Your views on gun laws in the UK

[Energize]

right so your case to demonstration that Britain has poor defence laws is that a man was found innocent of shooting someone breaking into his house?

No, it's the fact that the cps were able to prosecute him. There are many other reasons the UK has poor self defence laws, for example the inability to carry weapons such as knives to defend oneself, and the many innocents arrested by the police for carrying knives that were being used legitimately. And the expectation to retreat from confrontations, as opposed to the clearer and reasonable stand your ground laws found in the US.

 

[robj20]

And that is exactly why guns should be illegal because of idiots like you.

im a damn site safer around weapons than you, i take them very seriously. not sure why you revert to name calling. Too many tree hugging do-gooders in this country.

 

[KatanaDV20]

I just do not understand the defence of burglar scum in this country. If these scum break into your home they deserve a neat 9mm hole in them. If you dont wanna drop em then drill some in their legs to disable them.

But no one has any right to break into your home and we as innocents should be given the right to do ANYTHING to the burglar scum.

 

[ElliorR]

 

[nineteenforty4]

you seen the price of a decent lathe?

Anywhere from £30k for a toolroom lathe to £6 million for a CNC machine.

The barrel is the hardest part as it needs precision engineering. It could easily be done if you had access to a machine shop.

Barrel can be much easier if you don't want rifling, though crude rifling might be possible depending on what you could get hold of and smooth-bores can have slight ballistic advantages over rifled at v.close range as well.

You can make a poor-quality inaccurate machine pistol with very simple basic industrial tools and home-made doesn't mean bad for certain.
Besides your on about a killing spree - a very bad weapon could be used for such a task.

 

[D.P.]

im a damn site safer around weapons than you, i take them very seriously. not sure why you revert to name calling. Too many tree hugging do-gooders in this country.

You know nothing bout me so what a ludicrous statement. Besides which you just admitted you would murder people who entered your property. You are the last person that should ever own a firearm.

I don't see how environmentalists have anything to do with the topic of this thread or how you can at all determine if i am some kind of eco-warrior hippy just because I don't want innocent people to needlessly die.

 

[PermaBanned]

Well i mean they're not innocent, but it's not a just or fair punishment. Unless they pose a physical risk to the occupants then it's infinitely better to go through the proper judicial system and recoup any losses on insurance than to take matters into your own hands.

 

[D.P.]

Well i mean they're not innocent, but it's not a just or fair punishment. Unless they pose a physical risk to the occupants then it's infinitely better to go through the proper judicial system and recoup any losses on insurance than to take matters into your own hands.

They might be an innocent child who is lost, an innocent mentally handicapped person who is confused, an innocent elderly person with Alzheimer.

 

[Strife212]

Not being able to use any force unless you are physically threatened is ridiculous. It means that you'd have to watch a burglar taking your stuff and there would be literally nothing you could do to stop them.

 

[D.P.]

Not being able to use any force unless you are physically threatened is ridiculous. It means that you'd have to watch a burglar taking your stuff and there would be literally nothing you could do to stop them.

???
what garbage, of course you are allowed to use force. What you are not allowed to do is murder someone who posses no threat.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Not being able to use any force unless you are physically threatened is ridiculous.

Well thats complete and utter BS , have you come to that conclusion after reading the 'Daily Mail'

There isn't a single court in the entire U.K that would find you guilty of any crime if you were to reasonably restrain an intruder while you wait for the fuzz to arrive!

That said if you wanna risk your safety/life doing that for the sake of some replaceable material objects then more fool you! You obviously value your life very little!!

 

[Strife212]

Lol, I never said that it was actually the case, just responding to some earlier posts.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Tighter gun control since 1997 has done nothing to reduce gun crime, it had doubled by 2004/05.

Are you being deliberately stupid

Both the 1997 acts regarding the banning of handguns WERE NOT introduced to reduce generic gun crime, they were a direct result of massacres like Hungerford and Dunblane where LEGALLY HELD firearms were used and therefore by definition the acts CANNOT fail!
Funnily enough criminals/gangs committing crimes don't use licensed traceable guns


So people saying the 1997 gun law was stupid are making themselves look really foolish, it's a law that simply cannot fail at achieving what it set out to

 

[OhEsEcks]

So in short, millions of lawful gun owners were punished for the behaviour of two individuals.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

So in short, millions of lawful gun owners were punished for the behaviour of two individuals.

Millions Got any evidence to support that number or have you just plucked it out the air??

So in short, your hobby is more important than human life?

 

[OhEsEcks]

Millions Got any evidence to support that number or have you just plucked it out the air??

You mean aside from the hundreds of thousands who already owned firearms at the time and the possible numbers of those that have been unable to since Dunblane? (Current stats put the number of legally registered firearms at over 2 million with over 800k people in the UK legally allowed to have them). And I'm not sure if that is taking into account the numbers of security service personal issued with PPWs as the government doesn't comment on those for security reasons.

So in short, your hobby is more important than human life?

I really dislike the appeal to emotion fallacy argument of "WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN/INNOCENT LIVES" when arguing about gun legislation.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

I really dislike the appeal to emotion fallacy argument of "WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN/INNOCENT LIVES" when arguing about gun legislation.

fallacy argument
It's a case of stating the FACTS why handguns were banned in 1997, like it or lump it tbh!

Ohhh and as suspected that 2 million figure was plucked out the air

 

[OhEsEcks]

fallacy argument
It's a case of stating the FACTS why handguns were banned in 1997, like it or lump it tbh!

Ohhh and as suspected that 2 million figure was plucked out the air

No. You made an appeal to emotion when you said; "So in short, your hobby is more important than human life?"

I said "millions". The 2 million comment was about the number of legally registered firearms. Which is backed up by the stats from gunpolicy.org, you should have a look at it. But when you add Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK together, yes, millions of owners, with millions of legally held firearms between them. And we should include those that never got the chance to own them because of stupid legislation after Dunblane.

If you want some facts though....

There have been three massacres on the UK mainland. That's Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria in 2010. Alternatively there have been 10 in Northern Ireland. Three of which was British forces opening fire. The Miami show band massacre was a fourth massacre that was committed by the UVF but 5 off-duty British soldiers were also involved (And let's not forget to mention the massacres by British forces that occurred in Ireland when it was completely under British rule. Croke Park being the main one before independence).

If I was to say that because British soldiers were involved in more massacres on British soil than loner gunmen and we should ban the British army and police services, that would be a fallacy. You cannot hold the entire British army to account for the actions of a few. In the same way you cannot hold all legitimate firearms holders to account for the actions of three people. Three.

Number of Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United Kingdom is 4,060,000

Number of Licensed Firearm Owners
The number of licensed gun owners in the United Kingdom is reported to be 861,958

Number of Registered Firearms
The number of registered guns in the United Kingdom is reported to be 2,158,572

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Angilion]

Yes, the one where the attacker climbed up scaffolding to an upstairs window trying to break into his house shouting he was going to kill him, after making threatening phone calls. A clear case of self defence.

You try to make it sound like the attacker was sniped as he was walking down the street...

No, I make it sound like was shot while outside the house, through a window. That's what I said and that's what happened. That's why the case needed a legal precedent for clarification - it was a deliberate killing of someone who had not yet broken in.

Once again, I will point out that the killer was acquitted on the grounds of reasonable force in defence.

So the one example you can provide to "support" your claim that we don't have strong defence laws in this country is an example of exactly the opposite - you can shoot people dead in this country and have it ruled reasonable force in defence. How much further would you like to take the law? Allow torturing them first? Automatic acquittal of anyone who claims defence?

I'm not aware he was carrying it with him. It simply demonstrates the character of the man, and that he was obviously trying to kill Mr Batchelor.

Ah, right. An unsubstantiated claim of a rumour from an unknown source is all you need.

 

[Angilion]

We are not the wild west, and right to bear arms was drawn up in a time where having weapons was pretty much a necessity. The world has progressed a bit since then.

The wild west wasn't the wild west. The wild west is fiction invented for the purpose of drama. In reality, the "wild west" was a remarkably law-abiding place.

I can just imagine the number if binge-drink issues would be caused if guns were in the mix.

It would be horrendous. Our culture doesn't include widespread gun use and it wouldn't fit. Maybe after a generation or two it would calm down to USA levels of death, but to begin with it would be a nightmare.