New U.K. Gun Law.

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Sure enough though, Derek Bird does his rampage, then less than a month later, Raol Moat makes his way onto papers and TV across the country doing a very similar thing.

And then the news broadcasts the people who are venerating Moat.

But in the end, aren't ratings the most important thing ever?

 

[Bob the Average]

That's really all I have to say about that.

Although seriously, in some places, it's ridiculous how easy it is to get a gun in America. I mean, you go to a weekly gun show near Pheonix, you spend a couple hundred, you walk away with a good handgun...

Shotguns, on the other hand, we care a little more about, but the government still doesn't care that much. Our government only likes to crack down on illegal weaponry if they're automatics.

At a gun show you still have to pass the background check and age requirements (18 for rifles and shotguns 21 for hand guns) the "gun show loop hole" the media loves to drone on about is that there is no background check requirement for transfer between two private owners. This lets you inherit firearms from a relative or sell a gun to your friend.

 

[jpoon]

Damn I sort of feel sorry for any law abiding people in the UK, I'd want to be able to own a threatening weapon to protect myself.

 

[Wintermoot]

I dont think its gonna effect gun crimes since criminals tend to get there guns by less legal means

 

[Duskwaith]

Yeah they can ban guns, but we just have a really bad stabbing culture....

Atleast if i had a snub nose i could stop the bastard within 21 feet

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Good, stricter gun laws=less idiots with legal guns. more idiots with illegal guns

Went ahead and fixed that for you

If the guns they had were illegal then they would have a longer jail sentence meaning they would be off the streets less. Any law that makes guns harder to obtain I back.

 

[Wadders]

Sure enough though, Derek Bird does his rampage, then less than a month later, Raol Moat makes his way onto papers and TV across the country doing a very similar thing.

And then the news broadcasts the people who are venerating Moat.

But in the end, aren't ratings the most important thing ever?

Undoubtedly. If I broadcast content that boosts my station's views, and several more lives are lost as a result, then so be it.

Damn I sort of feel sorry for any law abiding people in the UK, I'd want to be able to own a threatening weapon to protect myself.

Heh, my sarcasm detector is broken today, so I can't really tell if you're taking the piss?

Good, stricter gun laws=less idiots with legal guns. more idiots with illegal guns

Went ahead and fixed that for you

If the guns they had were illegal then they would have a longer jail sentence meaning they would be off the streets less. Any law that makes guns harder to obtain I back.

Fair enough, I was just kidding, but like I said I dont want a big ol' argument about firearms control so lets agree to disagree hmmkay?

 

[Treblaine]

First things first; please lets not turn this into a gun control thread...
(talks about gun control)

: /

Very well then, I'll make this a law enforcement issue.

Didn't that Cumbria gunman have a firearms license anyway? didn't he from the outside have completely clear mental health and no criminal record?

Didn't he drive RIGHT PAST a police station where not a single armed officer was around to confront him and they couldn't even follow him after he threatened them with his gun?

Clearly the issue here that our idealistic fantasy of unarmed police is anachronistic and has directly cost lives. We don't need traffic wardens with handcuffs, our police should be armed to DO THEIR JOB of protecting the public.

A few armed police over a massive area are useless.

 

[Dr_Pie]

I'm with this. By making it harder to obtain a gun, only those with intent to use the gun seriously in legal activities will bother.

Also, I am a gun owner myself.

 

[bad rider]

You can't stop psychos murdering people, but instead of accepting it lets regulate more.....


Note: I think our laws are fine at the moment (or at least were), heavy, but not overbearing.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

But shotguns are great fun! Not saying rifles arent either though, never really had the good fortune to use one though so I'm a Shotgun man, for good or ill Got your eye on any particualr rifle?

If I could, I'd get my L85 from my cadets days, but I do have my eye on a .22 SMLE.
And I haven't fired a shotgun before, and they do look like immense fun, but i've always loved my long distance target shooting =D

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

it'd still be a good idea to make sure legal requirements weren't laughably weak.

...Which they arent. Nowadays the UK has some of the tightest gun legislation around. Not saying we should be like the USA, I fully support our current gun laws but they have gone as far as they need, and this proposal will change nothing for the good.

Oh, I knew that we had strict gun control, but his post looked like he was all for removing any semblance of gun control. I have shot clay pigeons a few times, and each time I've noticed how careful and professional everyone is, making sure you hold the gun in a certain way, keep your finger off the trigger if you aren't firing, and that the gun is broken over your arm and unloaded if you aren't firing it etc. This law would definitely affect these guys, who aren't doing anything wrong.

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised this government, of all governments, would support this.

 

[sirkai007]

That's really all I have to say about that.

Although seriously, in some places, it's ridiculous how easy it is to get a gun in America. I mean, you go to a weekly gun show near Pheonix, you spend a couple hundred, you walk away with a good handgun...

Shotguns, on the other hand, we care a little more about, but the government still doesn't care that much. Our government only likes to crack down on illegal weaponry if they're automatics.

Automatic firearms are not illegal in the states. They require $300 tax stamp and an FBI check and you to can have the same fire power that the government allows it's people to have.

 

[Wadders]

First things first; please lets not turn this into a gun control thread...
(talks about gun control)

: /

Very well then, I'll make this a law enforcement issue.

Didn't that Cumbria gunman have a firearms license anyway? didn't he from the outside have completely clear mental health and no criminal record?

Didn't he drive RIGHT PAST a police station where not a single armed officer was around to confront him and they couldn't even follow him after he threatened them with his gun?

Clearly the issue here that our idealistic fantasy of unarmed police is anachronistic and has directly cost lives. We don't need traffic wardens with handcuffs, our police should be armed to DO THEIR JOB of protecting the public.

A few armed police over a massive area are useless.

Sorry, what I ment was lets not turn it into an argument about gun control. They get heated and are just silly. Of course the thread is about gun control, but I was suggesting that people say wether they thought the proposed legislation would have any positive/ negative effects, if it would reduce crime etc. Not that they argue about wether they support gun control or not. Does that make sense? Probably not. Sorry.

Yeah Bird did have a FAC. That's what makes the proposed law so pointless. He would have still managed to kill all those people if it had been in place or not. And yes I think he was of sound mind, but supposedly so are most of these murderers...

Agreed on the armed police thing. Maybe not to the extent of arming all officers, but I think it would certianly be a good idea for most police stations to have a couple of trained Firearms officers present, not carrying firearms, but with a small armoury at the station so they could quickly access guns if needs be rather than waiting for an armed response team to come from the nearest city.

Duno if that would work... What do you reckon?

 

[-Samurai-]

As far as i know, it is only legal in Minnesota to shoot someone if they are posing a danger to your family: i.e. the intruder is armed. You absolutely CAN NOT shoot someone that is fleeing. That will cause the local police to do everything they can to lock you away for a good long time.

Here in Ohio(and in many, many other states) we have what's called the Castle Doctrine. It states that if someone breaks into my home(and has now been extended to vehicles as well) and they give me a legitimate reason to fear for my life, or that of my family, I have the right to put them down for good, and can suffer no legal consequences from it(aside from the intruders family trying to wrongfully sue).

So, if someone breaks into my house brandishing an ice cream scoop, and I have a legitimate fear of being killed by it, I have the right to blow him away.

OT: No amount of gun control will stop people from getting guns. People seeking firearms for illegal purposes aren't going to acquire them legally anyway. They're just making it harder for people wanting them for legal purposes to get them.

You can't stop someone from getting a gun if they really want one.

 

[Vrach]

Well, despite owning a gun myself, I think that they should definitely re-evaluate the UK gun control situation after those atrocities. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about it though. They should probably more look at early diagnosis's of mental issues, that's the cause, guns are just a symptom.

They're also a means to the end. A melee weapon gives you more time to think about doing something stupid, all you need to do with a (shot)gun is point and pull the trigger, it's a very short way from death.

Imo, there should be a very tight control on guns, so this seems a step in the right direction, although agreed with Furburt, I'd have them pass some psychiatry tests as well to try and assess their mental states.

Also, if there's a higher price to pay for a gun license, that same money could go towards the control of illegal firearms. It's probably fat chance that it will, but in theory it could work, right? x.x

 

[Treblaine]

Good, stricter gun laws=less idiots with legal guns. more idiots with illegal guns

Went ahead and fixed that for you

If the guns they had were illegal then they would have a longer jail sentence meaning they would be off the streets less. Any law that makes guns harder to obtain I back.

