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

a reply to: JOSHT

Even when guns were relatively easy to acquire, very few did. Even those that had guns rarely took them out with them, even the Police when they were routinely armed often didn't bother. I remember one bank robbery from the early 1900's (not personally!) were the Police didn't have their guns on them and the Sgt sent some back to the nick to fetch them while he asked around if anyone had a pistol. I think he managed to find one in the end from a bystander who happened to be in the city on a day trip from the countryside.

a reply to: stumason

I wondered after I posted whether people ever 'carried' back in the days of legal pistols in the UK…

The point is that its a discriminatory and disproportionate reaction to ban a certain type of firearm from the entire populace of a country for one anomalous event. Imagine banning articulated lorries because one crashed on a motor way and killed 7 innocent drivers and passengers. Generally our laws become increasingly restrictive, not only in regards to firearms but in all aspects of life. Our freedoms are easily taken from us, and sometimes willingly so. Usually because of the platform the press choose to give certain topics and incidents, combined with the ignorance and preconceptions of said public relating to these topics.

a reply to: JOSHT

Indeed, I agree to an extent but in every case, the perpetrator of whatever massacre has nearly always been a legal firearms owner, so you can see it from the legislators perspective, to a degree.

a reply to: woogleuk

Slaves to the Blue Bloods Crown for Eternity .......Jolly Good !....Baa......

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Oh put a sock in it you green blooded Vulcan......

Some of us actually enjoy living under a monarchy, it gives us a better sense of history and where we have come from.

They don't affect my daily life, and they bring more into the economy than they take out...AND they do great work in the world, humanitarian or ecological to name a couple.

a reply to: stumason

No offence but you've missed the point.

Crimes involving legally owned firearms constitute 0.2% total of crimes involving firearms in the UK.

No amount of legislation will stop the very rare occurrence of a mentally ill individual committing an atrocity. They could very readily find another form of lethal force to use to commit their crimes other than a firearm. I don't want to do the maths but imagine the fraction of atrocities that have been committed by legally owned firearms owners in the history of the UK…. They can be counted on one hand. Realistically it shouldn't be a consideration legislatively speaking.

Under our current government I don't think that any of the legislation that you speak of would come into fruition. Cameron has brought the idea of a 'knee jerk reaction' into our publics lexicon, and the negative connotation knee jerk legislation can bring.

a reply to: JOSHT

I haven't missed the point, I just don't see it exactly from your point of view - a subtle difference!

Ironically, you seem to have missed my point - Parliament has to be "seen" to do something in the face of public anger of an event. Almost all of the gun massacres in the UK have been from legally owned weapons, so naturally they are under pressure to tighten the rules as to who can own those weapons. Now, I'm not saying it is necessarily right for them to act like that, but when large sections of the voting population "demand" action, in order for them to safeguard their careers they will do something about it - to not do anything would be political suicide for all but the most robust politican.

You forget, their all sycophants and just love a "quick fix" to score some points with Joe Public.

Quite why you have then gone on to the attack with regards to Cameron and "knee jerk reactions" is a bit baffling. He hasn't done anything with regards to gun laws. The last major change was as a result of Dunblane, on Blairs watch.

a reply to: stumason

Please reread what i said.

The reactions that your speaking of are exactly what I'm talking about. Also reread what I said about Cameron, it is the exact opposite of what you seem to have gathered.

originally posted by: JOSHT
a reply to: stumason

Please reread what i said.

The reactions that your speaking of are exactly what I'm talking about. Also reread what I said about Cameron, it is the exact opposite of what you seem to have gathered.

Indeed - my apologies! In my defence, when I replied I was trying to eat my lunch, deal with a chap on the phone and manage an MI... Perhaps I should have waited and read it properly!

But, what I said applies to all politicians to one degree or another - while Cameron did not rush to ban .22 rifles and shotguns after the Cumbria shootings, he hasn't even touched on repealing any gun laws either because doing so would whip up such a crapstorm it wouldn't be worth it.

I'll just sum it up....guns.....stomp tyranny..
Texas type....huh!.....we like to go camping and hiking in bear country, loaded for bear.....
I'm a student of prophecy.....we'll be made to submit through sorcery. right there in the scripture...Jesus wanted us armed, but not to be active with the arms..let him with no sword sell his extra tunic....

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Nice to see those 300 million guns stomping the for NSA reading your every digital thought bit of tyranny or the corruption in Washington etc..etc..

Yes the US needs guns, theres critter out there that view us as a nice lunch so yes you do need them but this is about the UK not why you need to walk around town with 10 ar-15's on your shoulders along with 9 handguns around your waist and a couple of spares around your ankles just to nip down the street to buy a bottle of milk.

He was searched and found with the weapon, given it back and told to be on his way. It was the police that reported the story. He did produce the gun to the officers but no charges and no consfication. Possession of firearms in uk carries a 10 yr term in prison. A local lad was given 3 yrs for pretending to have a weapon.

