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

a reply to: SoulSurfer

And you have missed the entire point of the thread - it isn't trying to compare or even persuade Americans our way is better, it is just to try and educate you lot so that you don't try to compare...

And another thing - I've often heard that you have your guns to "protect" you from the Government, or take it back by force if it goes rogue etc.... So where are you? Lolling around on your sofa's watching reality TV, getting fatter and lazier while your Government enjoys absolute power - Yes, I "went there" - you lot can't even protect yourselves from one of your own on a rampage (as I said earlier) or from your own Police who seem to delight in killing you

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: SoulSurfer

And you have missed the entire point of the thread - it isn't trying to compare or even persuade Americans our way is better, it is just to try and educate you lot so that you don't try to compare...

And another thing - I've often heard that you have your guns to "protect" you from the Government, or take it back by force if it goes rogue etc.... So where are you? Lolling around on your sofa's watching reality TV, getting fatter and lazier while your Government enjoys absolute power - Yes, I went there...

I edited my post on my personal views on guns. I dont really like them, if I had it my way I'd teleport ALL weapons into the sun. Me personally I don't like violence and often times resort mostly to words than anything else. I wont sit here and dictate my accomplishments or what ive done. But I have done enough to simply sit back and observe/comment when need be.

I already had my share of hate thrown at me by raising awareness through alternative media forms. But if people don't want to listen, Im still a human being after all. And I earned my right to sit and relax and just give up on humanity because I don't see changes through my own effort. So I am just gonna live life.


But I see your point and its noted,

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: imod02

Lets hope people have the balls their g.granparents had.. If not England is doomed. And at the moment, i'm slightly afraid that's possible, society has become a playground of pussies, really sad..

England is "doomed"? From what? Lovely weather, peaceful people and green fields?

This is what I was on about earlier with regards to some Americans and their paranoia...

Americans and their paranoia?

Do you realize there are more drug addicts here in the states than the whole UK population?

Have you ever driven or walked down any poor part of any town in America?

When seconds count, the police are only 5 to 25 minutes away, and that is if you are not in a super small town in the middle of BFE.

Paranoia my rear, it's life here for us common folk.

a reply to: liejunkie01

None of what you wrote has anything to do with my post! I was replying to your compatriots assertion that England was "doomed" - quite what your national problem with drug addicts or police response times has to do with that is a mystery.

In an ironic way, you've kind of proven my point about American paranoia and also demonstrated the typical US-centric view by waffling on about your country

a reply to: SoulSurfer

If a government 'goes rogue ' then a load of civillians armed with rifles and pistols is going to be nothing more than a speed bump. Most armed citizens in the US have little actual training or experience in the realities of armed conflict. Even fewer have the mindset required to face an enemy and fight back. The government has all branches of the police and military at its disposal with all the training, equipment and firepower that entails.

Should push come to shove the military would roll up any armed opposition in no time. I don't care who you are, if the might of the US military wants to take over they will.

The second ammendment was written at a time when armies faced off at musket range. A militia could realistically arm itself with equivalent fire power to the government forces. This is no longer the case. It just gives people a feeling of false security when they are packing a pistol on their hip and a rifle in the bedroom, telling themselves that they will stand up to a platoon of trained, heavily armed infantrymen if 'the man' comes knocking.

a reply to: woogleuk

We Americans don't "misunderstand" British gun laws, that's partially why the British were removed. Maybe its because you still have royal inbred pedophiles that most of the country adores, so you dont understand the real threat...



democide


What many fear more than any gun here in the US is being a slave to some mentally ill monarchs or government.

a reply to: pyramid head

Are you talking about that monarchy that has no real part to play in the running of the country? Again another false view of the UK. Our government is made up of democratically elected members of parliament with all the flaws that system brings with it. The monarchy is a figurehead with no real time powers and hasn't for many years. The government makes the laws and the Queen gives a token nod occasionally.

However that is not the point of the thread.

a reply to: pyramid head

A lot of British misunderstand our gun laws, never mind the Americans....but a good majority of you lot (here on ATS anyway) seem to think we can't even own those nerf gun thingys....and I have a couple of those, but they are only for protection during parties, and even then only when there is a hosepipe ban and I can't legally get ammo for the super soaker.

I don't have time to start another thread on why the Royals aren't inbred paedophile reptilian Saville loving overlords that suck money out of a brainwashed country, most educated people can use Google to find out why that is wrong, so I will leave that to you, there is your homework for the week, I expect a copy on my desk by the time you get your head out of your arse.

Sorry, 7:30am, pre-coffee and I was up till 2am finishing work off.

a reply to: woogleuk

I told you mate, its not worth engaging them over this, they are in their own little race to the bottom and are blinkered to anyone trying to help them. I am afraid we are just going to have to sit back and just watch them gun down children and say nothing.

Firstlly I just want to clarify a few points re UK gun laws…

In regard to hunting rifles the OP didn't have much info. I am a keen hunter so can add something here. We can basically have what ever we want as long as you can provide 'good reason' for possessing it, eg.. I want a 308/3006/270 etc for hunting deer.

If this is your reason then you will provide the police with evidence of your deer hunting intentions when making your application. This application is also signed by two people 'of good standing' who attest to your soundness of mind etc etc. Your evidence can either be in the form an invoice from a paid deer stalking outing, or permission from a land owner to hunt deer on their land, or your a land owner yourself who wishes to control your deer population. Before your application is successful you will be visited by your local police to have a quick chat with you - basically to gauge your knowledge experience etc- and to check that you have suitable safe storage facilities. In recent years there has also been a move towards some Constabularies requiring you to pass a form of hunting test we have here. Although this is not law. When you are first issued with your licence you will be limited to use you firearm on land that has already been deemed 'suitable' for that caliber. For example if you have land with foxes but without deer, it may have only been cleared for use upto .22 centerfire. These restrictions are removed after you're deemed to have gained experience, usually a year or two, then you may use any firearm on any land as long as you have lawful permission from the land owner.

We don't have specific upper caliber limitations written into our law, but we do have minimum requirements. For all intents and purposes a .243 Win is our minimum cartridge for Roe, Fallow, Sika and Red deer, and a .222 is the minimum for Muntjac and Chinese Water Deer.

In general our firearms laws are OK. They are actually improving slowly which is good, making them less draconian and complicated. One downside is that each police district is autonomous within certain 'guidelines'. The Guidelines them selves are very sensible and well thought out. But some issuing authorities will make up their own little rules, such as anything above .30 cal in unnecessary, or that you must pass a hunting test etc. This is of course unlawful, and some people do fight against it, most don't however and just accept the police demands. The other issue is that generally there is a huge lack of knowledge within our police in regards to calibers and cartridges. There seems to be a prevailing thought that the larger the caliber the more dangerous it is, which is of course nonsense. And in their guidelines the .375H&H is even name checked as being suitable for large deer. Probably the worst thing is that given a specific rifle has to fill a specific need, we are limited to only one rifle for that 'need'. For those of us who love firearms, and wish to possess many simply for the enjoyment we get from ownership, this makes life hard. The reality is that you can have many reasons for owning many different rifles, but we could never have the collections that some of our American cousins enjoy.

A easy simplification that I would make to UK firearms law, is to make it similar to the shotgun licence. I would say that if you are deemed a 'suitable person' and you have proven your good reason to have a certain class of weapon, e.g. deer rifle, then you may possess any weapons in that category (say between .243 and .375). If you are going on safari and need a .416 then you could be granted permission to own weapons above .375, and so on. This would hugely simplify our application/variation procedure and save in police time/paperwork etc.

For the record gun ownership is a very good symbol of freedom, and I don't think that for one second the US citizens should give up their rights. They are the envy of the whole world in terms of their gun ownership laws, and firearms are a part of their culture in a way that most people don't realise or understand. At the end of the day if someone wants to go on a murderous rampage they don't need a gun. They can get in their car and drive down a busy pavement, or do any number of other things. The number of deaths caused by misuse of firearms is relatively minute. Yet people attack gun ownership over and over again. Firearms are an easy target for those who do not like guns or hunting because they see them as unnecessary or dangerous. But hunting and shooting is an activity/sport enjoyed by millions of law abiding citizens the world over everyday without incident. More people die in mundane household incidents, such as slipping on stairs/bars of soap etc than do from firearms, and yet millions must have our freedoms taken away because of the despicable actions of a few mentally insane individuals.

Unfortunately every so often it seems that an individual goes berserk. It is the human that is dangerous in this situation, nothing else. There is a very good argument in favour of gun ownership in these situations, that fact that you are in a position to prevent a massacre rather than watch it or be a victim yourself.


NB. There has been some talk of knives and pistols in the UK. You are allowed to carry a knife over the 'legal carry' dimensions, as long as you can prove good reason for carrying it. So if your off hunting you can walk around with a hunting knife on your hip etc. Pistols are permitted for 'humane dispatch' of animals. So if your a farmer/vet/professional hunter etc you can have one for obvious reasons.

a reply to: JOSHT

Thank you for your input, very informative, I would have to add that the handgun use for humane disposal (ie by vet) is allowed only if the gun is limited to 2 shots only.

a reply to: woogleuk

So, basically, a Firearms Enquiry Officer "may visit you" to advise or inspect the security of your weapon(s) in your own home? Is this voluntary, or at the discretion of the police department?

I'm glad to see that the quote from the PDF claims that there is no prescribed way to secure your weapon(s) per the Firearms Rules, but opens with:

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.

So, does applying for a firearms certificate automatically open you up to inspections by Firearms Enquiry Officers, or do these FEOs (or average police) have to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that you are not complying with the "prescribed safekeeping condition" attached to the necessary firearm certificate?

Again, these are things that I don't know, but do add to the differences of "rights" and "abilities" to do something. Compare everything that one must go through in the UK to own, say, an AR15 in .223/5.56 (to include the limitations on the function of the weapon itself) and what I must go through in where I live. I mean, I guess you could still say that you have a "right" to own the same firearm as me, but when you must buy a license, (I assume) register with the government, follow guidelines to store it, be (possibly) open to inspection, not be able to carry your firearm with you, etc, etc, I don't think our "rights" are equivalent.

You know how I got my AR15? I bought it off of my friend. He brought the rifle, I brought the cash--end of transaction. I legally purchased it and own it, can legally carry it around (loaded) if I want to in public, transport it loaded in my vehicle, and mount it loaded on my wall above my couch if I want to (which I don't...I do keep it in a locked safe). No registration necessary, no need to wonder if a Firearms Enquiry Officer is going to visit my home, no limitation on how it loads, no limit to the amount the magazine can hold--nothing.

This is the foundation of my argument that your "right" is not the same.

And don't even get me started on the handguns I own that you can't. While shotguns and rifles can be great home-protection firearms, it's nice to have a piece on your hip if you want to.

But in any case, and like I said before, this post has taught me a few things--you can have more than I originally read up on, albeit with some ridiculous stipulations, and the process to get a firearm is a bit more clear now.

Thanks for all the info. I think I'm done with the discussion, though, as I think we'll just continue to dance around in circles.

Best Regards

a reply to: woogleuk

Yes, I forgot to add that… One for doing the deed, and another incase of 'human error'!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The FEO makes his visit prior to your Firearms Certificate being granted. It is basically the final stage, once he gives the nod they will grant and process it. This visit is on a prearranged date and time. You are not subjected to on the spot checks relating to firearms. Occasionally, usually upon variation or renewal of your FAC you will again have your safe inspected. But again this will be prearranged.

In terms of safekeeping of firearms, you can buy approved gun safes from any gun shop or various places online. Other types of safe storage are suitable though. I think there might be some Home office guidance, of which there minimum standards you must reach. At least two locks, metal door of a certain thickness etc. In practice you just buy a gun safe and bolt it on to a wall somewhere. But obviously this goes out of the window when travelling over night with firearms, at which point you must take any reasonable precaution for safety and storage.


In answer to your AR 15 question; it would be your right to have that weapon once you have proved 4 key criteria. (Also the AR15 would have to have been converted to straight pull)

A. That you have a 'good reason' to own one. This essentially would mean you wanted to shoot targets, so you would have to join a target club. Or that you wanted to shoot vermin, and would need the permission of a land owner, or your own land.

B. That you are not a convicted criminal.

C. That you are of sound mind. This includes the police contacting your GP to make enquiries regarding your mental health. Most usually it is depression that they enquire after.

