The UK and guns laws...lets clear a few things up.

originally posted by: nonspecific
This was back in the early eighties when such things where not as serious as they are now and he handed them in in an amnesty some years later.

This breaks my heart to read.

The problem with the police being a licensing authority is the obvious conflict of interest. Not to mention the lack of consistency.

Lets not forget that the "Rights to Bear Arms" in the US is not just about hunting and self defense, but if needed, a defense against enemies foreign and domestic. Our Founding Fathers wanted the populace armed, because they believed governments are inherently evil/corrupt and someday we may need an armed populace to overthrow it.

a reply to: butcherguy

2
25
Yes

Hope that helps somehow....

I would like to ask about UK laws regarding self-defense/home-defense.

First, just for clarification since I'm still confused about pistols, are you ever allowed to purchase handguns?

If you are, is there any sort of permit that would allow you to carry/concealed carry?

If so to that as well, then could you use it in self defense if you were attacked?

Also, what are the laws regarding the use for home defense? For example, here in North Carolina we can shoot someone in the process of breaking in our home (halfway through a broken window, for instance) but we cannot shoot them if they are standing on our property with a brick in their hand looking at the window, or if they have already made it inside and are unarmed/not threatening us. So, someone could break in our house, and unless we caught them coming through the window, they could walk off with everything I own but I couldn't shoot them unless they were threatening my life. Kinda weird, I know.

Heres a link to home defense law questions in the UK

BBC article

a reply to: Aldakoopa

a reply to: Aldakoopa

If someone was in my house the story would have been they were threatening my life.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Well, any informed ATSer knows that you CAN have them, but it's certainly not a constitutional right like it is here in America. You obviously have to jump through some annoying hoops, possibly have your friends and family bothered (and, by extension, informed of the fact that you're trying to purchase a firearm), your home possibly inspected, and their "GP" (do you mean "General Practitioner," as in their doctor?) possibly informed.

And then, after all of that, it's still the decision of the local police as to IF you will even receive a license.

You'll have to excuse me when I say that this entire process truly seems as though it was designed to deter most people who even have the slightest interest in owning a firearm. And I'm assuming that all weapons you own are stored in some sort of government database, so that authorities know who owns what at all times (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

See, when we Americans think of the ability to own guns, we generally think of being able to go to one of the gun stores near you, walking in with an ID, picking the gun(s) that you want to own, them running a quick background check on you, then you're out the door with your firearms. I know that it's different from state to state (my dad in California had to wait three weeks after the purchase of his shotgun before it was approved for pickup), but where I live in Kentucky, there is no waiting period, there is only the federal background check (that is very fast), and there is no mandated registration of the firearms. Theoretically, no one in government knows which firearms I have or how many at any given time, they just know how many times my name has run through the background-check system (which only needs done once on each visit, even if I'm buying 10 firearms).

So, while you make a technical case that you are "allowed" to own firearms at the whim of the police over there in the UK, it's a far cry from the relatively unfettered ability of Americans to purchase and own firearms.

Now, let's talk about concealed carry of a firearm. Oh, wait...you can't, because you can't. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the sherrif's office MUST ISSUE a CCDW permit if we pass the background checks--no interviews, not inspections. Even the fact that you have to go through the Home Office (on behalf of the Secretary of State) in order to own a handgun just doesn't even register in my American mind--whether you think that's a good thing or bad.

So, it's neat that your police have to "allow" you to own a long arm (and generally only for use at shooting clubs or hunting, from what I've read), and that handguns are prohibited and concealed carry is a crime--always--but please understand that to us over here across the pond, that's not even close to the freedoms we have in gun purchasing and owndership, and that barely crosses into the realm of being able to have a firearm.

Good luck getting the .44 revolver--have you asked permission on behalf of the Secretary of State, yet?

Sorry about the snarkiness...I'm in a mood this morning.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

I'm guessing that wording in the law is there just so that it appears to pacify the anti-gun legislators that may have existed.

Who's to know what they were doing while inside except you and your family?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think the conept of gun ownership really is a cultural one, you seem to think that needing approval to own a gun is a negative thing I personally am glad that any old muppet can not own such a deadly weapon and those that do are on record.

Something that has always baffled me coming from a non armed nation is the percieved need and right to carry a loaded concealed weapon on a day to day basis?

I would be interested in why this is deemed necissary.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: butcherguy

2
25
Yes

Hope that helps somehow....

I suppose that the twenty-five 7mm Magnum rifle figure was obtained by checking the government registry? So there could be a lot more of them that are illegally owned?
Seems odd that there are so many of them in your immediate area when other UK members here say that most people don't own high powered rifles because of a lack of game to shoot with them. Interesting.
Thanks for your helpful reply.

a reply to: butcherguy

It is all a matter of location in rural areas it is plausable that every household could qualify and justify owning such a weapon for deer stalking and gamekeeping.

The chances of getting a license in a major city on the other hand is getting close to zero as the justification simply is not there.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think the conept of gun ownership really is a cultural one, you seem to think that needing approval to own a gun is a negative thing I personally am glad that any old muppet can not own such a deadly weapon and those that do are on record.

Something that has always baffled me coming from a non armed nation is the percieved need and right to carry a loaded concealed weapon on a day to day basis?

I would be interested in why this is deemed necissary.

What's not publicized in the US because our media is mostly left leaning, is that by even the most conservative estimate there are at least 100k incidents of defensive gun use a year. That number come from the National Crime Victimization Survey which is usually very left leaning. I carry a gun to protect myself and my family if I ever needed. To me, "It's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it."

a reply to: joemoe

But are you not protecting yourself and family from other people who are legally carrying guns?

I do not with to sound argumentative in this but it seems a little circular in it's reasoning to me.

I find this especially true with hand guns. Is there a purpose for a hand gun other than to shoot another human being?

a reply to: nonspecific
More to digest.
So rural areas do have large game to hunt in numbers that would support the twenty-five 7mm Magnum rifles noted by another member?
Oh, well. I will chalk it up to a rural/urban divide amongst the various members that have posted.
Thank you for the info.

a reply to: nonspecific

But are you not protecting yourself and family from other people who are legally carrying guns?

As shown in the case of the Charlie Hebdo attack, criminals have guns too.

There would be a need to defend oneself from people breaking into your house (by definition criminals) whether they have legally or illegally obtained their weapons.

Is there a purpose for a hand gun other than to shoot another human being?

Hunting is one.
Target shooting is another.
I own handguns. I have owned handguns since 1983. I have never shot anyone with them.

a reply to: butcherguy

It is entirely plausable yes. Until 4 years ago I lived in a very rural area surrounded by farms and country estates. I would estimate that the shotgun ownership in a 3 mile radius would be at least 20% per household.

I now live in a largish town just 12 miles away and I can not imagine there is a legal shotgun in the same radius.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: joemoe

But are you not protecting yourself and family from other people who are legally carrying guns?

I do not with to sound argumentative in this but it seems a little circular in it's reasoning to me.

I find this especially true with hand guns. Is there a purpose for a hand gun other than to shoot another human being?

Most legal concealed carrier are pretty safe, it's the illegal ones I'm worry about. Criminals by nature will break laws, especially laws that prevent them from obtaining firearms. Most gun crime is this country are committed by criminals with illegally obtain guns, and most of that is gang on gang violence.

Handguns are convenient for me to carry, if I could I would rather carry a cop with me but they are usually too heavy.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: nonspecific

But are you not protecting yourself and family from other people who are legally carrying guns?

As shown in the case of the Charlie Hebdo attack, criminals have guns too.

There would be a need to defend oneself from people breaking into your house (by definition criminals) whether they have legally or illegally obtained their weapons.

Yes criminals will always have guns regardless of individual gun laws but could it not be said that the legal ownership of handguns makes it far easier for criminals to obtain them, As I said before I could proberbly go out now and have an illigal handgun by the end of the day but it would not be cheap and if I ever got caught in possesion of it never mind shot any anyone I would be seriously screwed.

Do you really hunt with a handgun? why would you not use any one of those awsome rifles your legally allowed to own?
Is there a purpose for a hand gun other than to shoot another human being?

Hunting is one.
Target shooting is another.
I own handguns. I have owned handguns since 1983. I have never shot anyone with them.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think the conept of gun ownership really is a cultural one, you seem to think that needing approval to own a gun is a negative thing I personally am glad that any old muppet can not own such a deadly weapon and those that do are on record.

Something that has always baffled me coming from a non armed nation is the percieved need and right to carry a loaded concealed weapon on a day to day basis?

I would be interested in why this is deemed necissary.

I fully agree it's cultural, but as pointed out by someone else in this thread, the reasoning behind including it in our constitution as a right that "shall not be infringed" not only included personal safety, hunting, and the like, but also was in case of the need to overthrow a central government who has gotten out of control--it provides us the ability to fight (again, if necessary) for our independence from a tyrannical government. This was born out of the tyranny and disdain that the British government showed the colonies in America, so keep in mind that this notion that governments can get overbearing and out of control was fresh on their minds--and a good reminder that it could happen again.

As for your befuddlement over concealed carry, it's a pretty simple equation: You + Unknown, possibly violent encounters with criminals meant to do you harm = Logical need to be prepared. A concealed, loaded handgun is nothing big or bulky to carry on your person--hell, I even forget mine is there most of the time--and it's one of those things where you sure don't want to find yourself in a position to need one and not have it, but there's no harm in having one and not needing it.

Keep in mind, I'm a huge proponent of proper training by anyone who owns a firearm, especially if they want to carry it concealed. I am properly trained, although not to the level I'd like to be, yet, but I do know that many are not. Of course, much like gun ownership in England, there are some hoops and waiting periods and classes and costs involved in getting one's CCDW permit, so it's not like you can just slap a firearm in a holster under your coat unless you've undergone the classes, passed the firing test, had the background checks, and (of course) are now registered that you are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. So, along with all of the other requirements, you are now giving the state government the ability to deduce that you own at least one weapon.

Preparedness for worst-case scenarios--especially in a manner as minscule and out of the way as concealed carry--should not really baffle anyone. On the flip side, I get baffled by people who actively refuse to be prepared to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones, but I fully acknowledge that both gun ownership and concealed carry are not for everyone. But then again, that's why ownership is a right a concealed carry is a right (in my state, anyhow, if background checks are passed), and not a mandatory thing. If it were mandatory, I could see your concern, but please don't subscribe to the notion (if you do) that most people walking around in America have a loaded gun strapped to their hip. This is not even close to the truth.

Take for example the most recent stats on concealed carry permits for KY that I can find (2011):

- There were about 25,000 new applications issued for the entire year (which was a high number due to all the fears of gun control going around at the time)
- Since 1996 (the inception of the CCDW permit availability), there have been 216,000 new permits issued
- In 2011, the population of Kentucky was 4,367,000 people, give or take a few.

So, using that data, in 2011 (and assuming that EVERY CCDW permit holder was carrying a firearm on any given day, that would be about 5% of the population that would have a handgun on their person. So, in a crowd of 100 people, 5 would be armed. Not a very overwhelming number, and it's safe to assume that probably half of the people with CCDW permits are not carrying at any given time--I know plenty who only carry when they're traveling (which defeats the purpose of the permit, IMHO).

Sorry to go on this rant of stats and opinion, I'm just hoping to help de-baffle you on this issue. Plus, I'm just kind of hoping that if someone ever comes up to me with a machete in broad daylight and tries to decapitate me, or enters my office building and starts spraying employees with bullets, that I might have a fighting chance to survive, and by exension, other people, too. But in reality, I hope that I never have to fire one of my 11 self-defense rounds in my pistol at a human being for the entirety of my life, and I don't expect to have to, but I just seem to take the protection of the lives of myself and my family a bit more seriously than your average husband/father (again, in my opinion).

That doesn't make me crazy, irresponsible, or paranoid. It just makes me prepared for the very unlikely what-if scenario that may arise in the future.

a reply to: nonspecific


I have a permit to carry a concealed handgun for the sole purpose of shooting another individual. I will not deny that is the only reason I have the permit. I only carry a gun on rare occasions when my work takes me to bad neighborhoods. I live by the motto, hope for the best but plan for the worst.