Your views on gun laws in the UK

C.R.A.Z.Y · 15 Apr 2012 at 23:58

Why are you talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why handguns were banned in the U.K ???????

George Hincapie · 15 Apr 2012 at 23:58

Castiel said:
You might want to inform your local constabulary instead.

They know.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 15 Apr 2012 at 23:59

Dolph said:
Thanks for proving my point.

I take it you support the ban then ??

Dolph · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:00

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Why are you talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why handguns were banned in the U.K ???????

You just confirmed that the handgun ban was a kneejerk reaction to an extreme event, rather than a useful law.

As I said, thanks for proving my point.

George Hincapie · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:00

Xordium said:
And why exactly would I care but for what it's worth I've had my share of times down the whistle and duck.

Stacking blankets doesn't count

C.R.A.Z.Y · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:02

Dolph said:
a useful law.

A useful law :mad:

Preventing the slaughter of fifteen 5-6 year old kids and their teacher isn't useful :rolleyes:

WoW, you are extremely cold and selfish imho.

Castiel · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:02

Dolph said:
But less people being killed by guns is utterly irrelevant if the same number of people are killed overall.

how many people were killed in firearms related murders prior to the ban, how many after?

And does the risk, however small of a recurrence or similar of Dunblane or Hungerford not outweigh the need to carry a gun for personal protection, especially when there is no evidence that doing such reduces crime on the person and if you compare the UK to the US the relative incidence of gun related crime is significantly greater in the country with the relaxed gun laws.

Can you also guarantee that increasing gun ownership would not have added to that murder total, and lets not forget the potential for increased incidents of gun related accidents.

I see nothing wrong with gun ownership as long as the weapon is secured within the facility ofthe sports/gun club where it is used.

There is no need to have open gun ownership solely for the purpose of self-protection.....unless you can supply solid evidence why gun ownership would in fact lower the incidence of crimes on the person?

Nitefly · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:03

Dolph said:
Is anyone apart from me actually going to present any statistics to support their position, or is this going to be another OCUK gun laws thread where the only side that provides any evidence is the gun bans are pointless lobby and everyone else just goes on and on about how they think the world should be?

If guns should be banned, then it should be based on evidence.

You apply this approach to most things (if not all things) law related, but I actually think taking a 100% liberal stance on things and always foot stomping for evidence is actually almost as dangerous as playing blind to all evidence entirely. Some decent arguments and policy decisions may require no evidence, but more often by their very nature any evidence for it being put forward can only be causal at best. There is a very compelling argument that this hinders the legislation process and leads to ineffective law making because it becomes impossible to restrict or place limitations on anything.

My old favourite that always comes up in this instance is child pornography - you simply cannot create a decent argument using 'evidence' that justifies why people who have not harmed children themselves cannot view such images. It is an entirely moral law - we ban them as it sends the wrong message out to society, despite the fact that it's incredibly difficult to actually establish any harm caused (unless somebody wants to try their best with pathetic supply and demand via web traffic, which is the flimsiest of the flimsy arguments as it's negligible per person and entirely incidental). I think it's absolutely right that child pornography should be illegal and if I have to use moral reasons to justify it, then so be it.

Bringing it back to the guns, despite advocating for their illegality, the same arguments don't always work with everything. There are many laws that I disagree with that I believe are made on entirely moral grounds. Just like with religion or belief, it's not impossible to allocate moral and evidence requirements to different areas of criminal law. In the case of guns and child pornography, I believe compelling arguments can be made against them, even if they are almost entirely morally based.

Castiel · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:05

George Hincapie said:
They know.

They know that AK47 Assault rifles are readily available to buy, yet have allowed that to continue?

George Hincapie · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:05

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
A useful law

Preventing the slaughter of fifteen 5-6 year old kids and their teacher isn't useful
WoW, you are extremely cold and selfish imho.

You need to grasp that the law isn't going to stop anyone doing anything if they are committed to do it and have the drive to succeed. No-one is suggesting that killing children isn't dreadful, but the law won't stop it happening. The law only works if the populace respect it and are fearful of the consequences. If a person has no respect for, or fear of the law then they are capable of unimaginable things.

Dolph · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:05

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
A useful law

Preventing the slaughter of fifteen 5-6 year old kids and their teacher isn't useful
WoW, you are extremely cold and selfish imho.

Given the frequency of such events, the law was unnecessary and draconian.

Also, appeal to emotion is a fallacy, and fallacies are a terrible basis for laws.

George Hincapie · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:07

Castiel said:
They know that AK47 Assault rifles are readily available to buy, yet have allowed that to continue?

