and I am sure as you think about it then the more complications it throws up.

[ordnance]

 

But it would be my word against.?

You could say that about any self defence scenario.

 

It's been a long time since this was the case.also of the seventy million or so people living here there is no sizeable concensus for this either.

 

That's true and one reason why it won't happen.

 

 

I would never suggest a politician is more important than your family, I merely suggested that they may have greater reason to fear a hostile armed attack then the regular populace, hence based on a simple risk based decision they may have a greater requirement to require a a more robust defence

Maybe that's why the targets for extremists have all being easy unarmed civilians targets.

[Scully]

Is there any empirical evidence that demonstrates concealed carry actually reduces incidents of violent or deadly assault? Not anecdotal evidence, but real verifiable evidence.

 

It is easy to cite anecdotal evidence of how having a gun may have stopped someone being beaten/killed, but equally there will be as many examples of where carrying a fire extinguisher would have stopped someone being burned/killed.

I don't think there has ever been a requirement from any official body to prove CC reduces incidents of violent or deadly assault (but I may be wrong) though there is an abundance of empirical evidence that CC has prevented people becoming victims of those crimes. The whole point of CC is to defend the individual; how anyone would prove an incident didn't take place because an individual was armed wouldn't be easy, akin to proving your house has never been burgled is due to the alarm you have fitted in plain view under your soffits.

As regards extinguishers, there is nothing in law to prevent anyone from carrying such in their vehicles, and many do ( I know of some who keep such in their homes) just in case. But we are prevented by law from carrying any form of self defence, just in case.

[bostonmick]

[quote name="ordnance" post="2684108" timestamp="141674761

 

Maybe that's why the targets for extremists have all being easy unarmed civilians targets.

 

So will your self defence gun stop the car bomber then.

[ordnance]

 

So will your self defence gun stop the car bomber then.

I don't thing anyone said being armed would save you from all attacks, ( did they. ? ) But it could for example if someone tried to knock you down and cut your head off, or if they went to a supermarket or hotel and systematically gunned down unarmed helpless women and children. If you are happy that only the terrorists and criminals are armed that's fine.

 

 

 

Gunmen attacked an upscale shopping mall in the Kenyan capital on ... Two gunmen, including one who was detained after being shot, are also dead. ... 2010 in Uganda's capital.

 

 

MUMBAI, India — Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital.

 

Police called to 'frenzied machete attack' in Woolwich, south-east London, in which one man, reported to be a soldier, died; Incident now being treated by the government as a suspected ...

 

Edited November 23, 2014 by ordnance

[bostonmick]

I don't thing anyone said being armed would save you from all attacks, ( did they. ? ) But it could for example if someone tried to knock you down and cut your head off, or if they went to a supermarket or hotel and systematically gunned down unarmed helpless women and children. If you are happy that only the terrorists and criminals are armed that's fine.

 

 

 

 

Let me know where you are in the country and I will make sure to avoid shopping there or staying in hotels. If you had been knocked down by a car do you think you would be fit to jump up and pull your gun and would that stop a car in its tracks.I have wondered that as we are only one of two countries in Europe that are not allowed handguns why has no organisation or firearms maker come to that brought this before the European Court of human rights. If the case is strong enough it's a sure winner.

[bostonmick]

so here it is sunday raining not a lot happening in the shooting world so.can somebody tell me how this self defence and concealed carry would work

lets say dad has his piece to protect wife and children.thats fine.now when dad is at work and mum alone with kids does mum have a gun also,then when the kids are at school do teachers have guns or at the shopping centre when the kids are out with their friends without mum and dad.do we in fact arm the children in which case at what age do we arm them.would there be any no gun areas and if so who would police these and how.there are so many spin offs to this I doubt we as a small country could afford to have this system in place.there are moves now towards gun restriction on America because of the recent tragedy's in the schools and shopping areas so does their system really work,it seems to be a little broken at the moment.this is a serious question and I am sure as you think about it then the more complications it throws up.

So all those who think it a good idea to have the right to defend yourself and carry a concealed weapon have no idea on how to operate it.or is it just no idea.

[wildrover77]

So all those who think it a good idea to have the right to defend yourself and carry a concealed weapon have no idea on how to operate it.or is it just no idea.

You have not answered my post on the French example.

 

We could apply the well proven Northern Ireland system.

 

Or how about the system in place before 1953 when you could use self defence as good reason for a section 1 firearm.

[Scully]

If you had been knocked down by a car do you think you would be fit to jump up and pull your gun and would that stop a car in its tracks. I think the incident in mind was the murder of Lee Rigby, and while to suggest that anyone after being hit by a vehicle would be able to defend themselves is ridiculous, the fact remains that there was NO ONE in any position anywhere near him to come to his aid after the collision, as the only persons armed in the vicinity were his attackers, as by law no one is allowed to carry any means of self defence. The poor blokes only chance of defence was the Police, some of whom ARE allowed by law to carry firearms, but they weren't there. Lee Rigby was dead long before they arrived.

 

I have wondered that as we are only one of two countries in Europe that are not allowed handguns why has no organisation or firearms maker come to that brought this before the European Court of human rights. There is no political backing for such a proposal as there is no public will for such a proposal, and therefore no votes in it.

If the case is strong enough it's a sure winner. As above.

 

Ok Mick, I'll play. can somebody tell me how this self defence and concealed carry would work Possibly the same way it works in the USA and other countries? Despite your scepticism and sarcasm, it does work in the USA, and many other countries, as countless incidences have proven.

lets say dad has his piece to protect wife and children.thats fine.now when dad is at work and mum alone with kids does mum have a gun also The decision would be entirely hers. It's called freedom of choice MIck, and one we don't have over here.

,then when the kids are at school do teachers have guns ​Such has been suggested in the USA, and some teachers do indeed have guns, but I think they are going down the route of security patrols instead. In the UK we don't even have any provision to deter nor check pupils aren't bringing weapons into school.

or at the shopping centre when the kids are out with their friends without mum and dad. Unless it's a designated 'gun free zone' in the USA there will be many law abiding people in the shopping centre who are CC permit holders; criminals are aware of this.

do we in fact arm the children in which case at what age do we arm them As above.

.would there be any no gun areas and if so who would police these and how. I'm not aware of how the system in this regard works in the USA, but there are no gun areas, which of course only applies to the law abiding.

there are so many spin offs to this Such as?

I doubt we as a small country could afford to have this system in place.Care to elaborate?

there are moves now towards gun restriction on America Can you supply evidence of this? Any links? How do you 'restrict' the illegal use of firearms? because of the recent tragedy's in the schools and shopping areas so does their system really work, It would appear to work just as well as it works over here; remember Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. What is there in place to prevent anything like this happening again over here?

it seems to be a little broken at the moment. Again, any evidence or is this just your biased opinion.

this is a serious question and I am sure as you think about it then the more complications it throws up.Such as what?

[bostonmick]

You have not answered my post on the French example.

 

We could apply the well proven Northern Ireland system.

 

Or how about the system in place before 1953 when you could use self defence as good reason for a section 1 firearm.

Sorry. I have read your french post again but failed to see any questions. However I hope your friend is happy there. Maybe the french society is a more violent one than we enjoy.I do not know if have never been.

[Steppenwolf]

there are moves now towards gun restriction on America because of the recent tragedy's in the schools and shopping areas so does their system really work,it seems to be a little broken at the moment.this is a serious question and I am sure as you think about it then the more complications it throws up.

No it's actually the other way. Around 1986 about 4-5 states allowed conceal carry. Now around 30 years later all states allow it more or less, to some degree or other.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/images/right-to-carry-history.gif

 

This has resulted in an astronomical gun ownership to go off the charts, meanwhile gun crime has actually gone down in America.

90% of shootings you see in America are in gun free zones, that is zones where law abiding people are not allowed to bring their open carried/conceal carried weapons but of course criinals don't respect some signs. Much how in the Uk criminals ignore the fact that if they have an illegal handgu they might get 5 years in jail.

 

Anyway back on topic an interview with Maria Butina. Chairwoman of the organization "The Right to Bear Arms" in Russia.

http://www.firearms-united.eu/firearms-united-articles/45-maria-butina

 

"The Right to Bear Arms": http://ongun.ru/

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steppenwolf