The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:30 pm**

Does raise some good points. I personally *think* that a lot of the perceived *problems* would be down to the British public's, and perhaps some *elitist* S1/S2 holder's attitude towards firearms as a whole.

As someone has mentioned already, education is key. Where in the US or South Africa or Switzerland, firearms are everywhere - even if you're not a "gun person" you're very aware that guns are out there, people own them and people use them for self defence. However, you also know that your society hasn't been torn down by the existence of firearms. In the places mentioned above even a non "gun person" can own a firearm for self-defence and it is very normal and sometimes a right to do so.

However, over here, you all know the problems we face. The British public is partially aware that firearms are around the place, mainly shotguns for farmers, 'cos well, they're farmers, a shotgun is and occupational item. Your uncle or best mate when you were 14 may have owned an airgun, but that's your complete knowledge of guns. There isn't a gunshop on ever corner, you can't walk into Walmart and go to the hunting/sporting aisle and buy a box of Privi, our police service isn't armed, and you're not 100% sure if firearms are legal in the UK, nor do you particularly care.

Suddenly a law is passed that allows the British public to carry CCWs. The public would go ape! I believe that firstly only S1/S2/S7 owners would take this offer on, as for your avenge British public goer, who has never even SEEN a firearm in their life, this would scare the Hell outta them. "I don't want a gun, and people shouldn't be allowed them. Guns kill" and so on.

Now, going back to that "education is key" thing. If this magic law was passed and the law was actually explained to the masses. 1) why has it been introduced 2) the benefits to the law 3) what firearms can and cannot be used, and the situation in which they can be used in 4) training courses! In parts of the US to carry a CCW you have to attend a training course which covers; carrying, drawing, firearm safety and marksmanship - if something like this was brought on then I believe the "blow" as it were, can be softened to the public. Maybe it's a naive view, but it's my opinion. The only reason we don't kill ourselves and others every time we unload the car with our rifles is because of firearm education after all.

Also, I do not believe that the streets would run red with blood after everyone had finished blasting off pistols at one another if something like this was allowed in the UK. If that was the case the US, SA and Switzerland wouldn't have a living soul in their lands. After all, you wouldn't draw down on everyone that walked towards you on the pavement, would you?

If allowed I would carry, yes. Am I put in a situation everyday where I feel the need to walk around armed? No? Of course not, however, I wouldn't be carrying to feel big or important, I wouldn't be drawing it every 5 minutes just because someone looked at me oddly. I would be carrying it to protect myself from blatant and obvious danger. Ask someone in the US "have many times have you drawn your CCW in the last 20 years?". "Never" they'll probably say, but what if they were in a situation that needed a CCW and they didn't have it?

Sorry for the long post - just my thoughts on the subject.

Regards
T

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:59 pm**

Dougan wrote: Which ever stats you look at, it's fair to say that if gun ownership is in the 100s of thousands, then you can measure gun related accidents in the 100s.

Currently, the UK has a rate of accidental gun death of 0.02. The US has a rate of 0.2 so 10x. A stab in the dark would be to guess that if we adopted similar gun laws we'd see a similar rate of accidental gun deaths - so 140 instead of 14 per year on average, an increase of 125. Of course, as I say, I suspect most of the accidental gun deaths in the USA are hunting accidents. Hunting is, and will likely remain, much rarer in the UK. Unlike the US there simply are not any wild deer or turkeys you can go and shoot, in fact the only game that you can really shoot on public land that I know of is wildfowl - correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise you need to know someone who owns land, which few people do, or join a syndicate, or pay for a shoot, which are expensive and inconvenient options. Add to that the inherently safer landscape of the UK - wide open farmland, moors and highlands for the most part - and I'd imagine a much lower rate of accidental shootings.

We have around 700 murders a year in the UK. When CCW was introduced in the US, many states saw a drop in the murder rate of 20-25% at a time when the US murder rate was rising. If we saw comparable results, we'd lose 140 murders, down to 560 a year. So even on worst-case-scenario accident numbers we'd be up 15 lives per year. And I'd only really count accidental deaths inflicted on others - if you buy a gun and end up putting a hole through your wall that kills your neighbour, that's an issue, but if you choose to buy a gun and end up shooting yourself in the face then I don't see why that should affect the laws of the land that control what other people do.

If you're still worried, why not take the transitional step of treating guns like cars: What you do on private land is your business, if you want to carry in public you need to pass a test that takes 45 minutes and requires around 20 hours of practice/instruction to pass, with an age limit of 17. Then after a generation get rid of it because carrying a gun safely is way, way less complicated than driving a car safely.

As for not needing to carry, there are 700 murders a year in the UK and 600 accidental motorcycle deaths. It's the law you have to wear a helmet, it's the law you can't carry a handgun. Carrying a handgun doesn't bother me, wearing a helmet is a pain in the ass (that doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it's still a pain). A Makarov is only $200 which is what you'll pay for a decent helmet, or you can pay up to $1,000 for a fancy helmet or a US-made 1911. Unless there's a helmet-bowling league I don't know about nobody buys a helmet for anything but safety, but I enjoy shooting so the financial cost isn't even an issue anyway.

Whether you need it a lot or not very much, prudence and taking responsibility for yourself should never be uncool.

I think people actually underestimate how many people would carry or at least buy a gun if it was no problem (and cheaper) to do so. A lot of people I know, most of whom do not agree that we should have CCW in the first place, say they would buy a gun/carry a gun if they could - nobody is against guns because they don't trust themselves, people are against guns because they don't trust other people.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:07 am**

Porcupine wrote:...nobody is against guns because they don't trust themselves, people are against guns because they don't trust other people.

Which ironically in a world where you can legally carry would be the number one reason to be for guns!

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:27 pm**

Good posts Porcupine & Tower

Its more likely than not i'd carry if i could but i'd have to satisfy myself that i was capable of doing so without a significant chance of injuring myself and others. I'd more than likely sell a few of my rifles to pay for private training if i felt the course to get the CCW license wasn't comprehensive enough. I've seen a video of the US CCW test and frankly i think its nowhere near good enough, although its possible the video didn't show the entire course.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:48 pm**

Without doubt, an extensive training and evaluation course would be required, background checks and dare I say it even a mental health assesment. Then reclassification every 24 months. This isn't something that should be taken lightly!

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:40 pm**

Very true, something similar to the Czech system, maybe more extensive than their mandatory training and testing

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:50 am**

timely arrival in my inbox

Truth and Consequences:
Armed citizens behave; antis lose credibility

Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Pacific Northwest gun rights activists tracking firearms issues nationwide are taking note of a report in Sunday's Richmond, VA Times-Dispatch that shows how crime in bars and restaurants has actually dropped in the year since Virginia changed the law to allow concealed firearms in those establishments.

It's the kind of revelation that causes gun prohibitionists to clench their teeth because: a) it appears in the mainstream press, which has a long history of supporting gun control and the prohibitionist agenda, and b) it further erodes the credibility of such extremist organizations as the Brady Campaign and state-level affiliates like Washington CeaseFire. One might argue, however, that the second dilemma is one of their own making.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.--Richmond Times-Dispatch

Had gun control proponents not manufactured hysteria with their repeated predictions of Wild West shootouts and blood flowing in the streets, they would not appear to be such fools when the data comes in. [...]

The same thing recently happened in Michigan, courtesy of the Detroit Free Press and crack reporter Dawson Bell. As this column noted when the Detroit newspaper recently tracked ten years of concealed carry reform in the Wolverine State and found no evidence of the rising crime and mayhem that was predicted back in 2001, anti-gunners were left trying to dance around with semantics when facts about lawful concealed carry revealed their predictions to have been so much hot air.

David Rittgers, an attorney and decorated former Army special forces officer who is now a legal policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the growing number of states that are adopting concealed-carry measures like Virginia's have seen no appreciable rise -- and in some cases a decline -- in violent crime.

"The worst that you can say about these laws is that they are statistically value neutral" in terms of impacting the crime rate, Rittgers said.

Rittgers said states that have enacted such concealed-carry legislation -- "even when they've done some relatively restrictive provisions upfront" -- have relaxed those over time "because of the lack of violent incidents that might be connected with persons carrying concealed (weapons) with a permit."--Richmond Times-Dispatch

What the Times-Dispatch story also revealed is something Evergreen State gun rights activists have long known to be true: People who shoot up bars or gun down other people outside of nightclubs typically do not have concealed pistol licenses. More often than not, the perpetrators of these crimes are convicted felons who cannot legally possess firearms, or they are under age 21, so they cannot legally carry a handgun. Either way, they are not good guys.

Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year -- one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant -- but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.--Richmond Times-Dispatch

Case in point was the now-infamous Skyway shooter, taken down by a legally-armed private citizen. Jarvais Steven Warren, 27, allegedly shot Richard Breazeale over some bad heroin, using a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol that ran dry before Warren encountered Jeffrey Fletcher in the parking lot of a Skyway bank. There has been no indication that Mr. Warren had a valid CPL.

While gun prohibitionists would have everyone believing that all people who carry firearms are the same, quite the opposite is true. Law-abiding citizens typically do not find themselves in trouble for misusing guns. This much was made clear by Bell in the two-part Free Press series.

As this column reported, a record number of Washingtonians now have CPLs and there is every indication the number will continue to climb, while the credibility of gun prohibitionist groups continues to fall.

I post a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.

If you have an interesting photo, story, or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:

info@frontsight.com

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:26 am**

OK some points made,

"weapon can be used against you" Piffle! Why should that happen. If you let it, it will, if you are badly trained then you should NOT have the weapon. As you said, if you draw it you use it. All down to TRAINING!

"Why would I go to an area where I feel a need to carry" (or whatever)"

That is a classic victim / false sense of security atitutude. I think that in 100% of cases ALL crime comes to YOU, no one seeks it out. The engagement is initiated by the criminal at a time and place of THEIR choosing, not yours and is never at random. Better to have and not need etc. A .22 in the hand is better than a .45 at home.

barney, it is not a novelty factor, all about insurance..Look at those "persons" in the riots with guns, a fgact the cops kept VERY quiet about initailly. Even cops cannot defend themselves so wqe cannot ever rely on them anyway, it is not their duty to protect YOU or anyone else at any time. That could EASILY have been a massacre of unheard of proportions had they chosen to settle scores or snuff out ANY resistance by their victims, shopkeeprs or not. Those who believe it will never happen to me are just daft and playing a dangerous game of chance with their personal safety. You may have a better than some chance of survival because of your occupation..but not always..papers are full of stories of soldiers killed by street scum.

The old chestnut about "the people": We are a completely different mentality to the USA, Europe etc. brits as a rule are subservient. Of course we would never have a situation where you can walk into a street market and just buy a gun, this is not Mogadishu. The rules we have are adequate and MANDATORY basic training and ONGOING range time would or should be in place. Some legal carry gun owners I have met think that a 3 hour $60 CCW course is what they need and the occasional blat at a static target in their own time is training, it is NOT.

The NRA courses in the USA are comprehensive and time consuming..and affordable, Likewise there is no excuse for lack of practice because the facilities are there...as is the tuition. Thje frameworkl IS out there, the political will is NOT!

Training IS expensive, I would hate to think how much mine has cost but it is in the thousands, many thousands of pounds..and that is before I step on a plane or book a hotel room, but every penny has been well spent. if I can get the missus to calm down I will do another 5 days in the US quite soon to upgrade what i have.

24 months recert..Hmmm, yearly is betetr and MINIMUM and recorded range practice time, and NOT standing behind a wee counter popping away at 25 yards, if you carry or keep for self defence then it has to be more appropriate training. Of course simple other measures as taught in CCW classes also help..and in some cases the person may and sometimes does decide somewhere in the course that they do NOT have the mindset to own, keep or carry a firearm..but at least they know about personal safety meassures. Armed defence is not all about guns.

ACCIDENTS; They happen so get over it.! You cannot legislate against accidents or stupidity but CORRECT training plays a large part, ask the Swiss Military, impeccable safety record...I believe thay have had NO accidents, negligents or injuries in over 10 years. then again they use a well proven system.

Gang crime is rife in the US and so is gang related gun crime...just like here! If people commit suicide witha gun itis because it is/was easier, not because the gun made them do it. We need to stop giving guns personalities like Disney does with animals.

At the end of the day it is about having the RIGHT to do so, which we have..although the guns themselves are banned. Those who keep defensive weapons out of our hands are just lowlifes with no care about YOU or your wellbeing. whether they are our bent politicians, ant gun fools or mothers against survival, they would rather see you dead or more harshly punished than your attacker.

Control and ban are not the same thing...I do not want to see guns in the hands of everyone, that would be crazy........... but the these idiotic bans and reviews need to be scrapped and the WHOLE of S5 needs reviewd to REMOVE ALL defensive weapons wrongly included on the list.!

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:28 am**

Tell us about the time you were legally carrying and nearly drew but thought better of it and why, Chuck.

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:43 am**

We did have an occasion a while back at the apartment (normally whole block occupied in summer but empty in winter). Middle of night we heard someone scratching at the door, like trying to pick the lock.. We (well I) took the 12g loaded with buck and slug and investigated the situation as it were. I did a sweep up and down the apartment stairs to be sure but whoever it was had legged it..A lot of "travelling folks" arrive in winter knowing many properties are empty but full of expensive European goods...

However, ones training does kick in, ones ass does pucker a bit for sure because a situation is developing which might result in someone being shot..and that includes me. However the fact that these travellers are typically armed anyway ensures that I will NOT allow anyone to violate this house or the persons therein..irrespective of the consequences ....for as long as I am able to.

The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?

Re: If you could legally would you carry?