Russian gun laws become more permissive...

[mossberg-operator]

How about only arming members of the police and the army? These people still could be alive: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Nicola_Hughes_and_Fiona_Bone. Or Mr. Rigby. No guns to defend themselves, slaughtered. Example for the opposite, Mr Vickers, who had a gun to stop the attack: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa. In Israel or Switzerland they do something like this, isn't?

[The Mighty Prawn]

There is such a level of rabid delusion going on here that no one is ever going to listen to the opposing views as they are apparently unable to actually debate something and prefer to just keep shouting until the other stops talking!

 

My take on it is carrying weapons for defence is a terrible idea, it's already well proven that carrying a knife is more likely to get you stabbed and probably by that same knife, I would suggest carrying firearms will make people more gung-ho at getting involved in scenarios they are not trained for - say mrs jones is walking her dog and finds two people arguing, one of whom has a gun, she has to quickly assess what is going on, who is the aggressor, what's she going to do? All of this in milliseconds! Sorry but trained police and soldiers get it wrong so the public have no chance.

 

Before we get into it, yes obviously there have been cases where armed public have saved lives, there have also been many people shot in sketchy 'self defence' claims which have been proved as murder. If you think you are some tactical genius who can make split second decisions always correctly then you are more deluded than I thought!

 

Here's a scenario for you to ponder, you come home to discover a burglar is holding a knife to your wife's throat, you pull your legally carried self defence weapon, but by threatening your wife you are forced to surrender your gun, now he has that too!

[Steppenwolf]

There is such a level of rabid delusion going on here that no one is ever going to listen to the opposing views as they are apparently unable to actually debate something and prefer to just keep shouting until the other stops talking!

 

My take on it is carrying weapons for defence is a terrible idea, it's already well proven that carrying a knife is more likely to get you stabbed and probably by that same knife, I would suggest carrying firearms will make people more gung-ho at getting involved in scenarios they are not trained for

 

No I understand what the disarmament crowd are preaching and I don't agree with that because I know it's wrong. I have done Krav Magna and even a trained instructor who knows what they are doing can only stop a knife attack 30% of the time if the knife attacker knows how to use that knife. Contrary to popular belief it is very hard to disarm someone using aknife, we were tauhgt in class that if someone attacks you with a knife, bascially run, since you will have a very small chance to overcome the attack. if you are cornered then you use the disarmamnert techniques, which being better than nothing but still pretty ineffective.

[Scully]

There is such a level of rabid delusion going on here that no one is ever going to listen to the opposing views as they are apparently unable to actually debate something and prefer to just keep shouting until the other stops talking! That works both ways. the pro argument has so far been relatively argued in a rational and logical manner, but you have now chosen to ridicule by suggesting that those whose opinion differs to yours are of a 'level of rabid delusion'.Legitimate CC (of firearms) will never happen here (unless the **** REALLY hits the fan) but that doesn't mean the arguments for it should be dismissed as the ramblings of the rabid delusional. Those who feel they are losing the upper hand in a debate will often take refuge in sarcasm and ridicule, which gets us nowhere.

 

My take on it is carrying weapons for defence is a terrible idea, it's already well proven that carrying a knife is more likely to get you stabbed and probably by that same knife, Is it? Do you have a link for this 'well proven' statement?

I would suggest carrying firearms will make people more gung-ho at getting involved in scenarios they are not trained for ​I would suggest those who are not trained for such scenarios wont have any interest in carrying firearms for self defence; no one is suggesting it is compulsory, and not all Americans carry concealed firearms. Once again, it is the freedom of choice we in England are faced with to carry ANYTHING for self defence. It doesn't have to be a gun.

- say mrs jones is walking her dog and finds two people arguing, one of whom has a gun, she has to quickly assess what is going on, who is the aggressor, what's she going to do? Your guess is as good as mine. Mrs Jones doesn't have to get involved; she could merely ring the police. What do you suggest she does?

All of this in milliseconds! Sorry but trained police and soldiers get it wrong so the public have no chance. Would these be trained 'public' or untrained public?

 

Before we get into it, yes obviously there have been cases where armed public have saved lives, Really? Where?

there have also been many people shot in sketchy 'self defence' claims which have been proved as murder. Your point being?

If you think you are some tactical genius who can make split second decisions always correctly then you are more deluded than I thought! Has anyone claimed this? I could understand the ridicule if someone has.

 

Here's a scenario for you to ponder, you come home to discover a burglar is holding a knife to your wife's throat, you pull your legally carried self defence weapon, but by threatening your wife you are forced to surrender your gun, now he has that too! Ridiculous suggestion.

[Steppenwolf]

... quickly assess what is going on, who is the aggressor, what's she going to do? All of this in milliseconds! Sorry but trained police and soldiers get it wrong so the public have no chance.

 

Actually conceal carriers are far more accurate with their guns than the police.

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police

http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=102

[bostonmick]

 

 

in the case of lee rigby.he was as far as I know from the reports struck by a car then stabbed.having a gun would not have saved him.there were people in the vicinity as some of them managed to film the attacker on their phones.the streets of London are normally crowded with people and if the crowds had rushed the animals that did this I feel his knife would have been of very little use to him.also if any of the bystanders did have a gun are you that sure they would have used it.america has some stupid laws and not having to have a permit to purchase is amongst the worst this means that criminals are not even in the slightest impeded from getting guns is that what you want here really.also do you truly believe you could take a life.in the instance that you were looking down the barrel of a gun you would have fear.this can cause you to freeze so that's you gone.or as the attacker already has his gun on you are you sure you could pull yours and shoot him before he pulls the trigger.i have my opinion on reasons for having guns and you have yours they differ and that is quite normal.i have seen several polls on this forum and on websites asking for votes on returning handguns to the uk.none I have seen have got many yes votes.in fact I believe the highwest I saw was just over 100k.you may know of others.take that out of a population of 70 million and it is not a lot.also as I believe there are around a million holders of firearms in the uk it would seem that even the shooting public have no real lust for their return.

[bostonmick]

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/

 

from what I read you have a job to be anything but law abiding in America.as most state require no permit to buy.and if that is what you wish for here then just pray the next disgruntled schoolboy who decides to massacre a class is not at your family's school.

[Steppenwolf]

Most states require no permit to buy but still there are rules about minors owning irearms and convicted felons being prohibited from touching or owning firearms. When they steal a gun or get someone to make a straw purchase for them they are breaking the law they are not getting a gun through a legal loophole.

[Steppenwolf]

 

.in fact I believe the highwest I saw was just over 100k.you may know of others.take that out of a population of 70 million and it is not a lot.also as I believe there are around a million holders of firearms in the uk it would seem that even the shooting public have no real lust for their return.

 

That is more to do with apathy and lack of organizational structure rather than anything. When a gun law tries to get passed in Congress in America, there are powerful organizations who stand up for people's rights. They even have forms pre written that people can send to their congress men and women to ask that they don't pass more gun control. Much like the template the CA used when people contacted their MPS about unannounced checks.

 

If us a a shooting community can learn more from the way that the American pro-gun organizations are structured and the way that they effectively use the grass-roots the we will be more effective.

 

Most of the British shooting organizations I find from experience to be old boys in their ivory towers protecting thier side of the sport or not understanding the importance that grass roots campaigning has in achieving shooting goals.

 

Coming back to the subject on topic since it seems everybody sems to ignore that this is meant to be a thread about the loosening of russian gun laws, it seems that even in Russia the grass roots has been mobilized and effective change has happened. In a country which during communist times had virtual gun ownership barred and only party oficials could own guns, I think that is a big improvement. If that can happen in Russia it can happen in the uk.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steppenwolf

[Scully]

 

in the case of lee rigby.he was as far as I know from the reports struck by a car then stabbed.

having a gun would not have saved him. No one is suggesting it would; I was making the observation that there was no one in the vicinity to help him as by law none of them were allowed to be armed and the police were minutes away.

there were people in the vicinity as some of them managed to film the attacker on their phones.Your point being?

the streets of London are normally crowded with people and if the crowds had rushed the animals that did this I feel his knife would have been of very little use to him. But they didn't, not before he was stabbed, nor indeed afterwards, and who can blame them? Attack someone armed with a knife? Would you? I know I wouldn't.

also if any of the bystanders did have a gun are you that sure they would have used it. No. Can you be sure they wouldn't?

america has some stupid laws and not having to have a permit to purchase is amongst the worst

Are you sure they don't need a permit to purchase?

this means that criminals are not even in the slightest impeded from getting guns is that what you want here really. There are restrictions in place to prevent criminals from obtaining guns in America, albeit not very effectively, about as effectively as UK laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns over here.

also do you truly believe you could take a life. I have no idea, but being armed for self defence doesn't necessarily mean anyone HAS to take a life.

in the instance that you were looking down the barrel of a gun you would have fear. Can't argue with that.

this can cause you to freeze so that's you gone. Possibly, hopefully I'll never find out.

or as the attacker already has his gun on you are you sure you could pull yours and shoot him before he pulls the trigger. I have no idea.

i have my opinion on reasons for having guns and you have yours they differ and that is quite normal.i have seen several polls on this forum and on websites asking for votes on returning handguns to the uk.none I have seen have got many yes votes.in fact I believe the highwest I saw was just over 100k.you may know of others.take that out of a population of 70 million and it is not a lot.also as I believe there are around a million holders of firearms in the uk it would seem that even the shooting public have no real lust for their return. Very true.

You said your post at No 65 was a 'serious question' Mick, so serious you posted it twice. I answered ALL of the questions you asked within that post; but I notice you haven't answered any of those I posed in response.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Scully

[ordnance]

 

in the instance that you were looking down the barrel of a gun you would have fear.

this can cause you to freeze so that's you gone.

or as the attacker already has his gun on you are you sure you could pull yours and shoot him before he pulls the trigger

I already posted you an example of someone fighting off three men two armed with AK/47s with his handgun. Was he scared, I am sure he was, did he freeze, no. No two scenario are the same and no two people are the same, the point is being armed give him a chance to live, if he was not armed he would be dead. I know which option I would prefer.

[Steppenwolf]

Look a study which indicates that due to the fact that now in America there are more guns than ever violent crime has gone down.

FBI: U.S. Murder Rate Fell Again in 2013 (and Other Bad News for Gun Control Supporters)

http://nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/11/fbi-us-murder-rate-fell-again-in-2013-and-other-bad-news-for-gun-control-supporters.aspx

 

While this of course may not indicate that guns are responsible for the drop in crime it also indicates that neither are they the factor that fuels violent crime which would be the stance maintained in this thread by various posters.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steppenwolf

[bostonmick]

 

 

in the case of lee rigby.he was as far as I know from the reports struck by a car then stabbed.

having a gun would not have saved him. No one is suggesting it would; I was making the observation that there was no one in the vicinity to help him as by law none of them were allowed to be armed and the police were minutes away.

there were people in the vicinity as some of them managed to film the attacker on their phones.Your point being?

the streets of London are normally crowded with people and if the crowds had rushed the animals that did this I feel his knife would have been of very little use to him. But they didn't, not before he was stabbed, nor indeed afterwards, and who can blame them? Attack someone armed with a knife? Would you? I know I wouldn't.

also if any of the bystanders did have a gun are you that sure they would have used it. No. Can you be sure they wouldn't?

america has some stupid laws and not having to have a permit to purchase is amongst the worst

Are you sure they don't need a permit to purchase?

this means that criminals are not even in the slightest impeded from getting guns is that what you want here really. There are restrictions in place to prevent criminals from obtaining guns in America, albeit not very effectively, about as effectively as UK laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns over here.

also do you truly believe you could take a life. I have no idea, but being armed for self defence doesn't necessarily mean anyone HAS to take a life.

in the instance that you were looking down the barrel of a gun you would have fear. Can't argue with that.

this can cause you to freeze so that's you gone. Possibly, hopefully I'll never find out.

or as the attacker already has his gun on you are you sure you could pull yours and shoot him before he pulls the trigger. I have no idea.

i have my opinion on reasons for having guns and you have yours they differ and that is quite normal.i have seen several polls on this forum and on websites asking for votes on returning handguns to the uk.none I have seen have got many yes votes.in fact I believe the highwest I saw was just over 100k.you may know of others.take that out of a population of 70 million and it is not a lot.also as I believe there are around a million holders of firearms in the uk it would seem that even the shooting public have no real lust for their return. Very true.

You said your post at No 65 was a 'serious question' Mick, so serious you posted it twice. I answered ALL of the questions you asked within that post; but I notice you haven't answered any of those I posed in response.

 

 

sorry but I asked how the system would be here.all you said was like it does in America.well that is not a definitive answer.we are not in America.the people of this country are different.you answered nothing really just gave your opinion again.all I asked was how would you run the system here.the reason we could not afford it here is every time a injury or fatality happened there would be a major enquiry costing hundreds of thousands.thats the way it is.so would your license fee cover this if say there were a thousand instances a year.not to mention the cost to the health service to repair the injured.if all people were allowed to carry and use then every police officer would have to carry.they may not want to and we would need more of them a further cost.no go gun areas whats the point as you said criminals take no heed.school teachers holding firearms in class maybe they don't wish to kill someone or is that just going to be forced onto them.the practical side of it is also in the past the boys that worked the farm would cover all aspects of it.but today the younger lads want to drive a tractor do a bit of spraying maybe a little fencing.but when I say give me a hand dispatching these chickens for the table they run like girls.i really don't see any place for self defense guns in their world.the not having a permit to aquire I got that from Wikipedia it lists the states of America and gives the laws of each and most require no permit.also from what it said there is no requirement to inform the authority's in many cases of ownership.now that is how I read it maybe I was wrong but I don't think so.if I am then I apologise. on your comment regarding the European court I did not realise that only a politician could take a case to the court of human rights.must have been a brave party that wanted to keep hook hand in the country.i thought all you would need is a good case.a barrister.and the funds.which put their rescources together and the organisations and other shooting concerns could easily come up with.

Edited November 23, 2014 by bostonmick

[Steppenwolf]

 

it lists the states of America and gives the laws of each and most require no permit.also from what it said there is no requirement to inform the authority's in many cases of ownership.now that is how I read it maybe I was wrong but I don't think so.if I am then I apologise.

Well that is to dow ith the Second Amendment. By law the government in USA is not supposed to keep track of gun owners' data. In case the people have to rise up. If the govenrment knows who has the guns they know where to go to confiscate. WE got a little taste of that when handguns were banned. The govenrment knew of course who did have handguns and who didn't.

 

 

[Steppenwolf]

If you are worried about litigation as you have mentioned in your post, then can say that speaking to a friend who lives in America that it is a much more litigious (people sue each other more often) society than Great Britain. If those people there can have conceal carry without an apparent problem of suing for damages, then I am sure we can manage just fine here.

[grrclark]

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.

 

Scully, I daresay there has not been a requirement, I just wondered if there had been anything published on such. The book linked earlier in the thread is a starting point I guess, but how balanced or otherwise that might be I really don't know.

 

I appreciate it would be difficult to establish the difference in violent crime rates with concealed carry or otherwise, but it would be possible, whether it would be valuable or not is a different issue.

 

I know there is a lot of case evidence where an individual carrying a weapon has prevented an attack, I wonder if there is also the same level of evidence where people carrying a weapon failed to protect themselves from the attack, or where someone carrying a weapon actually provoked a more violent reaction by the aggressor by drawing their weapon?

 

The point around fire extinguishers was, as you know, a little bit tongue in cheek to suggest that it is actually quite easy to find evidence to indicate where a state of preparedness could have resulted in a different outcome.

 

Not withstanding the absolute unlikelihood that the UK would ever allow concealed carry, I do think that it would be difficult to find any benchmark to the UK from anywhere else. The difference between US states for example that allow CC or not would not be a good benchmark due to the amount of guns already in circulation which I imagine would heavily skew any resulting conclusion.

 

My involvement in this thread is really one of genuine interest. Based on nothing other than my own thoughts I would think that an increase in gun ownership as a result of permitted concealed carry or even just for self defence purposes would have a negative outcome in actually increasing the level of firearm crime/incidents. I could be absolutely wrong and so remain minded in that respect.

 

I will happily state that I am very pleased that in this country, with the exception of NI apparently, that we don't permit the ownership of firearms for self defence and we don't permit concealed carry. If there were a significant increase in the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime attack then I would happily re-evaluate, but right now I think the risk is such that we don't need to fundamentally change anything.

Edited November 23, 2014 by grrclark

[bostonmick]

 

That is more to do with apathy and lack of organizational structure rather than anything. When a gun law tries to get passed in Congress in America, there are powerful organizations who stand up for people's rights. They even have forms pre written that people can send to their congress men and women to ask that they don't pass more gun control. Much like the template the CA used when people contacted their MPS about unannounced checks.

 

If us a a shooting community can learn more from the way that the American pro-gun organizations are structured and the way that they effectively use the grass-roots the we will be more effective.

 

Most of the British shooting organizations I find from experience to be old boys in their ivory towers protecting thier side of the sport or not understanding the importance that grass roots campaigning has in achieving shooting goals.

 

Coming back to the subject on topic since it seems everybody sems to ignore that this is meant to be a thread about the loosening of russian gun laws, it seems that even in Russia the grass roots has been mobilized and effective change has happened. In a country which during communist times had virtual gun ownership barred and only party oficials could own guns, I think that is a big improvement. If that can happen in Russia it can happen in the uk.

 

I am sorry but you cant just simply blame the organisations for everything.there are more shooters in this country that are not members of any of them than are.its all to easy to sit back and expect someone to do it for you.then complain and blame when it don't happen.

[bostonmick]

Well that is to dow ith the Second Amendment. By law the government in USA is not supposed to keep track of gun owners' data. In case the people have to rise up. If the govenrment knows who has the guns they know where to go to confiscate. WE got a little taste of that when handguns were banned. The govenrment knew of course who did have handguns and who didn't.

 

 

 

Well that is to dow ith the Second Amendment. By law the government in USA is not supposed to keep track of gun owners' data. In case the people have to rise up. If the govenrment knows who has the guns they know where to go to confiscate. WE got a little taste of that when handguns were banned. The govenrment knew of course who did have handguns and who didn't.

 

 

 

can you explain then if there is no permit needed to purchase how do they ensure the criminal cant get them.and no need to inform them of ownership how do they know they have not got them.

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

I will happily state that I am very pleased that in this country, with the exception of NI apparently, that we don't permit the ownership of firearms for self defence and we don't permit concealed carry. If there were a significant increase in the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime attack then I would happily re-evaluate, but right now I think the risk is such that we don't need to fundamentally change anything.

The Czech Republic has an even lower violent crime rate than UK yet they allow law abiding people after having passed an exam to conceal carry. I wonder why is this? If as you say their violent crime rate is even lower, then shouldn't their authorities decide that conceal carry is not needed?

 

What I am trying to say is that no matter how violent or peaceful a society is it is morally wrong for the govenrment to decide how someone is allowed to defend themselves and with what tools. The situation in the Uk being draconian is an understatement, every other country almost allows thier people some form of weapon to be carried. The Uk being the unhealthy anomaly rather than the brilliant exception it claims itself to be.

 

I am sorry but you cant just simply blame the organisations for everything.there are more shooters in this country that are not members of any of them than are.its all to easy to sit back and expect someone to do it for you.then complain and blame when it don't happen.

Then that is clearly to do with apathy.

 

 

can you explain then if there is no permit needed to purchase how do they ensure the criminal cant get them.and no need to inform them of ownership how do they know they have not got them.

The can't guarnatee that a criminal can't get them much the same that in the Uk when they grant a firearms license or a shotgun license they can't guarantee 100% that a gun owner will abide by the law and will not misuse that fire arm.

This kind of nullifies your point.

[ordnance]

 

I asked was how would you run the system here.the reason we could not afford it here is every time a injury or fatality happened there would be a major enquiry costing hundreds of thousands.thats the way it is.so would your license fee cover this if say there were a thousand instances a year.not to mention the cost to the health service to repair the injured.if all people were allowed to carry and use then every police officer would have to carry.they may not want to and we would need more of them a further cost.no go gun areas whats the point as you said criminals

Its already being done in the UK. At one time in a population of around one and a million. Around 12,000 personal protection weapons were in circulation here, include the police and army carrying PPWs when off duty there were probably around 30,000 in circulation. And I can't recall any of the sort of incidents happening that you are so concerned about.So there is an example based on facts not scenarios you are coming up with.

[grrclark]

The Czech Republic has an even lower violent crime rate than UK yet they allow law abiding people after having passed an exam to conceal carry. I wonder why is this? If as you say their violent crime rate is even lower, then shouldn't their authorities decide that conceal carry is not needed?

 

What I am trying to say is that no matter how violent or peaceful a society is it is morally wrong for the govenrment to decide how someone is allowed to defend themselves and with what tools. The situation in the Uk being draconian is an understatement, every other country almost allows thier people some form of weapon to be carried. The Uk being the unhealthy anomaly rather than the brilliant exception it claims itself to be.

 

I have no idea why the Czechs are happy to permit concealed carry and I don't actually care either. I know they also let people keep lions and tigers as pets too.

If the good folks of the Czech republic are happy then I am happy for them.

 

We will have to agree to differ, I don't believe it is morally wrong to deny someone the opportunity to own a gun for self defence, equally I don't believe it is morally wrong for other countries that do allow it.

 

Quite simply I am pleased that just now in the UK we have no pressing need to arm our citizens in order to defend themselves from violent aggression. I do absolutely recognise that there are daily acts of aggression in the UK, but it is a very small amount relative to our populace and I hope it stays that way.

[Steppenwolf]

Unfortunately people who are pro-disarmament would rather gnore this uncomfortable fact that there are already guns for self-defence in the UK in NOrthern Ireland and as far as I know there are no wild west gunfights in Belfast or Bangor.

[Steppenwolf]

 

Quite simply I am pleased that just now in the UK we have no pressing need to arm our citizens in order to defend themselves from violent aggression. I do absolutely recognise that there are daily acts of aggression in the UK, but it is a very small amount relative to our populace and I hope it stays that way.

I would disagree with you there. I do believe I have seen some statistics that the Uk have among the highest violent crime rate in Europe. I am sure our tough gun laws, no self-defence laws and lax prison system have something to do with that, but that is probably a subject for another matter.

 

So coming back to the subject at hand what do you guys think? Will we see "wild west shootouts" in Russia now that they have given their citizens the ability to conceal carry?

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steppenwolf

[ordnance]

 

Quite simply I am pleased that just now in the UK we have no pressing need to arm our citizens in order to defend themselves from violent aggression. I do absolutely recognise that there are daily acts of aggression in the UK, but it is a very small amount relative to our populace and I hope it stays that way.

Are you sure.

 

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

 

 

[onatangent]

I would like the freedom to choose and be that responsible cc holder that can decide to either defend myself/ others or be robbed, stabbed, raped and shot. I know which I would prefer. It feels like individual responsibility has been taken away from the grown ups and the state needs to decide what, where and how much can happen. Obviously not just for gun control but even down to what goes into your childs lunchbox. Nanny state I feel but I don't encourage every numpty be allowed free reign and application. Pre-emptively treat everyone as an irresponsible individual incapable of moral judgement and a responsible attitude is unfair.

Edited November 23, 2014 by onatangent