Would you carry a gun?

[pollaxe]

It's a difficult area - I'm not in favour of the general public being allowed to own assault rifles and the like but also, I think our gun laws have gone too far in the opposite direction. Clearly the U.S. has a gun problem but also Switzerland stands out as a highly-armed society which seems to avoid the problems our U.S. cousins suffer from.

I wouldn't want to carry in the U.K. as it stands but in other places, most definitely.

Ultimately, I think Chris Rock has the right idea. Keep the weapons cheap but make the ammunition bloody expensive ($50,000 per round was his suggestion) and then see how many people get shot up.

[mmh]

It's a difficult area - I'm not in favour of the general public being allowed to own assault rifles and the like but also, I think our gun laws have gone too far in the opposite direction. Clearly the U.S. has a gun problem but also Switzerland stands out as a highly-armed society which seems to avoid the problems our U.S. cousins suffer from.

I wouldn't want to carry in the U.K. as it stands but in other places, most definitely.

Ultimately, I think Chris Rock has the right idea. Keep the weapons cheap but make the ammunition bloody expensive ($50,000 per round was his suggestion) and then see how many people get shot up.

put bullets on layaway... brilliant sketch

[Spud1]

It would depend on the laws really..

Carrying a gun just because you were allowed to would not make me feel any safer - in fact it would be the opposite, largely due to the fact I could never actually use it. The change would have to include provisions of self defence that actually allowed me to shoot someone in self defence, and I don't see that ever happening.

It's bad enough at the moment that if you are attacked, fight off your attacker and then s/he dies you get arrested and may well be charged for it - but if you had a gun..so many more people would end up in prison.

In any case if the laws were changed so that the above was allowed and I could shoot my attacker..i'd want to leave this country straight away.

It works in switzerland due to the mentality of its people. Living there for a year I didn't see many guns, even though people had them..and not once was there a reported "incident" involving them. It was very surreal to walk into the supermarket and you'd see one or two people with automatic rifles slung over their back as they did their shopping..scary at first lol. In the UK though it just would not work, we are such a violent and generally irresponsible country that adding guns to the mix is just a bad idea.

So no, I probably wouldn't - i'd emigrate.

[scaryjim]

That'd just create a black market for ammunition, although it makes for good comedy routines (Eddie Izzard made similar comments in Dress to Kill). Ultimately the choice is either ban guns and accept that the few who choose to break that law will create carnage, and allow guns ands accept that the larger few who choose to carry them will also create carnage.

More to the point, I think any sudden change to the current position would create a very volatile situation during the crossover period, which I think could be disastrous...

[pollaxe]

That'd just create a black market for ammunition, although it makes for good comedy routines (Eddie Izzard made similar comments in Dress to Kill). Ultimately the choice is either ban guns and accept that the few who choose to break that law, and allow guns ands accept that the larger few who choose to carry them will also create carnage.

Of course, it would never work (reloading of existing ammunition would be too easy) but the sentiment is a good one.

I think it is indeed a trade off, having more legal weapons would increase the risk of an incident where a loss of life on a wide scale would be more likely. Guns are very efficient tools for killing and injuring people. That said, life is about risk. I won't give any details but I've been shot at on two occasions; fortunately I wasn't hit on either.

More to the point, I think any sudden change to the current position would create a very volatile situation during the crossover period, which I think could be disastrous...

My personal view is that our gun laws as they stand are too Draconian. I also believe as a society we've become extremely 'gun-phobic.' I don't think we'll see any relaxation or changes of the gun law any time soon. The recent tragedy in Cumbria will play a role in that but I also think as a society there is now a fear of firearms. Ideally, there would be a healthy respect but I suspect Spud's right to say that the population here couldn't be trusted (I immediately think of the nDubz-type generation toting Mac 10s.)

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, it's become a political football and when that happens there tends to be very little sensible debate on the matter. I too have long jokingly advocated the carrying of swords; it would teach discipline and engender respect for one another!

[kalniel]

I also believe as a society we've become extremely 'gun-phobic.'

Surely that's quite a good thing, really?

[Salazaar]

It should be pointed out that while Switzerland is an example of a country with very high gun ownership, it does have significant levels of gun crime as well. Maybe not proportionally so, as there certainly is a cultural effect but it is quite high compared to it's unarmed neighbours and there is significant political support for a reduction in arms there.

[jim]

"You gunophobe!"

Mmm, could catch on.

[pollaxe]

Surely that's quite a good thing, really?

I'm not sure; a phobia by definition is an irrational fear, is it not?

[kalniel]

I'm not sure; a phobia by definition is an irrational fear, is it not?

Don't think so, just fear (greek: phobos). Hydrophobic molecules are those that avoid water, quite rationally

[TheAnimus]

I think the big difference is there's only really one use for a gun. Cars and (most) knives have other primary purposes and are used "out of band" as weapons. Guns are designed to kill.

So are many knives. Hunting knifes are designed for gutting.

Now this is also the distinction that irk'd me. A type 56S is not designed for killing. Its designed for an accuracy sport.

Before you guys start to nock this, try cross country skiing, or something that gets you exhausted, then imagine trying to accurately hold a rifle still, keep your pulse down as you squeeze on the trigger. Its hard, its skilful and its quite fun, especially if your competitive.

The same is true of firing in a rifle range, there is something in most people which makes them relax, you have a simple game of getting better accuracy too.

It is a fair ish analogy that a .22 sports rifle, is akin to a 'designed to kill' weapon, as the Trust SSC is designed to take you down to the supermarket.

Now, given how many licensed firearms there are in the UK, and how infrequent something like hungerford is, it must not be used to knee jerk shape legality of ownership. It annoys me how many people are incapable of using maths to see the scale of the problem, when was the last time someone got a gun and went nuts beforehand? Without researching I can only think of that man who killed his family + himself after setting fire to his house a year or so ago.

That means on a daily probability we have got to be many thousand times more likely to get killed by a car as we cross the street.

All the people saying that guns have no purpose, is akin to a cyclist saying all cars have no purpose, they don't need one, no one should need one.

[oolon]

Many spiders very dangerous however they call the fear of the spiders arachnophobia. Irrational fear is when people become paralised and unable to act. So I think most people are gunophobic, soldiers are trained to not become paralised by fear, and behave very differently to someone untrained, advancing on the enemy rather than taking cover.

[jim]

Apparently it's called hoplophobia

[pollaxe]

Don't think so, just fear (greek: phobos). Hydrophobic molecules are those that avoid water, quite rationally

LOL! Well, semantics aside, perhaps we'll just both agree on plain fear in this context, then?

My point is that firearms should have a healthy respect associated with them rather than one of plain fear or avoidance. My feeling is that in this case the phobia aspect is not a healthy one in this country, it's gone too far the other way. I'm not suggesting that people should be armed to the teeth (as I said above, I don't see why most people would need an assault rifle) but I do feel it's swung too far in the fear direction (hence the phobic term.)

Then again perhaps what I see as healthy respect could be termed as phobic by someone else? I don't know! Semantics again!?!?

[pollaxe]

Apparently it's called hoplophobia

Interesting, though isn't that a fear of shields? (Gr: Hoplon?)

[jim]

Firearms and armed people apparently.