Battlezone Forums

I think a balance between the right to own a gun and peoples right to live free from fear needs to be found. Over here if people really want a gun and are not a criminal or mental then they can get a licence, a gun, a safe to keep it in and membership of a gun club where they can use it safely. But if they want to carry it or threaten people with it, they will probably not live very long as our police tend to shoot armed people (just because they are armed) and they usually aim to kill, so there's not much much scope for asking questions later. That way everyone understands their responsibilities and the risks, should they choose to ignore them.
It makes law enforcement safer and simpler, someone sees someone carrying a gun, they call the cops, an armed response unit is deployed, the person concerned might get lucky and get the opportunity to surrender, but often as not they just get shot dead. It was their choice.
The result is that we had 51 gun deaths last year, compared to 83 per day in the US...We appear to still have our freedom.

I don't know that "the right to live free from fear" exists, or should exist.

Hmm I suppose "right" is the wrong word, but I would value the opportunity to live free from fear, higher than that of others to own guns.
As things are, the US appears to be unable to control its weapon exports and this clearly effects nations that choose to not have an armed population. I can assure you that nobody here wants the right to bear arms.

MrTwosheds wrote:I think a balance between the right to own a gun and peoples right to live free from fear needs to be found. Over here if people really want a gun and are not a criminal or mental then they can get a licence, a gun, a safe to keep it in and membership of a gun club where they can use it safely. But if they want to carry it or threaten people with it, they will probably not live very long as our police tend to shoot armed people (just because they are armed) and they usually aim to kill, so there's not much much scope for asking questions later. That way everyone understands their responsibilities and the risks, should they choose to ignore them.
It makes law enforcement safer and simpler, someone sees someone carrying a gun, they call the cops, an armed response unit is deployed, the person concerned might get lucky and get the opportunity to surrender, but often as not they just get shot dead. It was their choice.
The result is that we had 51 gun deaths last year, compared to 83 per day in the US...We appear to still have our freedom.

Good post, but I assure you the police do not shoot to kill unless in extreme circumstances. There was a case near me last week, in fact; they followed standard procedure of warning shot, then K9 unit.

Like the cops that shot up that pickup full of paper delivery ladies?

When they end up shooting (at an armed person) they shoot to kill. Its the best way to protect everyone else concerned. Armed people have the choice to become disarmed.

Like the cops that shot up that pickup full of paper delivery ladies?

No. Our armed cops get a lot of training and have procedures that they must follow. I cannot think of a single incident where a vehicle became a target. Usually they only shoot when they think others are in immediate danger. Of course this may all be carefully constructed state propaganda, were good at stuff like that.

MrTwosheds wrote:When they end up shooting (at an armed person) they shoot to kill. Its the best way to protect everyone else concerned. Armed people have the choice to become disarmed.

Like the cops that shot up that pickup full of paper delivery ladies?

No. Our armed cops get a lot of training and have procedures that they must follow. I cannot think of a single incident where a vehicle became a target. Usually they only shoot when they think others are in immediate danger. Of course this may all be carefully constructed state propaganda, were good at stuff like that.

That's a popular misconception spread by the media. When dealing with suspected suicide bombers, they aim for the head or limbs (most commonly the head; no good if they fall over and detonate anyway). With firearms, they aim for the limbs. They are allowed to fire in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime, but they can only shoot to kill if absolutely necessary and to remove an immediate threat to life. Most of the time, simply carrying or waving a gun around doesn't make you that.

Those are all wonderful rules. The reality is often very different.

In the US, and not a response team (swat or similar), an officer caught in an escalating situation, is trained for 'center-of mass'.

The average LEO in the US is not permitted to get inventive when discharging his weapon.

She will be missed,at least on this side of the pond:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... troke.html

The public on this side of the Atlantic sees her as something of a devil figure. A lot of this is down to misunderstanding; the Thatcher hated by the public is the Thatcher who had been out of office for a decade. Though I would like something else to be on the news now.

You actually had a leader when she was in power, thats quite a big plus in my book.
She may not have been the populair person, but I personally do believe she was good for GB, specially in the time she ruled.
At this point in time I'd trade our president for her in a heartbeat..

I blame the sequester:

http://freebeacon.com/the-american-flu/