I'll bet they were glad to have a firearm at home to defend themselves

[Ardesco]

Firearms are not for everyone - maybe 10-15% of population should qualify, that's enough to have good criminal deterrent.

Training requirements should be much higher to those who wish to get firearm - it's a deadly weapon and should be sold to people who can demonstrate they will take time to learn how to use it properly.

We are thinking along similar lines, however I would not expect anybody to have an unsecured firearm in their home. This means that is effectively a waste of space as a deterrent unless you have a panic room that you can get into that holds your armoury.

Your idea of letting people leave a gun lying around in their house just in case they were burgled is madness. In most cases the burgler would get in and use your firearm against you before you had a chance to wake up, load it and use it yourself.

[AtW]

We are thinking along similar lines, however I would not expect anybody to have an unsecured firearm in their home.

It should be secured unless it is worn (or it is in clear proximity to that person) by the person who is responsible for it.

This means that is effectively a waste of space as a deterrent unless you have a panic room that you can get into that holds your armoury.

It's not since some people may choose to have firearm near them.

In most cases the burgler would get in and use your firearm against you before you had a chance to wake up, load it and use it yourself.

Well, that's the risk the person who CHOOSES to have firearm will have to bear - it's THEIR choice, nobody who gets shot with their own firearm should have rights to complain about it.

[Ardesco]

It should be secured unless it is worn (or it is in clear proximity to that person) by the person who is responsible for it.

I disagree, they should be locked up unless they have been specifically taken out to be used. Having a firearm on yourself all the time makes it far more likely that you will have an accident as you get used to it and forget to treat it with the respect that it deserves.

Members of the armed forces are not allowed to keep their weapons with them when they are not in use, they are locked back into the armoury. What makes you think that your average Joe is going to be more responsible than a highly trained member of her majesty's armed forces?

It's not since some people may choose to have firearm near them.

this is where our views diverge, it should not generally be near them.

Well, that's the risk the person who CHOOSES to have firearm will have to bear - it's THEIR choice, nobody who gets shot with their own firearm should have rights to complain about it.

Yes because the media, government and all the hand wringing liberals will be happy with that one.... Unfortunately some people are too stupid to be trusted to make thier won decisions, and when it comes to firearms.....

[Board Game Geek]

So what's the solution then ?

Let people die in their own homes, unable to protect themselves ?

Whose side are the non-weapon advocates on ?

[AtW]

I disagree, they should be locked up unless they have been specifically taken out to be used. Having a firearm on yourself all the time makes it far more likely that you will have an accident as you get used to it and forget to treat it with the respect that it deserves.

Members of the armed forces are not allowed to keep their weapons with them when they are not in use, they are locked back into the armoury. What makes you think that your average Joe is going to be more responsible than a highly trained member of her majesty's armed forces?

this is where our views diverge, it should not generally be near them.

Yes because the media, government and all the hand wringing liberals will be happy with that one.... Unfortunately some people are too stupid to be trusted to make thier won decisions, and when it comes to firearms.....

Look, this is a new thing to own firearms. Look at legislation in France - it works pretty well there.

This stupid argument "people can't be trusted", who the heck are you to decide it?

The system worked pretty well before Dunblane - that crazy would have gotten guns elsewhere or used axe or something, people were trusted just fine with firearms in this country - look at homicide stats before the ban: firearms were used in 4-10% of all murders, go ban knifes (or give life sentence for illegal possession), but don't pick on legitimate gun ownership because it was not causing problems.

[Ardesco]

Look, this is a new thing to own firearms. Look at legislation in France - it works pretty well there.

This stupid argument "people can't be trusted", who the heck are you to decide it?

The system worked pretty well before Dunblane - that crazy would have gotten guns elsewhere or used axe or something, people were trusted just fine with firearms in this country - look at homicide stats before the ban: firearms were used in 4-10% of all murders, go ban knifes (or give life sentence for illegal possession), but don't pick on legitimate gun ownership because it was not causing problems.

You don't get it do you AtW?

People were not allowed to walk around with pistol's and leave them lying about on their bedside table, or under their pillow before Dunblane. The restriction were pretty similar to what they are now, all Dunblane did was Change the types of weapons that you can legally own.

[AtW]

People were not allowed to walk around with pistol's and leave them lying about on their bedside table, or under their pillow before Dunblane. The restriction were pretty similar to what they are now, all Dunblane did was Change the types of weapons that you can legally own.

What I am saying is that firearms laws should go back to at LEAST pre-Dunblane. Yes that's a bit tulipy, but certainly much better than what it is now.

What I really want to know is the name(s) of the idiot(s) who are responsible for banning of CS/pepper gas.

[TykeMerc]

I'm interested in your argument that CS/Pepper spray should be legal for girls to protect themselves against assault, surely if an attacker was armed with a can of said offensive weapon it would be ideal for incapacitating a victim?

I can only see flaws in your arguments and no merits or potential benefits.

[AtW]

I'm interested in your argument that CS/Pepper spray should be legal for girls to protect themselves against assault, surely if an attacker was armed with a can of said offensive weapon it would be ideal for incapacitating a victim?

You think a guy who is prepared to commit rape (carries life sentence now I think?) would give a tulip about penalty for illegal holding of CS/pepper gas?

Is there any other country in Europe that banned CS/pepper cans of gas? Heck, those were legal in USSR (or right after it broke down).

[TykeMerc]

You think a guy who is prepared to commit rape (carries life sentence now I think?) would give a tulip about penalty for illegal holding of CS/pepper gas?

Nope, but if they were available what's to stop the spray being used to make the victim that much easier to assault?

Besides a life sentence is far from life in this country.