tighter gun laws on the way ?

[Bluebarrels]

The best weapon in any Terrorists arsenal is the element of surprise BB

[ordnance]

 

And to Wildrover, i don't doubt there have been some cases where civilians being armed has saved lives but there are also countless incidents where disasters have occurred and I don't feel the reward is worth the risk.

We can talk about it but civilians being armed is not going to happen. Some civilians were and are armed here but that's because of their job are they are at risk of terrorist attack. Not because they could get caught up in some random attack like in Paris.

[grrclark]

We can talk about it but civilians being armed is not going to happen. Some civilians were and are armed here but that's because of their job are they are at risk of terrorist attack. Not because they could get caught up in some random attack like in Paris.

I think that is the key point of this thread, it simply will not happen and there is little value in the debate; it will achieve nothing other then elevated blood pressure for some.

 

I guess that we can all imagine that given a certain circumstance that if we were properly equipped we could make a difference, that is simply human nature and our innate self serving tendency. It is easy to think that way when given the luxury of predetermination of a scenario, as that uses our conscious brain, something that is unexpected and shocking relies on our instinctive animal brain initially and simply we don't know how we will respond until it happens.

 

The instinctive response can be conditioned and we can learn to quickly regain conscious control and over rule our base instinct, but how on earth can we self train to react to such a hostile situation?

[wildrover77]

I actually don't see a need for cc in the uk on the whole we are a safe country.

 

But I dispute the fact that a mere civilian is not capable of being responsible for a firearm.

[wildrover77]

I don't think doing a Google search of gun accidents is an accurate way of deciding if on e whole the ownership of guns in the USA for protection results in more harm than good.

 

There have been quite a few independent academic studies proving that they improve the situation in an area where they became available.

[scotslad]

It is a rather pointless and theoretical thread as it will never happen in this country, but i also can see no need for it either.

U'd have to arm so mnay people to have any chance of 1 or 2 people being in the right/wrong place at the right time to help.

Also most people qualified/responsible enough to carry would probably be older, so who's going to protect younger folk like at music festivals?

 

Not read much about the gerfdammes involvment in this in paris but considering there all armed surprised terroists weren't shot earlier, meant to have taken 3 hrs to go into the music hall place.

 

If u are really serious about arming civillians i'd guess u'd arm the polis first, which brings back the whole argument of criminals then needing to carry a firearms to commit crime. They're is no doubt they could get them but are probably put off by the prison sentance, but if all polis were tooled up far more criminals would need to be.

 

Mibee america is not the best example to use, the culture and mentality is totally different over there, also there is soooo many guns both legal and illegal over there bringing in licensing really isn't going to work.

But the ammount of mass shooting they have over there is scary, more people have been shot in massacres since 9/11 than where killed by terrorism, is it not something like on average 3 school shootings per week?

The genie is well and truely out the bottle over there with guns, but most of these nutters probably wouldn't be able to source a gun in the UK as not really criminals just sad losers that have easy acces to guns.

 

Academic studies can often prove wot ever who's funding them want and very few are truely independent, i'm sure in some circumstance guns could help, but having a community where guns are freely available and not locked up is not a good thing esp if kids can gain access

[BattleFieldRelics]

From another website covering the new EU package:

 

"Say goodbye to your 10/22"

"Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which will not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated"

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6110_en.htm

[The Mighty Prawn]

From another website covering the new EU package:

 

"Say goodbye to your 10/22"

"Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which will not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated"

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6110_en.htm

It does only say 'certain' and let's not forget that semi centre fires are still legal in some eu states so I wouldn't read too much into that for the .22 brigade or PSG shotgun owners

[VikingRebel]

I'm going to be honest, I wouldn't fancy my chances with a handgun against an AK47.

 

And how do you fancy your chances with NOTHING against an AK47?

[VikingRebel]

From another website covering the new EU package:

 

"Say goodbye to your 10/22"

"Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which will not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated"

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6110_en.htm

 

EU logic. "Hey guys, we're from the EU government and we're here to help you. As you may know, Europe is potentially facing the worst terrorist campaign in recent history from an enemy already armed to the teeth with weapons that are already banned, so for your own safety, we are going to ensure that you are rendered even more defenceless than you currently are."

[bostonmick]

I for one would certainly feel much safer when out in public places knowing that there could be wannabe rambo's or dirty Harry's there with a handgun.

[Scully]

Give me strength....please.

[mossberg-operator]

https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-eu-you-cannot-stop-terrorism-by-restricting-legal-gun-ownership?recruiter=429799090&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

[bostonmick]

You would need it and a lot of intensive training to take on those well armed and organised terrorists groups.Not a job for the ordinary person that is why we have armed forces and other special services.

[Old farrier]

Hi

So who picks the people that are carrying in public ?

 

and where would they be stationed

We're lucky to get a correct weather forcast so very unlikely to get the intelligence for a terror attack

Just my thoughts

All the best

Of

[keg]

That's assuming that you are looking for an armed populace to take the role of police /army, and roam around solving the problem.

I'm sat with my wife eating dinner when a couple of gentlemen come in and start shooting people. I'm not looking to climb into the aircon system and outflank them, and I don't need specialist training to know that, since they just raked a table of mum,dad,and a high chair full of toddler, they are certainly bad people.

Is it better to cover my wife with my body and know that even my hefty carcass won't stop 7.62 from hitting her, or fire back at the culprit, possibly disturbing his aim, possibly stopping him?

Better surely to do something than nothing.

 

If, like in some states across the pond, we had a requirement of training before being permitted to carry, one of the central tenets could be - stay put, shoot only obvious aggressors, don't get in the way of the old bill doing their job.

 

It'll never happen, and I'm not entirely unhappy about that, but I know if I were in a venue when armed killers started shooting innocent people, I'd rather be able to shoot back, than not.

Am i right in thinking that despite being a well armed populace, this has not happened when shootings have occurred in the USA?

[brett1985]

Am i right in thinking that despite being a well armed populace, this has not happened when shootings have occurred in the USA?

 

see below:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=concealed+carrier+stops+mass+shooting

 

the top one on the list lists 12 occasions that 'mass shootings' have been stopped or thwarted, some of them didn't even need to fire their gun to stop it.

 

the problem is, the American media rarely report on it.

[BrowningB525]

I for one would certainly feel much safer when out in public places knowing that there could be wannabe rambo's or dirty Harry's there with a handgun.

 

Hear hear.

[The Mighty Prawn]

 

see below:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=concealed+carrier+stops+mass+shooting

 

the top one on the list lists 12 occasions that 'mass shootings' have been stopped or thwarted, some of them didn't even need to fire their gun to stop it.

 

the problem is, the American media rarely report on it.

But the entire point of this debate is not whether armed people have ever stopped a shooting, rather is the risk one worth taking - We treat guns wildly differently to the US, we only get them out when we are going to use them and we put them away straight after. By always having them around familiarity breeds contempt and safety goes down and accidents happen, look at the number of kids killed by parents guns through shoddy routines in the US, is the pointless deaths of those people worth the handful of times a private gun has made much difference?

[brett1985]

But the entire point of this debate is not whether armed people have ever stopped a shooting, rather is the risk one worth taking - We treat guns wildly differently to the US, we only get them out when we are going to use them and we put them away straight after. By always having them around familiarity breeds contempt and safety goes down and accidents happen, look at the number of kids killed by parents guns through shoddy routines in the US, is the pointless deaths of those people worth the handful of times a private gun has made much difference?

 

as much as I agree with you (and I do! )

 

go back and read my post again, and the post it was in response to.

 

I was merely answering the question posed by Keg as to whether a concealed firearm had been used to stop a mass shooting.

 

EDIT:

with reference to the children killed by parents guns, do you not think that those situations smell somewhat of bad parenting/bad gun ownership? the unfortunate reality of the deaths of those children is that in the most part, the parents hold the majority of the responsibility.

 

this whole sticking point in the public carry debate is responsible gun ownership and training.

without those two, the public should never be able to open or concealed carry. period.

Edited November 19, 2015 by brett1985

[The Mighty Prawn]

 

as much as I agree with you (and I do! )

 

go back and read my post again, and the post it was in response to.

 

I was merely answering the question posed by Keg as to whether a concealed firearm had been used to stop a mass shooting.

 

EDIT:

with reference to the children killed by parents guns, do you not think that those situations smell somewhat of bad parenting/bad gun ownership? the unfortunate reality of the deaths of those children is that in the most part, the parents hold the majority of the responsibility.

 

this whole sticking point in the public carry debate is responsible gun ownership and training.

without those two, the public should never be able to open or concealed carry. period.

Apologies, I misread your intent and see what you were doing there

 

Regarding the bad parenting/bad gun ownership I wholeheartedly agree, that's what I meant by familiarity breeding contempt, by having guns around day in and day out it can lead to complacency and then to accidents. In my earlier post is one of a woman who carried a gun every day in her handbag and somehow one day managed to lose it and not realise until the police caught up with her, that could have been a gun used for crime or an accident and she didn't even realise it was gone. If we hypothetically armed the populace how often would guns be left on buses, trains etc and be misused? I would guess seeing how many expensive phones etc are lost every day it would not take a week for the first guns to go missing

[Scully]

It would be nice if we could have a half decent debate about this topic without it being hijacked off course deliberately by those blinkered types who can't see any further than Dirty Harry and Rambo types running around with handguns.

I'm not sure if anyone has even suggested the populace is armed, and even if they were, don't people think there would be a seriously severe selection process to undertake beforehand? Anyhow, it isn't going to happen; matters would have had to have deteriorated to a dramatic extent for the powers that be to be willing to relinquish control over even its law abiding citizens. It's one thing for governments to insist its citizens enlist to defend the realm, quite another to allow them to defend themselves.

Anyhow, despite Dirty Harry and Rambo, the indisputable fact is that CCW can and does work in America and N.Ireland without there being 'rivers ov bluuurrrd' in the gutters.

I had suggested the possibility of highly trained and competent ex and serving armed forces personnel / firearms trained police officers carrying concealed firearms at times such as these. Surely even that little concession is better than the alternative?

There is a picture of Cameron on social media with the caption of him shouting 'This country is prepared for a terrorist attack' and another underneath stating 'No David, we aren't even prepared for snow.' Not even funny really.

Cameron and his family have around the clock armed security, as do the Blairs unfortunately. The rest of us in this country; those who are law abiding anyhow, are prevented by law, from having anything. We don't even have a choice. How can this be right?

As saddened as I am by the shootings in Paris, my uppermost reaction is one of anger that all those people who were killed were totally helpless to do anything about it. Some were lined up and shot; the news described them as 'hostages', but they weren't hostages at all, as their captors had no intention of negotiating their freedom. They were lined up and shot. Despicable.

[bostonmick]

I believe if you read back you will find several references in posts to the virtues of ccw .and all made before the topic was as you claim hijacked.and then your next sentence extolls the benefits of ccw.

[ordnance]

 

I for one would certainly feel much safer when out in public places knowing that there could be wannabe rambo's or dirty Harry's there with a handgun.

You would wonder how they manage here with armed civilians, and nothing like the things you seem concerned has happened.

 

 

 

You would need it and a lot of intensive training to take on those well armed and organised terrorists groups.Not a job for the ordinary person that is why we have armed forces and other special services.

I know civlians here that have personal protection weapons with no training. The police must think they could be usefull if the person is attacked, maybe you know better than the PSNI.

 

 

The powers that be are not stupid or unprepared.

I wouldent bet on that. In the current situation having an unarmed police force pretty is stupid.

Edited November 19, 2015 by ordnance

[digger]

I'm assured that the people who are charged with carrying fire arms for our protection whether uniformed or plain clothed are highly trained. What I've been told is not for a public forum but let's just say don't assume that they are all 6ft 4 ex forces or any stereo type you could think of. Many races, multi national. I've met a few at a leaving do and their CVs make Ryan look like a milk monitor.