Guess where in the world it's okay to carry a gun IN FULL VIEW when the President's visiting?

[MrsMerryHenry]

Blimey

It's an oldish story but I've just read it.

Speechless.

a semi-automatic assault rifle is okay in Texas

What a bunch of absolute nutters. I cannot think where to begin with dismantling this utterly obnoxious notion that it is one's 'right' to even own a gun, let alone carry it around while you do the shopping or go to the bowling alley. Argument is pointless. These people need to be lobotomised - oh, wait, they already are.

I'm not sure how I feel about it really
At least they have a constitution

Yes - I don't understand enough about those matters to know whether or not it disadvantages us not to have one.

I still don't understand, though, why gun ownership is equally high in Canada (if Mike WhatHisFace is to be believed) but they have so few gun killings by comparison. Maybe the Canadians are cleverer and use arsenic instead.

i'd be of the same mind set. i don't think i'm nearly well informed enough of the issues to come down definitively on either side. from a very basic view point i can see the pro's and cons of each argument.

similarly don't switzerland have one of the highest rates of gun ownership per person but have nothing like the problems. i think out of hand dismissal of gun ownership isn't very helpful. i do think there is a legitimate argument for having the right to defend yourself within your home with a fire arm. however i think the real issue is with gun ownership and gun control.
i'm also not sure if i buy into the idea that owning guns will just make it more likely for criminals to use guns, i mean they're using them already. over here (ireland) we've seen a huge rise in gun violence in the last 2-3 years throughout the country, so i can see why some law abiding citizens would want to have the right to protect themselves and they're families.

Switzerland is an entirely different case and shouldn't be counted, really. The army there is a territorial one, and consists of every male citizen over a certain age (I presume you can opt out for pacifist reasons but I wouldn't count on it...). Gun ownership is STRICTLY allied to this and there are strict controls on when guns can be used. Ammunition, for example, is numbered and logged, and there are random inspections done on gun cabinets and locks.

It is NOTHING like the situation in the US.

MQ, does Ireland (do you mean the north or south?) have different rules on gun ownership from England, Scotland and Wales?

Prunerz - much as we may scoff at the Swiss predeliction for anally-retentive organisation, it's hard to say it doesn't benefit them, isn't it?

south,i'm in the republic. i'm not sure of the technicalities, but i'd imagine they're broadly similar. most gun legal gun ownership is restricted to rural areas (farmers etc) and sport and are subject to strict control.
however as a nation we have a long history of gun running obviously and in recent years gang activity, largely restricted to dublin and limerick, has gotten much worse.

"Ammunition, for example, is numbered and logged, and there are random inspections done on gun cabinets and locks.

It is NOTHING like the situation in the US.
"

exactly which is why i think that surely the problem stems not from the legality of gun ownership, because lets be honest how many crack dealers in the ghetto who kill each other or nazi lowrider robbing banks or running drugs, own their guns legally? surely it comes down to guin control and stricter issue of guns. limit the amount of guns one can own and be stricter about who can sell them than the U.S. are. because lets be honest, although the pictures from the rally that inspired this thread look absolutely bonkers to us, the people there are all going to be legal gun owners as i'd imagine anyone stupid enough to show up their with an illegally held gun would be locked up straight away.

I'd say (without knowing the mass of information that's available about gun use in Ireland) that where a country has a certain history/ present involving gun violence, the laws will sadly have to take that into account. Similarly, in countries that do not have that sort of history, again the law should reflect that.

This, however, does not mean that people should have a right to own a gun - rights are about those aspects of life that we cannot function effectively and happily without. Owning a gun should always be considered a privilege and should be closely monitored, as you suggest. I do recall, however seeing the annoying Chris Rock joking that it's not gun ownership that's the problem; it's bullets, and he suggested that bullets should be priced way out of most people's reach. I'm sure there's a point there worth considering.

I like this idea of logging ammunition. I actually don't have any idea how the UK monitors gun use and ownership - anyone?

Legally owned or not, MQ, the idea of turning up to a peaceful protest with a gun strapped to your thigh is utterly bonkers.

I don't know. I don't own a gun. Never have. Probably never will. But my brother, who is most definitely a law abiding citizen, loves his guns and would be very upset if they were taken away.

I lived in Texas for ten years. I was stunned at the right to carry a weapon at first. But, then again, I guess if someone is going to have a loaded gun on them I'd rather know about than not know if he's got one hidden under his shirt.

Also, I do think if you take guns away from law abiding citizen then all those guns held illegally will still exist and I'm not sure that's a step forward.

Why my brother NEEDS and AK47 is frankly beyond me, but he will never use it to kill anyone. I'm sure of that.

An AK47? Good grief. Why does anyone apart from a serving soldier or a criminal need an AK47?

Oh, and I gather widespread gun ownership in the US means that there are lots of fatal accidents involving children.