In the UK we dont feel the 'need' for guns, generally. I would say thats due to there not being a gun problem here. Personally i keep a claw hammer at my bedside and i know where other 'weapons' are around the house, just in case someone breaks in. Only bad point is, id need to get up close with someone to use a hammer, which puts me in harms way. Luckily i've never had to put it into practice.

I only read part of the op and not a single post, so this may have been discussed and I missed it.

But if someone plows through a parade with their truck is the government going to take our trucks away?

a reply to: chrisss

Yeah its pretty clear you havent read a single part of this thread

a reply to: JOSHT

Thanks for the comment, which is where the foundation for my argument derives--it's much harder to get said AR in the UK, and if you're telling me that you must have land, permission to hunt on land owned by someone else, or must pay to join a gun club, the conditions on the 'ability' to own a gun keep mounting up.

I know I come from the land of milk and honey when it comes to firearm rights and the ability to carry one on my person (at least in most states), but these conditions that must be met in order to own a firearm seem designed to deter everyone except the most passionate about firearms from jumping through all of the hoops in order to own one.

I guess it could sound a bit more tedious on paper than it really is, but a system designed to be so burdensome to the citizen can't really be called a "freedom" in my eyes. At some point, the red tape kills that.

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...

What the OP tried to do was glaze over the restrictions, limitations, and the many steps necessitated by your government in order to own a firearm, then pretend that ownership is a right--it's not, you have the ability, but not the right. You have the privilege of gun ownership, but not the right. So when he claims that gun ownership is a right (except for maybe shotguns), that just isn't the case, and he shouldn't try to argue that point. Words have meaning, to include "right."

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

Do you revel in stereotypes, or are you just suffering hurt feelings and feel like lashing out like a small child?

You stereotype us Americans as if we're all the same--we have nearly five times the population that the UK has, and you pretend like you can stereotype us in one category as fat, lazy people with an omnipowerful government? No one can protect themselves from some idiot on a rampage (severed head, noted massacres in the OP, other things not noted here but happened in the UK ring a bell?).

What was this comment supposed to prove on your behalf--that when you have no bullets left, that you throw the gun and hide behind ignorant stereotypes? You are a living hyperbole, and all you've done with this comment is prove that your opinion has no relevant weight in this conversation.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I wasn't saying gun ownership was a right as such, although you do have a right (yes, it can be called a privilege to apply for one) ..... I was saying Shotgun ownership/certification is a right, and THEY [the police] have to prove otherwise.

But I did say the onus was on the person to prove why they require a firearms certificate, which is still a right afforded by law.

I wasn't trying to glaze over anything, my point was to show that we CAN own firearms if we so wish (and are fit to do so).

Yes, it takes a bit of paperwork and vetting, but the fact is, as long as you are a law abiding citizen with no history of mental health problems, it is a fairly easy process and it is your right to apply if you want.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
There are differences I believe in legal traditions over what is a right between countries. Largely to do with what extent the the legal system is grounded in roman/civil or common law tradition. Something (even in the US) does not need to be explicitly stated as a right to be a right.
I am sure someone with better legal knowledge than me can explain better but I think that in common law tradition you have the right to do what is not banned.
In practise there is no real difference when it comes to firearms are both the US and UK what you can or cant own/use is decided by by statute law. There is no absolute right to own a gun anywhere.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey
There are differences I believe in legal traditions over what is a right between countries. Largely to do with what extent the the legal system is grounded in roman/civil or common law tradition. Something (even in the US) does not need to be explicitly stated as a right to be a right.
I am sure someone with better legal knowledge than me can explain better but I think that in common law tradition you have the right to do what is not banned.

I've spend nearly a decade in the legal system, both as a paralegal and as an "other" that I have too much self-respect to define. That said, you are actually quite right--something we always used to say is that if the laws don't say you can't, then you can...and this is true. Sadly, though, I think American society is succumbing to the illusion that if the law doesn't say you can specifically, then you can't, and that's just not true.

But a "right," as defined in a dictionary, is a right, regardless of the country--the only thing that differs is what rights have been taken away.

In practise there is no real difference when it comes to firearms are both the US and UK what you can or cant own/use is decided by by statute law. There is no absolute right to own a gun anywhere.

That's not true--as I stated before, in America, we have an absolute right (as an adult citizen) to own a firearm. The only time that you cannot own one is if you have opted to do something that removes that right, such as commit a felony or get locked up in a place that doesn't allow them (although you can still own them, just not have access to them until you get released). So, our Constitution does not tell us that we can own firearms, it tells the federal government than they can not abridge the right to own a firearm...the right to own said arms was considered a universal right, and the law protects it, not grants it.

It's a subtle difference, but one worth noting.