Facist wrote:........... for carring them in public there is absolutly no need unless your in law enforcement
Construction foreman delivering pay on friday, carrying cash.
Someone whose job takes them into isolated areas were volatile situations could occur.
Or 'just in case'.
Case in point, the virginia tech shootings. Several of the dead/wounded there had concealed carry permits, but could not carry on the school grounds.
They (as virtualy all persons with carry permits do) obeyed the law, and were unarmed.
If a single person had been armed in that event, it could have resulted in the shooting ending that much sooner.
Kestrel wrote:I wish Uk allowed guns for home defense, i dont see a need to carry them around with you but for home defense i definately think it should be allowed, i like stun guns too wouldnt mind carrying one of those around but a handgun outside isnt needed, not in the UK anyway.
Would like to bring my AK from russia too.
Yeah its quite silly, the way brits Ive known have explained it to me (aussies too), if you legally have a gun and use it to save your life or your families life during a break in, you will still end up in jail.
Personally, I would advocate shooting any so called peace officer willing to make an arrest in that case.
The differnce between the UK and the US on this is the reasoning for being armed, as at the time that right was declared for America, gun ownership was unregulated in the UK I do believe.....
At the time, BOTH countries considered some thief getting shot acceptable and normal and self defence with firearms was considerd normal, after all it is perfectly natural for a responsible law abiding person to be able to defend themselves.
However the difference came not only with the colonial background of America (and this guns being a part of life that was all but essential) but the basis of the two countries.
In America, the right to keep and bear arms is intended first and foremost to prevent the goverment from getting too strong.
If the goverment tries to take over and control the people, the people are armed and able to fight back.
Whereas in england, having been a monarchy (and a quite repressive one at times) the people had no real voice in that (indeed, look at the still existent IRA for one example. Quite illegal, yet quite well armed despite laws against such)..
Dominus_Noctis wrote:unfunny spam
I wish there was an ignore button.
Haemoclysm wrote:I think the idea of allowing citizens to arm themselves can easily get out of hand.
Indeed, automatic weapons are highly restricted in the U.S. and there are often restrictions on were they may be carried even with a concealed carry permit (most places either dont allow them in bars, or you're not allowed to drink when in one, not on any school campus be it grade school or college, as examples).
Haemoclysm wrote:Where fights would have broken out in the past, now fists will be replaced by bullets and people will become murderers in anger.
Except that doesn't happen. Those who legally are armed in the US are one of the most law abiding demographics on average.
Or to quote an old adage.... " An armed society is a polite society ".
Haemoclysm wrote:On the other hand it may act to discourage crime
There is a city near were I live in the US that REQUIRES all home owners own a firearm (they dont actually enforce it, however, it was passed as a response to a silly anti gun law elsewere in the nation back in the 70s)
When that law passed, crime quickly dropped in that area. (of course, that whole county has lower crime rates on average because they dont give light sentences to criminals, thus the criminals commit their crimes more often in neighboring counties were even if caught they wll not be punished as much).
Haemoclysm wrote:although it might just make it easier from criminals to arm themselves.
When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns. Folks want to break the law and get something, they WILL get it.
As I recall, in england with guns so hard to get, criminals are now turning to knives quite often. The criminal element will do what they do regardless. Much better to allow the citizenry to have a chance to kill them and rid society of such dregs.
Haemoclysm wrote: Also, how does the law handle someone that shoots a criminal dead?
Here in the US it depends. If it occurs in the home usually just a basic investigation to ascertain the account from the resident. However some of the more idiotic parts of the country that have a ban on owning certain types of firearms have been known to cause trouble in such cases, I rememebr one incident a few years back were a man had shot a guy that broke into his house over night in his sons room, and due to whatever reason there was he wound up spending a few days in jail along with the wounded criminal. The reason he had gone to jail ? He had obtained the gun legally, moved to the city, and was still trying to register it. (IIRC he ended up with his record cleared in the issue)
Denarius wrote:I'd think that mental stability and character would be tested before any permit is given.
Not really. It should be and laws are being chanced here int he US about that, but the fact is that quite often civil rights groups have filed lawsuits lasting years to block such testing, IIRC the ACLU lost one last year that'd gone on for a few years.
Denarius wrote:the fact is, most people are not trained or do not possess the ability to keep calm and in control in these situations. Most people become frightened and will panic, this is when more harm is done then good with guns.
Virtualy all concealed carry permits require you ARE trained (here in the US anyway).
An armed person who has no real training in their arms is foolish and dangerous.
Denarius wrote:Also if someone starts threatening you with a gun, there are simple ways to disarm him. Because most people threaten at point blank range, which is within your range of knocking or grabbing the gun away from him. If you do it correctly. You just have to learn how. Which isn't hard to do, actually.
Which ignroes physical differnces between people. And taking a gun is NOT indeed that easy.
Denarius wrote:If someone threatens you at a distance, having a gun yourself isn't going to do you any good. The moment you reach for your gun, he shoots and you're dead.
Which is were intelligence on the part of the lawful person is required, such as knowing when to NOT draw.
Denarius wrote:
On the streets it is better to know a little self-defense, whether it be judo, taekwondo, aikido or whatever, then it is to carry a gun.
If knowing those martial abilties enough to matter were so easy, far more people would know them. And they would likely become banned in england too because criminals used them.
cabal wrote:As a side note, I did my own study a few months ago using publicly available records for a class and determined that states with stricter gun control laws also tended to have higher crime rates, both violent and nonviolent. Not always, but most of the time.
Would you be intersted in looking up the following statistics/numbers ?
Number of concealed carry permit holders in the US
Number of gun crimes by concealed carry permit holders in the US
Number of total gun crimes committed in the US
% of total US gun crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders.
Number of justified shootings in the US by concealed carry permit holders.
Dominus_Noctis wrote:spam
Yet MORE spam, way to be an example mod!
Dircome wrote:dom, drr could you two keep your posts related to the topic at hand.
Agreed 100%
Atlantisbase wrote:I really don't see what the big fuss is. Personally I have no issue with the public owning guns. I don't know that I'll ever own one, but I'm not opposed to it.
The irony is, I don't think the 2nd Amendment will ever be overridden; and in the event that it is, all we'll have is another prohibition situation. People will get guns illegally, or make their own or use something else like, oh, crossbows or knives; it won't at all have the intended effect.
If it were to be repealed, you would NOT want to have any relatives trying to enforce the repeal, as they would quickly end up dead.
Clintsat wrote:Guns in the civilian population serve important purposes.
1. They provide additional risk for those willing to commit violent crimes. Criminals will always have access to weapons. When they know their prey may have teeth, the less violent criminals think twice. (backed up by US State violent crimes data)
2. They ensure the government must always be concerned public revolt. Even with a significant military advantage, knowing the citizens have the ability to oppose the government with arms keeps the government less willing to overstate constitutional boundaries. (think Libya for an extreme example)
3. They ensure the population has an understanding of weapons should a military draft or invasion situation exist. This is probably one of the more extreme situations but it's definitely a plus.
A couple of other comments on guns. Guns don't kill people....people are pretty good at killing each other with whatever they have around....sticks...rocks...food...
I'm in favor of governments leaving their citizens alone. Don't mess with me unless I am violating the rights of someone else.
Couple of background notes:
1. I live in the US, the great thing about nations is that you generally can pick where you live and make your own rules...
2. I only own an antique firearm and have never fired a gun..
bold/underline markup added for emphesis. I agree with clint 100%.
Background notes for me:
1- Livei n the US.
2- Army Veteral, served in Iraq, multiple firearms in my house. It has been quite some time since ANY of them have been fired or even touched other than for routine cleaning, minus very rare issues with vermin of the non-bipedal varriety.
fa11out wrote:Well I'm from the US and I really would have thought that the tragedy that happened in Arizona only a month or so a go would make people really think hard as to why the US, unlike so many other countries, as so much trouble with gun violence. The more guns you have, and the easier it is get them means more people will get killed or hurt from guns. Whether from just getting shot or by accidental shootings either way guns lead to more violence not less.
So guns are illegal, and suddenly knives are used. Thats whats happening in england as I understand it.
Violent crimes will NOT stop due to making a tool illegal, a differnt tool will simply be used.
fa11out wrote:Clint I understand your points but its rare that a gun from a private residence stops a crime it usually causes one.
Please elaborate and provide proof, as that statement is nonsensical and I do not believe has any factual basis behind it.
If a resident has a gun, the odds are MUCH higher they will drive off the criminal than cause a crime.
fa11out wrote:Plus if the government wanted to enforce martial law there would be no stopping them with our uzis and shotguns or an invasion.
What does martial law have to do with this ? If you mean as a means to confiscate firearms, it would result in a second civil war.
As for those opposed to guns, look up the actual statistics of ANY country that allows legal ownership of firearms (US, Swiss, Israel, as examples).
Now, how many people who go thru the process to LEGALLY carry their weapons in public commit crimes ?
Ill reply in the next post.
I don't think that could solve the problem in any way. There is a high crime rate in an area, so everyone that's not a criminal should also were a gun and it'll get much safer... sounds quite strange to me. Guns don't solve problems, they only create them. In order to decrease crime rates, give the people work, not firearms.