I suppose needing an AK47 is no different from needing a Hummer.

Well, he is actually a serving soldier. But, the AK47 is not an Army issue. It is part of his personal collection. He is very responsible. All guns are locked away from the children and protected by code (so no key for them to find).

I'm just saying that there are law abiding citizens who are for whatever reason attached to theirs, and who are not the ones we need to worry about.

I am no fan of his gun collection. I am just saying that taking his guns away won't do anything to reduce gun crime.

Oh, and he does not have a hummer.

Oh well, that's all right then, he may have a gun collection but at least his car isn't the worst crime against the environment!

Suppose I can kind of see a soldier might be interested in guns but tbh none of the ones I've ever known have a private collection. Don't they get enough of that at work? My BIL is ex-army but doesn't keep a gun, although he does borrow one when he goes rabbiting.

Actually, the gun collection predates the Army career (although he was actually just a reservist with civilian job and wife and kids in a house in the subrbs when he got a letter through the post instructing him to report for a tour of duty in Iraq). So he's not really a full time career soldier by choice. Anyway, my point is the cause and affect is perhaps the other way around in that people who like guns might be more likely to join the army.

Terrifying.

FWIW that man would have had several snipers on him the whole time. If he'd have gone near it he would have been shot dead instantly.

Not that that makes it ok. It is still stupid.

Just an observation from spending a lot of time high up in skyscrapers in Manhattan. There are dudes of the roofs!

"and I gather widespread gun ownership in the US means that there are lots of fatal accidents involving children"

well it depends on the definition of lots. for the most part someone who is going to go through the process of legally owning a fire-arm is the kind of person who is going to make sure it is stored safely in a gun safe or at their local shooting range.
"freakonomics" actually touches on the subject and points out that the amount of accidents per legally held gun in america are miniscule but because they are shocking and most likely to be rather tragic and gruesome gather far greater press attention, than say a child drowning in a swimming pool, which happens far more often. but the media can't exactly get much mileage out of "the threat of swimming pools to our nation" that they can with something as exciting (in media terms for want of a better word) as a kid being involved in a gun accident.

the point about carrying arms, was to allow the establisment of militias,you know, a group of loons who get together and call themselveswhatever, just to defend some patch of earth against the local government.
now, thye just want it coz they, well, i like mrs merry henrys term, 'lobotomised'

Mayor, one is too many, surely? There have been a few cases - and no, I don't have figures to hand - of children innocently playing who stumble across a firearm. In their own home or their friend's home. WTF the idiots who keep guns somewhere a child could get hold of them are thinking I do not know, but clearly there are stupid people in this world and allowing Mr and Ms Ordinary to hold guns increases the risk that some of them will be in the hands of the hard of thinking.

It's not like road accidents, where we (sadly) accept a risk because of the convenience. No-one has to have a gun at home.

edam "My BIL is ex-army but doesn't keep a gun, although he does borrow one when he goes rabbiting."

A gun, a rifle, or (more likely) an air rifle.

World of difference between them, where and when they can be used, and need (or not) of any licence and gun cabinet.

While I've no collection or wish for guns (that need a licence), I have had 2 air pistols and an air rifle, and it has been a hobby for 35 years.

Can understand the fact so many are anti-gun, but as indicated, it does depend on regulations and mentality of the owners.

That Swiss example is perfect, because households with a gun is in the top 90s per cent wise, even if (after Army service/training) 80+ % make no/little use of their gun, even for target practice.

Some people like guns, just for the 'escapist' element, like driving fast cars or motorbikes.

Nevada scrapped their speed limit and made it "suitable for the weather conditions" so people can rent fast cars and go full pelt on the highways if they want. Other people in the US go out and use big guns, just for the hell of it. I know there are videos of them, it's just fun, but that's a part of the problem with the US because for some it's fun, for others they get used maliciously.

While personally I am not especially craving an opportunity of firing a machine gun, given the factors that would need to be overcome (1, getting passport, 2, finding somewhere that would turn a blind eye to me not being a US citizen, and 3, not having a licence in the UK, let alone USA)...

even at 50yo, just as I'd be happy to spend a day at Alton Towers, I'd be very happy to spend a day paintballing (again)...

Maybe that's just a 'male' thing, or maybe an 'escapist' one, doing something out of the ordinary (esp as I don't drive, the funfair rides are all the more o-o-t-o from day to day on the train, bus, or on foot, to go anywhere).

It may be a rifle but am sure it's not an air rifle. (Did have a conversation about this once but have forgotten crucial details.)

Hate ruddy air rifles after nasty yobs shot some cats where I used to live.

Anyway, point is he doesn't keep a gun in his house, just borrows one when he needs it. No weirdo male 'I MUST have a gun at home thing' despite being ex-army and seeing active service. Or maybe because he saw active service, I dunno.