Gun owners could help fight terror attack

[eugenonegin]

31 minutes ago, Gary Meadows said:

Nothing keeps you safer than a bunch of people shooting at each other in a panic.

Quite.

[Michelle]

5 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

The idea of armed civilians providing protection has been mooted with regard to school shootings in the USA.

Two major problems have been highlighted: the professionals, when they arrive, may not be able to distinguish between a civilian shooter with evil intent and one with benign intent and end up shooting the wrong person; 

Could you give one example where this has occurred? I can give a few where an armed citizen assisted a police officer...saving their life.

[aztek]

Just now, stevewinn said:

Its absolutely bonkers. The Armed Police put in Hours and hours of training to achieve the highest standard in marksmanship and tactics.

 

if they are anything like nypd, lmao. 

[Kismit]

6 hours ago, .ZZ. said:

Please explain how self defense is "righteousness".

I never said it was. I said, couple that with a vigilante attitude of self righeousness. 

I never said don't defend yourself. I have studied self defence to a reasonably senior standard and never once used a gun.

Perhaps promoting proper self defence classes in places like the UK. Where knife crime is more prevalent than gun crime, would be useful.

[RAyMO]

I know its a slightly different angle - but why not arm all police?

[freetoroam]

11 hours ago, LV-426 said:

 

For anyone outside Britain, what we're basically talking about here is farmers with shotguns living in remote areas of the countryside - not exactly terrorism hotspots...

Exactly what i thought of first.

those in the inner cities with guns will be either armed police or gang members, so if she is implying the gang members bring out their illegal guns to aid in stopping a terrorist then she must be mad.

I can not in the life lf me see how farmer Jones could get to the cities in time to help stop a terrorist. 

And it is extremely unlikely a radical muslim will attack a farm....even one which does produce pork sausages and bacon.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by freetoroam

[.ZZ.]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

I never said it was. I said, couple that with a vigilante attitude of self righeousness.

I never said don't defend yourself. I have studied self defence to a reasonably senior standard and never once used a gun.

Perhaps promoting proper self defence classes in places like the UK. Where knife crime is more prevalent than gun crime, would be useful.

That's not the way I read it, but I won't belabor the point because of my admiration for the OP.

 

[eugenonegin]

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

Could you give one example where this has occurred? I can give a few where an armed citizen assisted a police officer...saving their life.

These are two different things. There are also many examples of unarmed civilians helping police. Of course, if someone is carrying and is in a situation to help, they should.

This proposal is about allowing some civilians to carry concealed weapons so they can provide protection in case of attack.

If we want armed personnel to provide security in public places, we should use trained staff- maybe, properly  trained armed officers?

Who would you prefer to provide security at a concert- a trained special forces officer looking to spot trouble,or Joe Boggs who is enjoying the concert but also carrying a gun?

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by eugeneonegin

[eugenonegin]

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

Could you give one example where this has occurred? I can give a few where an armed citizen assisted a police officer...saving their life.

And of course I can't give an example as this is just a proposal. It would be too dangerous to implement, as I have pointed out.

[Michelle]

38 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

These are two different things. There are also many examples of unarmed civilians helping police. Of course, if someone is carrying and is in a situation to help, they should.

This proposal is about allowing some civilians to carry concealed weapons so they can provide protection in case of attack.

If we want armed personnel to provide security in public places, we should use trained staff- maybe, properly  trained armed officers?

Who would you prefer to provide security at a concert- a trained special forces officer looking to spot trouble,or Joe Boggs who is enjoying the concert but also carrying a gun?

 

You put too much faith in labels. I know a couple of guys who worked in jobs where they were required to carry firearms. Neither one of them had ever fired a shot in their lives and were terrified of guns. Any "Joe Boggs" can get a job as a security guard.

Picture Paul Blart the mall cop with a loaded weapon. Or Barney Fife, if you prefer.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Michelle

[eugenonegin]

7 hours ago, Michelle said:

You put too much faith in labels. I know a couple of guys who worked in jobs where they were required to carry firearms. Neither one of them had ever fired a shot in their lives and were terrified of guns. Any "Joe Boggs" can get a job as a security guard.

Picture Paul Blart the mall cop with a loaded weapon. Or Barney Fife, if you prefer.

I don't mean Joe Bloggs acting as a security guard, I mean a trained officer of security forces.

If we feel public places need armed security we should pay to do it properly, not rely on volunteer members of the public.

It all comes back to money.

[Setton]

18 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

That's the justification for disarming Police? They might shoot innocent people? How many people did they shoot that posed a threat to the public? Let's see the numbers before making a "feelings" judgement call

Well it would be hard to give numbers when our police have never been armed... 

Shall we look to a country where they are armed? Say, the US. How many people shot unnecessarily by police there? 

14 hours ago, aztek said:

if they are anything like nypd, lmao. 

They are not. 

[Kismit]

Actually a good comparison would be between Australia and New Zealand. Both have similar gun laws, Australia arms it's officers and New Zealand does not.

Here's a story on police shootings in Australia Linker.

I will be back when I find one about Kiwi cops.

Here is the link to all of the police shootings on record in New Zealand since the 1940's. Link

[oldrover]

20 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I think guns should be legalised but with controls to reduce spree killers

Guns are legal in the UK except for center fire self loading rifles and large capacity self loading shotguns. If you think handguns are banned they aren't, it's just that you need the right legal reason to own one. I walked into my local gunshop last year to pick up some oil for my mate's shotgun and was to say the least surprised to see what was for sale.

[The Caspian Hare]

14 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

 

This proposal is about allowing some civilians to carry concealed weapons so they can provide protection in case of attack.

 

But she was not specific in her statement, just said "let's examine it." So it depends entirely on what exactly you are trying to do. Deputizing someone to guard gate of a refinery for a week (just for example) is different than letting everyone walk around with guns everywhere for unlikely chance they might stop a terrorist.

Of course there are potential problems which you point out and those are all true and need to be addressed, but the concept is broad enough to encompass possibilities that are reasonable.

[Matt221]

I can't see much chance of a terrorist attack in my part of East Anglian there's bugga all here 

[RAyMO]

Perhaps the good commisioner has found the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[hetrodoxly]

7 hours ago, oldrover said:

Guns are legal in the UK except for center fire self loading rifles and large capacity self loading shotguns. If you think handguns are banned they aren't, it's just that you need the right legal reason to own one. I walked into my local gunshop last year to pick up some oil for my mate's shotgun and was to say the least surprised to see what was for sale.

If the truth be told some regions are easing up on hand gun ownership, my own area you can now get a ticket for a shot pistol, terrier men, deer stalkers, vets, knacker men and pest controllers can all own hand guns, there's also a loop hole in the law regarding black powder, put the center cap from a shotgun cartridge in the end of the chamber a measure of black powder lead bullet and wad to keep it in you can do this on all six chambers and you're not breaking the law.

[oldrover]

25 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

If the truth be told some regions are easing up on hand gun ownership, my own area you can now get a ticket for a shot pistol, terrier men, deer stalkers, vets, knacker men and pest controllers can all own hand guns, there's also a loop hole in the law regarding black powder, put the center cap from a shotgun cartridge in the end of the chamber a measure of black powder lead bullet and wad to keep it in you can do this on all six chambers and you're not breaking the law.

Yes, it's not the blanket ban many think. So far though it seems to be working well. 

[Sweetpumper]

Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI-8) told WWJ News Radio, “The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/06/14/actor-jeffrey-wright-scalise-shooting-many-stupid-asses-many-fcking-guns/

[aztek]

8 hours ago, oldrover said:

Guns are legal in the UK except for center fire self loading rifles and large capacity self loading shotguns. If you think handguns are banned they aren't, it's just that you need the right legal reason to own one. 

is protecting yourself right legal reason?

 

[oldrover]

11 minutes ago, aztek said:

is protecting yourself right legal reason?

 

No, in this country that's seen, by firearms owners especially in my experience, as being in the realms of fantasy. We don't need guns to protect ourselves because we don't generally face armed threats. The idea of your average run of the mill person being the victim of an armed attack is relatively rare, at least where I live. 

Take my country for example, no one has ever been shot by the police, ever. And gun crime is virtually unheard of. The major mass fatality gun incidents in the UK have been by people who legally owned their firearms. 

Obviously I have to mention here that London has suffered at the hands of people with other weapons, and I've heard the argument that an armed police would have halted this far quicker. Those are hard questions to answer honestly, and of course many British police are heavily armed. But, realistically, we'd have to compare them with armed outrages in a country with an armed police and with more readily accessibility to personal firearms. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Sweetpumper said:

Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI-8) told WWJ News Radio, “The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/06/14/actor-jeffrey-wright-scalise-shooting-many-stupid-asses-many-fcking-guns/

And why did they need to fire back?

Because they let the other guy have a gun too... What's your point?

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, oldrover said:

No, in this country that's seen, by firearms owners especially in my experience, as being in the realms of fantasy. We don't need guns to protect ourselves because we don't generally face armed threats. The idea of your average run of the mill person being the victim of an armed attack is relatively rare, at least where I live. 

Take my country for example, no one has ever been shot by the police, ever. And gun crime is virtually unheard of. The major mass fatality gun incidents in the UK have been by people who legally owned their firearms. 

Obviously I have to mention here that London has suffered at the hands of people with other weapons, and I've heard the argument that an armed police would have halted this far quicker. Those are hard questions to answer honestly, and of course many British police are heavily armed. But, realistically, we'd have to compare them with armed outrages in a country with an armed police and with more readily accessibility to personal firearms. 

I wonder how effective the old truncheon thing would be against a knife.

(I was listening to The Clash this morning)

[The Silver Thong]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

And why did they need to fire back?

Because they let the other guy have a gun too... What's your point?

You will never be able to stop crazy from doing crazy stuff. As was said a sane guy with a pistol gave people time to duck and cover.

Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI-8) told WWJ News Radio, “The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.”

I have a side arm, but never carry it around. Wish I could.