The Parachute regiment did it twice in Northern Ireland.
Your views on gun laws in the UK
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
The Parachute regiment did it twice in Northern Ireland.
Man of Honour
I think old bill manage admirably the way things are now although I do think there should be more Armed response units so that they can get on scene quicker.
As for the general public having hand guns I am totally against it, Most of them cannot even operate a car responsibly let alone a hand gun.
As for the general public having hand guns I am totally against it, Most of them cannot even operate a car responsibly let alone a hand gun.
Current legislation is already pretty tough regarding who can have what. Re-allowing handguns with the same regulations about who can have them would be ideal. For instance, currently in Northern Ireland you can still legally own a pistol for "personal protection" (PPW) because of the security situation. Despite this, they don't issue pistols to everyone that puts in an application for one. Security services usually get them by default. Though there are those who refuse them. And they don't issue them unless there is a real and documented threat to your personal safety (paper trails of a history of threats made or intimidations committed).
Soldato
How would lifting the ban on handguns kept inside of shooting clubs at all times?, if it's only for shooting at the club then I see no reason for people to have them at home.
I agree that it's unfair to punish people who practice the sport - but let's be serious here, the last group in concerned with is the sportsmen/women who wish to target shoot (they usually are quite well disciplined) - but the rest of them.
IMO its broken because back there I keep seeing people dying to guns and people getting killed at schools or other wierd shootings that IMO could be avoided.
During the Troubles when NI was in the middle of a concerted terrorist threat and the province was effectively under a form of martial law.
Also what do you think would happen if everyone in NI was in fact armed?
Or if the riots in the summer had hordes of civilians totting firearms?
Clearly you don't seem to have considered this at all beyond the'hey it would be cool to have a gun' argument.
Very bad idea. What you effectively do is signpost exactly where handguns are to criminals, all in once place that is easy to find.
It also means that all the maintenance of the weapon needs to be done at the club for which it may not have the facilities. The archery club I belong to doesn't have bow maintenance equipment available at the club facilities and they are arguably simpler and cheaper to maintain.
Which is where the licence laws come in (which could arguably have prevented Dunblane if they had been followed properly). What we have currently is a blanket law that impacts the law abiding and is of dubious benefit anyway. It wasn't like we had a huge number of incidents involving handguns prior to the ban.
Before the handgun ban most people didn't want to own or shoot handguns so why do you think it would suddenly change now?
And yet they still massacred civilians, tried to blame it on terrorists and were found to be lying in the case that made it to court. People are still looking for answers about the Ballymurphy massacre.
I don't know. Why don't you tell us?
I don't know. Why don't you tell us?
You're making assumptions.
Soldato
It's pretty obvious that security would be beefed up, the availability of guns would still be greatly reduced while allowing people to still practice the sport.
Regarding maintenance, these are all minor technicality's which could be changed.
I still see no reason for anybody to require a handgun (assuming they are allowed to continue to practice the sport in a club) - that's the only justifiable reason to want to own one.
The problem isn't the career criminals, or the gang members - they will get guns regardless of the legality.
Not giving guns to the joe public helps in other matters, like the jilted ex who blows his head off (shortly after killing the rest of his family) - the depressed school kid who takes it out on his class-mates, the child who finds his dads gun & sprays the back wall with his brains, the idiot in the backyard who fires a weapon & kills somebody walking by.
I'm aware that people in a fit of rage do some terrible things (even with knifes), beat wifes, children or other things - but by removing a weapon from the situation reduces the chances of it escalating.
But stabbing somebody to death isn't the same as shooting a person at range.
So you admit that you don't actually know what you are talking about and then accuse me of making assumptions.....haha. what are you, 12?
Can you give any actual examples of where the UK Police or Armed Forces have turned there weapons on the general public that doesn't include the troubles?
You made a claim that it happens enough to warrant arming the general public so they can defend themselves..also can you explain what the possible outcomes would be when members of the public open fire on trained highly armed professionals.....
You are basically advocating a position that would lead to significant civilian deaths and injuries in situations that currently see very few.
Last edited:
I don't think it would help all that much and cause more problems than it solves. Sensible home ownership would probably be as secure if not more so.
The same could be said for my bow, I would be seriously aggrieved if that had to be kept at a club and prior to any competition I would have to go to said club and book it out.
But as we didn't have this happening prior to handguns being made illegal why do you think it would start happening now?
The victim is still just as dead so I would argue the difference is minimal. There is just no evidence to suggest that sucides or murders would be more frequent just because of the limited availability of handguns.
I thought you had the answers to the questions you asked. I don't know what would happen to the questions you asked as I am not omnipotent. Unless you don't know what you are talking about and were simply raising the bar/moving the goal posts? Am I 12? Are you assuming or just trying to be childishly insulting?
I know the answers...yet you made the claims, yet you now admit that you do not understand the consequences of those claims, neither can you substantiate them. It isn't up to me to prove you claims for you but when I return home tonight I will accommodate you.
I ask whether you are 12 or not because of the childish way in which you conduct yourself and replied to the questions asked.
If you know the answers then why didn't you just provide them? Why not say "this will happen because... X, Y and Z". Why ask the question at all except for an argument by question fallacy? The fact you didn't answer my own argument by question fallacy of your own argument by question fallacy... we're gonna have to conclude that you don't know either but I would guess that you like to appear you do know all the time.
And I made what claims exactly?
You ask whether I'm 12 or not because you might enjoy the argument from age fallacy. As for being childish, I'm not the one questioning the age of posters like it in some way benefits my argument... I don't know what age you are. And I don't really care. And I haven't questioned what you age might be in a derogatory way like the revelation of it might somehow lessen or heighten the authority of your opinion.
See you tonight.
Soldato
Hi,
My names OhEsEcks & I like to try to make everything a fallacy to compensate for the fact I don't have any evidence or facts to backup my stupid claims.
We covered this on the last page. According to yourself, you can't get on the website I provided as my source. So be quiet until you can get on and can have a read. Stop making yourself look foolish with this kind of post.
Haha.
You claim that people should have the right to arm themselves in the UK to protect themselves against State Force.
I ask you questions related to that claim and the potential consequences.
You admit that you dont know the answers which limits the veracity of your claim and thus your argument.
That was an opinion. Not a claim. There is a difference. You asked me questions that I can't answer because nobody knows. Including you. I admit that I don't know because I honestly don't know. And believe it or not, occasionally it's OK not to know. Particularly when the questions being asked are unknowable.
You obviously can't grasp simple logic
Were the weapons Thomas Hamilton used illegally held as defined by Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 ? NO
Were the weapons Derrick Bird used illegally held as defined by Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 ? NO
The laws were introduced to 100% prevent repeat massacres occurring using the particular weapons that were banned, it really is simple and by definition cannot fail!
Basically society is saying if you wanna go kill loads of people with an AK-47 / M1 carbine ..etc (two of the many weapons I have actually shot and can personally vouch for their accuracy, reliability and deadly power),
then your going to need to break the law first, we sure as hell aren't going to legally provide you with them!!