Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[redskies]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062

[Triple_sod]

Basically just another one of those things which sounds good….until you actually think about

When you think how many women who’ve been with (or still are with..) an abusive bloke would be either far too scared to say anything, or else tell themselves ‘he wouldn’t do anything like that’.

While on the other end of the spectrum…….

[redskies]

The whole thing is a minefield.

There are those who are obviously mentally ill. Then there are those who appear to be ok, but have mental health issues. And at the other end of the scale, there are those who appear to be fine but could, quite easily, go postal one day with no warning whatsoever. And all the folks who fall somewhere in between.

A GP is a General Practitioner. They're not especially trained in one area, but more to try and spot warning signs which would make a referral to a specialist of any kind appropriate. The way the NHS is set up these days, appointments are so short that the chance of them catching mental health problems are slim. Very very slim unless the patient falls into the ''obviously mentally ill'' category. Especially since Doctors these days aren't the ones of old, who probably attended when you were born and in some cases, when you died too.

So checking someones medical records is only going to work if they're obviously ill enough for a GP to spot or if they've gone to the GP for help. And whilst some do, an awful lot don't, because there is still a great deal of stigma attached to mental health issues. I know of an awful lot of people who have looked for counselling and other forms of help, online and in RL, without the knowledge of their doctor. There are others who simply battle on, because they're worried about anyone else finding out about their problems - time off work for appointments maybe.

From my PoV, it's a privacy issue. From others PoV, it's the same thing, just from a different angle. I'm still not playin though!

[KalPrep]

I am kind of with red. However, what needs to be put in place is an open, transparent process that allows properly trained, accountable people to request only the information they require to conduct their job of protecting the wider public.

Your medical record may be sensitive and private to you, I don't particularly care, my bank account however is very sensitive for me. Horses for courses. Definitely does not mean they can ride rough shod over our rights but we also have to consider that the public needs confidence that inappropriate people do not get authorised access to firearms and ammunition.

I don't have a problem with my FEO/FLO contacting my GP and asking a specific question. I should know what is being asked and what the response is. Should there be anything which concerns the FEO and they wish to delve deeper, I should be given the notification and made aware of the content of the request. If I do not wish to have that request made (and consider that my certificate application may then be denied) then that is me providing my consent/dissent and I remain in control.

I don't think this is about secret squirrel stuff or maliciousness, it is about open and transparent operation of government process which I remain in control of.

[Oody]

You can't ask me that!

To a point YES I do.

I simply believe that if someone is of proven good character, they should be able to own a firearm for this purpose. The difficulty comes in determining who can be trusted to own a lethal firearm without risk to the public. A squeeky clean criminal record (including local intelligence checks for all past interactions with police) together with no history of mental illness will weed out the bad guys. I might also require applicants to be at least 25 years of age (they will by this age have had a proven conviction free track record). I think the general public get an extremely raw deal from the police when you consider how much money we give them and HUGE resources now made available to them. Local police stations are closing down and replaced by huge USELESS super-police stations. Many people oddly (to me anyway), seem only to happy to make lame excuses for the "hard pressed" police but in reality their resources have never been larger then they are now. Those of proven good character should be able to defend themselves with lethal or if they prefer, non lethal weapons (Mace, Pepper Spray etc).

Then again, if we had proper deterrent's in place and made our ultimate sanction (prison) a REAL punishment where convicts wouldn't like to return to, I believe the current crime rate would be cut by at least 60%. Many hard-core criminals have a better life inside than out (which speaks volumes about their lives). In my exerience about 10% of the population are responsible for 99% of serious crime. I still think that 70% of the population are nice decent and kind citizens and it is these people who need to be properly protected. The police have already shown they are not up to the job...

The only individuals with unfeterred access to firearms at the moment are the criminals themselves!

Finally I would like to say that I believe the government has disarmed (castrated) the people to stop them having the capability of over-throwing their corrupt regimes. A true democracy gives it's people the right to defend themselves from the bad guys and so it follows that in my opinion we don't live in a democracy any longer... It's all about showing us who is boss!

Lets try and keep this difficult discussion grown up, proportional and within the bounds of the law & forum rules.....

My sentiment and feelings exactly, modplod - even down to your prediction of total financial meltdown. Predicting it is so difficult, as it's never happened before like this, on this scale either, and especially as we can SEE/WITNESS the breaking down now, right before our eyes. Like a rollar coaster, the downward descent is slow at first, but then things gather pace, and before you know it, things are in free-fall and there's nowt anyone can do to stop it, apart from concentrating on surviving as best we can. But at least being prepared, basically or more advanced, will place you streets ahead of most other folk. One will have to keep an ultra low profile though, as ANY attention is unwanted attention when things get really bad.

You know rthe saying 'it's better to be 10yrs too early, than a day too late'? Well I don't think we even have 10 yrs. Anything from 1 to 2, or even 3 years at most (though I hope I'm wrong, for my family's sake).

[prepperG]

In this country it is ilegal to own or poses a firearm for the purposes of self deffence, having been in a situation where i was concerned for my safety i have to say i dont agree with this policy. The whole reasonable force thing is a nonsence how can anyone be expected to deffend themself with a punch or a swing of a bat when faced with one or more agressive people unless you are so well trained in martial arts that you dont need a weapon.
The only thing you can do is make your home very secure so that you have time to call the police and have them arrive before an attacker gets in.
Chances are that if you deffend your self you will end up in prison, having been to a number of murder scenes as part of my job i think the justice system should consider deffence in the home as a legal right. they could call it artice 45
Having had the need to legally break into houses i would sujest everyone look at home security as it is amazingly quick to get in.

[Plymtom]

Having had the need to legally break into houses i would sujest everyone look at home security as it is amazingly quick to get in.

That much is certain, I saw two policemen do it across the road from me and they had tazers.

The reasonable force thing does allow room for a firearms owner to use them in self defence, should an attack take long enough for someone to get their gun from it's secure location whilst shouting warnings that he/she is armed and willing to shoot in self defence preferably whilst on the phone to the emergency services, chances are they would escape prosecution nowadays, but you are indeed right that self defence is not ( and probably should not be) considered a good enough reason to own firearms, there are areas in the country where police are thin on the ground and response times insufficient which do make you wonder whether it is still right, but you'd need handguns back first, and a condition of owning one for such reasons must be proper training in it's appropriate use, not an easy path to take at all is it?

[grenfell]

I'll confess to being a fence sitter on this one, I can see both sides of the argument both of which seem to have some merit.
What I will say is to think about scaling this up a bit to include nuclear weapons. Ok no use for defending your home but good for defending a country. So follow the argument along a bit and give everyone the right to defend themselves from an aggressor means we should have no problem with say North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any country having nuclear weapons , yes?

[Plymtom]

means we should have no problem with say North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any country having nuclear weapons , yes?

No don't be silly now One simply cannot compare a sane ordinary innocent person who is no relation to Bruce Lee wanting something to give themselves the upper or even an even hand against a crack-head aggressor attacking them in their own home, with a crackpot dictator who doesn't want to stop at controlling their own people, those of us who are nuclear armed have proven ourselves albeit by the skin of our teeth over 50 years of being that way that we are not going to use the big stick unless we have to, we and the rest of the sane world do not and should not trust North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any country with a long held grudge against anyone (or everyone) else, it's a fruit pastel moment they are almost certain to chew it

I'm back on the fence with you on the OP though

[grenfell]

I'm not trying to be silly , merely scaling up the question. If we are armed on a personal level the argument goes that we are safer and more able to protect our selves, so the argument should go that any country with WMD's are safer and more able to protect themselves .After all both of the superpowers have had nukes for the last 60 odd years and haven't used them in anger ( although they have tested them a couple of thousand times).Indeed the only time a couple were used in anger it was an uneven contest.
The nations I've mentioned have used a lot of rhetoric in the past and may very well press the button but the " good guys" like America, France and Britain aren't adverse to preemptive strikes.
For what it's worth I wouldn't like to see nuclear proliferation but the argument is that they have held the peace since WW 2 although arguably they haven't done anything to curb conventional warfare.
I'll get a cushion , 20 odd pages is a lot of fence sitting