Not every constabulary, but certainly the Met, Greater Manchester and a few others. Obviously they don't 'allow' anything, but we all know the Police have limited resource. If drugs can make it into the country, then I don't see why anyone should be surprised if firearms do as well.

As I said, e-mail is in trust if you want to discuss further.

Surveyor · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:09

Dolph said:
Given the frequency of such events, the law was unnecessary and draconian.

So we shouldn't have the law and accept that by not having it these events will occur even if infrequently?

C.R.A.Z.Y · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:10

Dolph said:
Given the frequency of such events, the law was unnecessary and draconian.

WHAT!

So it's o.k for the odd massacre to happen just so that a minority of people like you can shoot guns in your back garden :confused:

Like I said, utterly cold and selfish!!

Castiel · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:13

George Hincapie said:
Not every constabulary, but certainly the Met, Greater Manchester and a few others. Obviously they don't 'allow' anything, but we all know the Police have limited resource. If drugs can make it into the country, then I don't see why anyone should be surprised if firearms do as well.

Ah!, now I did not say that they do not enter the country....I said that they are not readily available.

The vast majority of the public in this country wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to source an AK Assault weapon.......most would have difficulty in sourcing any kind of usable firearm.

I can tell you a dozen places that are likely areas in which to start, but unless you have very specific contacts and a certain 'way about you' you will likely end up getting robbed, scammed, hurt or at best, ignored, not obtaining a gun.

Xordium · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:14

George Hincapie said:
Stacking blankets doesn't count

Yer, just one of the lazy buggers who got in the trauma helicopter to triage the likes of you and Castiel so you got back to see your families again. Sorry I wasn't in the SAS or anything really fancy like that but strangely enough I did learn what penetrative trauma by gunshot actually does to the human body.

Dolph · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:15

Nitefly said:
You apply this approach to most things (if not all things) law related, but I actually think taking a 100% liberal stance on things and always foot stomping for evidence is actually almost as dangerous as playing blind to all evidence entirely. Some decent arguments and policy decisions may require no evidence, but more often by their very nature any evidence for it being put forward can only be causal at best. There is a very compelling argument that this hinders the legislation process and leads to ineffective law making because it becomes impossible to restrict or place limitations on anything.

My old favourite that always comes up in this instance is child pornography - you simply cannot create a decent argument using 'evidence' that justifies why people who have not harmed children themselves cannot view such images. It is an entirely moral law - we ban them as it sends the wrong message out to society, despite the fact that it's incredibly difficult to actually establish any harm caused (unless somebody wants to try their best with pathetic supply and demand via web traffic, which is the flimsiest of the flimsy arguments as it's negligible per person and entirely incidental). I think it's absolutely right that child pornography should be illegal and if I have to use moral reasons to justify it, then so be it.

Bringing it back to the guns, despite advocating for their illegality, the same arguments don't always work with everything. There are many laws that I disagree with that I believe are made on entirely moral grounds. Just like with religion or belief, it's not impossible to allocate moral and evidence requirements to different areas of criminal law. In the case of guns and child pornography, I believe compelling arguments can be made against them, even if they are almost entirely morally based.

I disagree, especially with your comparison of guns and child porn. child porn is rightly illegal because it cannot be made consensually (ignoring the bizarre prohibitions on cartoons etc).

By contrast, guns can be used for various, legal purposes, including recreation, hunting, self defence and so on. It is entirely possible to own and use firearms without violating the rights of others (which is, incidentally, why a line can be drawn around nuclear weapons and the like in civilian hands). The fact that this can be done makes the situation incomparable to child porn, and comparable with other balanced rights.

Castiel · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:15

Dolph said:
Also, appeal to emotion is a fallacy, and fallacies are a terrible basis for laws.

maybe, but the shooting of 17 people is a reasonable basis to consider one.

George Hincapie · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:15

Castiel said:
Ah!, now I did not say that they do not enter the country....I said that they are not readily available.

The vast majority of the public in this country wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to source an AK Assault weapon.......most would have difficulty in sourcing any kind of usuable firearm.

I can tell you a dozen places that are likely areas in which to start, but unless you have very specific contacts and a certain 'way about you' you will likely end up getting hurt, not a gun.

Fair enough. I accept that Joe Public may not have a clue, but I was posting from my perspective. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

I've nothing else to add to this thread except to reiterate my initial stance; no personal concealed carries should be allowed, but happy for home defence.

George Hincapie · 16 Apr 2012 at 00:16

Xordium said:
Yer, just one of the lazy buggers who got in the trauma helicopter to triage the likes of you and Castiel so you got back to see your families again. Sorry I wasn't in the SAS or anything really fancy like that but strangely enough I did learn what penetrative trauma by gunshot actually does to the human body.

It was a light hearted REMF comment to show no hard feelings. Take it in the spirit it was meant