Topic: Let's sort out this gun debate.

[Parky]

In what scenario in England do you think you would justify the use ( or deterrant factor-just showing it) of a handgun? Not as a police response or any other agency. But you as an individual.


For instance you are in your house with your family at night (perhaps a little isolated in the country) and you hear burglars sneaking around downstairs.

You are confronted by a gang of beligerent youth with knives and such in a backstreet in a dangerous city like Manchester/Liverpool/London..

Feel free to make up your own scenario...

[alex]

The problem I have isn't so much with imagining an appropriate scenario rather a society in which carrying the weapons becomes an acceptable norm.

[Parky]

The problem I have isn't so much with imagining an appropriate scenario rather a society in which carrying the weapons becomes an acceptable norm.

And that would be a very good answer as like me you are considering the wider implications, but I'm not sure how reasonable we are when we are in real danger.

[Pip]

In certain situations, I'd wish I had one, but I'd never use it to kill someone. I've always thought (in movies and such), there's no need to shoot someone in the chest (or around that area) if you only want to stop them, just shoot them in the knee or legs and that'll do the job.

[Clay]

I'd  feel safer with one at night on the streets, even though i would probably never use it. Saying that i don't think anyone really knows what they would do with one until they were put into that situation.

[Mowen]

I voted for the first one, but the first and second options aren't mutually exclusive imo. I would never carry one, but that doesn't mean there won't be situations where I wish I had one.

[juniatmoko]

in non fire weapon regulation country... it prefer use katana & swords as self-defend... it rather that than handgun which probability can cause more casualties... i think using handgun and missiles weapon are coward... rather face one by one like a warrior

[Parky]

in non fire weapon regulation country... it prefer use katana & swords as self-defend... it rather that than handgun which probability can cause more casualties... i think using handgun and missiles weapon are coward... rather face one by one like a warrior

Is there a subtle way of carrying a sword down the road?

[SEMTEX]

in non fire weapon regulation country... it prefer use katana & swords as self-defend... it rather that than handgun which probability can cause more casualties... i think using handgun and missiles weapon are coward... rather face one by one like a warrior

Is there a subtle way of carrying a sword down the road?

[Parky]

in non fire weapon regulation country... it prefer use katana & swords as self-defend... it rather that than handgun which probability can cause more casualties... i think using handgun and missiles weapon are coward... rather face one by one like a warrior

Is there a subtle way of carrying a sword down the road?

 

[juniatmoko]

in non fire weapon regulation country... it prefer use katana & swords as self-defend... it rather that than handgun which probability can cause more casualties... i think using handgun and missiles weapon are coward... rather face one by one like a warrior

Is there a subtle way of carrying a sword down the road?

yes... man need invent light saber.... tbh. may the force be with you... shush... parky!

[stozo]

I would never own or carry a gun. However if I was in a life or death situation I would use a gun if I had the ability too.

[Toon's Taylor]

I'd kill anyone who would try and hurt my family.

Doesn't really sort the gun debate out though 

[ChezGiven]

I'd like to carry one so that if someone doesnt give me respect and i am too emotionally inept to handle the confrontation i can vent my anger at them to cover over my inadequacies as a human being.

[Optomystyc Knight]

i think the only situation i would feel like i wanted a gun would be if i was faced with an armed assailent.

[indi]

Jericho-style nuclear Armageddon, anything short of that and I'll be alright thanks.

 

[80]

If we're supposed to be putting aside all this "wider perspective" stuff, then yeah, something approaching the last option for me. Better with than without. As it goes, I think the last one is badly phrased as I think option number 2 would pretty much cover it (wishing isn't a lot of use when you're under attack, like, but still...). Assuming the last is supposed to be the most avowedly pro-gun, it should be more about carrying when you've no conceivable reason for worries of that extreme nature.

[Incognito]

If everyone had a gun,would that stop muggings and violent crime?I say the knifers around the country would think twice about stabbing someone who may have a gun,though the knifers would then become snipers probably.

[madras]

In certain situations, I'd wish I had one, but I'd never use it to kill someone. I've always thought (in movies and such), there's no need to shoot someone in the chest (or around that area) if you only want to stop them, just shoot them in the knee or legs and that'll do the job.

good job you're well trained with firearms and that good a shot to get the legs.

nobody really has a clue,if they had a gun when they'd use it,it would obviously be a panicky situation and which may set you off early or that scary that providing they s*** it and f*** off on seeing the gun you'd not fire.

[indi]

If everyone had a gun,would that stop muggings and violent crime?I say the knifers around the country would think twice about stabbing someone who may have a gun,though the knifers would then become snipers probably.

If ordinary people had guns then the criminals would have automatic weapons, it'd basically become an arms race like it has in the US.

I'm against arming the police for exactly this reason. People used to rob banks with a big stick, now they use a shotgun, in the future it'll probably be an uzi, or a f***ing tank!!

[Pip]

In certain situations, I'd wish I had one, but I'd never use it to kill someone. I've always thought (in movies and such), there's no need to shoot someone in the chest (or around that area) if you only want to stop them, just shoot them in the knee or legs and that'll do the job.

good job you're well trained with firearms and that good a shot to get the legs.

nobody really has a clue,if they had a gun when they'd use it,it would obviously be a panicky situation and which may set you off early or that scary that providing they s*** it and f*** off on seeing the gun you'd not fire.

I am Military service 8)

[GM]

A lot of this debate is precisely what vexes the British Police. I can remember way back in 94 when I was toying with the idea of joining Durham Constabulary I did an "insight" week up at Aykley Heads. Spent a day with the armed response unit. That was enough to help me realise what I thought about guns, tbh.

The prospect of having your own weapon turned against you was perturbing, to put it mildly...let alone the fact that universal arming of the Police sends out a strong message to determined criminals that they need to get themselves even more seriously tooled up - it just escalates the problem.

I can see where people are coming from when they say they should be able to defend their home/family/property to the nth degree - but the real solution is to have more effective policing across the country - not to allow people to have guns to "defend" themselves.

[madras]

In certain situations, I'd wish I had one, but I'd never use it to kill someone. I've always thought (in movies and such), there's no need to shoot someone in the chest (or around that area) if you only want to stop them, just shoot them in the knee or legs and that'll do the job.

good job you're well trained with firearms and that good a shot to get the legs.

nobody really has a clue,if they had a gun when they'd use it,it would obviously be a panicky situation and which may set you off early or that scary that providing they s*** it and f*** off on seeing the gun you'd not fire.

I am Military service 8)

shot at someone whislt in service ?

[Pip]

In certain situations, I'd wish I had one, but I'd never use it to kill someone. I've always thought (in movies and such), there's no need to shoot someone in the chest (or around that area) if you only want to stop them, just shoot them in the knee or legs and that'll do the job.

good job you're well trained with firearms and that good a shot to get the legs.

nobody really has a clue,if they had a gun when they'd use it,it would obviously be a panicky situation and which may set you off early or that scary that providing they s*** it and f*** off on seeing the gun you'd not fire.

I am Military service 8)

shot at someone whislt in service ?

Trained in firearms and good enough to shoot someone in the legs more like it.

[Nobody]

Problem is, if I would be allowed to have a hand-gun, that would mean that several thousands of nutters would also be allowed to have one. Therefor, I'd rather go with option 1 and just tell the burglars to take whatever the f*** they want.