Poll: UK Gun Laws

[NVP]

IMO in this country we mostly have the balance right - gun violence is rare, outside of criminal activity/gang stuff even more rare. If we were seeing even small numbers of mass shooting events it might be another story but domestic dispute related homicide/suicide situations where the firearm is ultimately a relatively small component of that IMO aren't grounds for changing gun laws in any fundamental way.

This perspective to me is problematic, as you're underplaying the influence an accessible fireman makes in a volatile situation. I've stated earlier how enabling it could be on a person's psyche, also how it identifies as a weapon compared with household knives, plus the many other posts in this thread around this aspect of the incident, so I can't be so blasé and dismissive if I want to remain objective when analysing.

even as someone who has no interest in guns, i think you are under estimating exactly how many people in this country use them.

of course it is possible that given my back ground it is me who is over estimating them i suppose

Not at all, the quantity of "fun" users is the major issue I have.

And what are the 'little more annoyances' for those who both legally and responsibly own firearms?

I know you've been keeping up with the thread, so I won't re-hash everything, but simply removing them from the casuals homes and having them stored in localised secure and controlled units etc.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. The ultimate "severity" is death. I think the point @plasmahal is making is that your likelihood of being killed with a gun in the UK is minuscule. The best stats I can find (for year ending March 2021) are that 7% of homicides were committed with a gun (35 people) - (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021). Your likelihood of being murdered in the UK is pretty low anyway, <1,000 per year.

Yes, death. The death of an innocent child in this instance. They may not occur often, but they don't need to when the impact is so great. As I said, assessing risk is not always about frequency, but also severity.

If the stats are anything like the US I'd imagine that the majority of gun deaths will be suicide so I can imagine there might be ~100+ gun deaths per year (total) at the moment in the UK.

I'm glad you mention America, as they appear to have become numb to the daily occurrences, here I don't think we are.

The idea of any more laws or regulations to control gun deaths in the UK is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even if there were any more laws criminals would still get hold of them anyway so there still could be gun deaths (like the Christmas Eve shooting in Liverpool in 2022).

Again, it's about reducing the risk of occurrence. Rarity vs severity, risk vs fun.

You'll notice that the most common method of murder in the UK is via knife / sharp implement (40% of all murders). I assume you also want to introduce more controls on knives, such as allowing them only in a professional environment, like a restaurant?

The misguidance of this perspective was pointed out earlier in the thread.

For further context there are about 1,500 vehicle related deaths in the UK each year, just to put the odds into perspective versus being shot (https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...d-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021).

Please elaborate on your point.



Edit: I don't agree with the wording of this poll that's now been added

 

[Rroff]

This perspective to me is problematic, as you're underplaying the influence an accessible fireman makes in a volatile situation. I've stated earlier how enabling it could be on a person's psyche, also how it identifies as a weapon compared with household knives, plus the many other posts in this thread around this aspect of the incident, so I can't be so blasé and dismissive if I want to remain objective when analysing.

In this country it is fairly likely this wasn't just a spur of the moment act - generally the requirements for storage and separation (unless a shotgun) means someone had time to think through what they were doing to at least some extent. In this country an event like this, unlike say America where people not uncommonly carry, have loaded firearms around the house, etc., almost certainly involved a significant mental health breakdown or someone who was deeply disturbed from the start who has contemplated what they were doing and the chances are they'd have done it one way or another, sooner or later.

EDIT: Long point short they were a threat to that mother and child whether there was a firearm there or not.

 

[Rroff]

On another note don't really agree with any of the poll options - personally against the absolute ban on civilians owning firearms but think there is some tweaking, both tightening and relaxing, of the current rules required.

A tricky one but personally think civilian owned weapons should only be of the straight pull/bolt action variety unless there is a specific need for semi-automatic such as certain pest control needs.

 

[NVP]

Long point short they were a threat to that mother and child whether there was a firearm there or not.

Agreed and I've not said anything contrary, however that doesn't negate any of the points I mentioned.

 

[hillbilly2]

Would this be a thread if had stabbed everyone to death..

 

[Stu999]

Yes, death. The death of an innocent child in this instance. They may not occur often, but they don't need to when the impact is so great. As I said, assessing risk is not always about frequency, but also severity.

Risk assessment should be on the basis of a combination of impact/severity AND likelihood. If it was always only about severity then humanity as a whole would never do anything. People would never get out of bed because the worst case scenario of many of our daily activities is death. Businesses would never invest because their worst case scenario is going out of businesses. Around the world a handful of people die each year when getting dressed in the morning. Why is nobody crying out for the banning of clothes?

Laws shouldn't be set on the basis of emotion. Laws are only as good or effective as the likelihood of them being enforced. It would be practical to enforce a rule about sport / hobby shooters storing guns at a range, in fact that would probably be easier for the police. However, it would not be practical or likely that rules around professionals only being able to kill pest animals would be enforced. How would you even know if a rabbit had been shot somewhere in the remote countryside?

Again, it's about reducing the risk of occurrence. Rarity vs severity, risk vs fun.

As I explained the assessment of rarity vs. severity is that there is a negligible impact from guns in the UK and therefore it is illogical / impractical to want more gun laws in a country with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

The "fun" side is also minimal. There are 539,212 firearm and shotgun certificate holders in the UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...es-england-and-wales-april-2021-to-march-2022). I'll pretend these are all owned for fun. I'll also say another 4.5m people handle firearms every year in the UK (experience days, trip to the Bisley range, etc.). So based on the official estimated UK population of 67m (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...tins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2021) we have about 7.5% of the population that handle guns for "fun". I think the low rates of gun death show there isn't much risk. Realistically, it's more like risk vs. necessary work that has to happen.

The misguidance of this perspective was pointed out earlier in the thread.

No, there was speculation that it's "easier" (practically and emotionally) to kill someone with a gun versus knife but that is not borne out by the statistics in the UK. If guns were more widespread maybe that would reverse but I can't see the UK ever becoming USA 2.0 when it comes to prevalence of guns.

A tricky one but personally think civilian owned weapons should only be of the straight pull/bolt action variety unless there is a specific need for semi-automatic such as certain pest control needs.

If some of the speculated controls discussed in this thread were ever introduced, like no home storage for sport / hobby shooters, then any type of weapon should be fair game. Semi-automatic, full automatic, centre fire, etc.

 

[Uther]

Would this be a thread if had stabbed everyone to death..

I doubt it. Knives are used a hell of a lot more to kill people in the UK, but for some reason the OP doesn't seem to want to ban them.

 

[NVP]

@Stu999 I guess it comes down to the decision where I feel the severity outweighs the rarity, regardless of the statistics you attempt to reason with, albeit incorrectly.

 

[Uther]

I guess it comes down to the decision where I feel the severity outweighs the rarity, regardless of the statistics you attempt to reason with, albeit incorrectly.

So, to sum it up, you don't use a gun so would be ok with a ban but you do use a knife so don't want a ban.

 

[NVP]

So, to sum it up, you don't use a gun so would be ok with a ban but you do use a knife so don't want a ban.

At least try to put some effort in if you want to engage with me on this topic, especially if you're going to make up nonsense like the below:

I doubt it. Knives are used a hell of a lot more to kill people in the UK, but for some reason the OP doesn't seem to want to ban them.

 

[Uther]

At least try to put some effort in if you want to engage with me on this topic

No I don't think so, because it's pointless really isn't it. Regardless, you're not getting what you want.

 

[NVP]

No, I think what's pointless is making up and forcing a random perspective as another person's viewpoint

I think we all know the reason you do such things...

 

[Kenai]

I guess it comes down to the decision where I feel the severity outweighs the rarity, regardless of the statistics you attempt to reason with, albeit incorrectly.

Everyone might as well give up the discussion then, if you're approaching this from 'I feel' regardless of statistics or reasoning, it's just going to go round and round in circles because no one can change your feelings.

 

[NVP]

Everyone might as well give up the discussion then, if you're approaching this from 'I feel' regardless of statistics or reasoning, it's just going to go round and round in circles because no one can change your feelings.

I think you're jumping on a specific word without taking into account the context or the discussion, not sure why.

Yes, I said "feel", as in my opinion based on the information given - that is not omitting reason or ignoring statistics.

I didn't wish to delve deeper into his use of statistics, but I can if needed. But essentially, Stu feels the severity doesn't outweigh the frequency, whereas I do. We both have formed opinion based on information.


Also, yes, stalemates can arise from polar opinions on the same information. Personal perspective is the basis of discussion.


Edit: It is why I kept that post short and sweet as it was a summary on my perspective of the discussion, and where I expected it to end due to the difference of opinion, or "feeling".

 

[plasmahal]

Everyone might as well give up the discussion then, if you're approaching this from 'I feel' regardless of statistics or reasoning, it's just going to go round and round in circles because no one can change your feelings.

Have to agree here. OP is ignoring any factual based points or logic in favour of a feelings based opinion. If we go on causes of deaths in the UK, which any humane person would do, then firearms are very low on the list.

 

[NVP]

Have to agree here. OP is ignoring any factual based points or logic in favour of a feelings based opinion. If we go on causes of deaths in the UK, which any humane person would do, then firearms are very low on the list.

Again, I've not ignored anything. If you actually read what I've said it comes down to my threshold being a lot lower than other peoples. Unfortunately, I feel some will utilise this for an apparent "quick win", without full comprehension of the situation.

 

[Uther]

Have to agree here. OP is ignoring any factual based points or logic in favour of a feelings based opinion. If we go on causes of deaths in the UK, which any humane person would do, then firearms are very low on the list.

Yes it's completely pointless. I'm out.

 

[NVP]

Convenient

 

[Kenai]

Again, I've not ignored anything. If you actually read what I've said it comes down to my threshold being a lot lower than other peoples. Unfortunately, I feel some will utilise this for an apparent "quick win", without full comprehension of the situation.

It's nothing to do with 'quick wins' - it's just reading through what has been an interesting discussion it's reaching an obvious point of stalemate because you "feel the severity outweighs the rarity, regardless of the statistics you attempt to reason with".

There's no real discussion to be had beyond that - you even follow that up with "I didn't wish to delve deeper into his use of statistics".

There's nothing wrong with having a feelings based position on a subject, particularly so a relatively emotive topic like this, but that isn't going to make for a productive discussion for anyone else participating or reading because it's clearly going to go nowhere - everything will just be met with "but I don't feel the same".

 

[Ahleckz]

Have to agree here. OP is ignoring any factual based points or logic in favour of a feelings based opinion. If we go on causes of deaths in the UK, which any humane person would do, then firearms are very low on the list.

They may be low, but they could be lower.
I’ve asked a few times, why did an accountant need a loaded shotgun in a school house on school grounds? No one can answer that.
He decided to use a gun, something that I assume he had to go and get from his cabinet, load it and then go and find his victims. He didn’t use a knife as it wasn’t a random, spur of the moment attack. The gun was the unique thing here which allowed the death of these people. I suspect if he didn’t have a gun, he wouldn’t have killed these people. Therefore I think it’s reasonable to tighten gun controls to ensure an accountant living in a schoolhouse doesn’t have a gun.

Just because not many people die isn’t a reason to try and save more lives…