Originally Posted by: Jimmi431yyeah somethin close to every couple of months, last time a screwdriver and a bin were used (the bin to hold all the fags) and was only 1 guy, but before that they come in with shotguns and machettes usually 2 or 3 of em and tasers. not to pleasent but is accepted as a risk in most shops like that.

Put yourself in this situation: You are considering (for whatever reason) attacking or robbing someone. Are you more likely to actually do it if you think you'll get shot or less likely? Would not higher odds of being shot discourage you more than lower odds?

i can see the argument behind that however, i could also see it meaning that a thief would arm themselves to defend against the home owner so would go in armed. I know it is likely to discourage most sane people, but what i have found is that there are a lot of desperate people will take that risk.[/quote]
You've basicly said that people are already coming at you armed to the teeth knowing that you're unarmed -- what could they do short of stealing an APC from the British Army to leverage up the threat to you?

Here's the facts: The places in the US with the highest per capita gun ownership rates consistantly have the lowest crime rates while places with the lowest gun ownership rates and the most gun control have the highest crime rates; meanwhile, states who've introduced concealed carry laws have the fastest falling crime rates. Internationally, Canada and Switzerland have much more guns per capita than the US and much lower crime rates while Australia's new restrictions on gun ownership were immediately followed by a sharp increase in violent crime.

I don't think gun ownership is the only factor in this very complex equasion, but as the old Japanese proverb goes, "an armed society is a polite society."

Originally Posted by: Jimmi431i do not dispute that the uk is getting worse problems with guns, however, we have not had inncidents such as the columbine shootings. this, i believe, is because disgruntled kids have almost no chance of getting hold of a gun (unless they are in some way connected to gangs and still the avalibility of ammo is laughable, and would cost the individaul hundreds of pounds). however, in America a child may well grow up surrounded by guns and could easily steal one from a neighbour or from their own home. thus the risk is massive.

And yet it almost never happens.

And speaking of Columbine; what if those two boys had spent less time focusing on firearms and more time on the explosive devices they had made? You do know that they had tried to build a propane bomb that, if it had detonated, would have taken a whole wing of the school out, right? Instead of tens dead, it would have meant HUNDREDS killed and injured.

I feel the whole problem with gun control legislation is that it does and can do nothing to take care of why people turn to crime in the first place. Even if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold couldn't have gotten guns, they would still have the feelings of hatred and vengance that motivated them in the first place and they would still have the means to build explosives. The only difference is that now, that would be their only option and they'd have devoted a lot more time to it. Surely, you understand just how catastrophic the implications of this are.



[QUOTE=Jimmi431]my main point is that i don't believe owning a gun will actually protect you and your family, and that having a permit to carry a gun with you is just daft!!!

What about the two assaults and a rape that David K. Every of igeek.com has prevented because he has a concealed carry permit? What about the impact concealed carry permits have had on the states to introduce them?

Whatever the feasibility of using a handgun to defend yourself or somebody else may be, I think it's the perception of risk in the criminal's mind which is far more important.