Poll: UK Gun Laws

[jaybee]

I mean does anyone actually need to go anywhere by car at speeds which are capable of of lethality? :s like your point there is only so far we should regulate things due to a tiny fraction of a percent of mad people.

I think making comparisons like that to guns is just not really feasible because guns are different. Saying nobody should be allowed scissors, a car, rope, knives, baseball bats etc..... yes they can all be used to kill, but they have multiple uses. You don't use a gun to do anything other than inflict damage to a person/animal, or in high calibre military guns, actual vehicles/buildings. They are purpose made weapons. The actual legitimate required use of said weapons (other than shooting them for "fun") is so, so, so minute, that in the interest of preventing even a small amount more of potential scenarios as per the op, the laws could even be made stricter to take them out of play for anyone other than those that truly need it, such as possibly farmers for pest control.

...

I don't agree in a family homicide case. Think about how traumatic it would be to kill a family member you love/loved with a shotgun at very close range. You'd have to be very disturbed to do it. If you get it wrong you could blow their arm or leg off and then you'd have to shoot them again to kill them fast. The amount of blood, gore and brain matter etc from a head shot would be absolutely horrendous, you'd be emotionally scarred for life by it. Just hitting them hard on the head with a club hammer when their back is turned to you or stabbing them in the heart with a kitchen knife when they are not expecting it would be far less traumatic for you. If they suspect nothing then you could kill them while they are asleep so that they don't suffer and there isn't a bloodbath. Shotguns at close range make a terrible mess.

You are saying that it is easier and less traumatic to stab/club someone to death as opposed to pulling a trigger on a gun? If you want to kill someone, even if you muck up the first shot, you can probably find the will to pull the trigger again quite easily.

There is loads more that can go wrong with a knife/hammer in that the victim may flap arms around and struggle, causing injury to the attacker. Also stabbing is unlikely to kill very quickly unless you are very specific. The wound may be superficial and cause extreme pain and then screaming. They may run off. Loads of stuff could go wrong.

Compare that to pulling a trigger... I mean there's no contest. Guns - by their nature - are easy killing machines.
Your argument is that a shotgun would do so much damage that the attacker would be traumatised and stop. I think if you have got to that point where you pulled the trigger, suddenly seeing someone decapitated is not going to make you suddenly be like "oh wow it does that much damage...I should stop".

 

[jaybee]

I did ask about getting a bar put in at the rifle range.

The idea was shot down.

You should have allowed them to get a handle on things by not being so trigger happy with pushing your idea through.

 

[Rroff]

I think making comparisons like that to guns is just not really feasible because guns are different. Saying nobody should be allowed scissors, a car, rope, knives, baseball bats etc..... yes they can all be used to kill, but they have multiple uses. You don't use a gun to do anything other than inflict damage to a person/animal, or in high calibre military guns, actual vehicles/buildings. They are purpose made weapons. The actual legitimate required use of said weapons (other than shooting them for "fun") is so, so, so minute, that in the interest of preventing even a small amount more of potential scenarios as per the op, the laws could even be made stricter to take them out of play for anyone other than those that truly need it, such as possibly farmers for pest control.

It isn't really any different when you reduce it down and guns can and are used purely for recreational/sports use, especially in this country where you are fairly limited in what you can do with them.

Those kind of things also result in a lot higher fatalities in the wrong hands in this country because we already have regulations which limit that aspect of firearms.

EDIT: Report just out for last years reporting period:

Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Analyses of information held within the Home Office Homicide Index, which contains detailed record-level information about each homicide recorded by police in England and Wales.

www.ons.gov.uk

Figure 7.

I'm surprised homicides by poison and blunt instruments are relatively low actually.

7 people killed by shooting and most of those were with illegally held firearms.

 

[jaybee]

It isn't really any different when you reduce it down and guns can and are used purely for recreational/sports use, especially in this country where you are fairly limited in what you can do with them.

Those kind of things also result in a lot higher fatalities in the wrong hands in this country because we already have regulations which limit that aspect of firearms.

EDIT: Report just out for last years reporting period:

Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Analyses of information held within the Home Office Homicide Index, which contains detailed record-level information about each homicide recorded by police in England and Wales.

www.ons.gov.uk

Figure 7.

I'm surprised homicides by poison and blunt instruments are relatively low actually.

7 people killed by shooting and most of those were with illegally held firearms.

7 people were shot in England and Wales from March 2021 to March 2022? I'm not having that. Can't be right. That's one drive by in London.

 

[Rroff]

7 people were shot in England and Wales from March 2021 to March 2022? I'm not having that. Can't be right. That's one drive by in London.

7 people killed, not sure about injured. Regardless the numbers for people killed or injured in this country with legally held weapons is tiny and dwarfed by other methods - most of these kind of homicides are going to happen anyhow so sweeping changes to firearms is going to have a tiny impact if at all.

 

[jaybee]

7 people killed, not sure about injured. Regardless the numbers for people killed or injured in this country with legally held weapons is tiny and dwarfed by other methods - most of these kind of homicides are going to happen anyhow so sweeping changes to firearms is going to have a tiny impact if at all.

I'm shocked it's that low. I would have said a hundred. What's the US in comparison I wonder.... quick google....oh ****

"In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC."

So 5 people per hour in the US.

 

[Rroff]

I'm shocked it's that low. I would have said a hundred. What's the US in comparison I wonder.... quick google....oh ****

"In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC."

600+ mass shooting incidents in the US IIRC in the same reporting period as above.

 

[jaybee]

600+ mass shooting incidents in the US IIRC in the same reporting period as above.

True. This skews it.

 

[Freakbro]

Figure 7.

I'm surprised homicides by poison and blunt instruments are relatively low actually.

I suppose poisoning is more of a planned calculating action rather than a heat of moment one. Blunt vs sharp, if there's a choice to hand, you'd go for sharp more often than not.

 

[Rroff]

I suppose poisoning is more of a planned calculating action rather than a heat of moment one. Blunt vs sharp, if there's a choice, you'd go for sharp more often than not.

Probably more that your average person's knowledge of poisons and how they work is relatively limited.

 

[Rroff]

True. This skews it.

I don't think it would comparatively be as bad as that in this country but it is why we have the laws we do.

 

[potatolord]

7 people killed, not sure about injured. Regardless the numbers for people killed or injured in this country with legally held weapons is tiny and dwarfed by other methods - most of these kind of homicides are going to happen anyhow so sweeping changes to firearms is going to have a tiny impact if at all.

It's a percentage of homicides (which is actually 4% of all homicides are shootings, not 7%), not a number.

Homicides by shooting is 28.

That chart could be clearer, to be fair.

 

[Stu999]

Edit - point already made.

 

[Rroff]

It's a percentage of homicides (which is actually 4% of all homicides are shootings, not 7%), not a number.

Homicides by shooting is 28.

That chart could be clearer, to be fair.

You are right - the text above:

"There were 28 homicide victims killed by shooting in the year ending March 2022 (4% of all homicides), seven fewer than the previous year. The number of these offences is 30% lower than a decade ago (40 in the year ending March 2012)."

I moused over the chart and assume the numbers were the actual numbers due to the mixture of both formats used on the mouseover.

 

[potatolord]

You are right - the text above:

"There were 28 homicide victims killed by shooting in the year ending March 2022 (4% of all homicides), seven fewer than the previous year. The number of these offences is 30% lower than a decade ago (40 in the year ending March 2012)."

I moused over the chart and assume the numbers were the actual numbers due to the mixture of both formats used on the mouseover.

The layout there isn't helpful.

I also don't like

The number of these offences is 30% lower than a decade ago (40 in the year ending March 2012)."

When you're talking small numbers, percentage changes are pretty misleading, in my opinion. Four is 100% more than two, but it would be ludicrous to say that.

Don't get me started on rate of change comparisons. They make me really tetchy...

 

[Maple Leaf]

You are saying that it is easier and less traumatic to stab/club someone to death as opposed to pulling a trigger on a gun? If you want to kill someone, even if you muck up the first shot, you can probably find the will to pull the trigger again quite easily.

There is loads more that can go wrong with a knife/hammer in that the victim may flap arms around and struggle, causing injury to the attacker. Also stabbing is unlikely to kill very quickly unless you are very specific. The wound may be superficial and cause extreme pain and then screaming. They may run off. Loads of stuff could go wrong.

Compare that to pulling a trigger... I mean there's no contest. Guns - by their nature - are easy killing machines.
Your argument is that a shotgun would do so much damage that the attacker would be traumatised and stop. I think if you have got to that point where you pulled the trigger, suddenly seeing someone decapitated is not going to make you suddenly be like "oh wow it does that much damage...I should stop".

You have misunderstood my point. You are conflating spree-killers of strangers with someone who kills family members who they live with (surprise attack by a trusted person). If he was mentally disturbed enough to kill his own wife and young daughter (his beloved ones) with a shotgun at close range and then commit suicide then he was psychologically capable of doing anything.

It isn't a question of not being physically capable of killing them without the shotgun because one victim was a woman (clearly physically weaker than him) and the other was a 7-year-old girl and he would probably have had the element of surprise on his side. The fact that he decided to commit suicide means it's unlikely he would have been bothered about being injured in a fight with either of them.

The key advantage of the shotgun was that he could commit suicide with it quickly and in a guaranteed manner. It's easy to botch a suicide attempt.

 

[dod]

I voted that the current law is fine but on reflection would change that to current laws are too restrictive.

Reasoning? I live in the country and suffer from an infestation of rabbits. When I was younger I'd simply have gone to my dad's (unlocked) cupboard, taken out the .22 and shot a few.

Now, even for an air rifle as a minimum I need to go get a license, have a police inspection, install a secure cabinet. For an air rifle I think that's a bit too much.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Now, even for an air rifle as a minimum I need to go get a license, have a police inspection, install a secure cabinet. For an air rifle I think that's a bit too much.

really? I had no idea that was the case. I have a few mates who use an air rifle to control vermin and AFAIK none applied for a licence. maybe they are breaking the law but if so it's in ignorance not deliberate (not saying that is an excuse but that should probably made more obvious if so)

 

[dod]

really? I had no idea that was the case. I have a few mates who use an air rifle to control vermin and AFAIK none applied for a licence. maybe they are breaking the law but if so it's in ignorance not deliberate (not saying that is an excuse but that should probably made more obvious if so)

I'm in Scotland, it may be different in England

Air Weapons - Police Scotland

Air Weapons

www.scotland.police.uk

and

Air weapon licensing in Scotland: guide

Guidance published by Scottish Ministers on the practical application of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015.

www.gov.scot

 

[Stu999]

really? I had no idea that was the case. I have a few mates who use an air rifle to control vermin and AFAIK none applied for a licence. maybe they are breaking the law but if so it's in ignorance not deliberate (not saying that is an excuse but that should probably made more obvious if so)

It’s required for air rifles with a certain power level (measured in foot pounds - ft lb). You’d probably want a “high powered” one for the humane killing of pest animals. Summary here: https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shotgu...air-rifle-licence-heres-how-to-get-one-136947