Poll: UK Gun Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter NVP
  • Start date Start date

Should civilians have access to weapons?

  • Yes - Current law is fine, no changes needed

  • No - Only "Professional" users can be licensed

  • No - Remove all guns from Civilians

  • Yes - Current laws are too restrictive

Results are only viewable after voting.
Ahleckz said:
Yes, others picked knives. I guess we need to ask why did this guy pick his gun? For me I’d say guns are a step away from the brutality of a knife or hammer. Perhaps it’s easier to kill with a gun than a knife. It’s easier, less likely to cause injury to him, and psychologically may be easier. I’m just suggesting if he had to get up close and personal it may have had a different ending.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Whatever has happened in other cases cannot be read across to this one. I think the speed and detachment of shooting someone is a factor in a lot of gun related crime (see school shootings as an example of this).
 
NVP said:
He only mentioned alcohol and tobacco, neither of which are instant killers.
Click to expand...
Well dodged. As you seem to not care as to how/why people die, then I'd say that an instant death is preferable over a long drawn out death. Firearms related deaths in the UK are nearly insignificant in comparison. So if death is not your concern, what about the cost to the tax payer. If you prefer long drawn out deaths to instant deaths, are you OK with the cost of those deaths?
 
plasmahal said:
Well dodged. As you seem to not care as to how/why people die, then I'd say that an instant death is preferable over a long drawn out death. Firearms related deaths in the UK are nearly insignificant in comparison. So if death is not your concern, what about the cost to the tax payer. If you prefer long drawn out deaths to instant deaths, are you OK with the cost of those deaths?
Click to expand...
You infer quite a lot in this post.

Your argument was obvious from your first post, so I assumed my reference 'instant killer' in relation to alcohol and tobacco would highlight that the issue in this instance isn't simply the number of deaths, but the nature of them.

Hopefully this helps you see how your inferences above are misguided.
 
NVP said:
Yes, but these could be replaced by a regulated service, where strict controls are in place around central storage, frequent vetting etc.
Click to expand...
sorry if i am being dumb but i dont follow you.
are you suggesting that if i (i say me... i have no interest in shooting myself but i have grown up around it).... if i wake up one saturday morning and think its a nice day, i will take the dog out and go rabbit / pigeon / duck shooting and see if i can grab tomorrows lunch....

that could somehow be made safer by a regulated service? if so does that mean i would have to drive to, in reality the closest town, wait for the gun facility to open, sign out my gun and then drive back and then go shooting?
chances are it would be lunch time by then. It is essentially banning it without banning it.

but further more, despite the huge inconvenience, i do not think it would work....... IF i wanted to go on a killing spree i would just go and sign the gun out and then we are back to square 1.

add to that it is worse really because on top of that i am driving potentially 10 miles or more through the city with a gun in my car. I dont mean to sound stereotypical............. but statistically i fear this would ADD to gun crime as it really increases the opportunity for scally types to get hold of a gun.

Vetting.................... here is 1 area i do agree with. Some have said that the gun control is strict....... MAYBE in the last 20 years things have tightened up (they probably have to be honest) but I knew 1 chap who had a number of guns.

sober you would not meet a nicer bloke, would do anything for anyone............ but he was a drunk, lost his driving licence multiple times and was known to the local bobby as having threatened his wife as well as threw a bucket of boiling water on his next doors cat which was attacking his koi carp which lead to a fight. if ever there was a jeckyll and hyde it was him.
but he was still allowed his guns. Add to that his son had a juvenile criminal record and had access to them as well (he has since done hard time )

there is no way on this earth that guy should have been allowed fire arms, but he was. again tho, this is going back to the very early naughties so hopefully that has changed now (i lost touch with the guy in question so cant comment specificially)

Anyone here could possibly justifiably call me a hypocrite because i was fully in favour of the hand gun ban, despite supporting shotgun licences.

to me the difference is because a handgun has no utility in our society other than to commit crime or to shoot people.......... if you want to kill vermin, a rat trap or an air rifle is just as effective.. am sure there may be an edge case use for a pistol... but i cant see it.

OTOH a shotgun is a tool which, whilst it can be used to hurt people, just like a knife, or rat poison or a car can........... it isnt its intended use
 
Last edited:
Like you say, those inconveniences can be overcome.

You're right, it does highlight transportation risk etc. but these could potentially be negated with regulated/fitted lock boxes or travel cases etc.

Or if that isn't viable then the individual is not allowed, and required culling etc. would only be performed by regulated servicemen.


It's not impossible as people would like to believe, just annoying for some.
 
NVP said:
Like you say, those inconveniences can be overcome.

You're right, it does highlight transportation risk etc. but these could potentially be negated with regulated/fitted lock boxes or travel cases etc.

