Choosing which firearm to buy.

[61_OTU]

A gun might be a tool but it's a tool designed purely to kill. It has no other practical use.

I agree with your points about gun ownership and crime in the UK Doug.......but as for guns having no other use......shotguns and rifles have very vaild uses on farms in the UK, and as sporting tools they were just as valid as bows in archery, javelins in athletics, and shotguns in clay pigeon shooting.

The original design and development may have been as a tool to kill, but this was true for all of these examples, it doesn't denigrate their application in sporting events.

My parents did own guns, as part of their sport of target shooting. The change in the British gun ownership laws simply removed all the legally held and controlled pistols used in sport.......the effect on crime, unsurprisingly, was negligible.

Still, the notion of guns for personal protection worries me........it's just a case of upping the ante. I'm against the arming of the British police. Armed response units work perfectly well, and while we may need more of them, they're a preferable alternative to arming every Police officer.

[Hagar]

I agree with your points about gun ownership and crime in the UK Doug.......but as for guns having no other use......shotguns and rifles have very vaild uses on farms in the UK, and as sporting tools they were just as valid as bows in archery, javelins in athletics, and shotguns in clay pigeon shooting.

I was just making a point there in answer to the common statement by the pro-gun lobby that a gun is simply a tool. It might be a tool but its primary purpose is to kill, whether that be a human being or an animal.

I have no problem with guns being used for sporting purposes providing their use is carefully controlled. The situation in Britain is very different to that in the USA where gun ownership is part of the culture & seen as a basic right. I respect that even if I might disagree -

[61_OTU]

I have no wish to see that culture imported into my country or for anyone not living here trying to tell me what's best for it.

A fair point Doug. Gun ownership is a privilege which should be backed up by a verifiable 'need', even if that is a sporting one. It should be difficult to own a gun, and easy to lose the privilege.

This is where gun law enforcement in the UK has failed in the past, a lack of willingness to enforce the powers which already exist.

Sorry, getting saddle-sore on my hobby-horse

[Brett_Henderson]

It should be difficult to own a gun, and easy to lose the privilege.

I can appreciate the emotion and logic to that statement, but the reality is as always has been.. The only people impacted are the people who'd never be a problem to begin with. Laws making it difficult to own a gun and laws making it easy to take guns away don't change gun violence or gun crime. All they do is disarm people who obey laws.

What  "has" changed violent crime noticeably here in the U.S.  is concealed carry permits. Every single state having given the right to law-abiding citizens to own and carry, has seen a significant drop, across the statistical board, in crimes of violence against individuals.

It's not propoganda and it's not a fluke and it's why the gun-grabbers gave up. Their predicted shoot-outs and wild-west never materialized. In fact... many restrictive gun laws have also since been repealed. You won't here much about this, as the main-stream media is pretty liberal..

One of the more memorable turn of events unfolded in Florida, right after they passed their concealed carry laws. Rental car companies had to take the stickers off of their cars and get rid of license plates that would point the car out as a rental (i.e.  AVIS-234). Criminals were afraid to rob Floridians,  'cause now there's a good chance they'd fight back. In desperation, the criminals started targeting people driving rental cars; knowing the drivers were likely to be from out of state.

[Brett_Henderson]

And....

[Scorpiоn]

I was just making a point there in answer to the common statement by the pro-gun lobby that a gun is simply a tool. It might be a tool but its primary purpose is to kill, whether that be a human being or an animal.

I have no problem with guns being used for sporting purposes providing their use is carefully controlled. The situation in Britain is very different to that in the USA where gun ownership is part of the culture & seen as a basic right. I respect that even if I might disagree -  BUT I have no wish to see that culture imported into my country or for anyone not living here trying to tell me what's best for it.

Even though I love guns I have to agree with Doug.  A gun is not a tool; a gun is a weapon.  A gun serves no purpose but to destroy or kill whatever it's aimed at.  Just because what is being killed is a deer instead of an enemy soldier does not change a gun from being a weapon.

[ozzy72]

Speaking from a personal point of view I agree that guns are dangerous.... however I need one 'cos I teach teenagers

[commoner]

Speaking from a personal point of view I agree that guns are dangerous.... however I need one 'cos I teach teenagers

...........lol..........Nah!.....why go easy on the blighters......I'd go for something slower and more painful............commoner

[ozzy72]

Alas the Geneva Convention gets in the way of me enjoying myself...
I've got a great book on the works of the Spanish Inquisition with woodcuts by D

[commoner]

[quote]Alas the Geneva Convention gets in the way of me enjoying myself...
I've got a great book on the works of the Spanish Inquisition with woodcuts by D

[ozzy72]

My students never call me a goodie. They do call me something beginning with 'g' however. Three letters and the last two are 'it'

[Omag 2.0]

Still, the notion of guns for personal protection worries me........it's just a case of upping the ante. I'm against the arming of the British police. Armed response units work perfectly well, and while we may need more of them, they're a preferable alternative to arming every Police officer.

I never understood why the police isn't armed in the UK... In Belgium, every policeman ( or woman  :) ) carries a sidearm, along with a nightstick, handcuffs and peperspray... Yet I don't think this poses any kind of threat against the public.

Yesterday we had another case of grotesque violence in Belgium. An 18 year old guy shot and killed an african woman and the caucasian girl she was taking care of. He also wounded a North-African woman.

An officer on the scene responded by shooting down the killer, without killing him.

What if the officer hadn't been armed? Perhaps several other people would have died when targeted by the shooter... in these cases every second counts, and calling in an armed response-unit may delay action and have severe consequences...

[eno]

There's no real need for British police officers to be armed all the time.  
Those that are armed are highly trained specialists they are deployed as standard Police officers 99% of the time,  they only deploy their weapons when needed  and even then only in extreme circumstances.

The only places you'll see visibly armed police most of the time are government buildings, foreign embassies, airports, nuclear installations, Sea ports and other sensitive areas. Most military bases aren't even guarded by armed personel unless the threat level is high.

[Romulus111VADT]

[quote]Alas the Geneva Convention gets in the way of me enjoying myself...
I've got a great book on the works of the Spanish Inquisition with woodcuts by D

[commoner]

....mmm...yes....lol...I like it.........incidentally it has a present day counterpart..........the latest in the war on antisocial behaviour is to play high pitched sound wherever "yobs" gather to "enjoy" themselves as they do.........apparently only people under, 19-20 or so can hear this and it hurts so much, as did your teacher's gauntlet, that they just have to go elsewhere. Anyone older can't hear a thing.

Trouble is that the poor little dears have to be protected from such terrible things and the threat of prosecution is rearing it's ugly head to have it stopped. I suspect that your teacher would similarly have had to give up what she did as it would be deemed to be both dangerous and an infringement of their Civil Rights............commoner