Poll: UK Gun Laws

[Feek]

12ft/lb is perfectly good for humane bunny bashing, it doesn't need an FAC air rifle.

 

[Liefrich]

I think the balance seems fairly reasonable now. I also wouldn't trust the current government to actually draft any technical legislation, changing the current situation, as they'd screw it up.

 

[DXP55]

The gov did screw up after Hungerford- I had a 5 shot semi auto (they were all 5 shot min then) and Gov jumped up and down kicking their own asses and bought law in that all semi autos could only be 2 shot - so magazines were crimped for two cartridges only.
No one told them you can put one in barrel as well - So result was 3 shot.
I enjoyed those 3 shot semi clay shoots -good fun.

Isn't anyone going to start a thread on shootings in Sweden.

 

[Maple Leaf]

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.

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.

12ft/lb is perfectly good for humane bunny bashing, it doesn't need an FAC air rifle.

In 2015 the Scottish Government passed a law (which only applies to Scotland) that made low-powered (<12 ftlb) airguns subject to the same control regulations as FAC firearms. They did this because a campaign was started for airgun licensing there in 2005 after Mark Bonini, a heroin addict in Glasgow deliberately shot and killed Andrew Morton (a 2-year-old boy) on the street. It was not an accident, he was taking potshots at school children and people passing by on the pavement from the window of his flat. He also shot a firefighter and he had modified his standard 12 ftlb air rifle to make it more powerful (making it illegal to own without a FAC at that time).

Bonini was jailed for life in August 2005 but given a minimum term of just 13 years! Strangely, licensing these <12 ftlb airguns seems to have been seen as a higher priority in Scotland than locking up a sadistic child murderer for at least 30 years (the mandatory minimum term for murder in England).

 

[BUDFORCE]

In 2015 the Scottish Government passed a law (which only applies to Scotland) that made low-powered (<12 ftlb) airguns subject to the same control regulations as FAC firearms. They did this because a campaign was started for airgun licensing there in 2005 after Mark Bonini, a heroin addict in Glasgow deliberately shot and killed Andrew Morton (a 2-year-old boy) on the street. It was not an accident, he was taking potshots at school children and people passing by on the pavement from the window of his flat. He also shot a firefighter and he had modified his standard 12 ftlb air rifle to make it more powerful (making it illegal to own without a FAC at that time).

Bonini was jailed for life in August 2005 but given a minimum term of just 13 years! Strangely, licensing these <12 ftlb airguns seems to have been seen as a higher priority in Scotland than locking up a sadistic child murderer for at least 30 years (the mandatory minimum term for murder in England).

Maybe they figure that Bonini will get "sorted out" after release.

He would it it were my child.

 

[bainbridge]

I'm no stranger to firearms but I'd support a complete ban of all of them, apart from for the military and the police.

It would do a much better job stopping them from falling into the wrong hands.

 

[ianh]

There isn't an option that I would ideally pick to I picked the closest one for my thoughts, which are effectively - I don't think the laws themselves need to change but how we enforce them needs a very strong look at, as far too many people who shouldn't have a had a legal right to either get or retain a firearm, due to mental health issues/physical threats etc, have been able to buy or keep hold of them when they shouldn't have due to very poor enforcement, and have then gone on to use them illegally to kill and main people.

As always out of the 550,000+ legal firearms users and 2,000,000+ airgun users in the UK, just a handful every year (<0.0009% of firearms users) cause issues for everyone else with their stupidity and/or criminal behaviour and then generally tend to get what I would consider "soft" sentences (<15 years) where as I would like to have seen in the Scottish case above, that moron would have spent the rest of their life in jail until the day they die, preferably in solitary doing hard labour.

 

[NickK]

i think it’s prudent that autos and mag sizes are limited. Also limiting with kids and those unable to see what a gun is.

I’ve shot clays a bit. Will be going again this month. Considered a license and a shotgun for clays but dont have the time to put in on a regular basis.

 

[bigmike20vt]

There isn't an option that I would ideally pick to I picked the closest one for my thoughts, which are effectively - I don't think the laws themselves need to change but how we enforce them needs a very strong look at, as far too many people who shouldn't have a had a legal right to either get or retain a firearm, due to mental health issues/physical threats etc, have been able to buy or keep hold of them when they shouldn't have due to very poor enforcement, and have then gone on to use them illegally to kill and main people.

As always out of the 550,000+ legal firearms users and 2,000,000+ airgun users in the UK, just a handful every year (<0.0009% of firearms users) cause issues for everyone else with their stupidity and/or criminal behaviour and then generally tend to get what I would consider "soft" sentences (<15 years) where as I would like to have seen in the Scottish case above, that moron would have spent the rest of their life in jail until the day they die, preferably in solitary doing hard labour.

I think you just hit on the problem with our justice system in general.... and right now it's worse than ever. sentences are getting cut stupidly short, and even before then cases are taking forever to go to trial at which point witnesses memories get foggy and people move on...... and then there are those who ARE innocent who have to live under a cloud with the sword of damocles having over them and people gossiping about them or worse behind their backs. (assuming it's not even worse and they are on remand)

 

[bigmike20vt]

oh dear god.... despite voting the current UK shotgun laws are ok (that is not to say I believe they are always enforced properly)
reading things like this does make me wonder if we should not ban everything except rubberised sporks.
the guy was a solicitor as well so even suggesting a basic intelligence test to pass before owning a gun would not work.

Lawyer accidentally shot by own gun in MRI suite dies of his injuries

On Jan. 16, lawyer Leandro Mathias de Novaes was wearing a registered firearm on his waistband while assisting his mother in the MRI suite when the scanner’s powerful magnet pulled the gun away from his body.

healthimaging.com

 

[henson0115]

There's more chance of someone waving a knife in your face, would you want those banned?

yes if it means less kids gbetting killed or anyone, why not. the knives they carry arnt bloody kitchen knives.

 

[henson0115]

Surely that's a poor argument. The likelihood that happens is extremely small (unless you run in criminal circles and a knife in some places is probably at least 10 times higher), if it did happen the likelihood that it was a criminal using an illegal firearm is extremely high so what legislation/law that would be put in place that differs from the current gun ownership do to stop that? They are already in possession and brandishing an illegal firearm that they shouldn't be able to get hold of but they have.

tell that to all the people killed by gun crime.

 

[NVP]

yes if it means less kids gbetting killed or anyone, why not. the knives they carry arnt bloody kitchen knives.

 

[henson0115]

Personally I don't come to an opinion lightly, though might be changed by events, but I'd have thought about stuff like that before making an opinion and stuff like how I'd feel if my family was on the receiving end and so on. I've had people wave a gun in my face before and doesn't change my stance on firearms, albeit only one of those instances was in the UK (one of my school friends wound a neighbour up to the point he lost it and threatened us with a shotgun - was lucky we didn't tell anyone at the time).

EDIT: Albeit I've not as an adult been in a situation facing a madman intent on killing me with a gun with no ability to defend myself.

my mum was held up in a post office with a shotgun around 20 odd years ago in nottingham in fact, im categorically telling you, it would change your mind.

 

[henson0115]

i think that is a pointless argument..... if my child was run over (god forbid) by a drunk driver, it could well change my views on stricter controls on alcohol, i may even want a full prohibition on it, after all cant have a drunk driver if they cant get drunk............... it wouldnt make me correct however. There is a reason why people on a jury are not meant to have had life experiences which give them a huge bias from the get go.

so your saying your not correct for not wanting people to drink drive? seems like a stupid argument to be pro gun. no matter which way you spin it, if people cant access guns then well they cant access them and it meanms crime levels dropped. do you remmeber what happened when guns where banned in the uk. gun crime went down... coincidence? nope. its now a lot harder for people to get guns in the uk and gun crime is not gone but much better.

 

[bigmike20vt]

so your saying your not correct for not wanting people to drink drive?

christ ... the level of out right dishonesty and twisting of the truth in this thread is ridiculous.
stop being a prat, not only did I not say that, you have to be a few raisins short of a fruit loaf to even interpret that as what I said.

Also it's not that I am "in favour" of guns either really (I don't have one) but I have grown up with them and am not ignorant enough to not be able to see their legal utility.

but just to spell it out to you in easy to read words that maybe you can understand.

I don't agree with shooting people with guns
I don't agree with drink driving.

I would not expect a person who was a victim of gun crime to be objective about guns any more than I would expect a victim of a drunk driver to be necessarily objective about alcohol.

I think that shotguns have a genuine use case and that it is ok for people who can prove to be of sound mind and legally clean to be able to own them for said legal use cases.

clearly in the case here the system failed. that is really sad but it's also incredibly rare.

 

[BUDFORCE]

You do know the 500k or so legal firearms holders are significantly less likely to break the law then your average Joe.

Yes there will the very much exception to the rule that goes mental.and shoots someone.

Most gun crimes are committed by criminals illegal obtaining firearms. Most similar crazy mes are committed with knifes, swords, crossbows whatever....

Most legal firearms holders will will 99.9% of the time obide by the laws.

I don't even speed anymore.

 

[Rroff]

my mum was held up in a post office with a shotgun around 20 odd years ago in nottingham in fact, im categorically telling you, it would change your mind.

As I said I don't have an opinion on something like this on a whim or without understanding and accepting the consequences of my opinion. And I can tell you from experience I'm not going to **** myself and become anti-gun because someone waves a firearm in my face.

As an aside in most cases where someone holds a place up with a gun it is an illegal firearm, toy, replica or airsoft weapon, etc. though personally I'm of the opinion that shotguns should fall in line with other firearms and be "may issue" (where you need a good reason to own and/or part of a relevant club, etc.) rather than "shall issue" where they need a good reason to deny you.

I don't agree with drink driving.

Along a similar vein I don't agree with people using the roads like a race track - but I won't support limiting top speeds to strictly the speed limit or banning the sale of sports/performance vehicles, etc.

 

[Adam_151]

Generally agree with current rules are about right, but with a slight tending towards too restrictive; The changes following dunblaine were a knee-jerk reaction, Thomas Hamilton was allowed to keep his firearms licenses dispite there being justification and chance to remove them from him. It wasn't that the rules were inadequate at that time, it was a failing to make use of them properly. In addition I think things like pepper spray and stun guns are classed as section 5 firearms? (correct me if wrong) which just seems OTT, yes they should be banned still but they should not be classed in the same way as much more lethal equipment is they should be considered the same level as someone swiging a baseball bat around, or having a set of knuckle dusters

 

[Stu999]

In addition I think things like pepper spray and stun guns are classed as section 5 firearms? (correct me if wrong) which just seems OTT, yes they should be banned still but they should not be classed in the same way as much more lethal equipment is they should be considered the same level as someone swiging a baseball bat around, or having a set of knuckle dusters

I think pepper / OC sprays and tasers should be legalised. They're a useful tool to combat knife crime.