Gun Rights in the UK

[Abo]

Don't see the problem on those "facts" in the newspaper report, thanks anyway.

[Woz]

Don't think its quite like that Woz, people aren't shot on "suspicion" are they? If they point it or something like it at the old bill, then more fool them and thats the only way some cabbage will get shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

[littletankman]

No one shot me or even battered an eye lid ! . Mind you this was back in 1987 . I would not even consider doing anything as stupid as that now !

[Abo]

Woz, you can post those up all day long and it won't make a scrap of difference to me or my opinion but feel free to carry on.

[Woz]

Woz, you can post those up all day long and it won't make a scrap of difference to me or my opinion but feel free to carry on.

Sorry missed read your post, I thought you asked me a question-

"Don't think its quite like that Woz, people aren't shot on "suspicion" are they?"


I'm not trying to change anyones opinion, just stating my own. Gun's were invented for one purpose and thats to kill and the saying"guns don't kill, people do" is crap. Even the most highly trained marksman can make a mistake or have an accident and an innocent person can get killed.

Personaly I thinkthose that use guns to commit crime should face a firing squad. Even if they don't shot anyone, just threatening someone with a gun can ruin a persons life. When I was a kid someone held an airgun to my head and made me beg him not to shot me, then he laugh and said it wasn't even loaded. I didn't leave my house for months and then I'd never go out alone.

[LMN118]

Hi Sax,

In all honestly I couldn't pin point when the general right to bear arms came into force as it would be different for each country of the UK. Certainly the Scottish were banned before other people. If I was to start somewhere it would be the creation of the first standing army in England. The need for the general populace to carry arms after that wasn't really needed.

From this point onwards new laws were brought in here and there as a response mainly to crime. Banning of swords, firearms, knives etc. After the second world war I believe firearms capable of fully automatic fire were banned due to the large number of them brought back. Hungerford brought forward the semi-auto rifle ban and Dublane the hand gun ban.

The most recent bans, including Dunblane, were knee jerk reactions by politicians seeking to win favour and become elected. The investigation into Dunblane concluded that a full ban was not needed. Dunblane, as tragic as it was, was caused by systemic failures from that one police force. Essentially they dropped the ball.

Regarding fire arms and crime. The UK crime rate is steadily falling, more so in recent years due to more manpower being available for the Police forces. If you look at it that way, every citizen having access to firearms would have no impact on the crime rate. Most serious crimes are carried out with bladed weapons or every day objects.

America has a different problem, guns are freely available. The general populace can have them but so can criminals. Carrying a gun might make people less likely to rob you but I would also say it would make them more likely to shoot you first just in case. A criminal with a gun pretty much won't have much hesitation to take a life.

We can still own firearms here but are severely limited on what. For example semi-automatic weapons are only allowed in .22 rimfire, pistols are pretty much out the window and shotguns are limited by internal magazine size. You can own a military grade rifle, for example a Colt AR, but it would have to be converted to only be single action.

Going back to the crime part, there are still firearms freely available in the UK but on the whole they are being used by criminals on criminals.

In conclusion, it is a pain for people such as myself who have an interest in firearms but since the majority care nothing of it as a hobby or a sport it works quite well at keeping the Nutbags at bay.

[panzerschreck]

I have to side with our American cousin, and say that the Gun Control laws in this country are heavy handed and totally unneccesary - Self loading rifles should not have been banned, handguns should not have been banned & the Brocock air-catridge system should not have been banned.

The actions of these "lone nut jobs" have been used as an excuse buy a series of weak willed Governments to practice knee-jerk and vote saving PR excercises which have NOTHING TO DO with public safety.

I lost out big time with the Air Cartridge ban, but I still own, shoot, and ENJOY, YES ENJOY MY GUNS

None of this makes me the closet psycho that the governmemt in this country would LIKE YOU ALL TO BELIEVE

Guns DO NOT KILL PEOPLE BY THEMSELVES, THEY REQUIRE A HUMAN BEING TO PULL THE TRIGGER

The fundamental problem is, therefore, the human being who takes it into his/her head that they are going to kill another human being, so even if you banned all the guns on the planet (YOU CANNOT UNINVENT THE WHEEL ), and all the sharp pointy things as well just to be on the safe side, our murderous human being is still going to find a way to take out his/her fellow creatures - jump into a car, pick up a rock, use bare heads, etc.etc.

