Would you carry a gun?

[TeePee]

Some interesting responses.

Certainly firearms are too much a part of the US culture, and not enough of the English culture, that dramatic changes in firearms laws are practical.

As regards carrying specifically, a lot of people have pointed out that there might be a benefit in safety in areas where people are legally allowed to carry. The fact that a potential target of crime might be armed, discourages perpetrators.

Statistically this has been generally shown to be true in the US. Some states permit concealed carry and some do not. Those states that do permit it have generally shown a decrease or less of an increase in violent crime against the person, (along with an increase in property crime), compared with those states which do not.

If this is the case, and you are prepared to benefit from the possible safety improvement that comes with permissive laws, then do you consider there to be a social responsibility to carry? If the safety of society is enhanced more by the fact that people *might* be carrying, rather than the likelihood of prevailing in a gun battle, then surely that alone is a reason to carry, irregardless of how safe of an area you're carrying in?

[TooNice]

I don't think I would. I might consider keeping one at home, and I certainly would want to try out a shooting club. But I don't like the idea of most people in the pub carrying a piece.

[Iron Sights]

I don't think I would. I might consider keeping one at home, and I certainly would want to try out a shooting club. But I don't like the idea of most people in the pub carrying a piece.

you make a good point just imagine alcohol and guns wouldnt mix very well

[Saracen]

Given a choice, if I lived in a place where I felt carrying a gun was necessary, I'd rather move than carry, if I could. If that wasn't an option, I'd carry if I felt it was best to do so. I'd then hope to hell I never needed it, because whether I was carrying or not, I don;t want to be in that kind of situation. If I ever were to wind up in the situation where one was needed and using it was justified, I'd rather have it than not.

A rather similar attitude applies to having one at home, though I'd be less against that than carrying in public.

But I'd add two points.

I'm fully aware of the consequences of (legally) using gun in self-defence, and would do everything I felt reasonable to avoid needing to point one at somebody. This is because I agree with the remark someone made earlier about not pointing a gun at something if you're not prepared to fire it. That's point one.

Point two .... if anyone ever puts me in the position where I feel the need to point a gun at them, they'd better believe I'm absolutely prepared to fire it. If I'm pointing it at you, it's because I feel my life or that of my loved ones is in serious and imminent danger, and if they then do anything to implement that threat, I will seriously try to kill them, and do it with no compunction whatever.

That's why I'd rather not carry in public - it's a far, far harder decision to make in public than it is than when, say, confronting an intruder in your own home. But if you are an intruder in my home, my life and that of my family comes way before the intruder's. You don't want to run that risk? Don't break into my home!

[ipwiz]

Troble is I'd leave it lying around and the kids would shoot me (by accident) - however I do fancy one in the house to scare of burgulars !

[[GSV]Trig]

A gun to scare people is the wrong way of doing it, if you want to scare them get a chuffin big dog or two (works for me).

[Saracen]

Troble is I'd leave it lying around and the kids would shoot me (by accident) - however I do fancy one in the house to scare of burgulars !

Leaving a gun laying around is both stupid and probably (in the UK at least) a criminal offence. If it's a gun not intended for immediate use, it ought to be under lock and key, and the ammunition not stored with it. If it is for immediate use, such as home defence, it still needs to be securely stored, and if it is loaded or ammunition stored with it, then that requirement is even more critical. For example, a finger safe by the bed. That way, it's secured from the kids, but you can still get at it quickly, and in the dark. All this assumes it was legal, of course, and I'm talking handguns here, not a shotgun on a farm, etc. That too needs to be securely stored, but it'd be a hell of a bedside finger safe.

[usxhe190]

Actually, I doubt the majority of Americans carry guns anyways.

[wilsonian]

I've been trying to convince the GF to allow me to apply for a shotgun license as I love going shooting at the local clay pigeon clubs.

As for the law I think I'd be more worried about people with guns as you'd prob see more road rage shootings and drunken nights out where some yob gets a little too carried away etc.

Dunno - I think we have enough on our plate with other issues than letting people carry fire arms around with them. That being said I think cops should be armed. TBH i think they should have a taser as standard. Works for the US cops.

[usxhe190]

Don't taser me bro!

[jim]

Dunno - I think we have enough on our plate with other issues than letting people carry fire arms around with them. That being said I think cops should be armed. TBH i think they should have a taser as standard. Works for the US cops.

Problem is, if you give everybody tasers then you encourage the idea that they aren't a dangerous weapon.

They've killed a heck of a lot of people.

[Kata]

I've been trying to convince the GF to allow me to apply for a shotgun license as I love going shooting at the local clay pigeon clubs.

I think the phrase that fits here is "pussy-whipped" Try telling her "I'm going to get this license, see you later", and just doing it

Interesting to see the breakdown of views between those who want others to take responsibility for their safety (the "ban them all" crowd), and those who are willing to take responsibility for themselves; as was mentioned, the Hungerford nutter could have been taken out long before he did the damage he did if the decent, law-abiding side of society was allowed to be armed for their own defense.

I'd support legal concealed carry, after acquisition of a license; one which would require strenous training and background checks to acquire. It should be impractical to obtain one unless you could prove you were really capable of being entrusted with it. Of course, I feel a similar license should be mandatory before you're allowed to have children, but that's another arguement...

[ik9000]

I'd support legal concealed carry, after acquisition of a license; one which would require strenous training and background checks to acquire. It should be impractical to obtain one unless you could prove you were really capable of being entrusted with it. Of course, I feel a similar license should be mandatory before you're allowed to have children, but that's another arguement...

LOL I agree. And with the money that would save in benefits, the government could roll out nation-wide fibre optic and still give a decent education to the rest. C'mon Cameron you know it makes sense.

[chuckskull]

Sure a few of you would find last nights Dispatches interesting. Up on 4OD now.

For two years, Dispatches has followed an undercover police operation as it tracked a criminal gang trying to smuggle guns into Britain.

The painstaking work of Lancashire's Serious and Organised Crime Unit culminated in the seizure of a vehicle in Dover containing drugs, weapons and ammunition, and led to the successful conviction of over 20 people involved in this international crime ring.

Operation Greengage exposed the trade in illegal weapons in one northern town. In Gun Nation, Dispatches examines the shocking proliferation of guns on Britain's streets.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...s-66/episode-1

[jetfire]

this is nice http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/la...d=52579&cat=57

[TeePee]

Problem is, if you give everybody tasers then you encourage the idea that they aren't a dangerous weapon.

They've killed a heck of a lot of people.

One statistic I've heard is 1 in 870 tasered in anger. There was an 87 yo woman killed with one here in Oregon a couple of weeks ago. She was threatening PD with a gun, so probably a good shoot. The point is, since death by taser is possible it should be considered less-lethal. Meaning it should only be used instead of a gun and under the same circumstances where firearm use would otherwise be justified. The problem is it's used so widely as a tool to aid cooperation and compliance rather than to stop a threat, which seems more like torture to me.