Gun Control in the UK: misconceptions, where do people get them?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Antigod
I keep seeing people going on about how the British have no guns.


Of course the British have guns.

Just not of the caliber (pun intended) nor distributed quantity to make the British government think twice over overtly hostile actions against its serfs, if it chose to or needed to take them.

In a hostile rogue government attack on The People, you will get some use out of hunting rifles used as sniper rifles. You will get no use out of a shotgun against armored goons unless firing sabot rounds. Buckshot and slugs will be mostly useless.

Assault rifles, as broad as that term is, will be what would at least make the rogue government think twice about its actions. Handguns as well; Im thinking of 5-7 rounds that are highly armor piercing and have a very flat, smooth trajectory and a high velocity.

Pity you dont have them. I would prefer all people in all countries be able to adequately defend themselves against their totalitarian governments when inevitably those governments are taken over from the inside and begin targeting the people when they inevitably become bold enough to do so, confident in their own strength, and confident in the peoples weakness.

edit on 4/13/2014 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


My ex brother in law was a member of a gun club for many years but his aquaintance even back 30 years ago used to reconfigure deactivated and replica firearms to a high quality or usability having reactivated them for gun club members as cheaper alternatives and for other black market customers?, though this was and is illegal as well as potentially dangerous to the firearm user it is very easily done in most cases and many of the replica firearmes were sold as almost perfect copy's (though of inferior material and quality) with only minimal modifications such as reciever and barrel needed, a lot of the deactivated guns merely needed a new firing pin and a lead plug removing from the barrel though longer barrels were obviously ruined by this as there rifling was damaged but on pistols it was easy, add to this the inaquacy of the customs officers low numbers the the UK huge relatively undefended coastline as well as the massive number of EU citizens whom freely cross into the country with light inspections if any and there is always going to be an easy supply of mainly defunct low quality eastern european and italian weapons into the country.
The ammunition is the harder thing to recieve (it is or at least was legal to carry the components but once assembles the ammuntion was then illegal) but I have it on good note from a former colleague also in private security that his friend ordered an AK47 and red tip ammunition online only for it to arrive at his liverpool home unopened so it is a no brainer that there is far worse in the country, I personally do not know the guy though and can not see why anyone in britain would want an assault rifle.
It has also long be suspected that certain large ethnic minoritys in the country whom live in there own self imposed enclaves have a stock pile of weapons of this type but so far that has far from been proven with extremists actually struggling to obtain weapons and thus thankfully being caught by anti terror investigator's.
The problem is two fold, a large number of otherwise law obiding young people idolize the hollywood view of gun toting gangsters and try to emulate them and this is most especially accute in inner city's such as london, manchester and birmingham and a supply and demand mentallity will alway's mean there is a supply of these deadly weapon's which innevitably leads to a tragedy when hot heads instead of a good fight and a pint and pat on the back for the loser afterward go and get there gun or knife and use that to make themselves feel brave and strong against there opponent.
S+F



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


You have a helluva lot more murders than we do, and three quarters of them are by firearms.

Like they say over there - go figure.


reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 



Just not of the caliber (pun intended) nor distributed quantity to make the British government think twice over overtly hostile actions against its serfs


Overtly hostile actions against its serfs...you mean like US police shooting dead unarmed US citizens?

That sort of thing? I see what you mean.

We're at their mercy but they don't seem to be shooting us.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Bassago

US = Gun rights are natural rights not doled out by the government.

UK = Gun privilege where the government doles out the special privilege of ownership.

You have to ask if you can have a gun, we don't. It's your country and you're welcome to whatever restrictions by big brother you want. We have a different mindset here in the US.

Most of us are aware there are guns in the UK. Oz too.


Incorrect.

In the UK it is your RIGHT to own a shotgun, it is up to the police to prove you are unfit.

In the UK you are allowed to own a rifle, including a semi-automatic .22 rimfire rifle, it is up to you to prove why you want one, and that you are fit to own one.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

stumason
We do have the same essential "right to bear arms" as well - as enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689.


Without wanting to go off on too much of a tangent, that's not exactly what it does. While I'm admittedly working from memory on this (I spent a great deal of time researching and writing on the topic in an academic capacity, but it was some years ago), I would summarise it as this:

The phrase "right to bear arms" had a slightly different meaning at the time of the BoR - while we now think of it as "the right to possess weapons", it was closer to meaning "the right to engage in hostilities". Of course, I think you could fairly imply within that "the right to possess equipment with which to engage in hostilities", but an interesting difference none the less.

The BoR did not seek to grant the right to "bear arms", rather it lifted a restriction on a specific group that was subject to even greater prohibition that others.

UK law works on a prohibitive rather than permissive system - in other words, you can do whatever you want unless it is prohibited by law. At the time of the BoR, people could possess weapons "as allowed by law". Protestants, however, were subject to an even greater restriction that effectively denied them the ability to "bear arms" within the meaning of the BoR. The Bill removed this restriction to allow them the same right to bear arms as everyone else - which was still restricted to those weapons "as allowed by law", only now it applied equally to everyone.

I also wish people would stop throwing the phrase "automatic assault rifles" around like they're found in every other household. Even in the US there are very few in private hands. I guess it's better to gobble up the hyperbole.

For the record, I spent two or three hours this morning with my (UK-legal single-shot) AR15 and somehow managed to completely avoid killing anything more than a few bits of paper. How on earth did that happen?!? I thought those magical bits of metal were supposed to drive me into an insane bloodlust? Especially considering that it's exactly the same bit of kit that people think of when they hear "automatic assault rifle", minus a gas tube and the extra hole in the barrel.

Edited to add:

Almost forgot - the most important bit! The "right to bear arms" was a common description used, but the actual text as it still stands does not use that phrase. The text actually states:

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law".
edit on 13-4-2014 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 




In the UK it is your RIGHT to own a shotgun, it is up to the police to prove you are unfit.

In the UK you are allowed to own a rifle, including a semi-automatic .22 rimfire rifle, it is up to you to prove why you want one, and that you are fit to own one.


It's not a right if you have to plead for permission from the authorities and "prove" yourself to their satisfaction. That's a privileged they bestow at their whim.

Being told you have the right (if they say you can) to own a .22 caliber rimfire semi-automatic rifle sounds more like big brother deciding to keep the big guns for themselves but "allowing" you to have a target plinker.

Is it true in the UK you're not even allowed to carry knives more than a couple of inches long? Mostly makes no difference to me just find it interesting that a free people are even more controlled than in the US and it's bad enough here.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Unlike a standard sight system you need to zero the AR15 rifle.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Unlike a standard sight system you need to zero the AR15 rifle.


Zero it? You've never seen me shoot it! Minute of paperplate at 25 yards...



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Swills
reply to post by Antigod
 


Only 1.8 million? That's it? They mostly shotguns?

May as well have none.
edit on 13-4-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)


Not that I agree with the gun laws in the U.K (I don't even like Canadian gun laws and I'm a Canuck), but a shotgun is a very viable home defense weapon.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


Most....no the majority of Americans do not have access to automatic weapons and those that do are registered with the ATF if they are legal......yet another misconception...
edit on 13-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Flatfish
reply to post by Antigod
 


Gun Control in the UK: misconceptions, where do people get them?

Answer; Fox News & the NRA!

Of course, they get a lot of help from our many other right-wing "fear salesmen like Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc. etc...


no idea where you get that fox or the nra is spouting misconceptions.
especially about the UK.

i watch fox all the time and i can say i never heard anything about that.

you should ask piers morgan.





posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Hoosierdaddy71
Do you or your neighbor have a 9 mm glock?
How bout a colt 1911? That model is over a hundred years old now.
Brits can have guns, sort of I guess. You can't compare the constitutions of our countries. Apples to oranges. Have fun with your shotguns.


I'm sorry are you made of metal or something, or does your ego protect you from a shotgun blast?

For someone so cocksure about guns, I certainly wouldn't trust you with one, if that's your attitude. Grow up.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Perhaps you misread, I never said it was your right to own a rifle, it is to own a shotgun.

I fully support the law when it comes to firearm laws, the few massacres we have had in the UK have been by people who legally owned their weapons....I'd hate to think what would happen if anybody could have them.

I have personally been affected by one of those "massacres", so you could say I'm a little biased, but reading some of my fellow UK ATS members opinions on the matter, maybe I'm not.

At the end of the day, a shotgun is more than enough to defend yourself against an intruder, protect your land or use for sport.

If you want to do target practice at the local gun range, then as long as you don't have a criminal record or a history of mental illness then getting a rifle wouldn't be too difficult either. If it shoots and hits the target, who cares what calibre it fires, who makes it or what century it was made.

You ask us to respect your obsession with the damn things yet criticise our objections to owning them ourselves.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


The reasons for gun ownership in this country, are not the same as the reasons for gun ownership in the US. Most gun owners here do NOT keep firearms because they want to be able to defend their homes. They keep them for birds, game and sport in the main. Furthermore, we have no LEGAL right to go about armed, just a notional right, written down in a document which really has nothing to do with the way our society is run at this time in history. Also, the government must know about your guns, what you have, how many rounds you own.

There is something wrong with the right to bear arms, in a country where I cannot strap a sword to my back when about my normal business, in my own homeland. There is something very wrong with a state which has to know what measures you are taking to ensure your own damned liberty. Frankly, the government ought to butt out of these affairs.
edit on 14-4-2014 by TrueBrit because: To add: Stuff!
edit on 14-4-2014 by TrueBrit because: Grammar issues



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Bassago
US = Gun rights are natural rights not doled out by the government.

