The FBIs figures show a woman saves herself from being raped every 2 minutes with a gun.
Simon

It appears that my original thread has become an anti/pro gun debate .
There is just one last thing I have to say to bentirran . As others have said , you are a well spoken and educated person .
But , education doesn't = common sense !

You are wrong. What happens is that the court makes a judgement as to whether the knife is being carried as a weapon or a tool. A short, non-locking folder is presumed to be a tool, and a fixed or locking blade is presumed to be a weapon, but both presumptions can be rebutted. There have been recent cases of people arrested for locking blades, where the case was tossed out of court and the police embarrassed.

It is not true that they've been banned. I don't think the banning has been discussed in parliament, either. The idea was raised by, I think, a doctor, and it got a lot of publicity precisely because it was considered outrageous. Newspapers like to wind people up. The controversy is why you have heard of it.

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it were discussed, and the whole area reviewed. The statute law is good, but has been followed by some bad case law which needs clearing up.

No, it is determined by a court.

If an item is being carried as a weapon, then it is being carried as a weapon. I'm not sure what your point is.

In the UK the police have some discretion in the field. This can be abused, and then they have to answer for it. I don't see how else it could work. I'm sure US police are also trusted to make judgement calls.

Your specific example is fairly ludicrous. How is my camera a weapon?

Is a stun gun considered as legal defense weapon??

You don't mind standing there while i hit you in several times the face with a camera?
Simon

Option 1
One half mass times velocity squared at the end of a three foot strap. It may only be good for one or two swings but if its and older model SLR I guarantee you will notice it.

Option 2a
Information about alarms, security, procedures, etc.

Option 2b
Mr. Owner leaving for long lunch with someone besides Mrs. Owner

"Of course now, the United States of America does not need an armed militia to protect itself from enemies foreign, it has its professional armed services."

Yes, but that doesn't cover it all. The RKBA also was/is meant to act as a deterent against domestic enemies, too. Now-a-days, that seems to be of most concern - domestic enemies.

Certainly there are instances where someone who aquired a firearm legally (and who is legally entitled to own/posess a firearm) commits a criminal act with it. Mostly, however, criminals aquire firearms illegally and use them to further their criminal endeavors.

Even in GB, a society that has chosen to prevent its citizens from legally aquiring firearms for personal protection, (and who is now mulling over enacting draconian laws to further restrict the freedoms of someone who "they" suspect "might" commit an offense), shooting deaths are climbing in the more urban areas. Why? How can that be? Because criminals and others (thereby becoming criminals for want of protecting their families and themselves) will always be able to get guns if they really want one...or two.

We don't live in a Utopia. Never have. The world is a dangerous place - always has been, always will be. There have always been wolves preying on the sheep. I (and many, many like me) have chosen not to ever be a sheep. I'm concerned and worried that GB currently has a wolf running loose, and it preys to Mecca five times a day. Maybe one morning you'll awake and wish you had a Second Amendment. Good luck.

Total Number of firearms deaths in the UK

1998/99: 49
1999/00: 62
2000/01: 73
2001/02: 97
2002/03: 81
2003/04: 70


Total Number of firearms deaths in Scotland.

1998/99: 7
1999/00: 5
2000/01: 3
2001/02: 5
2002/03: 3
2003/04: 2


From 1993 to 2000, overall firearm deaths in America fell from 39,595 to 28,663.

Don't really need to say much more.

Isn't this, uh, kind of... true? Doesn't he have a point there?

You guys know that I don't currently own a gun but I do want to start handgun training, even though I wasn't brought up around guns and unfortunately most of my family's intimate experience with them has been through violent gun crime.

I personally shouldn't own a gun unless I am willing and able to kill someone with it in defense of myself and my loved ones. I figured having the means to kill someone isn't something I should take lightly when holding a gun, and that's the whole point of the training and seminars about the moral implications of using lethal force in self-defense. I didn't want begin handgun training for a CCW permit until I carefully considered if I was ready to wield such responsibility.

I know lots of other people buy handguns for other reasons (collecting, shooting competitions, etc.), and maybe I'm missing out on some big party, but I view handguns as weapons, plain and simple. So I dunno, I don't think Bentirran's statement is ridiculous at all, because to me that's the whole point of carrying a handgun.

Statistics are always ripe for the miss-informed to miss-use. Numbers such as those mean nothing without being referenced to total population, as in "per 100,000". I think a better yardstick to use would be violent crime statistics. Without the means to defend yourself, people in the UK are much more likely to become victoms of violent crime than people in the US.

Conceal carry weapons are to defend oneself. If you have to kill someone to do it, bad luck. Statistically, that weapon is more likely going to prevent someone getting hurt than causing hurt.