Russian gun laws become more permissive...

[deadeye18]

Nice to have the option of defending yourself against the gangs though eh.id rather have the weapon and not need it than need it and not have it.

Edited November 24, 2014 by deadeye18

[Scully]

on the bbc world news page with regard to the child shot in America at the bottom of the article it says that particular police force is under investigation at the moment for their use of force tactics.another instance quoted is a car chase where two officers fired over 130 shots at the vehicle.that would seem not only a little reckless but dangerous to anyone in and around the area.but as it has been pointed out the American system works.

Indeed reckless Mick, but you know as well as I that the 'system' under discussion, and as we discussed, is the system of CC permit holders, which doesn't have anything to do with how the police conduct themselves. CC permits ARE working, the fact many more states have seen fit to allow CC permits is undeniable. If you want to distort what we have talked about to attempt to prove your point then there's no further point in discussing this.

If I read the link correctly it was police who fired 130 shots, not CC permit holders. Perhaps the police need to have some serious re-training, some that doesn't involve the 'spray and pray' technique, eh?

[chrisjh]

my post isn't aimed at anyone specifically i am not saying you will do it your stance allows others to do it, i don't know you what i am saying here is how on earth can you justify owning a hand gun to shoot a piece of paper at the cost of an innocent persons life a child s life at that

 

what you are is incredibly selfish and shallow if you put your own personal pleasure before someone else's life a child's life for gods sake for what, so you can be billy big balls with a hand gun and shoot paper targets

 

Shame on you

Edited November 24, 2014 by chrisjh

[Scully]

my post isn't aimed at anyone specifically, i don't know you what i am saying here is how on earth can you justify owning a hand gun to shoot a piece of paper at the cost of an innocent persons life and a child s l;life at that

 

what you are is incredibly selfish and shallow if you put your own personal pleasure before someone else's life a child's life for what, so you can be billy big balls with a hand gun and shoot paper targets

 

Shame on you

I seriously think you need to have a good long hard think to yourself about what you are posting. You just haven't got it, have you? Incredible.

[bostonmick]

Indeed reckless Mick, but you know as well as I that the 'system' under discussion, and as we discussed, is the system of CC permit holders, which doesn't have anything to do with how the police conduct themselves. CC permits ARE working, the fact many more states have seen fit to allow CC permits is undeniable. If you want to distort what we have talked about to attempt to prove your point then there's no further point in discussing this.

If I read the link correctly it was police who fired 130 shots, not CC permit holders. Perhaps the police need to have some serious re-training, some that doesn't involve the 'spray and pray' technique, eh?

You are absolutely correct. My point whether put over correctly or not was to give a insight to what can happen when you put guns out in general circulation to the masses with almost no knowledge by the authorities of where these are.will have a knock on effect to everyone.the police officer who shot the child was a fairly new recruit.so maybe training was an issue there.the officers who behaved like tv stars spraying the road with bullets acted like idiots with no regard to anyone's safety.these are just two examples of those who should be at the top of the game with all the financial backing a government can give for training and the like are failing dreadfully. Perhaps the authorities in all countries should not arm any of their police.but then who would provide the deterant to those who would use guns against the innocent. From some of the views in favour of CC and self defence I also get the impression that they would resent any training being given as they already believe they are better equipped to use firearms in a situation than police and in one post servicemen.it takes a special type to make calm decisions under extreme pressure which would be the scenario in cases of shooting for self or family defence and I am sorry but shooting a bit of game or a few targets could never give that.

[Breastman]

my post isn't aimed at anyone specifically i am not saying you will do it your stance allows others to do it, i don't know you what i am saying here is how on earth can you justify owning a hand gun to shoot a piece of paper at the cost of an innocent persons life a child s life at that

 

what you are is incredibly selfish and shallow if you put your own personal pleasure before someone else's life a child's life for gods sake for what, so you can be billy big balls with a hand gun and shoot paper targets

 

Shame on you

 

Apart from the fact you have conveniently not responded to people asking if you feel "ashamed and selfish" for owning (presumably) a shotgun or rifle for the crimes of Derrick Bird (who murdered people with a shotgun and rifle)? Have you ever consumed alcohol or do you drive? If so do you feel ashamed because dozens of people are killed every year by drink drivers?

 

 

 

Attempting to ignore the gravity of the above ridiculousness, the secretary of Interpol now thinks CCW is a legitimate option!

