What's the legality in carrying a roll of coins for defense?

[HauteHippie]

Living in Liverpool I know what harm guns do, the police found one gun that was responsible for 20% of the shootings in the city in a year.

Wow, what a deranged gun! I wonder what kind of upbringing that gun had. Chances are that gun did not come from a loving family. Hopefully, though, that gun got what it deserved - death lethal injection. Or has that also been banned?

[HauteHippie]

However, in London, gun crime is up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8473029.stm But it's safe to say in most of the country, it's almost non-existant. There is currently a huge debate over the violent crime statistics the Conservative Party are using to 'prove' the current government is losing on crime. It's a very long story, but the upshot is everyone is massaging figures.

Sounds like the government isn't the right tool to use for fixing the problem - one way or the other. Not a big surprise.

Muggers would shoot their targets in the back of the head and steal the gun from their corpses.

The problem with handing out guns like candies is that minor crimes become fatal crimes.

Not likely. Minor crimes tend to vanish almost entirely, while significant crimes decline drastically.

[Pugwash]

My original statement appears to have been somewhat inaccurate, so I happily retract it. One thing that is clear, is that the ban on private ownership in the UK has not made the UK any safer.

How can you be sure that the ban hasn't made the UK safer? You were wrong about knife crime, who says you're not wrong on guns too?

I enjoy shooting and am still undecided on the ban, but I'm not going to go as far as to say it's not made the UK safer.

[Pugwash]

Not likely. Minor crimes tend to vanish almost entirely, which significant crimes decline drastically.

We're all guessing here, though.

So, what you're saying is that crime doesn't exist in Texas? Everyone's armed there.

[TeeJay]

The one thing that is clear is that our gun crime is so low, especially compared to the US, that our entire crimes could be a rounding error in US amounts.

And yet according to the info I dug up, a person is more likely to be attacked with a knife in the UK, than shot in the US...

[HauteHippie]

We're all guessing here, though.

So, what you're saying is that crime doesn't exist in Texas? Everyone's armed there.

I'm not guessing. Across the US, the stats are very clear. Not everyone in Texas is armed, though many/most parts do have relatively low crime rates. Pulling US stats in to the picture, though, is flawed in and of itself. There are many population factors in the US that make comparisons to most other countries extremely difficult at best. But it's still fairly obvious that the deterrent of an immediate, violent death is effective in any country.... except of course where we have to start dealing with religious fanatics seeking 72 virgins in the afterlife or what have you.

[TeeJay]

How can you be sure that the ban hasn't made the UK safer? You were wrong about knife crime, who says you're not wrong on guns too?

I don't believe that the statistics reflect that the UK is safer...

I enjoy shooting and am still undecided on the ban, but I'm not going to go as far as to say it's not made the UK safer.

The ban has only reduced incidents with legally owned weapons, and even those, were a rarity and instances of failures in vetting and licensing procedures, rather than true indications that the general population are ill-equipped to own firearms. That said, given how there is a binge-drinking culture in the UK, which is quite different to the drinking cultures of say France and Spain, there're many people in the UK who might prove unsuitable for private ownership of a firearm. I think the things which need to be addressed, are not just the facts and figures, but also the cultures and mentalities involved, such as the previous examples of Sweden... There are many reasons why the UK is less safe than it was a decade ago, but, as I said above, carrying a gun in public would not make me any safer, but it would definitely make me feel safer.

[Anopsis]

Wow, what a deranged gun! I wonder what kind of upbringing that gun had. Chances are that gun did not come from a loving family. Hopefully, though, that gun got what it deserved - death lethal injection. Or has that also been banned?

I like this site: http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com They've been keeping an AR-15 under observation 24/7 for years, and it hasn't killed anyone yet.

Minor crimes tend to vanish almost entirely, while significant crimes decline drastically.

