Those of us who carry are quite law abiding. We have to be to keep that "privelage". There are very strict laws about NOT carrying a firearm in drinking establishments that we all(99.99%) follow. As for pulling me over. In the US you would have a computer that tells you if I am a pistol permit holder and I would keep my hands on the wheel until you came to the window. It's basic protocol.
It's the ones who don't have the training or legal right to carry a sidearm that need to be worried about. We are awash with guns but taking them from away from the good citizens accomplishes NOTHING!

NOT carrying a firearm in drinking establishments. My state allows this unless the bar/establishment clearly states it is not permitted. But you can not drink or be at any time under the influnce.

As a general rule of thumb NO police in the UK carry firearms!

You average officer will neither carry a weapon or have had any training whatsoever in weapon handling. The only officers that carry weapons routinely are specialist firearms officers. They will generally be part of an ARV (Armed Response Vehicle) crew. These officers will be assigned to an incident which may warrant their attendance as and when it occurs. They will perform normal police patrol duties during their shift however naturally this is subject to some discretion as they must always be available to deal with an incident requiring an armed response. In the UK this will often mean assisting an officer confronted with an offensive weapon (usually a bladed weapon) rather than a firearm. It is only recently that these officers have been able to openly carry their sidearms whilst on routine patrol and not responding to an incident!

In the Metropolitan Police (London, where I work) the main specialist firearms branch is SO19. This bracnh deals with armed raids, hostage situations (where a military response is not required) and a some couter terrorist officers. others that routnely carry firearms are specialist royalty and diplomatic protection officers and without doubt some special branch and other detectives (I am not one so can't comment with total authority).

Numerous other officers will at some stage of their careers receive firearms training and be licenced to carry weapons should they be required to for a certain period of time before they must renew their qualifications, however as I have said before, your average police officer is not, and does not want to be routinely armed.

If you visit the UK you will find armed officers at airports, the City of London and other important areas but you will not usually see armed police. If you ask a police officer directions in the street he will almost certainly not be armed.






[edit on 2-8-2004 by Badger]

Fry, before we pull any driver over in the UK the basic protocol is to run a PNC (Police National Computer) check on the registration (licence) plate. However it is also 'basic protocol' to never believe a word of the information you receive back until you have a hand on the suspect and can verify his details in person! Who's to say that the person driving a car is actually the registered owner? It might have been stolen ten minutes ago. Sorry getting a bit work like now.


All I will say is I am glad I don't have to deal with firearms, or the possibility of firearms on quite such a regular basis!

FYI I am not and have never been trained to carry a weapon in the police service. I have considered the possibility of applying for a firearms role but decided that I didn't want that level of responsibility. I guess that might sound strange to you chaps living in a country where all police officers are routinely armed.

Out of interest have you ever heard of an officer who refused to carry a sidearm in the US? No reason why you should know but I wonder if this is at all common?

Now, let's see, the theory is that if everyone owns guns, everyone would be safer. Hmm... I know a country, Afghanistan, where everyone owns guns... how safe is it?

An earlier posting suggested only the "right" people be allowed to own guns... good luck figuring out who the "right" people are...

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
If your in a room with 10 people, and 1 person has a gun,

Versus...

If your in a room with 10 people and everyone has a gun,

In which room would you feel safer, and why?

depends on who has the gun, do i have the gun?

I have never heard of a case like that in the United States. It might have happened somewhere but it would not be common at all.Since in police academy if you do not score good enough in shooting you cant become a cop in the first place. They are also tested from time to time even after they become a cop and get introuble if they fail.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Now, let's see, the theory is that if everyone owns guns, everyone would be safer. Hmm... I know a country, Afghanistan, where everyone owns guns... how safe is it?

Dont forget about Switerland is pretty dam safe

Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Besides the militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely used in violent crime.

Gun murders in the US are mostly done by gangs not people like me an you. If we take away all the guns the criminals will still get them or still kill the person. They are taking our 2nd amendment away because of a few bad people it isn't fair.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Now, let's see, the theory is that if everyone owns guns, everyone would be safer. Hmm... I know a country, Afghanistan, where everyone owns guns... how safe is it?

An earlier posting suggested only the "right" people be allowed to own guns... good luck figuring out who the "right" people are...

What are Canada's gun laws? Is it 'safer' living in Canada than in the UK?


[edit on 3/8/04 by Hyperen]

Canada has had some form of gun control since the 1800s, but legislation in 1995 called for the registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles, not just restricted firearms such as assault rifles and automatic weapons.Gradual introduction of the firearms regulations and skyrocketing costs of the gun control registry have continued to keep this issue high profile in Canada. It seems to be much like that in America for the most part

2000. World Homicide Rates Homicide_Rate
>_______________________________per_100,000
>________________________________population

_1.76 Canada

_1.61 England & Wales

Sorry couldnt find any more updated numbers. Does not seem to be much of a difference. If you get killed with a knife in England or a gun in Canada your still dead. I think I would perfer the gun if I had a choice

Africa had a 47.4 in 2003 and South Africa had a 75.3 in 1995

[edit on 3-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Dont forget about Switerland is pretty dam safe

Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

NOT ENGLAND THE UK GET IT RIGHT PLEASE!!!

I live in the UK, and habit an area that is rife with gun crime, in the American "hood" sence of the phrase. The mentality of drive-bys, and folks pulling guns on other folks where I live tends to be drug, or rather Crack related. This is a problem. Gun ownership here is a problem. Th real problem is that these people shouldn't be owning guns. They shouldn't be running crack houses either. But they do. In the meantime, all law and legislation affects the law abiding citizens.

I was reading an article in the Readers Digest yesterday with regards to gun control. For those of you not familiar with this periodical, its written for middle Englend by writers that do not share a fact between them. I'm sure most of them cannot find their backsides with both hands. Anyhoo, it puts all kinds of dissinformation out into the public domain, which leads to all kinds of "armchair experts" and opinionated hypocrites causing issues for everyone else. Such information like "the Uzi 9mm being capable of firing 600 rounds per minute- such a rapid rate of rife that it's know as spray and pray". Excuse me, but a theroetical maximum, maybe, but last time I checked, a magazine for one of these holds 40 rounds. And the spray and pray is surely due to the inaccuracy of such a small barrel length and being fired from an open bolt...

Anyhoo, my point here is that this puts fear out into the public mind of a threat that skews the logic of any worth while debate, already setting peoples emotions against a reasoned argument.

It would be safe for everyone to have guns, if there was a mutual understanding and respect of people, between people. But in this hypothetical scenario, the need for guns as a defensive measure evaporates...

As for less shootings, lets take this scenario. Criminal comes at you with an unliscenced gun. It's illegal. He's high on meth, or PCP or whatever. You have no gun. He asks for your wallet. You reach for it, he shoots you.

Then,

Criminal comes at you with an unliscenced gun. It's illegal. He's high on meth, or PCP or whatever. You have A gun. He asks for your wallet. You reach for your gun and shoot him.

Both scenarios, one shooting. Whether it's you or him, it's still a statistic...

Originally posted by The_Squid
I recon the problem will mostly be solved by legalising drugs and legalising guns again. Since most of the problems caused by guns are drug related.

Not such a bad idea, but not a feasable one. Most people in a job work to protect their jobs- what would all the War On Drug people do if they were legalised.

Consider who actually controls the drugs.

Consider, if you will, the issue of Afganistan. Since time began it has produced Opium for the world market. It was leaving the country by the multi-mule load daily during the Soviet/afgan conflict. And pretty much ever year afterwards. How much money is involved with this traffiking? Why is it that Afganistan is so poor? Wouldn't you think that if you're a war lord, you got your guns, you dont need any more, so you do like in all other countries that yuo get drug lords, you build yourself a massive drug palace... Except none of them have. The countries poorer now than it's ever been, but despite heroin exports being worth $40-50 million annually (taken from the Observer website). I would suggest that as are most "official" figures this is a conservative estimate- so where is that money?

Responding to ShadowXIX, you are quite correct concerning Switzerland, but I think our posts taken together point away from gun availability as the determinant for public safety. What really matters is local culture and stability. The Swiss are a disciplined people living in a very prosperous, stable environment, extend to each other a great deal of mutual respect, and of course is much more homogeneous, which reduces sources of friction. These factors don't pertain in Afghanistan, or to some areas of other countries (see next paragraph).

Concerning local crime, this is a somewhat different phenomena. As our UK friend pointed out, despite UK laws, some neighbourhoods are beginning to resemble some US neighbourhoods (drug wars, drive by shootings, etc.). Unfortunately, Canada, despite our gun laws, suffers from the same issue, as a perusal of Toronto newspaper headlines over the past year or so would demonstrate.

I have been to the US on business or vacation many times. Most areas of the US are as safe as Canada. But there are some areas most careful people avoid...

By the way, note that Canada has one great disadvantage in trying to control gun access: our proximity to the US, and a very long and porous border. Our gun permit and registration system does (or could) act to suppress availability, but if anyone of doubtful character wants a gun, they can easily sidestep the legitimate channels. This has been one of the biggest complaints about official efforts to control guns - we are only successful in controlling legitimate users, while ignoring the others.

If drugs were legalised the people wouldnt loose their jobs, any other crime that was left would be practicly stamped out by ALL of the police coming from the "war against drugs" (that is failing misserably) would be posted to any other crime around.

I'm not saying that everyone would lose their jobs, just those with an interest with the war on drugs. All those police involved in the war on drugs would not necessarily be moved to other units.

What of the politicians who tell us drugs are bad and then campain on how tough they will be on them? It's an easy sell.

I agree that all drugs should at least be decriminalised- most addicts are not bad people, they are just folks who find them selves in a place where they see the drugs as the only choice. Much better would be help for these people. Treat it as a disease that needs curing rather than a crime. Maybe then we'll be moving foward.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by The Cockroach]

As for the drugs...I think The Netherlands has it right. Decriminalize the "soft" drugs and offer help to those who are addicts. Putting people in prison because of an addiction is just plain stupid.

Now, back to guns. Many have stated how legislation only really effects the non-criminal gun owners. VERY TRUE!
How do you know who the "right people are"? Simple, we have pretty strict laws governing who can and can not own a firearm. If you want a permit to carry(or even own) a handgun it's even stricter. I had to submit two sets of fingerprints as well as a slew of sworn statements before the FBI background check as well as the Dept. of Public safety check and the state and local police checks. After that I had to be deemed a person worthy of carrying a handgun by my local police chief (or town mayor) just to get my temporary (60 day) permit (I live in Connecticut as well). After that I had to go and submit most of the paperwork again at the headquarters of the department of public safety and get photos taken ect. for my 5 year permit.
As you can see, those of us who obey the laws already jump through hoops just to defend ourselves legally. I could have bought a gun on the street in ten minutes but then I would be a criminal.
We need stronger enforcement of the laws we already have on the books regarding gun crime. We don't need more laws to be ignored by the criminals and to criminalize the innocent.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Fry2]

Question. XD Is it truely legal that in a bar, the bartender has a right to have a gun behind the counter, and shoot anyone who comes behind the bar? XD