The old chestnut of firearms for self defence - a question..

[Gazoo]

Being armed for your defence is a British Common Law right going back thousands of years. It only became outlawed, some would opine illegally, in 1953. That is within living memory for a fair chunk of UK nationals! Legislation was railroaded through by the Conservative government of the day who renaged on all sorts of concessions that should have been included or omitted. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act was a nasty piece of treachery....

Jeff Cooper wrote, "Owning a gun makes you no more armed, than owning a guitar makes you a musician" and Sir Winston Churchill said, "Every British household should be compelled to have good insurance and a sturdy revolver."....

Slightly ironic, remind me, who was the Prime Minister in 1953 when the treacherous act was past?

As for British have always been able to defend themselves and the Winston quote, I think you are missing something crucial to both those things....Class.
Winston wasn't thinking about working class houses , he will have meant good old middle class houses and a gentleman could always walk down the road and pull a webley out to defend himself against a ruffian, the police would turn up and salute him, call him sir etc, but a bin man walking down the street who shoots a ruffian would have been locked up and hanged, no salutes or sir-ing there. Twas always thus.
Don't forget the start of all this was after the first world war, when they rushed through controls to stop the millions of pi**ed off heroes coming home to nothing different than before but having seen the russians overthrow their masters.

[Gazoo]

Blackstuff
" Why do people who are against CCW have the notion that the people for it mean they want to put a gun immediately into everyones hand tomorrow?! "

The trouble with wishing for something is that you might get it, if you get a radical government tomorrow who allow CCW, that means everybody can go for it, there will be plenty of people who would make you uncomfortable walking around armed, you dont get to choose, the same incompetent police licensing staff will be making the same crap decisions they make now, only allowing loads of walter mitty's to walk about armed.
reminds me of one of the top blokes in the gun control network in USA who got done for shooting at teenagers who were using his swimming pool, with an illegal pistol he owned, and when the press asked him about the irony of gun control activist owning a gun, he said he was in favour of gun control for other people, not himself! (true story)

[BamBam]

The fault with the initial post is that it is perhaps asking the wrong people. Or rather the wrong age group.
Statistically it is the younger generation in their twenties that are most likely to be confronted with violent situations. They tend to place themselves in scenarios where things can get heated. Drink is often involved, impairing their judgement, they tend to be out on the streets late at night, often frequenting areas where the prudent would not go. They are also likely to be confronted by a young aggressor.

As an older guy I'm safely tucked up in my garage / indoors after nightfall. If I want a drink I'll nurse one from a bottle of rum in my own home. I mix with similar people in 'nice' areas and situations. I don't place myself in situations where things are likely to go South.

In my twenties though ... I got myself into all sorts of stupid situations - often simply just because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I had a knife pulled on me twice and someone once tried to shove a broken bottle in my face. Because of the prerequisites set in the initial post I guess they don't count. I do know of two friends who were mugged at knife point though - in broad daylight in Cowley, Oxford.

Great post, agree with younger people being more at risk than us fogies.

I suppose the stabbing I took when I was 20 was what started my concealed carry path. Back then it took 16 weeks to get a license for my Beretta 71 in .22. Concealed carry was the norm, open carry was seen as an attempt at intimidation.
It was work that placed me more at risk, travelling and working on my own in the general Southern Africa area. My modello 71 made a group of students hesitate long enough for me to make my escape after they confronted me alone on a university campus, their can of petrol and tyre left me in no doubt as to their intentions. CCI stingers small but loud enough to divert their attention and give me that all important 20 yard head start on getting to my Hilux.
It was only when my mate Kevin found himself in an armed transit robbery that I reconsidered my pocket pistol and traded up in calibre. He came out of a client early one morning and there was a cash van being held up next to his parked bakkie. A group of robbers armed with AKs. Kevin managed to shoot and kill 2 of them, saved the life of one of the security guards in the process and prevented them escaping with the cash. The bank gave him 1% of the van's total as a reward, R80K. He traded his classic Beretta 91 for a Glock 17, I got a .40 S&W Astra A70... Rubbish pistol really.

Glad that I don't feel there is a need to carry here, at the moment. It's a huge responsibility and after spending 13 years of my life armed every day quite a relief to not feel the need to carry.
Would like a pistol or 6 for sport purposes, not likely to happen though really.

[AJSawyer]

No offence, but it's not about YOU is it? It's about the people, the defencbeless masses who, unlike you cannot call on their buddies to show up armed to the teeth. Yes they can call on you but how long does that take?? You arrive at 90mph, a 9mm does it at what 1200 FPS???? Which is faster.

Y'see criminals in the main are not so dumb as to attack the police are they? They also tend to try and commit crimes when you are not around. When was the last time a WPC was attacked and raped??? You will be more aware of threats than the average Joe or Jill, that's what you're trained for is it not....to look out for bad guys and girls?? Thing is, you (the police) cannot be everywhere can you? If that were possible the Paris and Tunisian massacres would not have happened.

The issue is not if "YOU" personally want a gun, the choice is yours and well done to you if you don't want one..there's a LOT of issues involved the minute you carry a firearm for defence! Certainly a lot more than is taken into account in discussions like this.

As I said there is MUCH more to it than just having a gun, it requires training, mindset and it IS a tool of last resort, always!

BTW: It's not about this "NEEDING" one for self defence or sport is it??? Whether it's defene or sport "need" should never come into this! Yes there other options ------ but what if there aren't? Once again, it's just like insurance...or a very loud personal alarm.

If it saves ONE life it's worth it.

I said I was out...

Do you have any idea how often officers get assaulted? I'm not saying it for sympathy, but it happens every single day, and you seem to think we get it nice and easy.

I'm waiting just as long for armed response as anyone else. They don't teleport to me and drive for the public...

Also http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... court-told

My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, and the lives of criminals (I'm not bleeding heart liberal, but we have a civilised society) who would otherwise face trial.

As someone remarked earlier. We aren't damaged enough as a society to need guns.

There's something I've heard several times about those wanting to become firearms officers... And that's, if you actually WANT a gun, you shouldn't carry one. Applies here too, I'd say.

There are some people who'd relish the chance to draw a gun on someone. Enjoy living with it too, I'm sure that's easy, when you've been through court and had months of people telling you it wasn't necessary to take a life.

[ordnance]

My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, and the lives of criminals (I'm not bleeding heart liberal, but we have a civilised society) who would otherwise face trial.

What evidence do you have that (My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, ) the police carry firearms here every day and that doisent happen. Maybe some should look at evidence of what actually happens when a UK police force is armed instead of letting their imagination run away with them.

[Sim G]

Slightly ironic, remind me, who was the Prime Minister in 1953 when the treacherous act was past?

Yeah I know! But then Chruchill was always a bit of a political anomaly... And really out of favour with his own party at the time, who was replaced by Eden before winning the next election. The main drive behind it was Sir David Maxwell-Filey, the Home Secretary. The legislation itself still allowed the carry of arms, with lawful authority, but that became harder and harder to get as it was granted through the firearm certificate system, hence Chief Constables. And they had been instrumental in having the law passed because of gangs of "youths" cutting each other up with straight razors.

(There has been an argument put forward that the marauding gangs of youths of the day were actually large in part demobbed soldiers suffering from what we know as PTSD. It is also opined, but denied by them, that the Hells Angels were formed in the US by similar malcontent ex-servicemen)

Anyway, I digress.

It was the 1968 Act that finally put pay to any form of armed defence, either in public or at home, by that ceasing to be good reason for the granting of a certificate. (When Churchill died, he still had an FAC issued by Kent Constabulary, covering six handguns, including a Browning Hi-Power.

[Sim G]

As for British have always been able to defend themselves and the Winston quote, I think you are missing something crucial to both those things....Class.
Winston wasn't thinking about working class houses , he will have meant good old middle class houses and a gentleman could always walk down the road and pull a webley out to defend himself against a ruffian, the police would turn up and salute him, call him sir etc, but a bin man walking down the street who shoots a ruffian would have been locked up and hanged, no salutes or sir-ing there. Twas always thus.
Don't forget the start of all this was after the first world war, when they rushed through controls to stop the millions of pi**ed off heroes coming home to nothing different than before but having seen the russians overthrow their masters.

The class system?! Honestly.....

[AJSawyer]

My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, and the lives of criminals (I'm not bleeding heart liberal, but we have a civilised society) who would otherwise face trial.

What evidence do you have that (My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, ) the police carry firearms here every day and that doisent happen. Maybe some should look at evidence of what actually happens when a UK police force is armed instead of letting their imagination run away with them.

It doesn't happen BECAUSE they are well trained, and because it's a minority of officers, a lot of time can be given to training them.

Try arming 100,000+ officers, and if you want evidence of what mass arming does... look at the US Police.

Please don't start heading down the route of ad hominem arguments, it just destroys whatever point you might have had, and it's nothing to do with imagination.


Roll your eyes somewhere else.

[Sim G]

My point is, it wouldn't save lives. It would take the lives of innocent bystanders, and the lives of criminals (I'm not bleeding heart liberal, but we have a civilised society) who would otherwise face trial.

As someone remarked earlier. We aren't damaged enough as a society to need guns.

There's something I've heard several times about those wanting to become firearms officers... And that's, if you actually WANT a gun, you shouldn't carry one. Applies here too, I'd say.

There are some people who'd relish the chance to draw a gun on someone. Enjoy living with it too, I'm sure that's easy, when you've been through court and had months of people telling you it wasn't necessary to take a life.

Wow.

There is absolutely nothing that I have ever studied that supports your argument. Lives certainly have been saved by CCW in NI and in the US economists have shown time and time again of the benefit of concealed carry in locales compared with those with restrictive access to arms, both in lives and dollars. And I know plenty of firearms officers who also shoot for sport..... They certainly "want" a gun.

Really, what is it about the public that you don't trust?

And our society is becoming damaged more every day, with criminal methodology that we have never experienced.

[AJSawyer]

Really, what is it about the public that you don't trust?

I've already answered this.

This is an argument like religion, or politics, and is going nowhere. I'm not going to convince you, any more than you're going to convince me.

Fortunately, from my perspective, carrying a firearm for self defence is never going to happen in the UK.

and regarding WANTING a gun.

Shooting for sport, and WANTING one for self defence are entirely different. You shouldn't be firing at another human for sport, self defence is another matter.

An officer who WANTS to have a gun on the street, and one who wants one for sport are two different subjects.