Should the UK Gun Laws be Tightened Even Further?
Discussion
I thought it might be an idea to set up a seperate thread to discuss whether or not people think our gun laws should be tightened in light of yesterdays events?
IMO its a statistical fact that the less guns in this country the less chance there is of them being misused. Early indications seem to be that the 2 weapons used yesterday were legally owned by the gunman. It boils down to a basic argument for me...
What price are we willing to pay to allow a small minority of people to enjoy shooting guns? The vast majority of gun owners are no danger to anyone. The Americans seem willing to accept a gun rampage every other month (it seems) as the price they pay to bear arms. Since 1996 there have been 27 (this may rise, fingers crossed it doesnt) murders from "spree" killers in this country. IMO almost 2 deaths a year is too many and the sooner every type of gun in this country is banned, with the exception of shotguns which seem to have a legitimate use in vermin control, the better.
IMO its a statistical fact that the less guns in this country the less chance there is of them being misused. Early indications seem to be that the 2 weapons used yesterday were legally owned by the gunman. It boils down to a basic argument for me...
What price are we willing to pay to allow a small minority of people to enjoy shooting guns? The vast majority of gun owners are no danger to anyone. The Americans seem willing to accept a gun rampage every other month (it seems) as the price they pay to bear arms. Since 1996 there have been 27 (this may rise, fingers crossed it doesnt) murders from "spree" killers in this country. IMO almost 2 deaths a year is too many and the sooner every type of gun in this country is banned, with the exception of shotguns which seem to have a legitimate use in vermin control, the better.
Edited by Marty Funkhouser on Thursday 3rd June 10:06
What Tre said. Clamping down on registered weapons has been shown to have little impact on gun crime levels in the country.
Personally, I agree with the handgun ban (despite having been someone who regularly fired them) - as there is no real reason to keep one at home. What I disagree with was a total ban - people should still have been able to keep them at clubs, for target shooting.
Hunting rifles and shotguns with relevant purpose can be kept at home. Shotguns relatively easily. But it is far, far more difficult to get the Fire Arms Certificate (FAC) to own a rifle (or FAC only shotgun i.e. something witha short barrel or that fires more than three shots) than people think, and very rigidly controlled.
Your idea that more guns = more deaths may be true. But the same applies to motorbikes and performance cars (to use examples close to this forum's heart). What else would you ban, to save lives?
Personally, I agree with the handgun ban (despite having been someone who regularly fired them) - as there is no real reason to keep one at home. What I disagree with was a total ban - people should still have been able to keep them at clubs, for target shooting.
Hunting rifles and shotguns with relevant purpose can be kept at home. Shotguns relatively easily. But it is far, far more difficult to get the Fire Arms Certificate (FAC) to own a rifle (or FAC only shotgun i.e. something witha short barrel or that fires more than three shots) than people think, and very rigidly controlled.
Your idea that more guns = more deaths may be true. But the same applies to motorbikes and performance cars (to use examples close to this forum's heart). What else would you ban, to save lives?
and how would you tighten them?
It still wont stop the people that want them getting them...
Maybe ban all handguns and jail time for those that have them, then we can start putting veterans with their old undeclared service revolver in jail...
How anal do you want to go? You cant stop them getting them if they really want one.
It still wont stop the people that want them getting them...
Maybe ban all handguns and jail time for those that have them, then we can start putting veterans with their old undeclared service revolver in jail...
How anal do you want to go? You cant stop them getting them if they really want one.
Marty Funkhouser said:
I thought it might be an idea to set up a seperate thread to discuss whether or not people think our gun laws should be tightened in light of yesterdays events?
IMO its a statistical fact that the less guns in this country the less chance there is of them being misused. Early indications seem to be that the 2 weapons used yesterday were legally owned by the gunman. It boils down to a basic argument for me...
What price are we willing to pay to allow a small minority of people to enjoy shooting guns? The vast majority of gun owners are no danger to anyone. The Americans seem willing to accept a gun rampage every other month (it seems) as the price they pay to bear arms. Since 1996 there have been 27 (this may rise fingers crossed it doesnt) murders from "spree" killers in this country. IMO almost 2 deaths a year is too many and the sooner every type of gun in this country is banned, with the exception of shotguns which seem to have a legitimate use in vermin control, the better.
No extra controls needed. FWIW one of the guns used yesterday was a shotgun, so your argument fails. Comparing trhe USA to the UK is trite liberal nonsense. More people die in the UK every year from ILLEGALLY held guns. More controls will not stop that. Penalising the law abiding majority for the actions of a tiny minority does not work - the 96 hand gun ban has demonstrated that. Where do you stop? If yesterdays acts had been carried out by him mowing down his victims in a 4x4 , would you be banning those? Or how about if he had used a cricket bat and stoved everyones head in? IMO its a statistical fact that the less guns in this country the less chance there is of them being misused. Early indications seem to be that the 2 weapons used yesterday were legally owned by the gunman. It boils down to a basic argument for me...
