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.
Uther said:
Yes, they are the allowed reasons for civilians having one. I could go out and kill more people in my car quicker than my shotgun. Ban cars just in case.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten me on the need of these "allowed reasons" that couldn't be replaced by a professional, tightly controlled and vetted, service.
 
Megahurtz400 said:
Now bear with me here, I want this post to be specifically about the UK and not the US as the rules around gun control are obviously vastly different, and it also makes a lot of assumptions about the accused.

Sadly, my snap reaction to this is probably a failing of mental health services, UK gun control is pretty darn strict already (I know a family member who wants to get into clay Pidgeon shooting and it's a long drawn out process.), so my first assumption is that still men's mental health is not taken seriously enough and this guy has reached a point (for whatever reason) where he has though this was a reasonable thing to do.

Part of me thinks that if people want to take part in a hobby that requires a firearm, then they should be allowed to, given the correct regular checks are done.

Part of me thinks that guns are such instant killing machines that no person (let alone civilian) should ever be trusted with one.

Part of my thinks that these three people probably would have died anyway, whether a gun was involved or not. If my assumption that the guy had got to a point where this was an option, it could have been done with a knife or his bare hands anyway. It's this point I wanted to make the first sentence caveat about, as I see a lot of Americans making this argument but their gun control laws are absolutely baffling weak.
Click to expand...
There is a case for making checks more often than every five years when you apply for a new cert, but iirc there now needs to be a doctors mental health assessment before the issue of a licence. Not that someone couldn't go off the rails just afterwards of course.
 
Last edited:
All I see is a load of wannabe Americans. I want to own a gun, so as my right as a civilian, I can.
Bore off.

Give me a legitimate excuse for owning one or a use case where it is needed in this country.
Still waiting.
 
I'd agree with more regular checks. My step dad was threatened with a gun by my uncle.

My uncle isn't really entirely "stable". He probably shouldn't have them. But I doubt they would pick it up in an assessment. To be honest I'm not sure what the assessments are.
 
Last edited:
Be interesting to know what the firearm is - shotguns are still a shall permit unless a good reason not to, rather than needing a good reason to own which personally I'm a bit on the fence about. I think overall we have good firearm restrictions in this country though a little tweaking wouldn't go amiss.
 
Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.

Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
 
Uther said:
There is a case for making checks more often than every five years when you apply for a new cert, but iirc there now needs to be a doctors mental health assessment before the issue of a licence. Not that someone couldn't go off the rails just afterwards of course.
Click to expand...
Exactly this, if you want to own a fire arm, you should be more than willing to get some kind of assessment every 12 months and undergo a simple check of address etc. at the absolutely minimum.

With doctors being so poor at mental health services as it is, maybe the requirement should be from an accredited professional?

Let's be honest, guns are an expensive hobby, and if you're that keen on taking part in that hobby then this should be the price you have to pay to stop people from getting harmed in the future.

As always, it would be great if we could just trust everyone to be good and do things like in the OP, however humans are pretty rubbish creatures at the best of times so alas, we have laws and people to enforce them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NVP
~Mike~ said:
Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.

Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
Click to expand...

I am that stupid, humour me.

It would be easier if you could just tell me, I am not looking for an argument, just tell me.
 
Last edited:
~Mike~ said:
Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.

Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
Click to expand...
What's with the vagueness? Struggling?
 
~Mike~ said:
Well there is a quite obvious reason for needing one (and it's not for fun), I'm sure I don't need to spell it out unless you really are that stupid or just looking for an argument.

Yes I could use a 'professional' as you term it (also a civilian I would have thought) but by the time they arrived it would be to late in a lot of situations.
Click to expand...
Spell it out for us as otherwise it could be anything.

Professional and civilian are two different types of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom