Gun crime in the UK - law and controls

[teaboy5]

To own a handgun in NI you have to be of sound mind of course. And then join a club and attend the club and competition's on a regular basis for at least one year. You can then apply for a handgun if the above is met and the police are happy that all of the above checks out.

As setter has said there is also a large group of people who do need them for protection reasons and are allowed to carry them in public.

I see nothing wrong with any of the laws in place in NI in relation to gun ownership.

As I said in another thread, there is a massive amount of legally held fire arms in NI and there hasn't been any mass shootings by the general public that I am aware off.

 

[teaboy5]

Whoever told you this is a tool, an utter one at that and entirely not true unless your in a 1960's gangster movie.

Also if you shoot at a burglar expect to be facing murder or similar charges

Within the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend your home. And if this includes shooting at someone that is fine.

What it doesn't include is chasing the person down your lawn and shooting them in the back. Or for example shooting them 20 times in the kitchen when one shot to the upper body would have disabled them.

I see someone linked to Tony Martin, which was a pointless post. He was found to have shot them in the back when they were no longer a threat and that's why he got done along with other reasons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19886504

What about if someone shoots?
The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.
The judge at the intruders' trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."
The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.

Some people in this thread need to read up on the law around owning a gun before they go making silly comments. There is nothing wrong with gun's what's so ever. But there is something wrong with unsafe gun ownership which is one of the massive issues in the states.

 

[OhEsEcks]

As I said in another thread, there is a massive amount of legally held fire arms in NI and there hasn't been any mass shootings by the general public that I am aware off.

Left that to the scumbags. Went for an MRI today and had to head out to Ballykelly. Just driving along and saw the roadsign to Greysteel and said "****, I didn't realise that was so close". Then the missus piped up that her mum had been in Ballykelly at the hotel on a date the night that massacre happened. So as they were leaving the hotel ambulances and police cars were wailing past on the way to Greysteel. Only 4 miles from Ballykelly.

 

[teaboy5]

Left that to the scumbags. Went for an MRI today and had to head out to Ballykelly. Just driving along and saw the roadsign to Greysteel and said "****, I didn't realise that was so close". Then the missus piped up that her mum had been in Ballykelly at the hotel on a date the night that massacre happened. So as they were leaving the hotel ambulances and police cars were wailing past on the way to Greysteel. Only 4 miles from Ballykelly.

Well don't get me wrong there has been some mass killing in NI, but not due to some one going out on a rampage with their shotgun.

Gun threads on this forum are odd. It's the same old crap each time with people calling for a ban on all guns.

For example the young lad who shot dead the girl with a shotgun.

It would have be avoided easily if the owner has the gun stored safely. But what if he did? Would the lad of went into the knife and picked up a knife? We will never know.

 

[Mikeyboy]

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Alternatively;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19507678

Difference being, shooting someone in the face after being woken up in the middle of the night is more likely self defence, rather than lying in wait and shooting someone in the back.

You won't be granted a SGC if your reason for owning is self defence though.

 

[teaboy5]

Alternatively;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19507678

Difference being, shooting someone in the face after being woken up in the middle of the night is more likely self defence, rather than lying in wait and shooting someone in the back.

You won't be granted a SGC if your reason for owning is self defence though.

Did you not read the thread? I am just after quoting that.

 

[Mikeyboy]

Did you not read the thread? I am just after quoting that.

Calm down.

I'm not sitting here hitting F5 every 2 seconds to make sure I have the latest post before clicking submit.

 

[teaboy5]

Calm down.

I'm not sitting here hitting F5 every 2 seconds to make sure I have the latest post before clicking submit.

There was a good 20 minute gap. Just saying!

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Is it really a bonus if the risk of you being injured or killed overall is unchanged?

Is perception more important than actual risk?

The ban wasn't introduced to reduce gun crime as anyone with half a brain-cell understands that the vast majority of gun-crime is obviously committed with illegal guns.
It was however a DIRECT response to the Dunblane massacre and it's sole purpose was to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another Dunblane to occur.
By definition it was impossible to fail as once the ban went through it became PHYSICALLY impossible to legally own said weapons and go on a rampage! ergo impossible for a repeat event which was the sole purpose of the new legislation.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of the U.K supported the ban and still do to this day.
If the only negative side to the ban is a small minority of U.K citizens have to choose another hobby then that's a very small price to pay for making society safer. You can rattle on as much nonsense as you like about it making no difference but you're simply wrong and the empirical evidence from both the U.K and Australia clearly shows this. (I have linked to the stats and scientific study from Australia)

Homicide rate in the U.K has been dropping since 2002, relaxing gun laws will do nothing to help this and anyone who thinks it will are either utterly foolish or bias and being dishonest

As I said in another thread, there is a massive amount of legally held fire arms in NI and there hasn't been any mass shootings by the general public that I am aware off.

And like I told you in that thread you really should research better, Ireland have a serious gun problem at the moment and only this year have introduced new laws to tackle it!!

Dublin is gun murder capital of Europe
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/du...der-capital-of-europe-69575922-237669061.html
Guns in Ireland claimed 209 lives over a four year period
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/guns-ireland-claimed-209-lives-4845253

 

[Zenduri]

What about if someone shoots?
The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.
The judge at the intruders' trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

Generally speaking reasonable cause to fire a shotgun at an intruder comes if the person is under threat or feels sufficiently under threat. Eg the intruder is armed or excessively aggressive and due to attack. The point being with the above story is he fired at them but didn't kill or wound them. His actions were reasonable. if he had shot the intruder in the face im sure the outcome of this story would be completely different.

There is nothing wrong with gun's what's so ever. But there is something wrong with unsafe gun ownership which is one of the massive issues in the states.

This 100%

 

[teaboy5]

The ban wasn't introduced to reduce gun crime as anyone with half a brain-cell understands that the vast majority of gun-crime is obviously committed with illegal guns.
It was however a DIRECT response to the Dunblane massacre and it's sole purpose was to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another Dunblane to occur.
By definition it was impossible to fail as once the ban went through it became PHYSICALLY impossible to legally own said weapons and go on a rampage! ergo impossible for a repeat event which was the sole purpose of the new legislation.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of the U.K supported the ban and still do to this day.
If the only negative side to the ban is a small minority of U.K citizens have to choose another hobby then that's a very small price to pay for making society safer. You can rattle on as much nonsense as you like about it making no difference but you're simply wrong and the empirical evidence from both the U.K and Australia clearly shows this. (I have linked to the stats and scientific study from Australia)

Homicide rate in the U.K has been dropping since 2002, relaxing gun laws will do nothing to help this and anyone who thinks it will are either utterly foolish or bias and being dishonest

Jesus do you live in bubble? There is nothing wrong with owning guns.

What is your problem with them really? How much safer are you going to feel walking to Tesco if a ban on shotguns came into play tomorrow morning? I think we all know the answer to that and it's not "Much safer".

A gun is an easy tool in a mass killing, but there are many other weapon's that could be used. How many people could be killed if someone was to walk into tesco's and just start cutting people throats and stabbing them before they would be stopped?

But don't you be worrying about the many thousands of people who spend thousands on guns in their life time. And don't forget all the businesses who would then have to close up shop just because you want legally held fire arms banned.



What would be next on your ban list?

 

[OhEsEcks]

It was however a DIRECT response to the Dunblane massacre and it's sole purpose was to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another Dunblane to occur.

Didn't though, did it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

If someone with a legally held firearm flips, it's going to happen again. So you either get rid of them all, or you accept the fact that sometimes people are going to commit random acts of violence. And it's not like a total ban on guns solves the problem. In China and Japan, people regularly flip out and go on stabbing sprees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)

 

[teaboy5]

Generally speaking reasonable cause to fire a shotgun at an intruder comes if the person is under threat or feels sufficiently under threat. Eg the intruder is armed or excessively aggressive and due to attack. The point being with the above story is he fired at them but didn't kill or wound them. His actions were reasonable. if he had shot the intruder in the face im sure the outcome of this story would be completely different.



This 100%

Again if he fired and hit them and killed one I think the out come would have been the same.

As I pointed out earlier, he would be heading to jail if he say ran down the street firing after them or if a body was found in his kitchen with 8 shotgun sized holes in the person's chest.

 

[Zenduri]

The ban wasn't introduced to reduce gun crime as anyone with half a brain-cell understands that the vast majority of gun-crime is obviously committed with illegal guns.
It was however a DIRECT response to the Dunblane massacre and it's sole purpose was to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another Dunblane to occur.
By definition it was impossible to fail as once the ban went through it became PHYSICALLY impossible to legally own said weapons and go on a rampage! ergo impossible for a repeat event which was the sole purpose of the new legislation.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of the U.K supported the ban and still do to this day.
If the only negative side to the ban is a small minority of U.K citizens have to choose another hobby then that's a very small price to pay for making society safer. You can rattle on as much nonsense as you like about it making no difference but you're simply wrong and the empirical evidence from both the U.K and Australia clearly shows this. (I have linked to the stats and scientific study from Australia)

Homicide rate in the U.K has been dropping since 2002, relaxing gun laws will do nothing to help this and anyone who thinks it will are either utterly foolish or bias and being dishonest

Your ignorance is over 9000, it really is. If someone wants a gun to go on a rampage they only need to go on the darkweb to have one delivered. Your perception of false safety is staggering.

You do realize that handguns per say weren't actually banned don't you??? Just more red tape and pointless regulation. With a slot of a FAC you could go out and buy hundreds of rounds of Ammo and a 357 magnum revolver today and go on your murdering way.

The above 2 points urinated all over your argument of it never happening again due to more legislation.

Also the "vast majority" of the UK supported it is wrong. The government reacted in a knee jerk way, scare-mongered the sheep into believing them and the actual shooting groups and bodies did nothing to protect their own sport so the red tape was added.

Also with the misreported ban on handguns society isn't safer at all. police are taking more illegal guns off the streets form gangs and criminals than they ever did. Sheep like yourself just love the false sense of security ignorance delivers. The homicide rate dropping has nothing to very little to do with the handgun ban and you're just spouting your opinion as fact which sir.... it is not.

 

[teaboy5]

Didn't though, did it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

If someone with a legally held firearm flips, it's going to happen again. So you either get rid of them all, or you accept the fact that sometimes people are going to commit random acts of violence. And it's not like a total ban on guns solves the problem. In China and Japan, people regularly flip out and go on stabbing sprees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)

Good find.

I have a disliking for people wanting out right bans on things they don't understand or in some cases have never even used.

In the same silly mind set that Crazy think's in, I think we should ban cars! I could easily get in one and drive up the foot path and kill a few people that way!

 

[Zenduri]

Good find.

I have a disliking for people wanting out right bans on things they don't understand or in some cases have never even used.

In the same silly mind set that Crazy think's in, I think we should ban cars! I could easily get in one and drive up the foot path and kill a few people that way!

I want to ban kitchen knives because so many are used in stabbings across the UK, insane amounts in fact. Don't see this one happening though....

 

[OhEsEcks]

And like I told you in that thread you really should research better, Ireland have a serious gun problem at the moment and only this year have introduced new laws to tackle it!!

Dublin is gun murder capital of Europe
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/du...der-capital-of-europe-69575922-237669061.html
Guns in Ireland claimed 209 lives over a four year period
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/guns-ireland-claimed-209-lives-4845253

Also note that The Republic is not Northern Ireland. Ireland also has a very serious drug problem, particularly Dublin and the heroin trade. That's where these guns are coming from down South. The dealers are even fighting back against the Republicans. There was a dissident IRA fella shot llast year or the year before by drug dealers.Can't remember his name. Northern Ireland didn't really have the drug violence associated problems because the Provos either taxed them, or killed drug dealers (Speedy Fegan was a notorious drug dealer who used to have a safe house in the estate I lived in when I was younger. Was shot to death in Newry. Later the flat was bought by a friends dad. Got into it once. All tarted up like a palace with a large steel gate separating the downstairs from the upstairs). It wasn't until Adair took control of C company that drugs really started flooding into the North and Belfast. Used to get my weed and E's from the Dope Flats on the Shankill. And since it was paramilitary controlled, there wasn't much in the way of drugs violence until Adair tried to take over the UDA and the Loyalist Feud kicked off in the early 2000s (you can see the statistics for loyalist violence in the early 2000s on page 7 / table 7 of this document).

 

[Rroff]

Homicide rate in the U.K has been dropping since 2002, relaxing gun laws will do nothing to help this and anyone who thinks it will are either utterly foolish or bias and being dishonest

Depends how you look at it - indiscriminate application of "to relax gun laws" sure - however the net effect of rejigging the laws to relax certain aspects and tighten up other aspects of scrutiny may be another story.

This 100%

One thing I came to understand after spending awhile in the states is that most people here just won't comprehend the mentality of your average US legal gun owner.

I found that many of them not only have a higher awareness of the consequences (as you'd probably expect) but that often the misuse or escalation of or to firearms in an every day scenario is almost sacrilegious in a religious way to their second amendment rights and considered just as wrong as any attempt to regulate or curtail their rights.

I made the mistake of trying to sort of preach a more moderate stance :S that didn't go down well - it is sad that so often those rampages, etc. could have probably been prevented in hindsight with an only slightly more sensible approach to scrutiny of ownership.

 

[teaboy5]

And like I told you in that thread you really should research better, Ireland have a serious gun problem at the moment and only this year have introduced new laws to tackle it!!

Dublin is gun murder capital of Europe
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/du...der-capital-of-europe-69575922-237669061.html
Guns in Ireland claimed 209 lives over a four year period
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/guns-ireland-claimed-209-lives-4845253

I don't get the point of your post? In case you missed it, these are not legally held firearms. For gods sake one even has a massive "illegal firearms" bit in it. Also I wouldn't point out that I need to research more when you have a linked to 2 news articles referencing a different country.

Do you honestly think a ban on guns is going to stop some drug dealer from getting a hold of a gun? Or in your mind are these guys popping into the local gun store and filling out an application for that glock? And if a ban comes into play all of a sudden gun crime will stop?

I have owned guns for years and they stored within the law. They are used for clays, hunting and targets and provide me with hours of fun.

Here is a link for you.

http://www.u.tv/News/2015/09/17/NI-averaging-one-gun-crime-a-day-in-2015-45145

Again illegally held guns which ban will never stop.

What's your thinking behind a ban? Do you think a drug dealer is going say "Jesus lad's gun's are banned now for Joe Blogs down the street we best not use them anymore"

 

[IronWarrior]

I think the current law is fine and good, working very well. But I would like to see it open up a little more and allow people access to proper pistols again but with strict requirements as we do now.