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.
Most people travel to shoots with the guns in the boot, you can get travel cabinets that are bolted in but they are usually smaller and require the gun breaking down.
 
Rilot said:
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....
Click to expand...
There are no regulations as to who can buy shotgun cartridges. Anyone can rock up at a gun shop and buy them although they are age limited now. There probably wasn't an age limit all those years ago.
 
Rilot said:
And how long does it take to take the barrels off a rear-break over-and-under? I can do it in 5-seconds flat.
Click to expand...

You are right, but isn't a requirement.

The cabinets bolted into the boot can also take up a lot of space, never bothered me as I had one in the back of an old Hilux bolted through the chassis, plenty of space and wasn't going anywhere :D
 
Feek said:
There are no regulations as to who can buy shotgun cartridges. Anyone can rock up at a gun shop and buy them although they are age limited now. There probably wasn't an age limit all those years ago.
Click to expand...
You still need a valid shotgun certificate to purchase cartridges, but not to possess them. So for example I could go into a shop, buy 250 cartridges and give them to a random person walking in the street and nobody would be breaking the law, but if the shop sold to that random person then they'd be in a lot of bother. Stupid rule really.
 
Its a tricky one. There is a whole section of the economy and jobs which benefits from shooting as a hobby.

But it is something reserved for the quite wealthy. As someone usually interested in quite technical hobbies, shooting rifles would be quite interesting to me (not shotguns, they are coarse tools with no finesse). But I live in suburban Birmingham not in the plains of the US so I can't just pop out into the wild with a high powered rifle and take out some wabbits.

So as it's so unequal in it's opportunity for participation, I'd not be too bothered if the hobby was banned completely.

Guns don't kill people, wobbers do.
 
Last edited:
danlightbulb said:
Its a tricky one. There is a whole section of the economy and jobs which benefits from shooting as a hobby.

But it is something reserved for the quite wealthy. As someone usually interested in quite technical hobbies, shooting rifles would be quite interesting to me (not shotguns, they are coarse tools with no finesse). But I live in suburban Birmingham not in the plains of the US so I can't just pop out into the wild with a high powered rifle and take out some rabbits.

So as it's so unequal in it's opportunity for participation, I'd not be too bothered if the hobby was banned completely.
Click to expand...
i know you mention rifles and not shotguns however shooting is not a hobby just for the rich.... arguably it is a hobby weighted towards those in the country, and certainly the high end pheasant shoots may be geared towards toffs......... but i was bought up on sunday lunches of rabbit, pidgeon and wild duck and it was partly because my parents could not afford meat from the shops.

even now my parents are much better off, but 80% of my dads shooting is completely free - tho he does pay to go on some (of the cheaper) pheasant shoots.

i know nothing about shooting with rifles however as that was not our families thing. (afaik you would be looking more at things like deer, not rabbits if you were using a high powered rifle however, and i can imagine that is not cheap) - unless you mean an air rifle
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Yeh, no I understood what you were trying to illustrate but your example just didn't work as it's based around the logic that once concerns are identified the suicide is prevented, which is flawed logic.

Yes, you can assume they would have killed them by any means, but you can also assume it was the presence of the firearm that also acted as an enabler in the lead up, we don't know.

...
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point.

It was that even a highly regulated service with regular contact does not reliably identify potential harmful behaviour. In short, people lie and that makes it difficult.

I'm not against more regular/ stringent checks on firearm owners/ applicants, but it will not stop these incidents. They are such low volume, the money would probably be better spent elsewhere- general mental health services, for example.

That's a fair point. Using a blade requires a lot of commitment.
 
potatolord said:
That wasn't my point.

It was that even a highly regulated service with regular contact does not reliably identify potential harmful behaviour. In short, people lie and that makes it difficult.

I'm not against more regular/ stringent checks on firearm owners/ applicants, but it will not stop these incidents. They are such low volume, the money would probably be better spent elsewhere- general mental health services, for example.

That's a fair point. Using a blade requires a lot of commitment.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, yes that would be hard to regulate against, but perhaps with an increased frequency and tighter thresholds the potential risk could be reduced slightly.

In addition to just commitment, it isn't thought of as a weapon initially, its thought of as a utensil present in all households. A gun, however, is thought of as a weapon, and knowing you have it to hand could enable unimaginable thoughts to some who are mentally unstable.
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Oh I see, yes that would be hard to regulate against, but perhaps with an increased frequency and tighter thresholds the potential risk could be reduced slightly.

In addition to just commitment, it isn't thought of as a weapon initially, its thought of as a utensil present in all households. A gun, however, is thought of as a weapon, and knowing you have it to hand could enable unimaginable thoughts to some who are mentally unstable.
Click to expand...

It's possible a regulated service might reduce incidents, but it is such small numbers of deaths it would be hard to know whether it was effective.

That's hard to argue against, so I won't!

I keep coming back to "how many domestic killings/ attempted killings happen a year, and what proportion use firearms?". Every time, that makes me think that money could be better spent elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NVP
shauncr91 said:
You still need a valid shotgun certificate to purchase cartridges
Click to expand...
Ahh OK, thanks. That must have changed because I've never been asked to show a certificate when buying cartridges. Just as well because I don't have a shotgun certificate, mine are all on my FAC and I've never actually been asked to show that when buying cartridges!
 
sigma said:
please don't add me to your hit list :p
Click to expand...

I apologise if people think I'm attacking anyone, I don't mean to. I know I may come across as abrupt or even condescending, but I honestly try to be nice with a bit of humour now and then. However, I will be the first to admit that since all my recent personal troubles I have lost patience and empathy, I'm working on it. So please don't take anything I say personally, I'm just another noise on the internet :)
 
If I went anywhere to buy shotgun cartridges and they didn't know me I had to show a certificate so the odds of anyone in this day and age buying them is remote but not impossible.

I started shooting pigeons years ago and it was a wonderfull feeling seeing them fall to the ground - thousands and thousands of them- 35 year of pure pleasure but unfortunately my master right eye has wet macular.







CLAY PIGEONS of course.:)
 
Yes, obviously a reduction of all deaths would be preferred, but this thread was initially about gun ownership and the associated risks :)
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Yes, obviously a reduction of all deaths would be preferred, but this thread was initially about gun ownership and the associated risks :)
Click to expand...
And I think it's fair to say that those associated risks in the UK a very, very small.

I get when something tragic happens, it's a point of discussion, but usually ends being blown out of proportion.
 
NVP said:
I apologise if people think I'm attacking anyone, I don't mean to. I know I may come across as abrupt or even condescending, but I honestly try to be nice with a bit of humour now and then. However, I will be the first to admit that since all my recent personal troubles I have lost patience and empathy, I'm working on it. So please don't take anything I say personally, I'm just another noise on the internet :)
Click to expand...

Shout if you need a chat :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom