Russian gun laws become more permissive...

[bostonmick]

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.

30000 out of 70 million.not exactly a resounding enditement.Or are we talking about lifetime ago.the case for self defence weapons is flimsy to say the least.I can sympathise with those who would have them back for sporting purposes and would like to see their return.although I myself would not take one up.but for the reason of personal protection or self defense no.we don't need it in this country.

[Steppenwolf]

30000 out of 70 million.not exactly a resounding enditement.Or are we talking about lifetime ago.the case for self defence weapons is flimsy to say the least.I can sympathise with those who would have them back for sporting purposes and would like to see their return.although I myself would not take one up.but for the reason of personal protection or self defense no.we don't need it in this country.

In what way would you say that the case for self-defense weapons was flimsy when ordnance already pointed out that in the Uk we have one of the highest violent crime rates in Europe?

 

I can also say that you might be speaking from the confort of living in a nice low crime maybe rural area, whereas I have friends in Lewisham in London and I can say that walking around there at night is not to be done. I definately felt like a handgun in my pocket would have eased some of my fears and I don't even live in the area. imagine people who are less fortunate than yourself and can't move out of those high crime areas and have to go every day knowing that they have a higher incidence of getting attacked and victimised.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steppenwolf

[grrclark]

Are you sure.

 

 

 

Yes I am absolutely sure that relative to our population the rate of violent crime is a very small number.

[bostonmick]

In what way would you say that the case for self-defense weapons was flimsy when ordnance already pointed out that in the Uk we have one of the highest violent crime rates in Europe?

 

I can also say that you might be speaking from the confort of living in a nice low crime maybe rural area, whereas I have friends in Lewisham in London and I can say that walking around there at night is not to be done. I definately felt like a handgun in my pocket would have eased some of my fears and I don't even live in the area. imagine people who are less fortunate than yourself and can't move out of those high crime areas and have to go every day knowing that they have a higher incidence of getting attacked and victimised.

 

well if you believe the stats as some on here love to.the figure for gun crime is on the decrease.i would say that knives are a bigger threat today.so you want a gun to fend of a knife attack.what will you want when the knifeman has upgraded to a gun also.maybe a flame thrower.also it is the residents of some of these areas that make them what they are or are you suggesting that the violent ones are all day trippers.would it make you feel safer if there were packs of vigilante roaming them streets.and lets not forget the people on those streets are not all criminals and could also have guns under your rules.there are many reasons why London especially is full of no go areas but I will not get into that.as for me living in a nice rural area well that's true.however I have heard and no doubt it is true that London is a very expensive place to live so surely it would be beneficial to some to move say twenty miles or so say into Essex where it is cheaper.jobs are reasonable.and you can walk the streets without an armoury.and I do have a lot of personal experience of Essex.

[Steppenwolf]

 

....i would say that knives are a bigger threat today.so you want a gun to fend of a knife attack.what will you want when the knifeman has upgraded to a gun also.maybe a flame thrower.also it is the residents of some of these areas that make them what they are or are you suggesting that the violent ones are all day trippers.would it make you feel safer if there were packs of vigilante roaming them streets.and lets not forget the people on those streets are not all criminals and could also have guns under your rules.

It doesn't work like that. If criminals don't have an easy target and know that people are carrying guns they won't upgrade to machine guns or rocket launchers to achieve their deed. They will go to an area where comitting their crime is easier or will get involved in other crimes which are less high risk, say car or house burglary.

 

You mention "gangs of vigilantes roaming the streets". I am talking about law abiding people with a conceal carry license, unless in your eyes that is a vigilante. Do you think that armed vigilantes are patrolling the streets of America?

 

[Scully]

Thanks for taking the time Mick.

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. I know we're not in America, but their system seems to be working. As has been mentioned on here, the CC permit scheme has gone from strength to strength and is now in operation in most states.

the people of this country are different. In what way?

you answered nothing really just gave your opinion again. Eh? Answered nothing? I have answered most of your statements with logic and fact. If I don't know the answer I have said so, unlike you, who has based their entire argument on illogical biased opinion.

all I asked was how would you run the system here. If the proposal to moot such an idea here, on a serious basis were ever to occur, don't you think there would be some serious debates forthcoming first? If you want to know how the system works then take off your blinkers and do some serious research on the way it is carried out in America instead of being too ready to dismiss it on the basis as you seeing it as nothing more than a war zone, as you once claimed in another thread, or gunfights in the streets as you have claimed in this one.

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. And that's the way it often is in America.

so would your license fee cover this if say there were a thousand instances a year. Why on earth should my license fee cover this?

not to mention the cost to the health service to repair the injured.​ It does this now, every weekend in A & E.

if all people were allowed to carry and use then every police officer would have to carry. No one has proposed 'all' people are allowed to carry. If it was proposed that civilians could carry arms

I would think the arming of the police would have occurred some time previously, don't you?

they may not want to and we would need more of them a further cost. True, there is no gun culture in this country, but if the police were armed by regulation, those who didn't want to needn't join.

no go gun areas whats the point as you said criminals take no heed.Agreed, no point whatsoever.

school teachers holding firearms in class maybe they don't wish to kill someone or is that just going to be forced onto them.You're starting to border on the ridiculous now, but why would teachers need to be armed? To suggest they would be forced to kill someone is ludicrous.

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 genuinely, and with all respect, have no idea what you are talking about here.

i really don't see any place for self defense guns in their world.Like I said, no one has suggested the carrying of any weapon of self defence is compulsory, as indeed it isn't in any other country. The point hat riles, as I've said before, is not having the choice. It doesn't even have to be a gun.

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.​Fair enough, did it also mention how criminals acquire their handguns?

also from what it said there is no requirement to inform the authority's in many cases of ownership. As is the case in Canada also; they recently overturned the requirement for law abiding individuals to register their firearms.

now that is how I read it maybe I was wrong but I don't think so.if I am then I apologise. If that's what you read Mick, then fair enough.

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. What would be the point of an individual taking this matter to the European court? Following the handgun ban various groups did try to fight their cause through the court of human rights.

must have been a brave party that wanted to keep hook hand in the country.Again, I have no idea to what you are referring here.

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. As I've already mentioned, there isn't the will for this, and our shooting organisations fled in fear, apart from one.

[bostonmick]

It doesn't work like that. If criminals don't have an easy target and know that people are carrying guns they won't upgrade to machine guns or rocket launchers to achieve their deed. They will go to an area where comitting their crime is easier or will get involved in other crimes which are less high risk, say car or house burglary.

 

You mention "gangs of vigilantes roaming the streets". I am talking about law abiding people with a conceal carry license, unless in your eyes that is a vigilante. Do you think that armed vigilantes are patrolling the streets of America?

 

 

of course not.there is no room for the vigilantes as the gangs have taken all the streets.as for them moving on because someone had a gun if that is all it took then have an armed police patrol.instant crime free area.now the normal residents are happy and safe.and not a shot fired

[srspower]

 

well if you believe the stats as some on here love to.the figure for gun crime is on the decrease.i would say that knives are a bigger threat today.so you want a gun to fend of a knife attack.what will you want when the knifeman has upgraded to a gun also.maybe a flame thrower.also it is the residents of some of these areas that make them what they are or are you suggesting that the violent ones are all day trippers.would it make you feel safer if there were packs of vigilante roaming them streets.and lets not forget the people on those streets are not all criminals and could also have guns under your rules.there are many reasons why London especially is full of no go areas but I will not get into that.as for me living in a nice rural area well that's true.however I have heard and no doubt it is true that London is a very expensive place to live so surely it would be beneficial to some to move say twenty miles or so say into Essex where it is cheaper.jobs are reasonable.and you can walk the streets without an armoury.and I do have a lot of personal experience of Essex.

 

People who rob you aren't after a fight, they want to take your stuff and go. If a potential victim had a gun they would back off regardless of what weapon they possessed unless of course they were insane. In the US states with the most free firearms laws have the lowest levels of violent crime, gun or otherwise. States with tight gun laws like California, New York and Illinois have very high levels of violent crime.

Edited November 23, 2014 by srspower

[Scully]

 

there is no room for the vigilantes as the gangs have taken all the streets. Seriously MIck, this is astonishing. Do you actually know anything about armed crime in Amerca other than what you see on the TV?

 

 

 

People who rob you aren't after a fight, they want to take your stuff and go. If a potential victim had a gun they would back off regardless of what weapon they possessed unless of course they were insane. In the US states with the most free firearms laws have the lowest levels of violent crime, gun or otherwise. States with tight gun laws like California, New York and Illinois have very high levels of violent crime.

Very true. I remember reading an article in an American shooting magazine some years ago that despite Washington state having some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the USA (on a par with that in the UK) the American armed forces sent all its trainee surgeons to Washington state hospital to gain experience of gunshot wounds and traumatic amputation.

Some reading for anyone interested: 'Guns and Gangs' by Graeme McLagan, but it's relevance may not be up to date now despite being written in 2005; mostly about 'black on black' shootings in this country.

'Guns and Violence - the English Experience' by Joyce somebody or other; you'll have to google it as it's a long time since I read it.

It explains how things used to be regarding the right to carry arms for self defence from the English point of view, and how we got to the stage where we are now, involving much misleading practises and massaging of facts and figures by the politicians and police of the times (nothing new there then) and armed crime rates as dating back to the 13th Century up to the present date, and their relation in conjunction with the right to bear arms in England.

'Control - exposing the truth about guns' - by Glenn Beck, from an American perspective. Personally I'll never buy another Stephen King novel again.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I believe it is the Walter Reed hospital that you are thinking of Scully

[Scully]

 

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.

Fair enough. I can't say I'm happy that CC isn't permitted in this country, but am quite content that I don't feel there is a need, although I am also sure that those who do feel the need wont share my contentment. But where I am unhappy is that by law we are denied THE CHOICE to make that decision for ourselves. Like I've said, it doesn't even have to be a gun.

[Scully]

I believe it is the Walter Reed hospital that you are thinking of Scully

Thanks for that. I honestly can't recall, it was some time ago now.

[grrclark]

Fair enough. I can't say I'm happy that CC isn't permitted in this country, but am quite content that I don't feel there is a need, although I am also sure that those who do feel the need wont share my contentment. But where I am unhappy is that by law we are denied THE CHOICE to make that decision for ourselves. Like I've said, it doesn't even have to be a gun.

 

I can understand that, I do wonder why non lethal things like pepper spray or similar are banned and would be quite happy to support the right to carry such a thing.

[bostonmick]

 

Thanks for taking the time Mick.

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. I know we're not in America, but their system seems to be working. As has been mentioned on here, the CC permit scheme has gone from strength to strength and is now in operation in most states.

the people of this country are different. In what way?

you answered nothing really just gave your opinion again. Eh? Answered nothing? I have answered most of your statements with logic and fact. If I don't know the answer I have said so, unlike you, who has based their entire argument on illogical biased opinion.

all I asked was how would you run the system here. If the proposal to moot such an idea here, on a serious basis were ever to occur, don't you think there would be some serious debates forthcoming first? If you want to know how the system works then take off your blinkers and do some serious research on the way it is carried out in America instead of being too ready to dismiss it on the basis as you seeing it as nothing more than a war zone, as you once claimed in another thread, or gunfights in the streets as you have claimed in this one.

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. And that's the way it often is in America.

so would your license fee cover this if say there were a thousand instances a year. Why on earth should my license fee cover this?

not to mention the cost to the health service to repair the injured.​ It does this now, every weekend in A & E.

if all people were allowed to carry and use then every police officer would have to carry. No one has proposed 'all' people are allowed to carry. If it was proposed that civilians could carry arms

I would think the arming of the police would have occurred some time previously, don't you?

they may not want to and we would need more of them a further cost. True, there is no gun culture in this country, but if the police were armed by regulation, those who didn't want to needn't join.

no go gun areas whats the point as you said criminals take no heed.Agreed, no point whatsoever.

school teachers holding firearms in class maybe they don't wish to kill someone or is that just going to be forced onto them.You're starting to border on the ridiculous now, but why would teachers need to be armed? To suggest they would be forced to kill someone is ludicrous.

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 genuinely, and with all respect, have no idea what you are talking about here.

i really don't see any place for self defense guns in their world.Like I said, no one has suggested the carrying of any weapon of self defence is compulsory, as indeed it isn't in any other country. The point hat riles, as I've said before, is not having the choice. It doesn't even have to be a gun.

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.​Fair enough, did it also mention how criminals acquire their handguns?

also from what it said there is no requirement to inform the authority's in many cases of ownership. As is the case in Canada also; they recently overturned the requirement for law abiding individuals to register their firearms.

now that is how I read it maybe I was wrong but I don't think so.if I am then I apologise. If that's what you read Mick, then fair enough.

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. What would be the point of an individual taking this matter to the European court? Following the handgun ban various groups did try to fight their cause through the court of human rights.

must have been a brave party that wanted to keep hook hand in the country.Again, I have no idea to what you are referring here.

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. As I've already mentioned, there isn't the will for this, and our shooting organisations fled in fear, apart from one.

 

I am struggling to see how you can say it works for the americans.what are you basing that on.is it just stats on the web or do you have personal experience of living there..the people of America are different to the british .two different cultures.if the general population was armed the police would have to be how can the law enforcers be unarmed against a society of carriers.it would be suicidle.I said about the teachers as when the children were at school who is to protect them and it was another poster who said that teachers in the us were now starting to be armed at school.my answers are the same as yours and anyone else,of course they are based on personal opinions and they by definition are biased.you cannot do things just on the basis of the figures of another country.just because something is right for one don't make it universal.the point of not having the choice well if it was the majority that wanted it then fine but here the majority do not want it.in fact if you took a poll nationwide we would most likely lose what we have now.and as much as you may not like it the governments are the ones holding this off,for the moment at least.a&e are dealing with lots of stupid violence caused injuries every week but mostly minor not major gunshot wounds.the police are not armed as we do not need them all to be.we manage quite well with specific groups being armed.mainly I would say due to the fact that guns are not an everyday pocket item.the point about the young hands on the farm today with the chickens is they cant kill a bird for food do you think they would have the stomach to shoot somebody.i never said anything about compulsory carrying.no the wiki site was purely a list of states and their regs.no crime figures.i do believe it to be a good thing that firearms are registered and the authority know where they are.we need traceability and accountability in all things.if you are not using your gun for wrongdoing then why would registering be a problem.the point of taking it to the euro court would be that if as some believe the british government were to lose the cost would probably be awarded against them also.i will take this opportunity to make one thing clear.i would like to see the return of handguns for sporting purposes for those who would enjoy them.i believe it wrong they lost them.i would not want one myself but I would not deny others.i do not believe in guns for personal protection and to carry around in public.we really do not need it.my opinion.i know its not yours and I respect that also.

[ordnance]

 

30000 out of 70 million.not exactly a resounding enditement.Or are we talking about lifetime ago.

You have lost me a bit with that reply, I would say that around thirty thousand firearms for personal protection in a population of one and a half million is a fair number. As there are far less army personnel here now and with the security situation better, there are less civilians carrying firearms so there would be less in circulation now. My point was that all the apocalyptic scenarios you are concerned about did not happen.

 

 

Yes I am absolutely sure that relative to our population the rate of violent crime is a very small number.

 

Are you still sure, note the crimes per 100,000 residents.

 

 

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

 

Edited November 23, 2014 by ordnance

[bostonmick]

 

People who rob you aren't after a fight, they want to take your stuff and go. If a potential victim had a gun they would back off regardless of what weapon they possessed unless of course they were insane. In the US states with the most free firearms laws have the lowest levels of violent crime, gun or otherwise. States with tight gun laws like California, New York and Illinois have very high levels of violent crime.

so the higher the number of guns the lower the crime figures.we have very low gun crime so are you saying that if we put guns on the street we could have a zero rate.i am for that.

[bostonmick]

 

of course not.there is no room for the vigilantes as the gangs have taken all the streets.as for them moving on because someone had a gun if that is all it took then have an armed police patrol.instant crime free area.now the normal residents are happy and safe.and not a shot fired

scully are you seriously saying there are no gangs in America and no gang firearm crime.true I do not waste my time trawling the internet for pointless stats on a country I do not live in.i did however watch some of them programmes on tv where they went into death row and spoke to those waiting on it who were there for shootings for the gang.and I might add quite proud of it some were.

[Scully]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am struggling to see how you can say it works for the americans.what are you basing that on.is it just stats on the web or do you have personal experience of living there..​Based on the fact that many years ago most states opposed CC laws, but now hardly any do. I don't think that would be the case if CC didn't work.

the people of America are different to the british .two different cultures. Ok, in what way?

if the general population was armed the police would have to be how can the law enforcers be unarmed against a society of carriers.it would be suicidle.I don't recall ever saying the police wouldn't need to be armed if the populace were. I would have thought one flowed the other, but why would it be suicide; are you suggesting that law abiding CC permit holders would shoot all the unarmed police? I genuinely don't follow your logic there.

I said about the teachers as when the children were at school who is to protect them Security firms I believe are taking on this role in the USA, but who protects the teachers from the pupils?

and it was another poster who said that teachers in the us were now starting to be armed at school. That was me. I apologise if I gave the impression the teachers are actually armed at school, as I don't know if that is the case; I meant some teachers are CC permit holders.

my answers are the same as yours and anyone else,of course they are based on personal opinions and they by definition are biased.you cannot do things just on the basis of the figures of another country.just because something is right for one don't make it universal.the point of not having the choice well if it was the majority that wanted it then fine but here the majority do not want it.I'm not sure if the majority have been asked.

in fact if you took a poll nationwide we would most likely lose what we have now.Is this based on fact or just your opinion.

and as much as you may not like it the governments are the ones holding this off, ​Of course it's the government and politicians; I don't know who else it could be.

or the moment at least.a&e are dealing with lots of stupid violence caused injuries every week but mostly minor not major gunshot wounds. Agreed, to a point. There are many incidences of stabbings, bottling and beatings on a weekend basis.

the police are not armed as we do not need them all to be.we manage quite well with specific groups being armed.We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

mainly I would say due to the fact that guns are not an everyday pocket item.But knives can be. There are instances of stabbings in this country on a daily basis.

the point about the young hands on the farm today with the chickens is they cant kill a bird for food do you think they would have the stomach to shoot somebody.​ Why on earth would anyones reluctance to kill a chicken have any bearing on that persons ability to take a life in defence of their own or that of a loved one? Put a threat between a mother and their child and see what happens Mick; armed or otherwise.

i never said anything about compulsory carrying. I realise that, but from some statements you give the impression you believe the country would be rife with gun toting individuals looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

no the wiki site was purely a list of states and their regs.no crime figures.i do believe it to be a good thing that firearms are registered and the authority know where they are.I don't, as that way the state has control over its law abiding subjects.

we need traceability and accountability in all things.Why?

if you are not using your gun for wrongdoing then why would registering be a problem.​Again, it is all about freedom from state interference. As law abiding subjects the Americans and Canadians have been given that freedom. If the state has no intention of wrongdoing why the need to control its subjects? Have a look at the quote under Wymberleys avatar. Says it all really.

the point of taking it to the euro court would be that if as some believe the british government were to lose the cost would probably be awarded against them also.The British government wouldn't, and didn't lose. Like i said, one organisation tried, and failed.

i will take this opportunity to make one thing clear.i would like to see the return of handguns for sporting purposes for those who would enjoy them.i believe it wrong they lost them.i would not want one myself but I would not deny others.i do not believe in guns for personal protection and to carry around in public.we really do not need it.my opinion.i know its not yours and I respect that also.Fair enough, but while our authorities can't deny arms to criminals I feel it insulting that the law abiding are denied the right to carry anything for the purpose of self defence.

 

[grrclark]

Ordnance, yes I am absolutely sure that 2% is a very small number.

 

You also need to consider what is regarded as a violent crime in different countries, I believe that the UK records robbery as a violent crime for example, not just robbery with menace which I could understand being regarded as violent.

 

So someone having a bag snatched or someone being pick pocketed, that type of thing is regarded as a violent crime. You may find that in SA they record violent crime completely differently, hence these league tables are generally worthless as they do not compare like for like.

 

Statistics on their own without the qualification behind them make for a headline and very little else.

Edited November 23, 2014 by grrclark

[Scully]

scully are you seriously saying there are no gangs in America and no gang firearm crime. You jump around like Zebedee Mick! Can you seriously not recall what you have posted only recently? You claimed there was 'no room for the vigilantes as the gangs have taken all the streets'. I was responding to that ridiculous claim (where on earth did you get this pearl of wisdom from?) and never said anything about there 'are no gangs in America' nor 'no gang crime' !

true I do not waste my time trawling the internet for pointless stats on a country I do not live in.So what are your arguments based on then Mick? You have entered a debate in which people have given you various facts and figures and provided links to counter your arguments and you still refute their arguments? You may have a differing opinion, which is fair enough, but unless you know your subject on what do you base your argument; a biased and prejudicial personal opinion?

i did however watch some of them programmes on tv where they went into death row and spoke to those waiting on it who were there for shootings for the gang.and I might add quite proud of it some were. Bravado in front of a TV camera from someone who has nothing to lose? All very interesting but what relevance it has to the topic I have no idea.

[bostonmick]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am struggling to see how you can say it works for the americans.what are you basing that on.is it just stats on the web or do you have personal experience of living there..​Based on the fact that many years ago most states opposed CC laws, but now hardly any do. I don't think that would be the case if CC didn't work.

the people of America are different to the british .two different cultures. Ok, in what way?

if the general population was armed the police would have to be how can the law enforcers be unarmed against a society of carriers.it would be suicidle.I don't recall ever saying the police wouldn't need to be armed if the populace were. I would have thought one flowed the other, but why would it be suicide; are you suggesting that law abiding CC permit holders would shoot all the unarmed police? I genuinely don't follow your logic there.

I said about the teachers as when the children were at school who is to protect them Security firms I believe are taking on this role in the USA, but who protects the teachers from the pupils?

and it was another poster who said that teachers in the us were now starting to be armed at school. That was me. I apologise if I gave the impression the teachers are actually armed at school, as I don't know if that is the case; I meant some teachers are CC permit holders.

my answers are the same as yours and anyone else,of course they are based on personal opinions and they by definition are biased.you cannot do things just on the basis of the figures of another country.just because something is right for one don't make it universal.the point of not having the choice well if it was the majority that wanted it then fine but here the majority do not want it.I'm not sure if the majority have been asked.

in fact if you took a poll nationwide we would most likely lose what we have now.Is this based on fact or just your opinion.

and as much as you may not like it the governments are the ones holding this off, ​Of course it's the government and politicians; I don't know who else it could be.

or the moment at least.a&e are dealing with lots of stupid violence caused injuries every week but mostly minor not major gunshot wounds. Agreed, to a point. There are many incidences of stabbings, bottling and beatings on a weekend basis.

the police are not armed as we do not need them all to be.we manage quite well with specific groups being armed.We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

mainly I would say due to the fact that guns are not an everyday pocket item.But knives can be. There are instances of stabbings in this country on a daily basis.

the point about the young hands on the farm today with the chickens is they cant kill a bird for food do you think they would have the stomach to shoot somebody.​ Why on earth would anyones reluctance to kill a chicken have any bearing on that persons ability to take a life in defence of their own or that of a loved one? Put a threat between a mother and their child and see what happens Mick; armed or otherwise.

i never said anything about compulsory carrying. I realise that, but from some statements you give the impression you believe the country would be rife with gun toting individuals looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

no the wiki site was purely a list of states and their regs.no crime figures.i do believe it to be a good thing that firearms are registered and the authority know where they are.I don't, as that way the state has control over its law abiding subjects.

we need traceability and accountability in all things.Why?

if you are not using your gun for wrongdoing then why would registering be a problem.​Again, it is all about freedom from state interference. As law abiding subjects the Americans and Canadians have been given that freedom. If the state has no intention of wrongdoing why the need to control its subjects? Have a look at the quote under Wymberleys avatar. Says it all really.

the point of taking it to the euro court would be that if as some believe the british government were to lose the cost would probably be awarded against them also.The British government wouldn't, and didn't lose. Like i said, one organisation tried, and failed.

i will take this opportunity to make one thing clear.i would like to see the return of handguns for sporting purposes for those who would enjoy them.i believe it wrong they lost them.i would not want one myself but I would not deny others.i do not believe in guns for personal protection and to carry around in public.we really do not need it.my opinion.i know its not yours and I respect that also.Fair enough, but while our authorities can't deny arms to criminals I feel it insulting that the law abiding are denied the right to carry anything for the purpose of self defence.

 

 

 

well I think we will agree to disagree after all this time.but could I ask you where would you say the cut off should be for who is allowed to carry weapons for self defence.obviously anyone convicted of violent crime.but what about the person who has a couple of minor type convictions.what medical reasons would bar someone.it would be a hard call as in effect you would be denying a section of society the right and means to defend themselves and their family.also what calibre of weapon would be allowed as I cant see it makes sense having loads of people with military style roaming the streets.i would be interested in this answer as I know that in the past not me but relatives have shot fox rabbits etc on the farm with a rifle.it was always enough to use a .22 and it was effective enough.however now it seems that people have to have the bigger calibre for reasons I do not understand.as it has been said the reason for having cc is not to kill but stop or injure to render the situation safe so would a small calibre be satisfactory or would you also say that anything goes.just to add I watched a documentary a few weeks ago where it spoke to police forces and it seems that any actions using tazors or pepper spray are recorded as armed by the police even if the tazor was not fired it only had to be drawn.this I would imagine would push the gun related incidents list up a bit so distorting the true figures for our little island.

Edited November 23, 2014 by bostonmick

[bostonmick]

You have lost me a bit with that reply, I would say that around thirty thousand firearms for personal protection in a population of one and a half million is a fair number. As there are far less army personnel here now and with the security situation better, there are less civilians carrying firearms so there would be less in circulation now. My point was that all the apocalyptic scenarios you are concerned about did not happen.

 

 

Are you still sure, note the crimes per 100,000 residents.

 

 

so we are top of the violent crimes list but 13th in the homicide is homicide not a violent crime then.the figures on the scale you show are dependant on what each country regards as violent.maybe a shouting session in the uk is not in Germany or a domestic argument where police are called by say neighbours is in the uk but not in france.I think they are to say the least unreliable.

[ordnance]

 

Ordnance, yes I am absolutely sure that 2% is a very small number

Ok where do you get your information from to be so sure. ?

[Scully]

 

well I think we will agree to disagree after all this time.Fair enough.

but could I ask you where would you say the cut off should be for who is allowed to carry weapons for self defence. Anyone who satisfies current legislation as regards firearms licensing legislation. To do otherwise would be totally illogical. It doesn't necessarily follow of course, that that person would in fact want to carry a handgun. Even with training it is a HUGE responsibility.

obviously anyone convicted of violent crime.but what about the person who has a couple of minor type convictions.what medical reasons would bar someone. As above.

it would be a hard call as in effect you would be denying a section of society the right and means to defend themselves and their family. ​Not necessarily true. if the other members of that family meet the criteria then they could arm themselves and protect those who are incapable for one reason or another, of protecting themselves.

also what calibre of weapon would be allowed as I cant see it makes sense having loads of people with military style roaming the streets.i would be interested in this answer as I know that in the past not me but relatives have shot fox rabbits etc on the farm with a rifle.it was always enough to use a .22 and it was effective enough.however now it seems that people have to have the bigger calibre for reasons I do not understand.as it has been said the reason for having cc is not to kill but stop or injure to render the situation safe so would a small calibre be satisfactory or would you also say that anything goes.just to add I watched a documentary a few weeks ago where it spoke to police forces and it seems that any actions using tazors or pepper spray are recorded as armed by the police even if the tazor was not fired it only had to be drawn.this I would imagine would push the gun related incidents list up a bit so distorting the true figures for our little island.

I have absolutely no interest in, nor intention of, being drawn into a totally irrelevant and morbid debate about calibre's and their respective merits re' terminal velocities, penetration, stopping power etc. If you are genuinely interested in such matters there is a wealth of information out there produced by people and various agencies, both military and civilian (such as the FBI) with much more knowledge than me on the subject.

Tazers and mace are of course regarded as arms, as that is what they are, albeit regarded as non-lethal.

[grrclark]

Ok where do you get your information from to be so sure. ?

 

That wee pic on statistics that you posted indicated around 2%, I consider 2% to be very small.

 

As I said I believe that the UK has a fairly wide inclusion of crimes that are regarded as violent, that would skew that figure to be artificially high. I see that homicide on that table was less and of course that genuinely is violent, unless it includes culpable homicide in which case it might not be.

 

For any discussion around the use of lethal weapons for self defence I would consider that there has to be an intention or likely outcome of a fatality by the perpetrator of the crime to merit using lethal force in defence, just my opinion of course, but I wouldn't consider the use of a gun to prevent say a bag snatching as being appropriate. As unpleasant as bag snatching is it really doesn't merit the potential death of the perpetrator.

 

Edit: The breakout of the individual stats for burglary, robbery and homicide at the bottom of your graphic would suggest that burglary and robbery are considered violent crimes which would certainly give rise to an incredibly misleading figure.

Edited November 23, 2014 by grrclark