Your views on gun laws in the UK

[kwerk]

How about if they made all semi-auto guns legal, but had let's say a £10,000 tax on buying one. And if it ever gets lost or stolen you get banned from owning any for 10 years. That way people would take some very special care in how they secure them. A £2000 safe would not sound expensive to protect an £10,500 glock.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard of people in the US having them stolen from their car over night, or stolen from their house while they were out because they left it under their bed or something. That's were the illegal ones come from. It's not like sons of anarchy with smuggled machines guns from Russia. They are nearly all stolen from careless people. They are so cheap people have loads of them and leave them lying around their house and cars. A few come from straw purchases where somebody else with a clean record buys it from a dealer and gives it to a criminal. So maybe random police checks to make sure you are actually in possession of the ones you've bought would get rid of that problem.

A really strict safety education program, starting with 5 year old school children would help reduce accidents/negligence. What do you do if you find a gun, etc.

Then when they are older teach them the safety rules of handling them. Then when you buy one have a safety exam. There's no mandatory safety training in the US except for hunting permits. You basically figure it out yourself.

I think those ideas would cut out a huge chunk of gun crime/death that America has. Americans would never go for any of it though because it's a slippery slope to more gun control.

There's no way to stop suicides and murders though.

 

[kwerk]

The other thing in America that doesn't help the crime problem is you don't need a license to buy one, just a instant criminal background check, and you don't need a license to buy ammo either.

If the UK had some stricter rules like that I don't think chavs would be able to get guns any easier than they can now. I know people say it's easy to get illegal guns but when you look at the facts they nearly all converted brococks and stuff like that, not real guns. And I think your average chav might start to have second thoughts on pulling a brocock on someone who might legally pull out a glock in return.

 

[kwerk]

There are thousands of these heart warming stories.

 

[Meridian]

How about if they made all semi-auto guns legal, but had let's say a £10,000 tax on buying one. And if it ever gets lost or stolen you get banned from owning any for 10 years. That way people would take some very special care in how they secure them. A £2000 safe would not sound expensive to protect an £10,500 glock.

So, only rich people are allowed to defend themselves with firearms then? Well, it would solve the main problem with general gun ownership: all those ghastly working-class people getting them.


M

 

[StriderX]

The gun laws are fine, deal with it.

 

[MeEsH BaKkA]

The gun laws are fine, deal with it.

This.

For hunting or target shooting you can pretty much have any rifle you want. You just need to justify your reason for the caliber you want, I.e you won't get a .308 for shooting rabbits on a small bit of land but you should easily be able to get a .17hmr or .22lr. If you were to shoot muntjac or Chinese water deer then you could probably get a .223 cf providing the land gets cleared. For target then pretty much you can get whatever you want based on the club, I'm pretty sure there is a .50 shooting club in England.

The strang bit about our gun law is the fact a gun like the Ruger 10/22 is legal (semi auto with 25rnd mags available) in .22lr (I think .22lr is the only caliber that you can but semi auto) but no other caliber cf or rf can be semi auto, they can all kill as much as each other so why allow some semis when there is no real use for them in Britain?

 

[hurfdurf]

The gun laws are fine, deal with it.

Then how will all the scared wimpy people ever feel safe?! (they won't even with a gun mind)

 

[anything I don't mind]

We need guns to protect us not from each other, but from the state. There is a great documentary about gun bans that i warn you is very traumatic as it covers all the major genocides of the last few 100 years and basically the documentary makes the point, that all major genocides and ethnic cleansing always coincides with gun confiscations or gun bans. First step to genocide is to remove the ability of the people to defend themselves.

Warning graphic footage.

 

[Joshct]

you cant use a gun if you can't get a gun.


You only need a gun as self defence if other people have guns.

Same with knives.





It is ridiculous to say we need guns.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Well no because most criminals don't follow laws anyway, so even if you ban knives (which is practically impossible) and guns, criminals don't follow the laws anyway. So you are only giving the criminals an advantage because now he knows that people won't have any weapons to defend themselves.

The state loves the idea of banning weapons because then it forces everyone to become more dependent on the state, while previously people could defend themselves. Now they have to call a number and wait a few hours to get a police officer to show up who might not otherwise care about your predicament as much as you do.

 

[MeEsH BaKkA]

We need guns to protect us not from each other, but from the state. There is a great documentary about gun bans that i warn you is very traumatic as it covers all the major genocides of the last few 100 years and basically the documentary makes the point, that all major genocides and ethnic cleansing always coincides with gun confiscations or gun bans. First step to genocide is to remove the ability of the people to defend themselves.

The state is not going to turn its guns on us now is it. Even if it did a bunch of conspiracy theorist ***** with Glocks won't last very long against one of the best equipped and trained armys in the world.

There is absolutely no reason for thus country to allow firearms for self defence.

 

[Joshct]

People rarely get shot in the UK, in USA its a daily occurance.


yes criminals ignore laws, so we should make it easy for them by opening gun shops everywhere and allowing them to carry?

Ridiculous.

Say what you like, we dont NEED guns, therefore why should we want them?

I agree its practically impossible to ban knives, they're an every day occurance... oh and whats that? yeah theres a lot more knife crime than gun crime.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Statistically yes, the more guns you have in circulation the more people are going to be harmed by guns. But there are some countries that have a very high gun ownership rate and have very low gun crime figures. Like Switzerland for example.

But if you take certain incidents in the UK where people have gone on a rampage, if people were allowed to defend themselves, those incidents might not have been so bad. Sure you could argue they might have been worse. But the point is that gun laws don't stop incidents with guns altogether. They just reduce the number. When you realy need a gun for protection, i am pretty sure you won't be singing the gun ban song.

People always go to the extreme though when it comes to this topic. If you are against gun bans, they people think you want everyone to be armed and for tesco to be selling m4's. That is not what i am advocating.

 

[MeEsH BaKkA]

Statistically yes, the more guns you have in circulation the more people are going to be harmed by guns. But there are some countries that have a very high gun ownership rate and have very low gun crime figures. Like Switzerland for example.

But if you take certain incidents in the UK where people have gone on a rampage, if people were allowed to defend themselves, those incidents might not have been so bad. Sure you could argue they might have been worse. But the point is that gun laws don't stop incidents with guns altogether. They just reduce the number. When you realy need a gun for protection, i am pretty sure you won't be singing the gun ban song.

People always go to the extreme though when it comes to this topic. If you are against gun bans, they people think you want everyone to be armed and for tesco to be selling m4's. That is not what i am advocating.

But there is no gun ban in England? You can apply for a shotgun today and be pretty much guaranteed to get a SGC, you an buy rifles providing you satisfy a firearms officer as to why you want one and the caliber you want to use.

Give me a scenario where I am going to need a gun to defend myself.

 

[Joshct]

Im not saying tesco would sell guns, but it's not an impossibility given how america sell guns.


Also if i were in the situation where i NEEDED a gun to defend myself, i'm pretty sure i wouldn't be thinking about a gun, it's just not a part of my life.


Saying more guns reduces gun crime is just a logical fallacy.

More guns gives more OPPORTUNITY for gun crime, thats just fact.
Legalizing guns means it is EASIER for people who will misuse them to get guns, thats just fact.

Do you disagree?

You cannot USE a gun if you don't have one, logical right? Therefore people who never would have used one before (law abiding citizens) would be using them, increasing the number of incidents. Even if its in self defence, i don't see a gun as warrented.

The distinction you have to make is, is shooting someone self defence? I see self defence as simply taking yourself out of harms way, in most situations that wouldn't involve downright killing the person, punching them? sure, knocking them to the ground? sure, obviously the circumstances change, if they pull a knife on you and you get into a struggle its different, but if you carry a gun for 'defence' you have the intent to use it, that doesn't make you any better than someone who uses it for illegal activities imo.

Im leaving this thread because clearly you wont see my point on this, and i wont see yours.

It is clear in my mind however that we do not need them. And should not have them.


(Final note: Shooting someone who broke into your house isnt self defence, knocking them down and getting out and calling the police is)

 

[bitslice]

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.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution is broken but that society itself has broken down. Removing the right to bear arms would not change anything other than lawful gun owners would be more reliant on the Police, and given how thuggish the US price have become I'd say that was a bad move.

Really you should be looking at why that society has chosen to glamourise gun violence, and that's a short trip to what Hollywood gets paid to do or record companies are paid to promote.


Imagine if you gave all the Armish 50cal machine guns and a buggy full of uzi's.
You could come back later and nobody would be dead and they would have melted the bullets down for fishing weights.

The US constitution isn't wrong, US society is just depraved.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Well actually statistics show that the regions with highest gun ownership have the lowest levels of crime (in the usa). Highest levels of crime can also be attributed to poverty and not necessarily directly attributed to gun ownership figures.

I can think of a million scenarios where you would be better off being armed. But that is besides the point, even if i gave a scenario if you are too scared or too dependent on the police for your safety then it wouldn't matter if you had a gun because you probably just sit in the corner and cry anyway.

It is not only the fact that it removes the ability for people to defend themselves, it also creates an environment where criminals know that people can't defend themselves. Just the whole idea of just not knowing if the shop keeper of the shop you plan to rob is armed or not, is often enough of a deterrent to prevent people from committing crime. When you take that away, criminals know then for a fact that the shop keeper is not armed because guns are illegal.

But the uk has always been overzealous when it comes to crime, we see that today when they go on for weeks about knife crime and there was only like 7 in an entire year out of 60 million people. They clearly need something more constructive to do with their time than to obsess over a bit violence. It is also completely utopian to think that you can remove violence from society completely, the only way that would be possible is through mind control and or drugging the population. Which i seriously think is not far off when it comes to the likes of the home office and the met.

 

[bitslice]

It is also completely utopian to think that you can remove violence from society completely

That depends on whether you think people are fundamentally good or bad.
Most gun crime seems to relate to poverty or greed rather than a desire to kill someone.

If you present people with a choice between a fulfilled life or a prison, then why would they chose the latter? It's being unable to fulfill people's expectations or giving them distorted values that creates this problem.

 

[MeEsH BaKkA]

Well actually statistics show that the regions with highest gun ownership have the lowest levels of crime (in the usa). Highest levels of crime can also be attributed to poverty and not necessarily directly attributed to gun ownership figures.

I can think of a million scenarios where you would be better off being armed. But that is besides the point, even if i gave a scenario if you are too scared or too dependent on the police for your safety then it wouldn't matter if you had a gun because you probably just sit in the corner and cry anyway.

It is not only the fact that it removes the ability for people to defend themselves, it also creates an environment where criminals know that people can't defend themselves. Just the whole idea of just not knowing if the shop keeper of the shop you plan to rob is armed or not, is often enough of a deterrent to prevent people from committing crime. When you take that away, criminals know then for a fact that the shop keeper is not armed because guns are illegal.

But the uk has always been overzealous when it comes to crime, we see that today when they go on for weeks about knife crime and there was only like 7 in an entire year out of 60 million people. They clearly need something more constructive to do with their time than to obsess over a bit violence. It is also completely utopian to think that you can remove violence from society completely, the only way that would be possible is through mind control and or drugging the population. Which i seriously think is not far off when it comes to the likes of the home office and the met.

I will give you my reason why guns should not be allowed in this country for "defence".

I can hit a target the size of a fist from 200-250yds times confidently 9/10 times. But there is no way I could be certain I could hit a person accurately and be sure that I am not going to injure another person by either missing or over penetration while being pumped up through fear and adrenaline. I don't think I could live with myself knowing I killed or seriously injured a person through my own rash actions.

It's not like being in the films, bullets don't just make some sparks if they hit a solid surface they will shatter or bounce with still huge amounts of energy which can very easily kill.

 

[kwerk]

So, only rich people are allowed to defend themselves with firearms then? Well, it would solve the main problem with general gun ownership: all those ghastly working-class people getting them.


M

I'm sure most people have spent £10k on cars, going out drinking, cigarettes, iphone contracts, music, sky tv, fast food, designer clothes, etc.

Self-defense is worth 10k to me. It's just like an insurance policy except you're paying all the premiums up front.

if your safety isn't worth 10k and you'd rather have a BMW instead of a Toyota then that's your choice.