 

http://www.federalobserver.com/2013/10/28/interpol-secretary-proposes-new-solution-to-mass-shootings-intl-terrorism-arm-civilians/

 

 

What always makes me laugh on threads like this is that those who are fiercely opposed always think/claim that because the option to own/carry a gun for self-defence is there, that EVERYONE (including criminals for some bizarre reason) will exercise the right to do so and then people will be having mass gun fights over parking spaces. The CCW rate in 'wild west' America, is about 5% of the entire population, and it would be much lower over here. Currently there are about 715,000 certificates issued. Many of those will be held by people who have both an FAC and an SGC, so lets say for arguments sake thats 400,000 people owning those 715,000 certificates. Thats just over 0.5% of people in this country that have bothered to go through the licensing process.

 

Everytime this gets discussed there's always a assumption that the people in favour want every person who can physically hold up a gun to be issued with one and a CCW permit on their 18 birthday

 

- Applying for a firearms/shotgun certificate puts off 99.4% of people

- Having to then apply for a concealed carry permit would put off 50-80% of the remaining 1%

- Having to do regular training would put off 50% of those remaining

- Not being able to drink while carrying would put off 50% of the few people left

 

I know the UK isn't very big but are the tiny number of people who could/would apply likely to bump into each other in the same car park and start a gun fight over the same parking space?

Edited November 24, 2014 by Breastman

[Imperfection]

anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns.

 

Are you for real??? You're obviously a gun owner (or maybe not...) and tarring anyone who wants to participate in their chosen sport is insulting.

 

Now you hang your head in shame.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Imperfection

[bostonmick]

 

Apart from the fact you have conveniently not responded to people asking if you feel "ashamed and selfish" for owning (presumably) a shotgun or rifle for the crimes of Derrick Bird (who murdered people with a shotgun and rifle)? Have you ever consumed alcohol or do you drive? If so do you feel ashamed because dozens of people are killed every year by drink drivers?

 

 

 

Attempting to ignore the gravity of the above ridiculousness, the secretary of Interpol now thinks CCW is a legitimate option!

 

http://www.federalobserver.com/2013/10/28/interpol-secretary-proposes-new-solution-to-mass-shootings-intl-terrorism-arm-civilians/

 

 

What always makes me laugh on threads like this is that those who are fiercely opposed always think/claim that because the option to own/carry a gun for self-defence is there, that EVERYONE (including criminals for some bizarre reason) will exercise the right to do so and then people will be having mass gun fights over parking spaces. The CCW rate in 'wild west' America, is about 5% of the entire population, and it would be much lower over here. Currently there are about 715,000 certificates issued. Many of those will be held by people who have both an FAC and an SGC, so lets say for arguments sake thats 400,000 people owning those 715,000 certificates. Thats just over 0.5% of people in this country that have bothered to go through the licensing process.

 

Everytime this gets discussed there's always a assumption that the people in favour want every person who can physically hold up a gun to be issued with one and a CCW permit on their 18 birthday

 

- Applying for a firearms/shotgun certificate puts off 99.4% of people

- Having to then apply for a concealed carry permit would put off 50-80% of the remaining 1%

- Having to do regular training would put off 50% of those remaining

- Not being able to drink while carrying would put off 50% of the few people left

 

I know the UK isn't very big but are the tiny number of people who could/would apply likely to bump into each other in the same car park and start a gun fight over the same parking space?

So following the logic of your figures why would we need cc if as you predict only a few thousand from 70million would actualy apply.in those circumstances just who are they protecting themselves from.maybe someone who raises their voice to them perhaps.If we take your numbers of current holder's and I would say you are about right.when I go to a shoot I am fully aware that there are others there with guns and there is the remotest possibility that one of these could have a breakdown of some kind and maybe hurt me or another.I am happy to take that as a calculated risk.However if we had cc I would not feel quite so confident say if I went to a restaurant for a meal a park with grandchildren or dog or any other public place where anyone could be carrying a gun.As we all know the no drink while in possession would be strictly observed as is no drink when driving is.once people are armed in this manner I believe it would cause hysteria and a greater number of people would then apply until we reached the same stage as the us.we here do not need it.I can think of no instance in my own or my family's lifetime where it would have been of any use.I never feel that I need any weapons with me to feel safe when i go about my normal life and I would bet that goes for the rest of the population to.you are allowed to own guns.a you can use them without to much restriction why are people not satisfied with that.

[Breastman]

I've never had to use the fire extinguisher i have at home, or any of the ones at work but i'm glad i've got them there for the small chance i might need them. Same thing.

 

I don't get that you're happy to take the calculated risk where you KNOW there are guns present, but you're not happy about the risk where you don't know if ANYONE has a gun, and the chances of them having a CCW gun are remote in the extreme? Sorry i just follow any logic there at all. Someone losing the plot could just as easily wrap a chair around the back of you head/stab you in a restaurant, glass you in a pub etc etc. I just don't get the hoplophobia about guns.

[bostonmick]

I've never had to use the fire extinguisher i have at home, or any of the ones at work but i'm glad i've got them there for the small chance i might need them. Same thing.

 

I don't get that you're happy to take the calculated risk where you KNOW there are guns present, but you're not happy about the risk where you don't know if ANYONE has a gun, and the chances of them having a CCW gun are remote in the extreme? Sorry i just follow any logic there at all. Someone losing the plot could just as easily wrap a chair around the back of you head/stab you in a restaurant, glass you in a pub etc etc. I just don't get the hoplophobia about guns.

I feel comfortable at the shoot because I am accustomed to it.I have grown up with it.however I have not grown up in surroundings where people who in all likelihood have only ever fired their protection piece at a square of paper a couple of times in a controlled environment such as a range and not in the heat of the moment.

[Breastman]

Mandatory and regular training as part of getting a CCW permit would be essential as far as i'm concerned.

[thepasty]

Figures for knife crime from the House of Commons

 

•
During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,513 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments, accounting for 7% of selected offences, a similar proportion to previous years. The number of knife offences recorded was 9% lower than in the preceding year.
•
With the exception of homicide the recorded crime statistics had not previously separately identify crimes involving knives. There were 200 homicides using a sharp instrument in 2011/12, accounting for 39% of all homicides.
•
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSES) in 2011/12 a knife was used in 6% of all BCS incidents of violence experienced by adults, similar to the previous year’s proportion.
•
Since January 2010 the CSEW recently has asked children aged 10 to 15 about their experiences of crime in England and Wales. A knife, screwdriver or stabbing instrument was used in 11% of violent incidents involving a weapon against children.
•
Over the year to the end of June 2012 there were 19,382 disposals given for possession of a knife or offensive weapon.
•
Juveniles (aged 10-17) were the offenders in 17% of cases. The custody rate was 10% for juveniles and 28% for adults
•
A Court of Appeal judgement in May 2008 said that magistrates should normally sentence those convicted of knife crime possession offences at the top end of the range. Following this custody rates and average custodial sentence lengths have risen.
•
NHS data suggests there were 4,490 people admitted to English hospitals in 2011/12 due to assault by a sharp object.

 

 

and yet guns are what gets people in a pickle... I dont get it.

Edited November 24, 2014 by thepasty

[ordnance]

 

my post isn't aimed at anyone specifically i am not saying you will do it your stance allows others to do it, i don't know you what i am saying here is how on earth can you justify owning a hand gun to shoot a piece of paper at the cost of an innocent persons life a child s life at that

So do you think all firearms should be banned, he could have used a shotgun or rifle some use these for shooting pieces of paper or clays. Are you sure you are on the right forum, maybe an anti gun forum would be more appropriate. PS I have a few handguns are you saying I should have them. ? You are sinking low when you resort to using a photograph of dead children to try and get your point across, something I would expect to see coming from the militant groups in the anti gun lobby.

 

 

They point out that the ramifications go beyond the person who squeezes the trigger; it affects those close to them as well. One told me that during training he had been asked to consider very seriously how his parents, wife and children would feel if they suddenly found themselves living with a man who, however justifiably, had killed another human being.

They also talk about making the decision. At what point is it right to kill? And in what circumstances? And what about the risk posed to bystanders when bullets are fired in a public place?

How much skill, focus, practice and training is required to carry out instantaneous risk-assessment in what may be the red-hot heat of the moment to ensure that the field of fire is utterly safe and no innocent third parties are going to be endangered?

 

What I'm trying to point out here is that these were the concerns of extremely highly-trained individuals.

 

And if these extremely highly-trained individuals were constantly haunted by these concerns, who would reasonably want ordinary members of the public carrying firearms for self-defence?

You would wonder how the tens of thousands of police here managed over the years, armed on and off duty. ? And civilians and none of the concerns posted happened. So instead of speculating look at real life experiences of police and civilians that are armed in the UK without any of the rubbish people are posting happening.

 

Mandatory and regular training as part of getting a CCW permit would be essential as far as i'm concerned.

I understand that view but civilians that did carry a firearm for self defence here in the past were not required to have any training, and I can't recall any accidents or similar.

Edited November 24, 2014 by ordnance

[TIGHTCHOKE]

my post isn't aimed at anyone specifically i am not saying you will do it your stance allows others to do it, i don't know you what i am saying here is how on earth can you justify owning a hand gun to shoot a piece of paper at the cost of an innocent persons life a child s life at that

 

what you are is incredibly selfish and shallow if you put your own personal pleasure before someone else's life a child's life for gods sake for what, so you can be billy big balls with a hand gun and shoot paper targets

 

Shame on you

 

 

TROLL!

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

 

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.

 

The matter of the fact that yes it does work in America since thier violent crime has dropped after conceal carry became common practice. Historically UK has always had low gun crime. IN the 1920s and30s in fact up until 1946 you could carry a gun for self-defense on the British streets. It was a much more civilised society even though everyone who could afford it could get a gun and carry it, no background checks, no medical records.

 

I don't think you understand why Americans have no registration. It's not to facilitate crime but to ensure that thier common law rights are respected, you know, those rights we are losing drip by drip in the UK.

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

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.

While burglary is not volent cime since it indicates an entering of premises when the occupant is not there, robbery certainly is.

Robbery is when the victim is present and is violently assaulted and posessions taken from them whether this act is caried out on a street or in a dwelling.

[Steppenwolf]

Individuals who actively want to carry a gun in public "for self-defence" are, in my opinion, the last people who should ever be allowed to do so.

 

And those who would tell you that they could, in a moment of bowel-melting crisis, draw a gun and use it responsibly and safely to defend themselves and others are certainly full of something - and it's NOT courage.......

WEll we couldn't have people carrying guns that didn't want to use them or they would hesitate when it's critical that they shoot and then more lives will be lost.

I understand that for them it was hard while carring a gun, I mean for your aquaintances. In America so far lots of people have used guns in self-defense and some even kiled their attacker. I think we can all agree that it is sad when anybody dies, but in that instance the other person was right in making that decision and in case they were wrong they would go to court and be justifiably punished for it.

[Steppenwolf]

anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns.

 

Sory but you will have to make an argument not based on emotion. I can see what you are trying to do here and it's not working on me. I am not going to apologize for a maniac that went into a primary school and killed kids just because I have a gun if you so strongly feel so then give up your guns at the nearest police station. Please do us all a favour.

[deadeye18]

Way i see it is if you want to own anything from a tiger tank to a spud gun then you should be allowed to if your a law abiding citizen with no mental issues or criminal record.

[Steppenwolf]

 

I understand that view but civilians that did carry a firearm for self defence here in the past were not required to have any training, and I can't recall any accidents or similar.

I agree that some form of training would at first be necessary with the requirements to be relaxed so that we are not infringing on people's rights. Of course any sensible person will get training, for the others, when an incident happens where a shot would be accidentally discharged, they would be held criminally responsible for any consequences. Eg damage to a car, manslaughter etc.

 

Even in America if you pull your conceal carry weapon but your life isn't in danger you get charged with attempted murder that is 8 years in Federal Penitentiary. Therefore conceal carriers know they have to be extremely responsible since any wrongdoing on thier part will seriously land them in trouble.

[grrclark]

While burglary is not volent cime since it indicates an entering of premises when the occupant is not there, robbery certainly is.

Robbery is when the victim is present and is violently assaulted and posessions taken from them whether this act is caried out on a street or in a dwelling.

 

Some robberies may be violent, not all, but let's go along with an example that someone is stood in the street using their phone, someone runs past and snatches it, which would be a robbery, or even says "give me your phone or I will punch your face in" which might be a robbery with menace. Would either of those justify the use of a weapon of deadly force in order to prevent the crime?

 

The crime is wrong regardless, no debate about that.

Edited November 24, 2014 by grrclark

[Steppenwolf]

Depends on the situation. I would say yes, if that person was in fear of their life. After all if the would be victim was a young lady the robber might also want to rape her in which case deadly force would be authorised.

 

I think you might be thinking that the victim would grab their gun and shoot to stop the if such a robbery is occuring, but what if they don't need to shoot. What if when they go: Give me your phone you flash your gun and say: **** off, I think onyl a determined criminal would then still commit the robbery and then it means that they are not scared of being shot, therefore a dangerous and crazed individual hence you might need to use that gun.

[grrclark]

Depends on the situation. I would say yes, if that person was in fear of their life. After all if the would be victim was a young lady the robber might also want to rape her in which case deadly force would be authorised.

 

I think you might be thinking that the victim would grab their gun and shoot to stop the if such a robbery is occuring, but what if they don't need to shoot. What if when they go: Give me your phone you flash your gun and say: **** off, I think onyl a determined criminal would then still commit the robbery and then it means that they are not scared of being shot, therefore a dangerous and crazed individual hence you might need to use that gun.

 

Doesn't that open up a whole new series of arguments though, what constitutes a genuine threat to life. I am thinking back to the incident in Florida in the last year or two where a member of a neighbourhood watch scheme shot a teenager and killed him, the shooter claimed that his 'potential assailant' had a weapon and he was in fear of his life, the truth was that he didn't like the look of the lad so he shot him. There was absolutely no evidence that the teenager had any ill intention at all, just the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Your second point is fair enough, deadly force does not have to be used to prevent the crime, the threat may be enough. There is a danger that this creates a precedent that your every day regular run of the mill robberies that we have now, wrong as they are, may then in future become armed robberies as the aggressor may assume each and every potential victim has a gun. Completely subjective way to look at it, I appreciate that.

 

The point around statistics is really that the graphic that Ordnance put up is flawed in as much that it includes numbers for non deadly or non life threatening crimes, so using those as a way to justify a defence of potential deadly force is misleading.

 

If the numbers were being used to support an argument of carrying a non lethal self defence weapon, i.e. pepper spray, then it would be much more valid.

 

I believe that carrying a deadly weapon for defence is one end of the spectrum where having no defence is the opposite and pretty much where we are now. Any suggestion that goes from extreme to extreme and jumps over the middle ground is always going to be contentious as the middle ground will cater for 95% of our requirements.

 

I really don't think that we are at a point where we need to be at the opposite end of the spectrum to where we are now. Yes there are isolated incidents where an extreme measure could be argued, but thankfully they are so rare in our country that a wide scale extreme solution is just not justifiable.

Edited November 24, 2014 by grrclark

[Scully]

You are absolutely correct. My point whether put over correctly or not was to give a insight to what can happen when you put guns out in general circulation to the masses with almost no knowledge by the authorities of where these are.What has this got to do with CC? Who has suggested putting 'guns out in general circulation'? Who do you think allocates the CC permits?

will have a knock on effect to everyone As does crime in general.

.the police officer who shot the child was a fairly new recruit.so maybe training was an issue there. ​I have no idea; what if the childs gun had been real and he killed another child with it? What if, what if? The copper is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He made a decision, unfortunately the wrong one, but now he has to live with that for the rest of his life, as do the parents of the child. The incident still has nothing to do with CC.

the officers who behaved like tv stars spraying the road with bullets acted like idiots with no regard to anyone's safety.these are just two examples of those who should be at the top of the game with all the financial backing a government can give for training and the like are failing dreadfully. So what do you suggest Mick?

Perhaps the authorities in all countries should not arm any of their police.but then who would provide the deterant to those who would use guns against the innocent. Yes, who?

From some of the views in favour of CC and self defence I also get the impression that they would resent any training being given as they already believe they are better equipped to use firearms in a situation than police and in one post servicemen.Really?

it takes a special type to make calm decisions under extreme pressure which would be the scenario in cases of shooting for self or family defence and I am sorry but shooting a bit of game or a few targets could never give that. I don't believe anyone has claimed it could.

[srspower]

People keep pointing to the UK's low gun crime compared to the US, and yeah that's true. But look at our violent crime? We are the most violent nation in Europe and WAY more violent than the USA. You don't need a gun to crack someones skull or stab them to death.

 

The US example certainly points out one thing, an armed society is a polite society.