Or if that isn't viable then the individual is not allowed, and required culling etc. would only be performed by regulated servicemen.
Click to expand...
thy cant tho.... you are essentially just banning by proxy. how does culling performed by regulated servicemen equate to me going on an early morning shoot (which is when a lot of them happen). Duck shooting often happens the other side as well, so again unless this gun signout place is gonna be open till late at night to sign the weapon back in, then it wont work and will just create more potential points of crime.

and like i said, wont even stop a would be criminal

You want to ban the entire industry / hobby of wildfouling. which you are entitled to that opinion but dont try and dress it up like you are not.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
thy cant tho.... you are essentially just banning by proxy. how does culling performed by regulated servicemen equate to me going on an early morning shoot (which is when a lot of them happen).

You want to ban the entire industry / hobby of wildfouling. which you are entitled to that opinion but dont try and dress it up like you are not.
Click to expand...
I don't see where I've "dressed" anything up, perhaps you've misread my post?
 
bigmike20vt said:
its intended use isnt to hurt PEOPLE.

jesus christ i am all for a debate and happy for people to have views i dont agree with...... but talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Person, animal, what’s the difference? It’s only aim is to injure and kill. What else is it for? A flower pot?

You’re just trying to talk down the use of guns and the dangers they are.
 
Ahleckz said:
Person, animal, what’s the difference? It’s only aim is to injure and kill. What else is it for? A flower pot?

You’re just trying to talk down the use of guns and the dangers they are.
Click to expand...
not at all. in terms of free range food its about as good as you can get........ perhaps you are a vegan, in which case good for you.... but aside from some very very recent and expensive edge cases...... you cant eat meat without killing an animal.
You sound anti blood sport, which again, is fine, but whilst you are banning wildfouling, there are 100,000s of fishermen as well who are hurting fish. better ban them as well.

imo a shotgun is a tool, one which should be respected and used carefully, but unlike a handgun it has a perfectly sensible utility which doesnt involve shooting people which is why i distinguish them.
 
Last edited:
Depends what guns you're talking about. An assault rifle is not for play but yet loads of Americans have them. It's not called a love rifle is it?
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
not at all. in terms of free range food its about as good as you can get........ perhaps you are a vegan, in which case good for you.... but aside from some very very recent and expensive edge cases...... you cant eat meat without killing an animal.
You sound anti blood sport, which again, is fine, but whilst you are banning wildfouling, there are 100,000s of fishermen as well who are hurting fish. better ban them as well.
Click to expand...

I’d probably ban hunting for sport, I don’t think we need it but I’m not 100%. You don’t need shotguns for meat production. My point still stands, guns are designed for killing and hurting. You suggested they weren’t, which is absurd.

To refer it back to the OP, why did this guy need a shotgun in a school house, on school property? It’s not great is it? I think there should be stricter laws on who can have one, where they can be and why you need one.
 
NVP said:
You're right, it does highlight transportation risk etc. but these could potentially be negated with regulated/fitted lock boxes or travel cases etc.
Click to expand...
Rules about transportation are a bit vague. The official line is: "When firearms are being transported, the certificate holder must take reasonable precautions to make sure that the firearm, ammunition or shotgun is kept safe."

When I got my ticket, I asked my FLO what that meant, he was quite evasive and I should interpret the guidelines myself. I assume this is so that if someone has firearms stolen from their car, the police can put the blame on the owner because if they gave specific guidelines which were followed and the firearms stolen, the blame could be on the authorities for not giving secure enough instructions.

He basically told me "As long as you're satisfied they're secure, that's good enough"

Yeah, good enough until they get pinched then Plod have a get-out clause "they weren't secure enough".
 
bigmike20vt said:
OTOH a shotgun is a tool which, whilst it can be used to hurt people, just like a knife, or rat poison or a car can........... it isnt its intended use
Click to expand...
When I worked a clay-shooting ground in the early 90s, I instructed novices on safe gun handling. One of the first things I did was ask new users the question: "What is a shotgun for?". I used to get answers such as "breaking clays", "sport", "hunting game" etc. I'd say "No, it is for killing people. It is a weapon of war and should be treated as such at all times".
It used to get the message across.

Saying that though, we didn't practise what we preached. I remember driving down to the gun store to buy a bunch of shotgun ammunition for the ground owner..... without a valid FAC........ at age 15..... with 8 guns in the back of the site vehicle. The countryside has different rules ;)
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
To refer it back to the OP, why did this guy need a shotgun in a school house, on school property? It’s not great is it? I think there should be stricter laws on who can have one, where they can be and why you need one.
Click to expand...

The school has a rifle range and shooting club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom