Brits and handguns.

[P.J. Denyer]

Out of sight, out of mind. And of course people with guns keep her safe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that more guns means more safety.

Not to mention that on a domestic level the majority of the people 'keeping her safe' carry nothing more dangerous than a baton and pepper spray, while those keeping her safe from domestic threats have guns, bombs, tanks, RPGs and nukes at their disposal. It seems a bit arbitrary to use this as an argument for guns but not all the others.

 

[Marcus]

Maybe means they need more pump action guns to clear the fauna from these more extensive forests. They got rid of the passenger pigeon OK https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=passenger+pigeon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari but there's a bunch of other pesky stuff still in there.

Say what you want, I still prefer a semi-auto.

 

[Marcus]

Oops, I was wrong and I apologise. That's what I get for staying up until 2 am! Still, we do have plenty of forest and Wildcat can stop worrying on our behalf.

And no, I have no idea why this suddenly became important either. A distraction from the fact that most British people have no desire to own or use guns, perhaps.

As far as I can tell there is absolutely zero controversy directly on the subject of the OP. Everyone here agrees that most British people have no desire to own or use guns.

 

[zooterkin]

The major gun controversy at the moment is over the use of them to shoot badgers from tomorrow, but that's really a topic for a different thread.






Badgers from tomorrow? I think that's one for The Doctor...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Not to mention that on a domestic level the majority of the people 'keeping her safe' carry nothing more dangerous than a baton and pepper spray, while those keeping her safe from domestic international threats have guns, bombs, tanks, RPGs and nukes at their disposal. It seems a bit arbitrary to use this as an argument for guns but not all the others.

Opps, typo! Fixed That For Myself!

 

[scarlettinlondon]

I don't see that this is a particularly difficult thing to understand.

I like the army having guns. It's where guns belong. I don't see that accepting that the army have guns in any way should mean that I would like the general populace to be armed. I do not see it as hypocritical.

I am happy that farmers have shotguns, they need them to do their job.

Most of our police are not armed with guns and they protect me just fine

I am happy that very highly trained police officers are armed in case of very dire emergency, even though I am uncomfortable around guns as such I do understand that some criminals have guns and so some police have guns.

I am happy that ordinary citizens in general do not have guns and do not want guns.

Because of the above, most criminals in the UK do not carry guns

These general rules are what keep gun related crime/shootings/school murders etc in the UK so much lower than in the states.

I would prefer gun related incidents be lower. But I think it's unlikely that relaxing the rules on gun ownership in the UK would make these figures lower. I think it would make them A Whole Lot Higher - closer to those in the States for example.

Do Not Want

I think a few UK posters would disagree. I think the majority would find, like me, that we like our gun related laws as they are.

 

[Nessie]

.......

I think a few UK posters would disagree. I think the majority would find, like me, that we like our gun related laws as they are.

It is worth noting that after the Cumbria Massacre there was no call for further reform of the gun laws. There is only so much that can be done and I say we have the balance right where right to life trumps right to a gun.

 

[Rolfe]

If anything, the Cumbria massacre could have made a case for arming the police. A policeman who confronted Bird at an early stage had to back off because he was unarmed, and they had to wait for the armed unit from Sellafield.

Even the relatives of those people Bird killed after the confrontation with the unarmed cop aren't lobbying for the police to be armed.

Rolfe.

 

[Marcus]

If anything, the Cumbria massacre could have made a case for arming the police. A policeman who confronted Bird at an early stage had to back off because he was unarmed, and they had to wait for the armed unit from Sellafield.

Even the relatives of those people Bird killed after the confrontation with the unarmed cop aren't lobbying for the police to be armed.

Rolfe.

Many of the tragic mass killings here in the US could have been averted if a Concealed Carry Holder was present. They're not allowed in schools, if they were things like the Colorado massacre would not have happened. Armed cops are all very well, but you can't expect them to always to be there when you need them.

Are UK cops allowed non-lethal armaments like stun guns and shotguns that throw bean bag rounds?

 

[Rat]

Many of the tragic mass killings here in the US could have been averted if a Concealed Carry Holder was present. They're not allowed in schools, if they were things like the Colorado massacre would not have happened. Armed cops are all very well, but you can't expect them to always to be there when you need them.

Are UK cops allowed non-lethal armaments like stun guns and shotguns that throw bean bag rounds?

Many killings of many kinds could have been prevented if my auntie had bollocks. The answer to occasional mad people shooting people is not to arm everyone, ready to shoot the mad people. That does not work, and it will never work. Nor will having 'Concealed Carry Holders' in every town and every building.

Anyway, back in the real world, yes. UK police can be issued with non-lethal armaments, but they are not routinely so issued. As far as I can tell, issuing police routinely with things like tasers leads to police tasering young people who look at them funny.

 

[Marcus]

Many killings of many kinds could have been prevented if my auntie had bollocks. The answer to occasional mad people shooting people is not to arm everyone, ready to shoot the mad people. That does not work, and it will never work. Nor will having 'Concealed Carry Holders' in every town and every building.

Anyway, back in the real world, yes. UK police can be issued with non-lethal armaments, but they are not routinely so issued. As far as I can tell, issuing police routinely with things like tasers leads to police tasering young people who look at them funny.

The real world is a bit different over here.

Concealed Carry Holders ( no quotes required) are people who go through a licensing procedure to enable them to carry a concealed firearm, part of which is establishing proficiency. It's not something a criminal would do.

Crazy people who start shooting have a very short half life if a CCH happens to be present.

I take it from your answer that police are not issued with tasers. So it's billy clubs against knives, I suppose, except you can call in an armed squad if necessary. I'm sure they manage, but I'd rather have a taser or other non-lethal option if I'm not allowed to have a gun.

 

[Craig B]

The real world is a bit different over here.

Quite so.

 

[angrysoba]

I take it from your answer that police are not issued with tasers. So it's billy clubs against knives, I suppose, except you can call in an armed squad if necessary. I'm sure they manage, but I'd rather have a taser or other non-lethal option if I'm not allowed to have a gun.

I think the police in the UK carry pepper-spray, which is illegal for the public to use, as far as I know.

 

[Craig B]

... I take it from your answer that police are not issued with tasers. So it's billy clubs against knives, I suppose ...

What an exciting impression of the work of the humble British bobby!

 

[Captain_Snort]

The real world is a bit different over here.

Concealed Carry Holders ( no quotes required) are people who go through a licensing procedure to enable them to carry a concealed firearm,

When we a more liberal firearms policy, you also had to go have a to through a licensing procedure, Like Thomas Hamilton did in Dunblane, Micheal Ryan in Hungerford. Sorry, just because they happen to have a bit of paper does not stop them being a fully fledged psycho.

 

[Nessie]

Many of the tragic mass killings here in the US could have been averted if a Concealed Carry Holder was present. They're not allowed in schools, if they were things like the Colorado massacre would not have happened. Armed cops are all very well, but you can't expect them to always to be there when you need them.

Are UK cops allowed non-lethal armaments like stun guns and shotguns that throw bean bag rounds?

But there were people with guns at Columbine and Virginia Tech. The Senator shot in the head, that shooter was tackled by unarmed people.

You need to build an evidenced case that widespread carrying of guns would reduce mass shooting casualties and not increase accidental deaths and deaths cause by people with guns using them inappropriately.

UK cops have batons and CS spray on all patrols, armed police have tazers as well as guns. The police in Northern Ireland still have rubber bullets as an option.

 

[Nessie]

The real world is a bit different over here.

Concealed Carry Holders ( no quotes required) are people who go through a licensing procedure to enable them to carry a concealed firearm, part of which is establishing proficiency. It's not something a criminal would do.

Crazy people who start shooting have a very short half life if a CCH happens to be present.

I take it from your answer that police are not issued with tasers. So it's billy clubs against knives, I suppose, except you can call in an armed squad if necessary. I'm sure they manage, but I'd rather have a taser or other non-lethal option if I'm not allowed to have a gun.

Since 1900 twenty four UK police officers have been stabbed to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

After years of resisting change from the traditional uniform and basic baton, police on patrol have a better baton, CS spray and stab proof vests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...d_Kingdom#Equipment_that_an_officer_may_carry

Your assessment of policing in the UK is wrong, please do some simple easy research before future posts.

 

[Craig B]

... The police in Northern Ireland still have rubber bullets as an option.

Yes but back in the 60s the Royal Ulster Constabularly were armed on patrol, and ... But need I go on? People of all communities are better protected now than they were then.

 

[Marcus]

When we a more liberal firearms policy, you also had to go have a to through a licensing procedure, Like Thomas Hamilton did in Dunblane, Micheal Ryan in Hungerford. Sorry, just because they happen to have a bit of paper does not stop them being a fully fledged psycho.

No, but the crime rate among CCH's is quite low. As far as I know we have never had one that is a full fledged psycho. I am not suggesting that you get some, just talking about the situation over here.

 

[Marcus]

But there were people with guns at Columbine and Virginia Tech. The Senator shot in the head, that shooter was tackled by unarmed people.

You need to build an evidenced case that widespread carrying of guns would reduce mass shooting casualties and not increase accidental deaths and deaths cause by people with guns using them inappropriately.

UK cops have batons and CS spray on all patrols, armed police have tazers as well as guns. The police in Northern Ireland still have rubber bullets as an option.

I don't recall claiming that widespread carrying of guns would reduce mass shooting casualties. What I did refer to was places like schools where existing CCH holders are not allowed to bring their weapons. I was thinking of that massacre in Colorado, if one of the adults present had a weapon, perhaps the security guard, I think it is likely he would shoot the crazy while he was leisurely picking off students .