A Positive Story About Guns/gun Ownership

[socks 32,253]

In the light of the Paris shootings I think the law needs to change to allow let's say 20% of the general,population of that country carry a concealed weapon ... The people vetted and licensed should be ex firearm police officers and ex servicemen that have done a minimum time in the forces of ten years and were qualified weapon instructors ... If only one person had a weapon in that rock concert the fatalities would have been much lower ......

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion....

 

If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

 

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people.

 

Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on )

 

Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

 

Second paragraph was in reference to bill and Ben scenario 1, where Ben had already been attacked. I was differentiating between when is a legitimate time to draw a weapon and when isnt. There's that many scenarios now I'm getting confused.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,910]

[gnasher16 31,490]

When I was a kid the rule was, if someone is bigger than you and they look like they want to do you some harm then pick something up and batter them with it.

Nature don't even come into it.

Hurting the other bloke so he can't hurt you and won't get up again is all that matters.

Thats exactly my point.....the 7 stone weakling wont need to pick up a brick like in our day......he has a gun in his pocket !......so is in effect pulling a gun on an unarmed man just because he felt threatened by a bigger man.

[gnasher16 31,490]

 

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

 

Second paragraph was in reference to bill and Ben scenario 1, where Ben had already been attacked. I was differentiating between when is a legitimate time to draw a weapon and when isnt. There's that many scenarios now I'm getting confused.

 

The difference is a soldier has been personally and carefully selected by good experienced experts in the field....people we pay and trust to make those selections..........compared to someone who paid to do a training course.

 

It was a simple scenario......a man was being threatened by a little man whos armed or a big man whos not armed who is the biggest threat to pull his gun on.

[socks 32,253]

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion....

 

If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people.

 

Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on )

 

Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion....

 

If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people.

 

Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on )

 

Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

Half the combat instruction needed for soldiering would be completely unnecessary for defensive purposes. Why would a civvy need to know how to pepper pot or navigate or shit shower and shave properly, how to throw a grenade, how to deal with an IED, how to assault a village, how to march etc etc.

 

Real life implementation of CCW supports my stance on this. I'm not theorising here, we can look to the US for real data and a working model. The stats stand for themselves. CCW permit holders are not the threat to society that people seem to think. That's trained civilians as well as former servicemen. And we could make our testing and training far more rigorous if wanted.

[socks 32,253]

 

 

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion....

 

If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people.

 

Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on )

 

Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

 

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

 

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

 

Half the combat instruction needed for soldiering would be completely unnecessary for defensive purposes. Why would a civvy need to know how to pepper pot or navigate or shit shower and shave properly, how to throw a grenade, how to deal with an IED, how to assault a village, how to march etc etc.

 

Real life implementation of CCW supports my stance on this. I'm not theorising here, we can look to the US for real data and a working model. The stats stand for themselves. CCW permit holders are not the threat to society that people seem to think. That's trained civilians as well as former servicemen. And we could make our testing and training far more rigorous if wanted.

 

apart from the shaving and marching you would need to know the rest in a combat situation mate .......

[BlackStreak 498]

Why must yall talk about CCW as if it something brand new and never tried before. Look at the US and it's history with such. How many accidents have we had involving common citizens and their concealed weapons since day one of our right to carry. Exactly! You would have to search long and hard to find one example of the fears yall have about people using their CCW in an act that wasn't warented. And I promis, any such thing would make the headlines from Texas to Alaska yet ever day only local coverage is ever given to people who have saved themselves and others with their CCW.

I understand your fears, they were the same here but time has showed that it works wonderfully. If you think a security officer of some sort is gonna be able to save you in most cases that's just funny. They will show up to investigate your death and catch your killer but only by mere luck would they be close enough to save you if you even did have the opportunity to call for help.

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

 

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion.... If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people. Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on ) Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

Half the combat instruction needed for soldiering would be completely unnecessary for defensive purposes. Why would a civvy need to know how to pepper pot or navigate or shit shower and shave properly, how to throw a grenade, how to deal with an IED, how to assault a village, how to march etc etc.Real life implementation of CCW supports my stance on this. I'm not theorising here, we can look to the US for real data and a working model. The stats stand for themselves. CCW permit holders are not the threat to society that people seem to think. That's trained civilians as well as former servicemen. And we could make our testing and training far more rigorous if wanted.

apart from the shaving and marching you would need to know the rest in a combat situation mate .......

And yet most CCW holders don't and manage to do a thoroughly decent job within their society... I keep coming back to this actual evidence.

 

At what point do I need to plan the assault of a village when defending myself from an armed criminal in a shopping center? Navigation in an area I'm most probably completely familiar with? Dealing with an IED, why wouldn't you just clear the area?

 

The extent of tactical knowledge needed to make a safe civilian conceiled carrier would be far less than needed to make an infantryman. It's surely a question of what is necessary, and imo someone trained as a infantryman is not. I look to other countries like the US to see what they do and what the effect has been.

 

Why is regular army infantry considered the standard? Why not reservist infantry, or police AFOs, police SFOs, military special forces etc etc? AFOs get a fraction of the training you had and the majority of that is spent on driving and we let them loose on our streets. In light of the documented firearms related f**k ups, albeit very few, by police AFOs and even infantry, should we not demand a higher standard? No because it's totally unnecessary.

 

Thats just my thinking on this mate. No disrespect intended. I can see we're probably just going to disagree on this.

 

Ps f***ing hell socks, don't be pretending you know how to navigate! LOL

Edited November 16, 2015 by Born Hunter

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Yes but the Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates worldwide full stop regardless of gun crime.

 

 

Ok forget the police and government we,ll all take responsibility for ourselves and probably end up like Somalia who have a non existent police force and no stable government...... but its ok because the people take responsibility for themself.

 

 

Ironic as well how the Swiss have such low crime rates when a good percentage of the criminal economy ends up in Switzerland

But that's the point Gnash. Removing guns from the British equation, what is it that the Swiss are doing to keep their crime low? Why is it that their ability to own firearms hasn't resulted in anything more than the odd loony?

 

You're being silly. No one is advocating the removal of the police force but when a 999 call is over an hour away, in some constabularies, why shouldn't/wouldn't you take responsibility for your own safety?

 

 

oul farmer here caught a traveller searching round his gaff blasted him twice in the back,then bate him like a badger with a lump of wood he pleaded he done a couple of yrs and was released after a petition signed by thousands,all home owners should have the option of at least a shotgun,bet the break ins would drop dramaticly.

Or the burglars would just start arming themselves, like in America.

 

But they already do in Britain!

 

Yer all teenage children in the U.K should have free access to fire arms. . . . . it will defiantly make society much much much safer. . . . . . .

 

 

I don't see anyone advocating free guns for all but you wouldn't let a kid in a car without some form of licensing, and testing. Ironically guns are much easier to get now then they ever were. How could that be possible if there is no legal avenue to own one?

 

So what is the reason for arming folk with guns in the first place then ? so that they dont have to run them over or stab them ?.....or just because it works better during the old threat display

 

Arming folk?

 

No one's talking about free guns for all and see what happens... Pre-ban how many legal pistol shooters walked round strapped and pointing at everyone?

 

But how about educating and removing the Hollywood/video game conditioning being fed to the nation? You trained with your fists, do you go around threatening everyone on the street? How about waving knives around, or bats? You don't because you know it's ludicrous. As do most reasonable people.

 

I've touched on this before but why couldn't a compromise be having to pass a tactical weapons handling class or some such which teaches people how to respond to threats? Only on passing would citizens be allowed to concealed carry and so fear doesn't come into it. I would even introduce a more basic version for those only wanting a firearm for defence in the home.

 

???

 

Having done a lot of these courses, through work, I couldn't recommend them strongly enough!

 

Personally I believe the American version where practically anyone can pick one up can make things a little dangerous but with the training also comes the realisation of the consequences. Someone mentioned road rage, earlier. We've all had it but working in an industry that requires firearms, and training, makes you less likely to react to these situations. You have an intense realsation of the consequences, both legally and professionally. If you can think through the situations you're even less likely to react in a way that would jeopardise your liberty, livelihood and your permits. Also your training, and skill set give you a much better option of acting legally/justly than simply spraying and praying like most people perceive as the self defense act of using firearms.

 

A proactive strategy is much better than a reactive strategy.

 

The ban has done nothing to stop gun crime in the UK. I'd be willing to wager that most people posting/reading this thread have a pretty good idea where to purchase a firearm illegally. The fact that they don't says more about society than some of the ridiculous fallacies that have been posted above.

 

In summary, I don't see an overturning of the ban as most people don't want to see it overturned.

[socks 32,253]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion.... If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people. Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on ) Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

Half the combat instruction needed for soldiering would be completely unnecessary for defensive purposes. Why would a civvy need to know how to pepper pot or navigate or shit shower and shave properly, how to throw a grenade, how to deal with an IED, how to assault a village, how to march etc etc.Real life implementation of CCW supports my stance on this. I'm not theorising here, we can look to the US for real data and a working model. The stats stand for themselves. CCW permit holders are not the threat to society that people seem to think. That's trained civilians as well as former servicemen. And we could make our testing and training far more rigorous if wanted.

apart from the shaving and marching you would need to know the rest in a combat situation mate .......

And yet most CCW holders don't and manage to do a thoroughly decent job within their society... I keep coming back to this actual evidence.

 

At what point do I need to plan the assault of a village when defending myself from an armed criminal in a shopping center? Navigation in an area I'm most probably completely familiar with? Dealing with an IED, why wouldn't you just clear the area?

 

The extent of tactical knowledge needed to make a safe civilian conceiled carrier would be far less than needed to make an infantryman. It's surely a question of what is necessary, and imo someone trained as a infantryman is not. I look to other countries like the US to see what they do and what the effect has been.

 

Why is regular army infantry considered the standard? Why not reservist infantry, or police AFOs, police SFOs, military special forces etc etc? AFOs get a fraction of the training you had and the majority of that is spent on driving and we let them loose on our streets. In light of the documented firearms related f**k ups, albeit very few, by police AFOs and even infantry, should we not demand a higher standard? No because it's totally unnecessary.

 

Thats just my thinking on this mate. No disrespect intended. I can see we're probably just going to disagree on this.

 

Ps f***ing hell socks, don't be pretending you know how to navigate! LOL

 

you wouldn't need to plan the assault of a village but you would need to plan an assault on the gunmen so being tactically aware and knowing how to move using the available cover will give you the advantage over the gunmen ... navigation would be imperative as when the security forces eventually arrive they would expect you to give them at least a direction of travel of the gunmen if they have fled the scene ... you just answered your own question about an IED ... yes clear the area but taught to do it methodically and calmly to save life and not cause panic ... I don't only believe regular infantry to be the minimum but infantry with combat experience ... when armed police or special forces etc arrive at such scenes they have tactical knowledge of the ground fed to them they have the luxury of being not on their own ... they have time to formulate an initial plan of attack ... a concealed carrier will most probably be on his own ... it will all happen very quickly ... there will be chaos ... panic ... noise disorientation as the man on the ground in the moment you will need to be tactically aware be able to process what's gong on in an instant and react accordingly ... in my opinion no amount of training can teach that ... only real time combat can prepare you for that ..........

 

ps I was a maprick instructor specialist ... I just don't get that fukcing M25 Lol .......

[BGD 6,437]

 

 

 

oul farmer here caught a traveller searching round his gaff blasted him twice in the back,then bate him like a badger with a lump of wood he pleaded he done a couple of yrs and was released after a petition signed by thousands,all home owners should have the option of at least a shotgun,bet the break ins would drop dramaticly.

Or the burglars would just start arming themselves, like in America.

 

But they already do in Britain!

 

 

 

It's incredibly rare though, just like it's incredibly rare for muggers to use firearms, both would change if they knew there was a good chance of their target being armed though.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

It's incredibly rare though, just like it's incredibly rare for muggers to use firearms, both would change if they knew there was a good chance of their target being armed though.

I can't argue with that and I'm certainly not suggesting that a defensive firearm would necessarily stop, or deter a mugging. I guess the point I'm making is that why shouldn't a responsible citizen be allowed to meet force with force?

 

Situational awareness is something that's difficult to teach and often comes through painful experience.

 

Security, though, is a multi facetted problem.

 

Would an armed citizenry encourage more criminals to carry firearms? Hard to say when you compare America and Switzerland. As you and I have discussed on numerous threads there are far more factors involved, regarding crime.

 

Regardless the law will not be repealed. Guns aren't coming back, at least not legally. Crime will go up and no one, in Britain, will tackle the problem.

[BGD 6,437]

 

It's incredibly rare though, just like it's incredibly rare for muggers to use firearms, both would change if they knew there was a good chance of their target being armed though.

I can't argue with that and I'm certainly not suggesting that a defensive firearm would necessarily stop, or deter a mugging. I guess the point I'm making is that why shouldn't a responsible citizen be allowed to meet force with force?

 

Situational awareness is something that's difficult to teach and often comes through painful experience.

 

Security, though, is a multi facetted problem.

 

Would an armed citizenry encourage more criminals to carry firearms? Hard to say when you compare America and Switzerland. As you and I have discussed on numerous threads there are far more factors involved, regarding crime.

 

Regardless the law will not be repealed. Guns aren't coming back, at least not legally. Crime will go up and no one, in Britain, will tackle the problem.

As usual a fair reasonable post, good to see you back on here

 

Honestly I can see this debate gaining a lot of traction in the coming years with the heavy cuts to policing budgets it's only natural that people will start wanting ways to protect themselves and I could see the government relaxing laws as a way to appease the public after a few years of soaring crime rates with less and less police on the streets.

 

For what it's worth I'd actually like to see the laws on handguns relaxed just because I'd like to own a few for recreational shooting but I'm uneasy with the idea of CCW because I simply don't trust the vast majority of the general public I also don't think deadly force should be used against anything but a deadly threat and that's just so rare on the streets of the UK that I don't really see it as an issue that needs addressing.