The United Kingdom, gun control, and what it really means

originally posted by: 727Sky
Well, I'm off to check on my spoons.
I hear they're making people fat.

This is just the sort of idiotic response you can expecting these threads. They have their heads buried in the sand,and don't want to see sense, your wasting your time engaging with them over this.

originally posted by: 727Sky
The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World

But if you take out just 4 cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans , the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the entire world, for Murders.

These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U.S.

ALL 4 of these cities are controlled by Democrats.
It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data right?

Well, I'm off to check on my spoons.
I hear they're making people fat.

Link to a progun site pointing out that this is an urban myth. gunwatch.blogspot.co.uk...

********
ETA: Thank you for the informative post and taking the time to write it out.
********

originally posted by: woogleuk

Everybody has the right to a shotgun, the police have to prove you are unfit, whether criminally or mentally.

To whom do they have to prove this, and what constitutes "proof?"

As for other firearms, it is up to the individual to prove reasonable grounds for owning a weapon which isn’t prohibited by law.

This is the problem that many Americans have--why must you "need" a firearm in order to own one? That's ludicrous to many of us.

So, to summarise, we are actually allowed semi-autos (.22) in the UK, as long as we can prove we have a need for them, and are mentally fit to do so.

Handguns are out.

Shotguns are a right, are long as you aren’t an idiot.

These laws have kept the massacres to a minimum, but when they do happen, it’s usually done by people who legally own their weapons, not criminals……go figure.

Without reading any comments, I'm sure some people will point out that, once you use a firearm--legally owned or otherwise--to commit a crime, you are a criminal. Your assessment of these people not being criminals is incorrect at its base, and I think you did that intentionally to make your argument seem better than it really is. Also, your inclusion of the word "usually" is well received, but it certainly would be better to back that up with some statistics.

Around 0.2% of crimes in the UK involve firearms, and whilst our laws may not work for the USA, it has certainly kept us safe, and we still have the right to bear arms...

Actually, you don't have the right to bear arms, you have the ability to bear arms, so long as Nanny Government deems you fit to do so and agrees with you that it is a "necessity" for you to own them. Oh...and you have to pay a fee to be licensed to do so.

These are not rights, these are abilities to do something that are heavily controlled by your government and local law enforcement.

Where I live, I can go into a gun store, get a background check run on me to ensure I'm not a felon, and walk out with the firearm of my choice--no need to pay for a license to own it, no need to register it in my name with the state, and no waiting period.

That is what it's like to have a iright when it comes to firearms. You, sir (I'm assuming), have the ability, but not the right.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
If you have a right then why do you need to pass a back ground check? The reality is both the US and the UK restrict gun ownership, the level and nature of the restrictions may vary but neither gives an unqualified right to own weaponry.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If you have a right then why do you need to pass a back ground check? The reality is both the US and the UK restrict gun ownership, the level and nature of the restrictions may vary but neither gives an unqualified right to own weaponry.

Because there are limitations on felons in our country, and if you commit crimes--especially felonies--you have forfeited those rights in lieu of being a criminal.

The right exists until you decide to commit acts that voluntarily give up those rights.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And we honestly don't care in the UK that its a ability not right.

Just respect our cultures are different and stop belittling each other over it.

Brits don't care about guns.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And we honestly don't care in the UK that its a ability not right.

I'm debating this with others on here...if you don't care, that's fine, but the OP really tries to make it a point to claim that there still is a "right" to own firearms in the UK and that we in the US have a misconception.

If you don't care, that's fine--feel free not to comment on the debate, then.

Just respect our cultures are different and stop belittling each other over it.

Brits don't care about guns.

First, I don't disrespect your culture and I'm not belittling it--I'm pointing out the ill-conceived comments presented in this thread. If that hurts your feelings, you may be being a tad too sensitive on the subject. Language matters, and a "right" versus an "ability" to do something is a major difference. You can dismiss or disregard that truth all you want, but it doesn't change reality.

You paint your country's citizenry with a broad brush--I've read many an article and comment from Brits who do care about guns and having a right to own them--a right that they recognize as not being a reality in their/your country.

BTW, I like that gun that the Brit in your avatar pic is holding.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There pro gun crowd here is pretty small, dont let fox news fool you its pretty much a non issue here.

I actually do hold a firearms license and do think they could loosen up abit but I don't loose any sleep over it.

Its a brown Bess , brutal buggers Im trying to get hold of a antique one.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There pro gun crowd here is pretty small, dont let fox news fool you its pretty much a non issue here.

I actually do hold a firearms license and do think they could loosen up abit but I don't loose any sleep over it.

Its a brown Bess , brutal buggers Im trying to get hold of a antique one.

I don't watch Fox News...and a small outspoken pro-gun crowd would be expected in a place that hasn't had true gun rights in a few generations.

Good luck on getting the antique gun (in good condition)...they're tough to find for a manageable price (well, at least what I consider to be "manageable").

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah last auction I saw and lost it went for a £1200 was one used in the American revolution. I nearly got a bad conditioned Napoleonic war one for half the price but thought better, French crap you can pick up for a couple of hundred but a brown bess really is a catch.

Thanks OP , This is a great thread.

Like you, I'm in the UK, I've used guns quiet a bit and was in the station shooting team whilst serving.

I really enjoyed shooting as a sport. If I feel the need to shoot now I'm quite happy breaking out the air rifle and putting a few groups into a paper target.

I don't see the need to have the RIGHT to own some high powered rifle in this country without good reason and I'm glad its that way.

Obviously America is a bit of a strange one when it comes to guns as they seem to be weaved into the social fabric of American life and unless they have been on the wrong end of one they seem to like them.

I say let them keep them, Just outlaw Bullets ha ha , only joking

Go easy on me, I'm new around here, and jumped straight into a debate on gun control. Maybe not the best idea. As a Brit, where I live, guns are a non-issue. Knives have always been the big thing. I have never had a huge opinion on gun control in the UK, because i've never had any experience of guns, other than firing a shotgun at clay pigeons...which was hugely enjoyable.

Dunblane was obviously a national tragedy and the gun laws were tightened afterwards, and I think a lot of Brits were okay with that, due to how shocking it was. I have also lived in South Africa, and will say, if I still lived there, I definitely would have a gun at my bedside.

People need to understand and respect other cultures, and realise that what works somewhere, may not work somewhere else. Guns are so ingrained into American culture, that we Brits will never fully understand how there can still be people against gun control, after so many mass shootings.

Its a catch-22, you need a gun in America to feel safe because theres so many people with guns. In this country we dont need guns to feel safe, because theres not many guns. Different strokes for different folks.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
********
ETA: Thank you for the informative post and taking the time to write it out.

You're welcome

To whom do they have to prove this, and what constitutes "proof?"

It is the right of any British citizen to apply for a shotgun license, the police have to prove, via criminal record or medical documents that one is unfit.

It is the right of any British citizen to own a firearms certificate, as long as they can provide adequate reason for needing one (ie pest control, job, gun club, performing rights)

This is the problem that many Americans have--why must you "need" a firearm in order to own one? That's ludicrous to many of us.

Because you have been brought up with your second amendment, you have had guns drilled into you all your life, it's a cultural thing/difference.

Without reading any comments, I'm sure some people will point out that, once you use a firearm--legally owned or otherwise--to commit a crime, you are a criminal. Your assessment of these people not being criminals is incorrect at its base, and I think you did that intentionally to make your argument seem better than it really is. Also, your inclusion of the word "usually" is well received, but it certainly would be better to back that up with some statistics.

So, if you can successfully apply for one, respect the law and be careful with it, most sensible people here would adhere to that.

Actually, you don't have the right to bear arms, you have the ability to bear arms, so long as Nanny Government deems you fit to do so and agrees with you that it is a "necessity" for you to own them. Oh...and you have to pay a fee to be licensed to do so.

These are not rights, these are abilities to do something that are heavily controlled by your government and local law enforcement.

Where I live, I can go into a gun store, get a background check run on me to ensure I'm not a felon, and walk out with the firearm of my choice--no need to pay for a license to own it, no need to register it in my name with the state, and no waiting period.

That is what it's like to have a iright when it comes to firearms. You, sir (I'm assuming), have the ability, but not the right.

No, we have a right to own them, not an ability.....the background check you have to go through sounds like exactly the same process our police undergo when trying to prove one unfit....

originally posted by: woogleuk
It is the right of any British citizen to apply for a shotgun license, the police have to prove, via criminal record or medical documents that one is unfit.

So, just the act of applying for a shotgun license gives the state the right to thumb through your medical records? Or are doctors mandated to report medical conditions that prohibit firearm ownership? Or are your medical records not really yours, but belong to the state because of the type of medical system you have? (I have a lot of questions)

Because you have been brought up with your second amendment, you have had guns drilled into you all your life, it's a cultural thing/difference.

That doesn't answer my question about why you must prove a "need" to own something--isn't the desire to be able to protect one's self or their family in their own home an inherent reason enough to where you shouldn't have to "prove" a "need" to own a firearm? I don't think that is a result of "guns drilled into [me] all [my] life" as much as not believing it's the government's place tell me what I need or don't need.

And I'm from California--guns weren't drilled into my head my whole life. In fact, I think I shot guns with my dad maybe twice growing up, and once with my step-brother (but after I returned from Basic Training and AIT for the Army). I couldn't have cared less about the second amendment growing up...it's the fact that I now have a family and take my role as "protector" seriously that it boggles my mind that you have to ask permission to own a firearm.

Without reading any comments, I'm sure some people will point out that, once you use a firearm--legally owned or otherwise--to commit a crime, you are a criminal. Your assessment of these people not being criminals is incorrect at its base, and I think you did that intentionally to make your argument seem better than it really is. Also, your inclusion of the word "usually" is well received, but it certainly would be better to back that up with some statistics.

So, if you can successfully apply for one, respect the law and be careful with it, most sensible people here would adhere to that.

No, we have a right to own them, not an ability.....the background check you have to go through sounds like exactly the same process our police undergo when trying to prove one unfit....

No, our background check sounds nothing like yours--and what is the recourse if your local law enforcement finds you "unfit" to own a firearm that you supposedly have the right to own? Is there a list of medical ailments that disqualify you? If so, what are they?

But I will say that many states have gotten to the point of the UK laws--the hoops one has to jump through to get a gun in California are ridiculous.

I'm all for felons who committed violent crimes being denied weapons--like I said, if you willingly commit the crime here in the U.S., you often willingly give up your inalienable right to Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and in the more dramatic of cases, Life. That's the way that it should be--you can't function peacefully in a society, you don't reap the benefits of said society.

The difference may seem like semantics to you, but "right" and "ability" are absolutely different things, and from what you described in your OP, your "right" has been whittled away to an "ability" over time--and that's usually how rights are taken from the people, a little bit at a time until it's unrecognizable anymore.

Medical issues are another debate though--I know that there are mental and physical conditions that render one incapable of safe use of a firearm, but the concern there lies in the government's ability to continually add ailments to the list until someone like me with asthma can't own a firearm because they think the smoke from the gunpowder may be bad for me and put an undue burden on the health system. But at the same time, I don't think that someone who is clinically retarded (in the official term, not derogatory) or suffering from severe Parkinson's should be wielding weapons with deadly potential.

It's a fine line...who knows where to draw it? I would like to pretend I do, but I don't. I mean, should people on anti-depressants be denied because many who commit mass shootings are taking them and there's a correlation? Part of me says yes, but the other says no because, hopefully, those drugs are temporary, and the vast majority of people who use them do just fine within reach of deadly weapons.

Obviously not all rights are absolute, but when the amendment that covers our right to keep and bear arms uses the phrase, "...shall not be infringed," it's hard to argue for laws that infringe upon that right until the government tries to amend the amendment, which I don't think would fly.

Either way, thanks again for the information. And I can't help but chuckle at your graphic...at least they got shotguns right. Hell, in Indiana (I believe), they just made it legal to own the equivalent of sawed-off shotguns (barrels as short as 10 inches, I think)...but if they're used in the commission of a crime, the punishment for the crime is increased. But then again, if you would use a sawed-off shotgun in a crime, I'm sure you'd do it with our without a law prohibiting it.

And what your graphic doesn't state is how you're allowed to transport all of those weapons or store them in your own home.

Best Regards...sorry for the tangents at the end.

originally posted by: thinline
How does one get ride of an oppressive government? An easy answer is to look at the US, Canada and UK's paper money. Two of them have the same lady on them, one doesn't.

Huh? Canada has more guns per head than the USA, so your point is, well, pointless...

originally posted by: SubTruth
If the UK is so gosh darn safe why do need to also give up the right of privacy?

We haven't - in fact, we have our right to privacy protected to the point where if it has been violated, we can sue. Just look at the newspapers being taken to the cleaners just for snooping on voicemails.

I suspect, however, you're referring to CCTV. Firstly, 95% of all CCTV in the UK is privately owned, you know, by shops and business. Only a small amount is owned by the local authorities and that is focussed on town centres.

Secondly, all major US cities, such as Chicago, New York, Washington etc actually have far, far more CCTV owned by the Government than any UK city, even London... Go look it up if you don't believe me...

Then there is the NSA... 'nuff said...

a reply to: crayzeed

Quite how being able to legally own or carry a gun in the UK would have protected anyone in Tunisia is a mystery - they wouldn't have been able to take their guns with them! US citizens have been killed in terrorist shootings etc around the ME and North Africa and they weren't packing either.. Another pointless post..

a reply to: crayzeed

You are just as much a target as anyone else. But where are all these civilians carrying guns when someone goes on a shooting rampage in the US? No where to be seen. In almost all cases, the perpetrator commits suicide or is killed by the Police - I am struggling to find even one mass shooting from the past 100 years where the perp is taken down by a bystander with a gun.

originally posted by: The only 1 who knows the
a reply to: woogleuk
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. Any attempt to enact gun control is against the law... Protection Against For "We The People". This Criminal Cabal is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. The Constitution in itself is also Untouchable and any attempt
to change it is an act against " We The People" and our guns are the teeth and backbone of a free society everywhere. As Moses let the People of God from Pharaoh our for fathers fought a Revolution for "We The People" from a British Tyrannical Government and ratified a Constitution for " We The People " to protect our rights.

What a steaming pile of rubbish. Any Act can be repealed and your Constitution is not "untouchable" - it can and in fact has been changed many times before.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, just the act of applying for a shotgun license gives the state the right to thumb through your medical records? Or are doctors mandated to report medical conditions that prohibit firearm ownership? Or are your medical records not really yours, but belong to the state because of the type of medical system you have? (I have a lot of questions)

Mental health....ie suffering from depression? Forget about it. Schizophrenia? Nope, can't have one

That doesn't answer my question about why you must prove a "need" to own something--isn't the desire to be able to protect one's self or their family in their own home an inherent reason enough to where you shouldn't have to "prove" a "need" to own a firearm? I don't think that is a result of "guns drilled into [me] all [my] life" as much as not believing it's the government's place tell me what I need or don't need.

There's the difference, if someone breaks into my home in the UK, chances are they will have, at worst, a knife.

I on the otherhand, being my home, have an assortment of golf clubs, hammers, knives, a 42" Scottish Broadsword....and a very angry Pomeranian ankle biter.

No, our background check sounds nothing like yours--and what is the recourse if your local law enforcement finds you "unfit" to own a firearm that you supposedly have the right to own? Is there a list of medical ailments that disqualify you? If so, what are they?

It is for public safety, we are talking mental health issues here, that is all.

But I will say that many states have gotten to the point of the UK laws--the hoops one has to jump through to get a gun in California are ridiculous.

We don't need to jump through hoops, fill in the necessary forms, pass the checks, jobs good.

I'm all for felons who committed violent crimes being denied weapons--like I said, if you willingly commit the crime here in the U.S., you often willingly give up your inalienable right to Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and in the more dramatic of cases, Life. That's the way that it should be--you can't function peacefully in a society, you don't reap the benefits of said society.

And that is how it works here, just a bit tighter and a few less things to choose from.

Medical issues are another debate though--I know that there are mental and physical conditions that render one incapable of safe use of a firearm, but the concern there lies in the government's ability to continually add ailments to the list until someone like me with asthma can't own a firearm because they think the smoke from the gunpowder may be bad for me and put an undue burden on the health system. But at the same time, I don't think that someone who is clinically retarded (in the official term, not derogatory) or suffering from severe Parkinson's should be wielding weapons with deadly potential.

Here, mental health is the only issue.

And what your graphic doesn't state is how you're allowed to transport all of those weapons or store them in your own home.

Sorry for the long quote, it's from a PDF....

Under the Firearms Rules 1998, a prescribed safekeeping condition is attached to all firearm and shotgun certificates. It is an offence not to comply with these conditions. The maximum penalty for this offence can be up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both.

The safekeeping condition attached to firearms or shotgun certificates requires that the guns and section 1 ammunition must be stored securely to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, unauthorised people taking or using them. Any other person who does not hold a firearm or shotgun certificate is included in the term ‘unauthorised’.

When a gun or section 1 ammunition is being used or the holder has the gun with him for some purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale, reasonable precautions must be taken for the safe custody of the gun(s) and section 1 ammunition.

The condition does not apply to the ammunition for a shotgun. However, as a matter of common sense, you should take reasonable precautions for its safe custody.
Your local police firearms licensing department can give you advice on security arrangements.


WHAT IS ‘SECURE STORAGE’?

The Firearms Rules do not prescribe how firearms must be kept securely, but the Home Office has issued guidance. Briefly this recommends that you store them in a locked gun cabinet or other similarly secure container.

In some cases if you don’t have a gun cabinet, it may be acceptable to remove the
firing mechanism from a firearm and store it in a secure container, for example, a safe. In these cases you should then lock away the rest of the firearm. A securely built gunroom or cellar with a steel door that locks can also be an acceptable form of storage.

Section 1 ammunition can be stored in a separate secure compartment within a gun cabinet or in its own secure container. When considering whether storage arrangements are secure enough, the police will look at the circumstances of each case and at the overall security arrangements, including the security of the premises where the firearms and ammunition are kept.

It may be helpful to think of security in terms of levels that may be applied in any given case. To this end 3 levels of security are generally accepted.


Level 1

This will be applicable in most cases and can be met by using a suitable gun cabinet. Where one firearm only is held, a gun clamp may suffice. Other considerations would be a low crime rate area and whether the property has outer doors and windows fitted with suitable locking devices.


Level 2

This will be applicable where extra security is desirable. This may be because of a high crime rate location, repeat victimisation or that a substantial number of firearms are being held. Additional security would be exit doors fitted with locks to BS3621, an audible intruder alarm covering the area where the guns are stored and possibly splitting the risk by the provision of more than one cabinet.


Level 3

Where the risk is deemed the greatest, then splitting the risk is desirable especially where
large numbers of guns are involved. Additional target hardening of the storage cabinet(s) and an audible intruder alarm protecting the whole of the premises may also be considered.
Please note that more detailed information is available from your local police firearms licensing department.


WHAT TYPES OF SECURITY ARE AVAILABLE?

Perhaps the most important time when both you and the police will need to consider your security is when you apply for the grant or renewal of your certificate(s). A Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) may visit you to discuss and advise on such arrangements. More information about the various types of security is given below. In practice there should be no need for significant change if the recommendations made at the time of grant or last renewal were accepted and implemented, and there has been no subsequent change in circumstances.
The security of your firearms will depend not only on how the firearms are stored, but also on the overall security of the property where the firearms are kept.

a reply to: woogleuk

Wow - I never knew there was such a wide variety of guns allowed! It has started me off looking more into this and I can't believe you can have a .50 rifle! It seems an expensive hobby and the conditions for storage rule me out at the moment (I cannot securely mount the gun case anywhere as I live in rented accommodation) but this might be something for me to do in a few years.....

a reply to: stumason

Gun licence owners doors would be the first 'visited' in any socio-political strife though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If you have a right then why do you need to pass a back ground check? The reality is both the US and the UK restrict gun ownership, the level and nature of the restrictions may vary but neither gives an unqualified right to own weaponry.

Because there are limitations on felons in our country, and if you commit crimes--especially felonies--you have forfeited those rights in lieu of being a criminal.

The right exists until you decide to commit acts that voluntarily give up those rights.

I have the right to own a shotgun and the onus is on the powers that be to demonstrate that I should not have one. In the US there are prohibited firearms that can only be owned with a license, depending on the state. These are licenses that you have to pay for and provide evidence to receive such as short barrelled rifles and automatic weapons.

BTW I have been a gun owner for many years and am an avid shooter. I have a .300WSM for F class target, a .243 for deer, a 12ga O/U for clays and a 12ga semi for fowl. I used to own a Walther P5C 8-shot 9mm as a PPW when I lived in N.Ireland but had to flog it when I moved to the mainland (got £1900 from a US collector as it was NSN marked. Not bad considering I paid about £500).

a reply to: woogleuk

Thats all fine and dandy in a peaceful world without corruption and elites trying to take arms away to further take away our rights as human beings.

Sorry, OP, but you missed the entire point as to why americans do NOT want to let go pf their guns. If say, a government goes rogue, and betrays the people. The government obviously have bigger guns. So to take back the republic people have to use peeshooters?

How would you take back a country that was seized? The point is, the constitution is there for the soul reason of preventing the government from taking absolute power when its supposed to be a republic/democratic system? Do you know anything of american history especially vs britain?

You cannot compare both because one side wanted to rule the other (still rules but in the shadows through the banks and the rothchilds). So tell me, you would have americans follow the british system because???

Sorry, The red coats are posting threads. Yes I went there .

Edit" Me personally I don't like guns nor do I intend to ever shoot one. I had guns pointed at me point blank in the face on various occasions though. But Im merely pointing out that the U.S was founded upon principals to give people equal rights to live and defend themselves against enemies foreign AND domestic.

I advice you to step into the rabbit hole.