Both gunmen we are talking about committed suicide, any punishment would have been pointless. And of course not only does the UK have no death sentence but in fact the longest sentence you can possibly give is only 40 years? Apparently a "life sentence" is inhumane. The only way to keep the most serious criminals like the Yorkshire Ripper in prison is to classify them as insane and keep them in secure psychiatric hospitals.

You know the terrorist found guilty for the Locherby bombing of that Pan-Am flight - Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - got released last year on "compassionate grounds" works out to less than 10 days for every murder count against him. This was right after BP had private meetings with the Government concerning oil drilling rights in Libya, for which the minutes of that meeting remain secret... but BP swears that is just a coincidence, and the multi-billion dollar oil contract too.

Don't look for Justice in the UK. This is a country that preaches inalienable rights of the most brutal criminals while making it categorically illegal to use any weapon in self defence. The home of books like Orwell's 1984 yet we own and operate more CCTV cameras than the rest of the world combined.

 

[manaman]

Personally I thought the pre hungerford and dunblane laws were ok for the most part. Thorough background checks for mental health and criminal activity, belong to a shooters club or have the land to shoot on and have secure wall or floor mounted safe to carry the weapon and a seperate safe for ammo, to be checked every couple of years. All firearms & ammo purchases to be recorded. I think that is all that's necessary.

EDIT: On the home defence thing, it's never really been an issue, gun ownership is and always has been very low, even before the ban on handguns and semi auto rifles coming up against an armed householder has never been much of a worry. While you are allowed to use a firearm if you have one to hand it isn't like the US where you can blow away any intruder(as far as I can tell), shooting an unarmed burglar or one that is fleeing, or using excessive force (shooting several times) will probably get you in a lot of trouble.

Did you know we also have flying monkeys armed with assault rifles all over the country as well? That should be as believable as saying people in the US can use whatever force they feel like for whatever reason on their property. You can't actually believe that is true. What we are allowed to invite people into our homes then shot them if we don't like the comments they made about our table arrangements? Excessive force still exists over here.

And holy crap I am glad I don't live where you live if all those restrictions are perfectly acceptable to you.

 

[Wadders]

But shotguns are great fun! Not saying rifles arent either though, never really had the good fortune to use one though so I'm a Shotgun man, for good or ill Got your eye on any particualr rifle?

If I could, I'd get my L85 from my cadets days, but I do have my eye on a .22 SMLE.
And I haven't fired a shotgun before, and they do look like immense fun, but i've always loved my long distance target shooting =D

Ah nice choice SMLE's are lovely looking guns. Never knew you could get .22 ones though, always assumed they were chambered for .303 and that was that. Hope you manage to get your mitts on one

And yeah shotguns are great gun to shoot. I'm guessing they are totally different to shoot than rifles at a long range though. It's all short distances, judging speed, and reaction shooting. Well, clays are. They are fun weapons to mess about with too, provided you stay safe. Tried shooting clays Down The Line from the hip the other day. It didnt go too well

it'd still be a good idea to make sure legal requirements weren't laughably weak.

...Which they arent. Nowadays the UK has some of the tightest gun legislation around. Not saying we should be like the USA, I fully support our current gun laws but they have gone as far as they need, and this proposal will change nothing for the good.

Oh, I knew that we had strict gun control, but his post looked like he was all for removing any semblance of gun control. I have shot clay pigeons a few times, and each time I've noticed how careful and professional everyone is, making sure you hold the gun in a certain way, keep your finger off the trigger if you aren't firing, and that the gun is broken over your arm and unloaded if you aren't firing it etc. This law would definitely affect these guys, who aren't doing anything wrong.

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised this government, of all governments, would support this.

Those guys you've shot with are probably representative of 90% of legal gun owners, maybe even more. People who are shown how to use them properly and respect the firearm for what it is: a dangerous killing tool. You're right, it would affect us badly

And yeah, I know! I guess it's all the doing of the Lib Dem toadies? The conservatives are usually dead set against this sort of thing. Hell, thats one of the reasons why they won so many votes in my constituency

 

[Lord George]

Good theres no reason for a well developed society to enable civilians access to firearms, as far as I can tell the laws not going to make it much harder for farmers to acquire them (who apart from hunters are the only people with valid reasons to be owning a shotgun in the first place.)