So, at the end of the day, gun control is not about guns, ITS ABOUT CONTROL

[nickmow]

i have a rather unique interest in firearm regulations.
Firstly, I spent 22 years in the British Army and was a Skill at Arms instructor. I have had more than my fair share of weaponary fired at me thank you very much, fortunatly it seems by folk who where not the best of shots. I was lucky enough to have handled and fired a myriad of weaponary from around the globe too. Can't deny I enjoyed it. However these days apart from working for the Ambulance service I lecture at Oxford Brookes on Ballistic Injurys (Bit of a dumbed down title to be fair) basically what fast movey things can do to the human body and what our Paramedics should be thinking about should they come across such injurys) As
part of my teaching I always make a quote of some interesitng figures thus:

According to the published home office figures in the period 2007-2008 in the UK 455 incidents involving firearms (including air weapons) caused injury or fatality) This is a 700% increase over the same period i.e. 12 months 1996-1997 or rather the year before our rather restricive firearms ownership laws came into being !
In the same period in the USA (though to be fair the national statistics in the states are not collated as a matter of course or at least not by government sponsor) There where 35,000 incidents including 12,000 fatalities approximatly 3,000 of which where children .

Now I never comment on the ethics of gun ownership, but the facts speak for themselves. I can never in my own mind think of a solution. Taking firearms out of the hands of responsible owners as a backlash to two awful tragedys and very vocal anti gun lobbyists, seems wrong and politically motivated.
I despise the nanny state, the potential ban on knives amused me, I wondered what I would peel the spuds with. That said you simply cannot deny that if a populace has guns and a society that sees that as appropriate then people are going to get shot.....of course theres always the argument that if like Switzerland everybody has an assault rifle at home (not sure that hasnt changed now ?) then.... people are less inclinded to cruise around tooled up !

I have been unlucky enough to encounter firearms in my current job too. Though to be fair in the house of a heroin addict as the rather young cute and clearly scared police officer (we cant say woman these days can we) who was with us pointed to the table and said "Oh god hes got a gun !! " I had the rather smug pleasure of announcing "Its an air pistol".....how do you know says she......I adopt Vinny Jones grin "coz its written on the side love" We just dont do guns in the UK.

debate away chaps
Nick

[Yellowshaker]

Guys, I live in the States as most of you know. Unfortunately, I live in a state that is rediculous with its gun laws. We have a given right to keep and bear arms but my state will not issue carry permits unles there is a a very good reason...or, of course, iif you know the right people to pull strings. I am a gun owner and believe strongly in the right for responsible people to arm themselves and familiarize themselves with their guns. nothing wrong with that. I have watched as Florida re-instated the carry law and crime dropped immediately. Criminals are weak and are not usually willing to take a c hance of having the tables turned on them by someone who is well prepared for an attack. Sad thing is the criminals here have even the cops out gunned. If the laws made any sense, they would allow the good people to have guns on them and on the other side, take any criminal with a firearm and throw them in prison for life. that might help reduce crime and let them know it will not be tolerated. Statistics show that all gun crimes have been comited with ILLEGAL firearms...not by those who are legal owners. Hell, it makes sense right? If you were buying a gun with the intention to commit crimes, why go through all the legal stuff to get it?

[Saxondog]

The entire issue is political,I live in Tennessee,A RIGHT TO CARRY STATE. I can pay for training,complete the course,and at the same place I obtain my vehicle operators license be issued my carry permit. All legal,monitored and background checked. You must be a legal age of 21,no criminal record back 20 years,and have no record of mental health issues.(THAT'S Right to Carry law) If my father died or my wife's father and were gun owners of firearms they obtained from their father now we have family rights to owning these guns.

Here is my problem,I can and do live within the law,they have records going back to my High school days 2000 miles away in California,and believe me they check.

Now in line with me at the DMV while I am waiting to obtain my gun permit are 30 Mexicans applying for Drivers license and their is no background check,no birth certificate required and they are not made to test in our language.

What is wrong here, the federal Government does not require the federal laws to be enforced at the state level, emigration issues are solved the same way crime was drastically stopped,background check,simple solution. Both issues are political period,as with most rights it is the tool of the politician not the right of the people.Sorry state of affairs.