UK = Gun privilege where the government doles out the special privilege of ownership.

You have to ask if you can have a gun, we don't. It's your country and you're welcome to whatever restrictions by big brother you want. We have a different mindset here in the US.

Most of us are aware there are guns in the UK. Oz too.


Ahem - your Second Amendment was laid down by your Government. And it's not a natural right, its the right to bear arms as a means to arm the Militia and defend the country. There's a difference. And I believe that it even says a "well-regulated" militia. Who regulates it? It's supposed to be the government.

I do see the point of guns in the US. You guys have bears, coyotes and feral members of the NRA. We have the occasional demented seagull. We don't need 'em. (Guns that is, not seagulls.) Face facts - the NRA has politicised the whole thing on the way to making themselves an obscene amount of money.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


You are correct,
Did you know that the law which requires every Englishman to practice Archery on a sunday on the village green (which is actually what the green is for) was never rescinded, a little like the law allowing an englishman to kill a Welshman for stealing his cow.
Our law's in Britain are not what is writen (Except when it is in the interests of the elite) but what is acceptable in society at the time and if an Englishman was to go onto the village common were the local elderly people are playing bowls and start firing arrows at a target the ARU will likely be there in minutes, It is technically still legal as well for a Duke (Dukes are regional king's which is something that is forgoten while the king is the arch duke) to have a thousand armed men but since Cromwell and the parliemantarian period during which time britain was really a republic those law's while not redacted are not regarded as legally acceptable.
In the 1800's and upto the early 20th century it was acceptable to have a gun in your house for defence but though in english law you are entitled to use proportionate force in self defence and if you feel your life is threatened that includes lethal force the use of a gun would be automatically classified as undue force and the person whom used a gun in self defence (Unless they are former Special forces as they are allowed to keep there service pistol for such as they might be in possession of state secrets) would automatically be charged with murder.
The Law's of Britain were never set up for the well being of the nation but for the well being of the establishment and that is a fact of history so gun ownership in Britain is a two tier system with very wealthy and powerful people having far more access than you or I would ever have to these weapons and as for police having guns we in this country regarded human life as sacrosanct until David cameron gave police the right to kill rioters if they are smashing window's and armed them with dumb dumb rounds with the excuse that it was to stop the round going through the target and killing another person behind them, now in america the police used to carry 38 revolvers (but have had to keep pace with what they claim the criminals are packing), small but effective and just proportionate to the need so I think that the british policy is total overkill.
edit on 14-4-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Last time I checked, there were 1,800 PISTOL licenses in the UK, but I must admit, came across that information mainly by accident, in a gun magazine some time ago.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


I'd imagine that there are certain people in the gun business who will deal with pistols who are not crown officers such as people in the companies that sell them/repairers and also places like museums etc have collections and are subject to licensing rules.

plus a pistol is not by default a section 5 (prohibited) weapon it depends on age/actual measurements etc



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


You are not allowed to carry a knife in public without a "good " reason, unless it is a folding knife with a blade less than three inches long, like a Swiss Army knife. Locking knives, and blades which are longer than that, are a no no here. If you DO have something more than that about your person, you must be able to account for why you have it, and as far as I understand it, this is to accommodate for people who have jobs which require longer blades, like butchers, chefs, carpet fitters, hair dressers, taxidermists and any professionals who could excuse the carriage of a blade.

However, those "good reasons" that I mentioned earlier? I am fairly sure that under the law, if I am seen carrying a sword on my back, or even a half decent knife at my waist, I would be arrested, since the reasons I have to do with wanting to carry a blade are nothing to do with my profession, but are rather more centred around my belief that as a citizen of this nation, I should have the right to go about attired and equipped in such a way as to allow for my own personal defence and the defence of my community for that matter, and furthermore, that it is every Britons duty to do likewise if they are able.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that there are laws in our nation which prevent this. People argue that dark forces, and evil persons would use laxity in these areas of law, to procure all manner of offensive weapons, and use them in commission of an offence. I say, that the more of us are armed and prepared to defend ourselves and our communities from such persons, the less likely they are to poke their heads up from under the rocks they dwell beneath, and the better able we would be as people to deal with the rotters when they do!



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


The UK is messed up for forcing folks to lock up the guns when not in use.. that's as bad as an unloaded gun - guns should never be unloaded or kept in a locked case where you cannot get to it in an emergency. --> That gun will Not save your life !

I keep mine in a drawer right next to my bed.. well the one in the bedroom anyway.. always loaded. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night I can get the help i need ( the gun) asap. Those seconds trying to unlock a gun case could be the seconds it takes for the bad guy to blow your brains out.

Of course keep them out of reach of children.
edit on 14-4-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp






top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join