D. That you have secure means of storage.

If you satisfy those criteria then you have the right to ownership… So no the UK 'right' of ownership is certainly not the same as that in the USA. You guys in the USA live in the hunters paradise of liberal gun ownership and public hunting land. Having said that New Zealand is pretty idillic too! Also all UK firearms are registered, as is ammunition (quantity). Basically it is restrictive, but doesn't necessarily stop you from having something.

Once you have gone through the rigmarole of application life becomes much easier. You can then add rifles with out hassle, as long as you give a sensible reason. You send your licence back to the issuing authority with a variation form filled in, and perhaps a letter in order to fully articulate your wants and needs. Oh as well as your fee of course(£50 i think)! So once your in the system you can have a rifle for vermin, one for small deer, one for big deer, one spare if the other breaks, one for dedicated NV, one with a plastic stock for bad weather, and various others for shooting various things abroad. You get the idea… If you have/can think of a good reason, the police have to grant permission for it.

In answer to your AR 15 question; it would be your right to have that weapon once you have proved 4 key criterial. (Also the AR15 would have to have been converted to straight pull)

A. That you have a 'good reason' to own one. This essentially would mean you wanted to shoot targets, so you would have to join a target club. Or that you wanted to shoot vermin, and would need the permission of a land owner, or your own land.

B. That you are not a convicted criminal.

C. That you are of sound mind. This includes the police contacting your GP to make enquiries regarding your mental health. Most usually it is depression that they enquire after.

D. That you have secure means of storage.

If you satisfy those criteria then you have the right to ownership…

Not quite. An AR15 is a section 5 prohibited weapon as it is semi automatic and has a calibre of over .22 rimfire. If it is converted to single shot/straight pull then it can be owned. Section 5 tickets are usually only issued to certain gun clubs and overseas arms dealers.

It is virtually impossible for Joe Bloggs to be granted a section 5 licence as this is the same ticket you use for machine guns, mortars etc.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Hi Paddy. Reread it and check out what I put in brackets. Cheers

a reply to: woogleuk

Thanks for the thread, I learned a bunch from your posts.

One question: Is it legal to have a shotgun in a case in your car at all times ? Or at all even.

Also is it legal in the UK to shoot someone who is attempting to murder another ?

I'm thinking of the Lee Rigby incident here, wondering if a passerby could have used lethal force against the attackers to prevent Rigby's murder.

a reply to: JOSHT

Oops!

D for attention to detail. Must try harder.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
a reply to: woogleuk

Thanks for the thread, I learned a bunch from your posts.

One question: Is it legal to have a shotgun in a case in your car at all times ? Or at all even.

It should only be in your car for transport to or from a place for intended use, such as a clay shoot, range or a hunt.

Also is it legal in the UK to shoot someone who is attempting to murder another ?

I'm thinking of the Lee Rigby incident here, wondering if a passerby could have used lethal force against the attackers to prevent Rigby's murder.

Technically yes. Realistically no. According to the law everyone has an inherent right to self defence which can be extended to the protection of others. This means that lethal force can be used if there is no other option in the defence of life.

However I don't think that the speed of this attack would have made a difference to the outcome. Think of how long it would take to unlock the boot, unlock the case, remove the gun, retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, get to a fire position and fire. Dmr Rigby would already be cold.

originally posted by: PaddyInf

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
a reply to: woogleuk

Thanks for the thread, I learned a bunch from your posts.

One question: Is it legal to have a shotgun in a case in your car at all times ? Or at all even.

It should only be in your car for transport to or from a place for intended use, such as a clay shoot, range or a hunt.

Also is it legal in the UK to shoot someone who is attempting to murder another ?

I'm thinking of the Lee Rigby incident here, wondering if a passerby could have used lethal force against the attackers to prevent Rigby's murder.

Technically yes. Realistically no. According to the law everyone has an inherent right to self defence which can be extended to the protection of others. This means that lethal force can be used if there is no other option in the defence of life.

However I don't think that the speed of this attack would have made a difference to the outcome. Think of how long it would take to unlock the boot, unlock the case, remove the gun, retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, get to a fire position and fire. Dmr Rigby would already be cold.

Its amazing how these laws only work in one direction isn't it…. Something tragic happens with a firearm, we have them taken off us. Something happens where a firearm could have stopped something tragic… Do they even consider giving them back…?? Not a chance in hell!!