As in the USA. Why not?

I’d prefer tiger feet

I’ve nothing against vests or t-shirts so I’d say yes. It’d be a no to short-sleeved shirts though. Or guns, obviously.

As in the USA. Why not?

Firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population per year:

USA: 10.5

UK: 0.26

That’s why.

My arms are pretty hairy already. I don’t want bear arms.

I wear shorts almost all year round but a wife beater would be taking the piss. It’s cold today mind you, so I might have to buy some trousers.

I came in here to make the vest / t-shirt joke but I’ve been beaten to it…..

I’ll get my gilet. 😀

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. Compare and contrast that attack and the one which was stopped in its tracks earlier this year in Texas thanks to the actions of armed ‘good guys’.

A bear-armed society is a polite society.

Compare and contrast that attack and the one which was stopped in its tracks earlier this year in Texas thanks to the actions of armed ‘good guys’

which one in Texas?

This one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11581096/Shooting-at-Mohammed-cartoon-drawing-contest-in-Texas.html

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.

Not sure how it works in America, but I suspect most places that allow guns are still a bit wary of allowing a bunch of drunk people to carry them into a death metal concert.

Also French police are armed but that didn’t seem to help that much.

We do, it may not be part of any fundamental rule of law but in Britain you can legally own any use a huge range of weapons simply by applying for the required license. For shotguns you simply have to apply for a license and unless the Police have justifiable reason to deny it, you can have one. You do have to show justification for having a rifle in the broadest sense – I.E. have access to somewhere sensible to use them, you can even have a semi-automatic if you keep to .22.

So for hunting, pest control and range shooting you’re pretty well able to get whatever you want – what you can’t own are full autos, semi autos over .22 or handguns – being that mostly they’re designed for killing humans.

Because they were minutes away when seconds mattered.

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

Tell me, given the level on confusion that there woul undoubtedly have been how exactly would these people have known who were the terrorist and who were just “fighting back”? Quite frankly that suggestion is probably the only way to make an already horrific situation even worse!

Edit;

umm from your link

“Two gunman shot dead by police after opening fire on ‘anti-Islam’ art exhibition organised by American Freedom Defence Initiative “

emphasis mine.

I’ll pass on the grounds that by potentially stopping the odd shooting (but more likely escalating the issue by involving untrained amateurs with likely problems with ‘friendly fire’) , we’d be legally arming those people who would use for bad.

This one.

Two gunman shot dead by police

Do the police count as ‘the public’ now?

With everyone else fleeing or diving for cover the people standing firing automatic weapons while dressed for combat would be obvious targets.

but who would sell them to us?

We already have the right to have rifles and shotguns (as long as the police do not have a particular reason not to grant you a shotgun/firearm certificate).

Definitely don’t think that taking a handgun with you on a night out would be a good plan. Incidents which currently involve an exchange of swear words or possibly some punches thrown would quickly escalate to lots of dead people if one or both parties were armed.

The number of people killed in very rare but atrocious incidents such as Paris would pale into insignificance compared to the daily killings that happen in the USA as Graham S’ stat above demonstrates.

With everyone else fleeing or diving for cover the people standing firing automatic weapons while dressed for combat would be obvious targets.

Group A starts shooting
Person B thinks “shit I’m going to shoot back at them”
Person C thinks “holy shit there’s another one I’m going to shoot at both groups”
Person D thinks “Dear mother of god another group” starts firing.

etc, etc.

Because we’d have more people killed overall, that’s why.
Even if there were armed partygoers at the Bataclan, it would probably have made the situation worse – the attackers would have shot eveyone and kept firing, instead of killing something like 80 of several hundred attendees.

ohnohesback – Member

This one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11581096/Shooting-at-Mohammed-cartoon-drawing-contest-in-Texas.html

Ah yes the shooting at the “inciting racial hatred event” or “freedom of speech” as the yanks call it.

Firstly, if the US had the same gun control laws as the UK, it would have been far, far harder for the shooters to be armed in the first place, secondly they were shot by the Police – the Police here have guns too.

We should at the very least arm anyone wanting to become a…

the people standing firing automatic weapons while dressed for combat

So terrorists start dressing like clowns and the survivalists with the guns (who all dress like they’re ready for combat 24/7 already) shoot each other.

There’s your answer, right there.

We do, it may not be part of any fundamental rule of law but in Britain you can legally own any use a huge range of weapons simply by applying for the required license. For shotguns you simply have to apply for a license and unless the Police have justifiable reason to deny it,

Yes and I often take my 12-bore to death metal gigs….

Because they were minutes away when seconds mattered.

The Bataclan attack started at 9:40pm.
The police/special forces stormed at 12:20am.

With everyone else fleeing or diving for cover the people standing firing automatic weapons while dressed for combat would be obvious targets.

What about the police who come in, dressed for combat, firing automatic weapons?

What about the metal fan, wearing doc martens and combats, firing his weapon?

How is an untrained civilian going to tell the difference in a dark concert hall filled with smoke and screaming?

It works so well in the US…

US Mass Shootings Index

Well best of luck to you if/when such attacks happen again and you have nothing to hand to defend yourselves with.

How does one dress for combat these days? formal or smart casual? What if the doormen had a no jeans policy and you had a nice pair of levis on ?…. Its important to know..

I think someone’s seen to many movies

Onhesback is this how you see yourself?

Well best of luck to you if/when such attacks happen again and you have nothing to hand to defend yourselves with.

Do you know what, I’d rather live in a society where carrying guns is not allowed and accept the risks of terrorist attacks. Statistics would seem to support me being safer too.

How does one dress for combat these days? formal or smart casual? What if the doormen had a no jeans policy and you had a nice pair of levis on ?…. Its important to know..

Anything but Crocs. No-one should have the right to bear Crocs.

[video]https://youtu.be/X3WMx1blONU[/video]

Do you know what, I’d rather live in a society where carrying guns is not allowed and accept the risks of terrorist attacks. Statistics would seem to support me being safer too.

What he said.

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.