What price are we willing to pay to allow a small minority of people to enjoy shooting guns? The vast majority of gun owners are no danger to anyone. The Americans seem willing to accept a gun rampage every other month (it seems) as the price they pay to bear arms. Since 1996 there have been 27 (this may rise fingers crossed it doesnt) murders from "spree" killers in this country. IMO almost 2 deaths a year is too many and the sooner every type of gun in this country is banned, with the exception of shotguns which seem to have a legitimate use in vermin control, the better.
Somewhatfoolish said:
Dave^ said:
I'm willing to bet that there are more illegal firearms than legal ones in private possession in this country...
I'll take you up on that bet, there's millions legally heldkVA said:
I think we should ban all cars, trucks and motorcycles too, as there is a statistically valid argument for reducing road deaths (actually one hell of a lot more than by gunshot) 
But thats the crux of my argument - cars/trucks etc are a massively important and fundamental part of our lives and the economy - banning them would fundamentally change the fabric of our society - so 3500 deaths a year we seem to be accepting as an acceptable price to pay.How would our society be changed if we banned guns? yes, a few enthusiasts would have to do something else and yes we'd win fewer gold medals at shooting events in the Olympics....but thats it....therefore (IMO) 27 deaths in 2 years is far too high a price to pay.
No. Banning things only ever affects the law abiding. There are already more illegal weapons than legal ones, it's been that way for ages, so you aren't even targeting the majority.
No doubt the government will take the opportunity, however. A defenceless population seems to be a long term goal. 'For our safety', of course.
No doubt the government will take the opportunity, however. A defenceless population seems to be a long term goal. 'For our safety', of course.
D-Angle said:
Gun control laws only effect those who have them for legitimate purposes. Someone looking for a gun for shadier reasons will bypass any such system of laws and go for a black market firearm.
I think that the point of this thread is that the guy who killed lots of people yesterday did so with legally held shotguns.I had no problem with the way gun ownership was regulated prior to the Dunblane case. I think I'm right in saying that Hungerford caused the ban on semi-automatic weapons but the subsequent Dunblane legislation banned "handguns" (media term) which I believe went too far.
No way should private ownership of shotguns be banned.
However it's good to see a new thread about this.
Several people posted appalling comments on yesterday's thread which contained contributions from people who were apparently directly connected to the events in Cumbria.
It wasn't the time or place for such comments and given that people who shoot often come from higher-income backgrounds it became evident once again that money cannot buy class.
No way should private ownership of shotguns be banned.
However it's good to see a new thread about this.
Several people posted appalling comments on yesterday's thread which contained contributions from people who were apparently directly connected to the events in Cumbria.
It wasn't the time or place for such comments and given that people who shoot often come from higher-income backgrounds it became evident once again that money cannot buy class.
Marty Funkhouser said:
How would our society be changed if we banned guns? yes, a few enthusiasts would have to do something else and yes we'd win fewer gold medals at shooting events in the Olympics....but thats it....therefore (IMO) 27 deaths in 2 years is far too high a price to pay.
How many of those deaths have come from legally registered firearms?ETA 12 that I know of, yesterday, of course, which was from 1 incident.
Edited by DrTre on Thursday 3rd June 10:09
Harry Flashman said:
D-Angle said:
Gun control laws only effect those who have them for legitimate purposes. Someone looking for a gun for shadier reasons will bypass any such system of laws and go for a black market firearm.
I think that the point of this thread is that the guy who killed lots of people yesterday did so with legally held shotguns.andymadmak said:
No extra controls needed. FWIW one of the guns used yesterday was a shotgun, so your argument fails.
Lets wait and see how many of the deaths were at the point of the .22 and how many the shotgun. I'm not arguing that shotguns pose no threat, just that they seem to have a legitimate use and with tight legislation we should be able to minimise their misuse. I'd like to know why the gunman was legally allowed to hold a shotgun.andymadmak said:
Comparing trhe USA to the UK is trite liberal nonsense. More people die in the UK every year from ILLEGALLY held guns. More controls will not stop that. Penalising the law abiding majority for the actions of a tiny minority does not work - the 96 hand gun ban has demonstrated that.
So you genuinelly think we would have the same number of deaths by handguns since 1996 if they had been legal? Illegal guns have flooded the this country over the last 15 years - thats not an argument that the law isnt working.
andymadmak said:
Where do you stop? If yesterdays acts had been carried out by him mowing down his victims in a 4x4 , would you be banning those? Or how about if he had used a cricket bat and stoved everyones head in?
See my previous comments about guns vs cars. And if you're giving me the choice between a madman on the loose with a 2 guns or a madman on the loose with a cricket bat I'll take my chances with the bat thanks....Edited by Marty Funkhouser on Thursday 3rd June 10:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff