The issue of "gun-totting" came up in a thread.
Since criminals seem to have easy access to guns and knives (as George discussed recently), and with the recent fatal shooting in the face of a pregnant lady in London, I thought it interesting to have a poll on whether law-abiding citizens should have a right to carry concealed guns in Britain (like a 2nd amendment right in the USA).
Note that people can be licensed in Britain by the Police, e.g. for shotguns. The issue would be whether this should be extended to allow concealed weapons to be carried by citizens (e.g. a female having it in her handbag for protection).
As background, from :
----------------
https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/columbineeight.php
"The historical context of Columbine seldom gets any mention in the mainstream media. State after state had legalized conceal carry laws for law abiding citizens. As each state passed those laws, crime plummeted."
----------------
Should Britons have a right to carry concealed guns ?
Good point .. and I would expect the same in the UK .. i.e. voting "yes" doesn't mean criminals or untrained people should carry it. Analogy is a driving license. Note the question says "law-abiding" .. i.e. they need to follow the law to be allowed to carry a gun, and that law could include training, safe-keeping requirements -- whereas now only the criminals and police carry concealed guns.Skylace wrote:In order to be able to carry concealed weapons in the US you need to go through special training and pass a course. If you are carried a concealed weapon and do not have the proper training and license it can carry serious penalities.
If you voted no, then do you mean that even if trained, you would be against the idea ?
p.s. Skylace, I assume you are in the USA. Does your state have concealed gun legislation passed ? And if it did, would you carry a gun ?
Interesting reply faceless .. but aren't both pepper-spray or tasers illegal for citizens in Britain ? Are you saying Britain SHOULD legalise these ? [if so, you may have my vote as well] FYI, a knife would also be effective in close-quarters .. though it is more lethal.faceless wrote:I'm against it simply on the grounds of the accidental victims that would without doubt occur.
In a close-quarters attack pepper-spray or even a taser would probably be more effective - unless you actually wanted to kill the person.
Though if criminals carry guns, I don't think a citizen with pepper-spray or a taser has a chance.
p.s. Whilst there may be accidents, even if only a very small % of people carry guns, that could scare the criminals so that we see a huge drop in assaults. i.e. it is a risk/reward issue. As the article mentioned "As each state passed those laws, crime plummeted."
I didn't say anything should be legalised or not. I just said that it would be better to have non-lethal protection for the sake of innocent victims.
Being a big guy I've seen women at night look frightened cos I happen to be on the same bit of street as them - if they had guns then what would stop one who was scared from using it in "self-defence"?
If you need a gun to feel safe, I recommend moving somewhere else.
Being a big guy I've seen women at night look frightened cos I happen to be on the same bit of street as them - if they had guns then what would stop one who was scared from using it in "self-defence"?
If you need a gun to feel safe, I recommend moving somewhere else.
Easy movement is the preserve of the rich .. who I recently read are buying stab and bullet proof vests for their children :faceless wrote:If you need a gun to feel safe, I recommend moving somewhere else.
Parents are buying stab-proof vests to protect their children
preserve of the rich? Most people who live in council or housing association houses are able to do exchanges with people in just about any other area in the uk.
as for wealthy parents buying their kids stab-vests? Surely that just proves that they'd rather put their offspring at risk rather than do the safer thing? Their incomes seem to be more important to them than their children if you ask me.
as for wealthy parents buying their kids stab-vests? Surely that just proves that they'd rather put their offspring at risk rather than do the safer thing? Their incomes seem to be more important to them than their children if you ask me.
-
Brown Sauce
- admin
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:40 pm
We can not be sure it would have made a difference since we don't know the background to the incident. But if the murderer was in the house when he shot her, i wonder if he was invited in, or barged in, and whether he would have done that if he thought she may have had a gun. As I said, I don't know the background, so you can't tell in this instance.faceless wrote:how would having a gun have protected that woman who was shot last week? Also, it should be noted that she was only 2 months pregnant, so it wouldn't have been apparent to the shooter. Not that that makes it any less bad in real effect...
Very sad indeed, and makes you wonder if her murderer would have cared if he knew she was pregnant.
p.s. Thanks Skylace for your feedback. Shows your principles.