Whenever concealed carry laws have been passed in the states the anti-gunners start screaming about how it will become "the old west" with gunfights on every streetcorner or at every occurrence of 'road rage'. The fact is that licensed concealed-carriers are the safest of the lot. If someone has gone to the trouble and expense to get licensed to carry then they should have a good grasp on the weight of responsibility that comes with it. I tell my students that (back when my store was open) every day when I'm getting ready for work and put my gun in my holster, I think about the fact that by that night I may have had to take someone's life. That is a very somber, very sobering thought. It's a tremendous responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. I believe anyone who has been properly trained understands that the firearm is the last option, not the first.

[Pugwash]

But it's still fairly obvious that the deterrent of an immediate, violent death is effective in any country.

I don't want to turn this into a gun control debate as they've been had on this forum before and nothing is decided until the real gun nuts turn up and shout everyone else down.

Having said that, the studies I've seen about the crimes in Texas after the concealed carry law was introduced, the only change was a slight increase in assaults. Immediate, violent death doesn't seem to be as much a deterrent when you're armed.

However, knowing how it works in Britain, I think legalising firearms would not be a good thing.

[Pugwash]

The ban has only reduced incidents with legally owned weapons

All guns start off legally owned.

[TeeJay]

I'm not guessing. Across the US, the stats are very clear. Not everyone in Texas is armed, though many/most parts do have relatively low crime rates. Pulling US stats in to the picture, though, is flawed in and of itself. There are many population factors in the US that make comparisons to most other countries extremely difficult at best. But it's still fairly obvious that the deterrent of an immediate, violent death is effective in any country.... except of course where we have to start dealing with religious fanatics seeking 72 virgins in the afterlife or what have you.

[Anopsis]

All guns start off legally owned.

Right, so here's an idea - let's make it illegal to steal them and then use them in a crime! That will help! Just kidding, I know what you mean (I just couldn't help it). The old quote which still holds as true as ever is "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Further tightening the gunlaws will only serve to restrict the law-abiding gunowners from obtaining them. It has no effect on criminals who, by definition, tend to have little regard for the law. Very rarely is it a one-owner, store-bought gun that a criminal uses.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Anopsis

[TeeJay]

All guns start off legally owned.

And?

All knives start off legally owned, all cars start off legally owned, but that does not mean that everyone who legally owns something is going to use it to kill someone...

[TeeJay]

Right, so here's an idea - let's make it illegal to steal them and then use them in a crime! That will help! Just kidding, I know what you mean (I just couldn't help it). The old quote which still holds as true as ever is "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Further tightening the gunlaws will only serve to restrict the law-abiding gunowners from obtaining them. It has no effect on criminals who, by definition, tend to have little regard for the law. Very rarely is it a one-owner, store-bought gun that a criminal uses.

Precisely.

[Anopsis]

I don't want to turn this into a gun control debate as they've been had on this forum before and nothing is decided until the real gun nuts turn up and shout everyone else down.

I'm not sure what you mean by real, but I'm aware most would consider me to be so. However I hope I'm not being perceived as attempting to 'shout anyone down'. I do have strong feelings regarding gun ownership and I love to debate it, but only in a polite, educated manner.

[HauteHippie]

I don't want to turn this into a gun control debate as they've been had on this forum before and nothing is decided until the real gun nuts turn up and shout everyone else down.

Having said that, the studies I've seen about the crimes in Texas after the concealed carry law was introduced, the only change was a slight increase in assaults. Immediate, violent death doesn't seem to be as much a deterrent when you're armed.

Faulty conclusion. It's better to look at the stats of counties in states that had high crime rates to begin with. The Texas population is ... unique. But Texas isn't unique in having introduced concealed carry.

However, knowing how it works in Britain, I think legalising firearms would not be a good thing.

Seems banning hasn't been a good thing either.

[Pugwash]

Right, so here's an idea - let's make it illegal to steal them and then use them in a crime! That will help!

It helps to make it easy to spot a criminal. If they're armed, the police can shoot them dead.

There are less guns over here, and not every criminal that would use one has one. I'm willing to not be allowed guns if it means less armed criminals on the street.

Let's not forget, until very recently (one terror group just handed over their guns this week) the UK was a country with armed domestic terrorists waging war on the streets, murdering and injuring innocents and bombing buildings. That's what most adults think of guns here.

[Pugwash]

Seems banning hasn't been a good thing either.

Banning guns hasn't made it any worse. I believe it's made it better, but there are no statistics that can conclusively prove this, obviously.

[TeeJay]

It helps to make it easy to spot a criminal. If they're armed, the police can shoot them dead.

There are less guns over here, and not every criminal that would use one has one. I'm willing to not be allowed guns if it means less armed criminals on the street.

Let's not forget, until very recently (one terror group just handed over their guns this week) the UK was a country with armed domestic terrorists waging war on the streets, murdering and injuring innocents and bombing buildings. That's what most adults think of guns here.

But the point is, that has not been the case. Some might say that criminals now have less easy access to firearms than before, but I'd counter that by pointing out that it is (and likely always has been) easier for a criminal to acquire a firearm illegally, than it has been for an enthusiast to legally acquire one for sport.

[Anopsis]

I'm willing to not be allowed guns if it means less armed criminals on the street.

Ah, but this is the slippery slope of tightening restrictions - at what point do you lose rights so that you have none left? Are you willing to not be allowed cars if it means less motor vehicle accidents? Are you willing to not be allowed alcohol if it means less drunk drivers? Are you willing to not be allowed male genitalia if it means less rape? Okay, that one was a bit extreme but it serves to illustrate my point.

Let's not forget, until very recently (one terror group just handed over their guns this week) the UK was a country with armed domestic terrorists waging war on the streets, murdering and injuring innocents and bombing buildings. That's what most adults think of guns here.

That is a very valid point; perception is key. Growing up in rural America I have spent my entire life around guns. I have friends of varying origin that have never seen nor held an actual gun and are terrified of them. This is why I hate the fear-mongering of the general news media brought about by using sensationalistic statements such as the aforementioned 'hail of bullets' and the like. When a crime is committed with a firearm the media constantly refer to the criminal as "the gunman". If he used a knife would they call him "the knifeman"? Of course not. Regardless of his tools he's still a criminal. [/mediarant]

[narikaa]

Dunblane

The incident prayed for by the hoplophobes in the Home Office so that they could finally ride the crest of the popular press's public indignation to carry out the balance of their plans shelved from the Hungerford debacle

Hugerford

Somehow seen as guns are bad instead of how inept & cowardly are the police! Who were instrumental in the deaths of many of the innocents. You will recall that their stalwart tactics were to hold back until the perp had presumably run out of ammunition on his street walk - killing tax paying residents! And of course direct traffic - into the killing zone FFS!

What a missed opportunity too! Perhaps the only clear cut incidence in living history were a local Firearms Certificate holder would have had the legal timeframe to see deaths at his front door, his chickenshit police force hiding some miles off on his TV, the opportunity to saunter over to his gun cabinet unlock it and select one of the 'devils right hands' therein, toodle on over to the ammo safe and unlock that too, then open a window or whatever and put the UK anti-gun agenda back a millennia or so!

But

Tony Blair's conceited words "Ive taken guns off the streets of Britain" had a hollow ring then and a bitter taste to the relatives of the countless gun crime victims since.

Still there was a guy who felt hed achieved some kind of victory in simply surrendering to Irish terrorists (probably as a present to his money grubbing wife) after decades of British deaths in the conflict.

Britain

A perverse country where giving away all that made it great and eroding anything and everything pertaining to personal freedom has been turned (by some spectacular form of mass hypnosis) into commendable acts.

Eroded so much so that it is now swamped with unprecedented levels of debt (yet its leaders can still junket around the planet handing out mind boggling sums in aid!!), colonized by just about anyone wanting a free ride.

Where, getting back to the OP you can safely assure yourself in certain parts of this l'il island of getting yourself stabbed to bits by members of a nation of your choosing - without any legal recourse open to you to counter it.

.

[Pugwash]

Ah, but this is the slippery slope of tightening restrictions - at what point do you lose rights so that you have none left? Are you willing to not be allowed cars if it means less motor vehicle accidents? Are you willing to not be allowed alcohol if it means less drunk drivers? Are you willing to not be allowed male genitalia if it means less rape? Okay, that one was a bit extreme but it serves to illustrate my point.

Slippery Slope arguments are fallacies.

If alcohol were banned, the UK would be a much safer place and much less fun. You can be 100% certain that will never happen in our lifetimes, so your point is invalid.

[Anopsis]

I disagree that the point is invalidated, as they are hypothetical situations. What would you be willing to give up to reduce crime/global warming/whatever your cause?

I am fully aware that the circumstances under which our country was born so tightly ingrain firearms into the American culture that most of us would never willingly give up those guns. I honestly believe that a mandatory, door-to-door confiscation of firearms in America would result in a revolution. I have guns that I made or bought and feel attached to for various reasons, but then I have guns my father and grandfather, etc. made that I would defend with my life. If a detail appeared at my front door and said "We're here for your guns, turn them over now" it would become an armed standoff. Those of us that are enthusiasts see the 2nd Amendment as the one that guarantees all others; something that our country was built upon and IS NOT open to negotiation or "re-interpretation".

[Pugwash]

I disagree that the point is invalidated, as they are hypothetical situations. What would you be willing to give up to reduce crime/global warming/whatever your cause?

I didn't have to give anything up.

And just like they'll never ban drink in the UK, they'll never ban guns in the US. You're never going to have that glorious armed stand off in your home. Same slippery slope, they're not going to take your handguns if you agree you don't need grenade launchers.

Almost all of the fear of gun control in the US is politics. It's got nothing to do with what is possibly ever going to happen. You're never going to be allowed to buy the highest-end Military hardware, so stop pretending it's a travesty, and no-one is going to take away your handguns. Let's face it, sometimes, some Americans stockpile a few too many weapons and their intentions are not good - if this is still legal, granny's Smith & Wesson Model 10 Snubnose is certainly safe, and would continue to be, even if LMGs were banned.

[Anopsis]

I didn't have to give anything up.

Of course you didn't, because guns aren't really gone there.

You're never going to have that glorious armed stand off in your home.

Wow, just ... wow. You have now shown your true feelings on guns and enthusiasts. Only someone with a warped view of gun owners would even THINK that such an occurrence would be considered "glorious". No law-abiding gun owners are looking to be martyrs, I can promise you that.

Same slippery slope, they're not going to take your handguns if you agree you don't need grenade launchers.

Oh, if that were only true. The anti-gunners in America are always looking for the next step with the ultimate goal of complete disarmament. Example: First "they" pushed that "assault rifles" were so deadly because they were capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute and were designed to "spray bullets". Our collective response was that a full-auto machinegun is illegal, and those guns with the APPEARANCE of "assault rifles" are in fact semi-auto guns that can only fire one shot with each pull of the trigger. Their response? Now they claim semi-autos are MORE DEADLY, because the slower rate of fire means that the shooter is more likely to hit his target rather than spraying around them.

so stop pretending it's a travesty, and no-one is going to take away your handguns.

The well-known, well-publicized agenda of groups like The Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign, et al., is the total ban of all firearms. The big recent news is the overturning of the law in Washington DC that prohibited the owning of a handgun. You can't say "no-one is going to take away your handguns" because in some areas it has already occurred.

Let's face it, sometimes, some Americans stockpile a few too many weapons and their intentions are not good - if this is still legal, granny's Smith & Wesson Model 10 Snubnose is certainly safe, and would continue to be

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there was a door-to-door illegal gun confiscation in New Orleans. An elderly woman was slammed to the ground in her home over her late husband's small revolver. "No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." - New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass.

even if LMGs were banned.

They are, and have been, since 1986.

I'm new to this forum and I don't want to make myself an unwelcome guest, nor do I wish to be perceived as attempting to shout anyone down, so I think at this point we should agree to disagree and get back to talking about watches. It's obvious you nor I will change the other's mind!