Nope they are neither Eagles, nor a Death Metal band, they're also very good in a 'don't take it too seriously way'.
I've personally never seen a terrorist. But I have seen plenty of blokes getting a fighty after three or four too many Stellas on a Saturday night and I'm quite glad that none of them had guns.
This +1
Even though I'm part of your first line of defence against Teh Terrorists (I'm PREVENT level one trained!) I'm yet to see one. We are changing the keypad codes on some of our doors though, so we're safe.
I've got a shotgun certificate, and also regularly shoot with a rifle, and will shortly be applying for my FAC.
I often go clay shooting after work and when I do I actually have my 12b in my office, and in my car on the way to and from work. So, I guess, I'm the closest to carrying a gun you'll reasonably get in the UK.
What do I think of the idea? I think it's bloody terrible. Have you seen the utter ****nuts on almost every street? Do you really want them to trade a bit of a shooing for killing each other and everyone else around? Even if I were carrying my shotgun over my shoulder, if someone wanted to nick my wallet, i'd rather them have that than I end up waving the shooty end at them or even worse, properly ****ing up and a mentally unhinged arsehole getting hold of a gun.
Look at the firearm deaths caused in America, I'm pretty damn certain they outweigh the 1 or 2 people saved by them. Anyone who thinks differently is Donald Trump.
[img] 
[/img]
Note the bare arms.
<edit- FFS, someone already did my jokes.>
<another edit- double FFS, it's the dude that stole my name! AND my jokes. He's probably out the back nicking my bikes>
Even if carrying guns was legal, most venues would refuse you entry, if you were daft enough to take a gun to a gig in the first place. I don't even take my bloody phone after losing one too many.
thenorthwind - MemberThe original post requires no comment, so I'm just going to point out that the Eagles of Death Metal aren't a death metal band.
It's a minor gripe, but I was going to post the same thing.
How does one dress for combat these days? formal or smart casual?
I sort of go casual with a hint of camo on top. This was just before I nipped down to Costco for a pack or rice.
[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2655/3972924986_86b4e12cae_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2655/3972924986_86b4e12cae_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/745hbE ]Trying to fit in ;-)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
No, next question.
However, for a gloriously British take on the matter.
OP, I sort of agree with you in terms of that particular instance, yeah if I was subject to it I'd love to have a gun, and appropriate training to use it effectively.
Would I carry a gun to a concert though? One with the accuracy and range to take on terrorists with AK-47s? I doubt it, purely from a practical point of view. Would I support people (myself included) carrying guns everywhere? **** no, we'd use them on each other. Far more people would die than would be saved.
So instead, I would suggest we talk to people and try and understand and where possible reconcile our differences. It is the only way to combat violence. If we attack IS then innocent civilians will undoubtedly be killed by both sides - this isn't to say we shouldn't attack IS, just one of the inevitable consequences. If we discuss even with evil bastards like them, we may reach a solution with some or all of them, and reduce their numbers or the amount of fighting necessary to defeat them.
Absolutely terrible idea. Ridiculous question too: "Do you think everyone should be allowed to carry guns, because they're allowed to in America and they have an appalling record on firearms deaths?"
Er, no.
it's the dude that stole my name
Sorry, not intentional. Also, your bikes just fell into my car.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Well best of luck to you if/when such attacks happen again and you have nothing to hand to defend yourselves with.
Even those that are specifically armed and charged with shooting terrorists undergo extensive training and conduct rigorous planning before acting. Joe Public would end up either shooting themselves, the wrong person or getting killed and gifting the terrorist another weapon. I don't believe a single mass shooting in the US has been stopped by any armed member of the public.
Best defence - hide or run like f##k.
I was thinking of those defenseless people in the Bataclan; perhaps there may have been fewer fatalities if they'd been able to fight back.
There might have been. Or not. No way to say.
But as has already been pointed out in this thread the Yanks seem to be doing a good job of killing more of each other than any terrorist will ever manage, so all in all that's a daft suggestion, as is the original question.
Don't be so bloody stupid. Of course we don't need guns.
Most of us already do
1689 bill of rights, go and check it!
I wouldn't trust most of the public with s driving licence let alone a gun licence.
How about a bike licence - now that's a good debate!
Why people keep showing the number of death in Merica by comparison? Are you going to go Diddy here too?
FFS! There are 200 million plus people over there not counting the illegals.
Those death are meaningless apart from human evolution.
We human need to cull ourselves. Fact!
As for carry arms in the UK unless zombie maggots are roaming the street I think our evolution is to over populate.
Why people keep showing the number of death in Merica by comparison?
Because the OP specifically asked:
[i]"Should the UK public have the right to bear arms? As in the USA"[/i]
FFS! There are 200 million plus people over there not counting the illegals.
The death by firearms figures that I and others gave are per 100,000 of population - so it doesn't matter how big their total population is.
On the subject of armed bystanders intervening to stop mass shootings: I read a book by Malcolm Gladwell a couple of years ago in which he describes a shooting of an unarmed guy in New York by 2 plain clothes (I think) policemen- trained professionals, anyway. He describes the sequence of events and the confusion of the policemen, and then says the whole thing was over in about literally about 3 seconds.
Now, I realise that gunmen stalking around for a long time in a sustained attack is a different scenario, but for me that story makes the idea that bystanders would be in any state to do anything to stop an attack sound pretty unlikely.
EDIT book is called Blink.
[url= http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2014/12/22/the-british-constitution-and-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-defence/ ]Nothing preventing the UK public bearing arms (allegedly)[/url]
From what johnhe posted, worth noting that Switzerland, Canada and Israel all have much higher gun ownership and availability than the other countries. So while gun availability certainly allows the Yanks to shoot each other more easily, it doesnt really seem to be the reason they murder each other at such rates...
I carry a handgun, because I live in a country where one day I feel I might need it, and because I can. I also train a lot (few hundred rounds a month minimum), partly because I feel its part of the resposibility of having a gun and I also enjoy the sporting aspect of course. However I am very glad that even here where concealed carry is legal, its prohibitively expensive and extremely difficult to get the permission... Its definitely not something for everyone, or even most people.
How come brazil in never in these graphs/pictures?
TBH Bataclan is probably exactly the sort of situation where it could have made a difference- people scattered through the building, a sustained attack with a limited number of attackers, it's not the more common rapid frank exchange of views where shock and unreadiness kills your likelihood of responding no matter what. And it wasn't a situation that could really be escalated, which is another major concern. Or, possibly not- maybe someone'd have managed to shoot a suicide vest, or whatever. I think it's maybe worth acknowledging.
But this misses the wider point, which is just the cold maths of it and the near certainty that you'd have more accidental killings, more crimes of passion, more school shootings, that would massively outweigh the number of terrorist killings. They wouldn't have the same shock and awe so the response is naturally skewed, in the same way that a bin truck in glasgow gets more public attention than the other 2169 road deaths.
It has to be said, the American tradition of carrying guns all over the shop hasn't seemed to have done a huge amount with regard to protecting them from mass shootings, they seem to end mostly with a suicide rather than a plucky bystander popping a cap in their ass.
I am sure I heard a stat on the Radio the other week that more Americans are killed in America each year by Americans, than ISIS have killed since they have been going..... 😯
[img] [/img]
If only East Germany was a little more open about reporting statistics like this.
they seem to end mostly with a suicide rather than a plucky bystander popping a cap in their ass.
Or a plucky bystander missing the shooter and hitting an innocent bystander.
[i]but i do think that all police officers should be armed.. [/i]
Hmm, so more killed by the Police almost every month in the USA than the UK has had in a decade... Think I'll still go for "fundamentally unarmed", and probably our police would too, based on the number of police killed in the USA vs UK.
UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom
USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States
Northwind - MemberTBH Bataclan is probably exactly the sort of situation where it could have made a difference- people scattered through the building, a sustained attack with a limited number of attackers
and a busy, pitch black room with lots of muzzle flashes. The terrorists could probably have walked in, fired a few rounds then went to the pub for a while as the crowd did most of the work for them
[img] 
[/img]
Arming the public is the most simplistic and ill thought out knee jerk proposal ever. The really obvious points have already been made but it is worth considering that if we give the right to have hold and carry guns to the public then that portion of the public who are religious nutters of any persuasion will be wandering around with ready access to lethal distance effect weapons.
Things like Paris take time and logistics to prepare much of which is acquiring the firepower creating a large pool of less effective but easily available guns and ammunition would make terrorism easier not harder.
legend - Memberand a busy, pitch black room with lots of muzzle flashes. The terrorists could probably have walked in, fired a few rounds then went to the pub for a while as the crowd did most of the work for them
Oh, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it's a good idea! I just think, "It would have made no difference" is too simple, it's maybe better to accept, maybe it could, better or worse, but then just get past that point entirely and say it doesn't really matter. Put the argument on a less shaky peg. Because otherwise you get people going away thinking "but it COULD have made a difference" and undermining the real point.
(Likewise- house lights went up fast. So people can see that post and go "but it wasn't dark" and niggle at some irrelevant detail and miss the more important stuff, and it all goes a bit chewbacca defence)
Well best of luck to you if/when such attacks happen again and you have nothing to hand to defend yourselves with.
There were 4(?) gunmen. Following the Stalin mantra that "numbers have a quality of their own". Once the magazine is empty they are un-armed and at that point the numbers game changes and they are very vulnerable. See also flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
Note there have been few if any recorded hijackings since then as the dynamics have changed.
What. The. ****?
Take a look at yourselves, some of you.
You might need to narrow that down a bit chakaping, one way or the other.
You GrahamS, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.
Just because they're called the Eagles of Death Metal, doesn't make them death metal
thisisnotaspoon - MemberYou GrahamS, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.
Just because they're called the Eagles of Death Metal, doesn't make them death metal
Or Eagles!
You might need to narrow that down a bit chakaping, one way or the other.
Sorry - the OP obviously, and people speculating about what would have happened in the totally hypothetical situation of people being allowed to take handguns into rock concerts.
I don't usually bother taking people to task for bad taste on the internet, but my mind is boggling.
I think the key mistake the you're making here is the belief that the UK, US or any other public should have the right to bear arms is simply ridiculous - the public as a whole is made up of A-holes, idiots and reactionary nutters.
However, on the specific issue on whether *[b]I[/b]* should have the right to bear arms, I feel completely differently, and if I had the money would happily become a full on collector of interesting armaments - in fact I would gladly have an atom bomb in my living room as a focal point to stare at, polish and cuddle before going to bed instead of the Telly (I'd keep the detonator in my gun cabinet, obviously)
Just think of all the 'What grips for my bear arms?' threads, please no 😯
Gunz - Member
Well best of luck to you if/when such attacks happen again and you have nothing to hand to defend yourselves with.
Even those that are specifically armed and charged with shooting terrorists undergo extensive training and conduct rigorous planning before acting. Joe Public would end up either shooting themselves, the wrong person or getting killed and gifting the terrorist another weapon. I don't believe a single mass shooting in the US has been stopped by any armed member of the public.
Best defence - hide or run like f##k.
This
When I was in the Air Force I had a go in a simulator room that mimiced terrorist tactics, I clearly new something was going to happen and yet I only managed to get one round off and missed the terrorist by a good margin (the birds in the trees were in more danger). Out of the whole group in the lesson only two of us actually fired our weapons and everyone of us would have been shot by the terrorists.
Against highly motivated and trained people you would not stand a chance.
*applauds*
Pretty much summed me up perfectly!
No
Do you really want a largely untrained civilian population to have easy access to firearms? There's enough neuroses around with highly trained policemen being armed!
but who would sell them to us?
Walmart clearly like wot they do in US of A! Bearing in mind that means Asda over here, the chances of them actually working are mercifully slim.
Should we have the right to bear arms? No (thread closed). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it might even vaguely be a good idea.
