Do you have, or have you, a gun/guns in your home?

[Charade]

I have guns for self protection, because I'm a fat, lazy oaf who doesn't have the time to devote to martial arts, and doesn't want someone that close to me to have to defend myself.

See my siggy...

 

[Charade]

We have cops in the UK too. They carry guns (most of them). They leave the gun at work, where it belongs. I see no need whatsoever to have a gun, personally. There are still too many shootings in the UK.

Who's doing the shooting?

 

[dcentity2000]

We have cops in the UK too. They carry guns (most of them). They leave the gun at work, where it belongs. I see no need whatsoever to have a gun, personally. There are still too many shootings in the UK.

I must say, our police (in Sussex) typically don't carry firearms. That's not to say that none of them do - I've even ben shown into the armoury in my local police station. I notice police in airports carrying rather fearsome weapons (such as G36 rifles).

Still, I feel no need to carry a firearm here in this country. I DO however participate in match shooting - it's a passion of mine



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Who's doing the shooting?

The ones that get publicised the most are carried out by the police. They're probably not representative.



Rich::

 

[Kath2003]

Who's doing the shooting?

Those who smuggle guns in from abroad, usually. It's almost impossible to get hold of a gun within the UK. Stricter gun/boarder controls are needed, but it's costly. Our legislation is a LONG way from perfect, but I'd still rather have it our way.

 

[livie1205]

I know plenty of cops, including one of my brothers. Not all them are noble human beings (and a couple of them are complete jerks) but they all do their jobs to serve and protect. That is their JOB. They don't have the luxury of deciding whom to serve and protect. To suggest that your husband is noble because he would protect someone who doesn't agree with your position on guns is silly. And many of the cops I know would rather citizens were unarmed and didn't have access to firearms. It would make their jobs a lot easier.

I never said they ALL were but most of them are! and yes I can suggest that because that is the JOB he CHOSE to do...so yes...he did not have to be a person that puts there life on the line for strangers, he can do other things for alot more money but he CHOSE to do that ....he likes to serve and protect! yes he HAS to when he is at work but no one made him do that job.and it is SILLY of you to suggest otherwise...those not so noble human beings did not HAVE to go into that line of work.

WHAT IS NOBLE is that he could have been a lawyer sitting behind a desk for alot of money and chose to work with people in a bulletproof vest.I really dont care if you agree with that point or not but alot of people do...

 

[Charade]

The ones that get publicised the most are carried out by the police. They're probably not representative.



Rich::

Well, if the police (I know, it's their job) are allowed to defend the general public with the occasional use of a firearm, why shouldn't the general public be allowed to defend themselves with the use of a firearm as well?

(see my siggy...)

 

[dcentity2000]

Those who smuggle guns in from abroad, usually. It's almost impossible to get hold of a gun within the UK. Stricter gun/boarder controls are needed, but it's costly. Our legislation is a LONG way from perfect, but I'd still rather have it our way.

Replica firearms have been a pest too, recently. Nowadays you have to own a licence before you can buy any RIF (Realistic Imitation Firearms), which is a pest to me (I airsoft, which is like paintballing with RIFs) but which probably makes sense in the grand scheme of things.

As you said, our legislation is definitely imperfect but I'd also rather have it our way.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Well, if the police (I know, it's their job) are allowed to defend the general public with the occasional use of a firearm, why shouldn't the general public be allowed to defend themselves with the use of a firearm as well?

(see my siggy...)

I didn't attend my law studies, specifically criminal law studies, long enough to touch on jurisprudence. I think the general idea is to minimise grievous bodily harm or worse, with intention or otherwise. If a criminal finds it harder to get hold of, say, a Glock 19, that can only be a good thing.



Rich::

 

[livie1205]

We have cops in the UK too. They carry guns (most of them). They leave the gun at work, where it belongs. I see no need whatsoever to have a gun, personally. There are still too many shootings in the UK.

Gun deaths in the USA by either accident OR homicide? 4.34 in 10,000, or a 0.045% chance.
Gun deaths in the UK by either accident OR homicide? 0.18 in 10,000, or a 0.0018% chance.
Basically you're more than twenty times as likely to be shot in the US than you are in the UK; you're ten times more likely to be shot by accident in the US than the UK.

So, yeah, I'm for a gun-free society.

they are not allowed to leave their gun,taser or anything else anywhere, it HAS to be with them...they get dressed at home and get into their patrol cars in their own driveway and they are not off duty until they come home and take off their uniform.

 

[sha_lyn]

Right. I do like putting the onus of not getting shot on a 5 year old playing in his own home. Is that responsible gun owner logic?

No it is called responsible parenting.

 

[Corryn]

I also have guns because if we have to defend ourselves against our government or an invading force, it's a tad more effective than a spinning roundhouse kick.

I'd have to argue with you about that......I remember Hong Kong Phooey kicking some serious butt

 

[Ciao Mickey]

I don't have any guns but I would buy one if I lived alone out in the woods somewhere.

 

[Lovely2CU]

Usually uniformed police officers carry a truncheon or baton to protect themselves against violence. In England, Scotland and Wales firearms may be issued only to specially trained police officers, known as Authorised Firearms Officers, and then only on the authority of a senior officer. Its only in cases when authority is given when an officer is likely to face an armed criminal, or when an officer is deployed to protect a person who may be at risk of attack.

I have only ever seen firearms in Gatwick airport, since 9/11. Scary looking weapons.

They carry guns (most of them).

 

[freckles and boo]

I never said they ALL were but most of them are! and yes I can suggest that because that is the JOB he CHOSE to do...so yes...he did not have to be a person that puts there life on the line for strangers, he can do other things for alot more money but he CHOSE to do that ....he likes to serve and protect! yes he HAS to when he is at work but no one made him do that job.and it is SILLY of you to suggest otherwise...those not so noble human beings did not HAVE to go into that line of work.

What? He didn't have to a cop because he is noble and those who aren't noble didn't have to be cops either? You are right. Nobody has to be a cop. Nobody has to be a firefighter either, but my dad retired as a battalion chief after thirty three years in the fire service. My grandfather was also a career firefighter (and also retired a BC). My uncle is a fire chief. I have no delusions because I have seen their strengths and weaknesses. I am proud of all of them but I would never suggest, even for a moment, that they are extra heroic because they helped people they didn't like or agree with. They did/do their JOBS.

 

[agentpleakley]

they are not allowed to leave their gun,taser or anything else anywhere, it HAS to be with them...they get dressed at home and get into their patrol cars in their own driveway and they are not off duty until they come home and take off their uniform.

Same here.

I just want to add- - yes - one chooses to be in law enforcement -- but by doing this they are also choosing to daily put their life at risk to protect others. So, well, not all law enforcement officers are not the sterling people we wish them to be -- they still risk their life daily to protect others. They do deserve our respect for choosing to do this daily.

 

[Charade]

I didn't attend my law studies, specifically criminal law studies, long enough to touch on jurisprudence. I think the general idea is to minimize grievous bodily harm or worse, with intention or otherwise. If a criminal finds it harder to get hold of, say, a Glock 19, that can only be a good thing.



Rich::

That's the general reason behind the Washington DC ban on handguns (since 1977) and IIRC it has the highest gun related crimes in the country. So much for that thinking. In fact, the US Supreme Court is about to decide (today or tomorrow) if that law is unconstitutional. I hope they decide it is. The counter argument for the defense of the law is that it will lead to even more violence. The problem isn't (and has never been) an inanimate object, it's a mindset problem. Taking away one inanimate object from someone willing to hurt or kill another person for a pair of sneakers or a gold chain or a drug deal gone bad is only going to force them to pick up some other inanimate object to use as a weapon.

 

[Kath2003]

That's the general reason behind the Washington DC ban on handguns (since 1977) and IIRC it has the highest gun related crimes in the country. So much for that thinking. In fact, the US Supreme Court is about to decide (today or tomorrow) if that law is unconstitutional. I hope they decide it is. The counter argument for the defense of the law is that it will lead to even more violence. The problem isn't (and has never been) an inanimate object, it's a mindset problem. Taking away one inanimate object from someone willing to hurt or kill another person for a pair of sneakers or a gold chain or a drug deal gone bad is only going to force them to pick up some other inanimate object to use as a weapon.

I'd imagine that a lot of the problem is that short of those 10 square miles, it's relatively easy to get hold of a hand gun.

 

[dcentity2000]

That's the general reason behind the Washington DC ban on handguns (since 1977) and IIRC it has the highest gun related crimes in the country. So much for that thinking. In fact, the US Supreme Court is about to decide (today or tomorrow) if that law is unconstitutional. I hope they decide it is. The counter argument for the defense of the law is that it will lead to even more violence. The problem isn't (and has never been) an inanimate object, it's a mindset problem. Taking away one inanimate object from someone willing to hurt or kill another person for a pair of sneakers or a gold chain or a drug deal gone bad is only going to force them to pick up some other inanimate object to use as a weapon.

I've always been rather foxed by the US "right" to bear firearms. It clearly states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are two confusing parts to this text:

1. A well regulated Militia;
2. Security of a free state.

The act foxes me because the language used is misleading. When presented with the term, "Militia", it is only natural to interpret the word to mean a group of organised, hierarchal individuals, akin to a corps or force - NOT a collection of independent individuals.

The latter point - the security of a free state - also confuses me. If the British invaded and a militia was formed, said militia would be acting against the British and therefore in defence of a free state. Whilst you could argue that potential murderers could be the downfall of America, it's not a immediate interpretation.

So, yeah... it foxes me.



Rich::

 

[freckles and boo]

Same here.

I just want to add- - yes - one chooses to be in law enforcement -- but by doing this they are also choosing to daily put their life at risk to protect others. So, well, not all law enforcement officers are not the sterling people we wish them to be -- they still risk their life daily to protect others. They do deserve our respect for choosing to do this daily.

And while I disagree on other aspects on this thread, I absolutely agree with this. I teach my children to respect the police. I respect the police, especially when I have any interaction with a uniformed officer. They have a very tough job.