Dear British Prime Minister, Can We Get Our Guns Back, PLEASE??

The only thing i'd like to see changed is bringing back handguns. If you are deemed fit to own a shotgun or other arms, handguns should be allowed too.

I used to love my competitive shooting, and believe it or not, not once went on a killing spree.

CX.

reply to post by CX

If you are deemed fit to own a shotgun or other arms, handguns should be allowed too.

Got to admit I really don't understand why handguns can't be owned and used for sporting purposes provided the relevant personal security criteria have been met and they are stored in secure locations in gun clubs etc and their useage monitored and logged etc.

Got to admit I enjoy clay pigeon shooting and would love to have a go at shooting pistols etc at a reputable and regulated shooting range - doesn't mean that I want to own one though!

It's ridiculous that the GB pistol shooting team has to train abroad.

reply to post by CX


Aye, the handgun ban was a silly bit of over-reaction to Dunblane that only affected those who use handguns for sport etc. At the time I ran a pub in which a local gun club met once a month and they had my full sympathy.

But since 1945, very few people in Britain ever owned a handgun for 'protection' - other than some gang members and other criminals. Which is the big difference between us and the USA and SA

reply to post by AndyMayhew


"But since 1945, very few people in Britain ever owned a handgun for 'protection'"

I find that rather strange. I mean you would have thought our troops would have brought them back home on the fly after WWII as war trophies, memorabilia or just because they grew attached to them.

I know i would have if my gun had saved my life on a daily basis.

reply to post by 0rbital


Wrong, go check out the gun crime statistics for Chicago, NYC, LA, ect. Through the roof despite strict gun control measures. Now look at places with relatively high rates of gun ownership, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia... Some of the lowest gun and violent crime rates in the nation.

reply to post by Freeborn


- Yes. While under your monarchy's rule, we too had to adhere to traditions and laws. But things changed, we broke away, and our president doesn't have to kiss the hand of an old Queen for permission to hold executive office. We elect him, and he begins working. The PM asking the Queen if he can hold office might be a tradition, but why do you think it's there? Just for giggles? You bow and beg to someone who rules you.

- Royal Prerogative. You didn't know about this? The Queen has absolute right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. She can take somebody else and appoint them to form a government, with the stipulation that it must be a person who can command a majority of the House of Commons.

- Do you really think that would happen? The public would overthrow the Queen? You're so silly. People are shaking in their boots to even mention the Royal Family in magazines and newspapers in even a mildly negative light, much less downright implying certain things. Then again, I'm seeing a lot of stories out of England involving people being arrested for insulting one another. You boys and girls across the pond seem to have a big problem with Lizzy being insulted. Not really sure why, since she's supposedly a woman with no real power who sits on top of a giant pile of gold and wears ridiculous hats.

- Sure. But capital punishment didn't end in the UK until 1965, and it was only until 2004 that your government was finally able to prohibit its restoration. At last you're making some progress, now all you need is absolute freedom of the press (love that your Royal Family is trying to shut down magazines for nude photos) and to stop treating a queen as an untouchable goddess.

- Oh. Cool. A Head of State that can declare war, who wasn't elected into that position. Yeah, your democracy is something to envy. Though I do like your idea of Parliament. Let's see Obama have to take heat from members of Parliament on a regular basis and have to defend himself.

- Considerable influence, but little power? Influence is power, and it runs a lot deeper than apparently even you Brits realize. Don't know if you know, but an India-born English writer by the name of George Orwell coined the term doublespeak. It looks like it's alive and well in merry ol' England.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


You crack me up - you read a few articles on the internet and a few textbooks and you arrogantly assume that you know more than the people who actually live here.

Yes. While under your monarchy's rule, we too had to adhere to traditions and laws. But things changed, we broke away, and our president doesn't have to kiss the hand of an old Queen for permission to hold executive office.

But they still bow to her, out of respect and tradition - regardless of what some may have you believe your President does not answer to The Queen yet he still respects tradition and culture.

As I said before, how could we expect you to understand anything about tradition and heritage - you simply don't get it at all do you?

We elect him, and he begins working.

And we in effect elect our Prime Minister.

There is much that is wrong with both our electoral and Parliamentary processes but I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here.

The PM asking the Queen if he can hold office might be a tradition, but why do you think it's there? Just for giggles?

Yes - and so that silly Americans etc come over and spend an absolute fortune taking in the pomp and pageantry of it all - our monarch is an irrelevance to the vast majority of people in the UK and she has no impact whatsoever on our lives.
It seems to me that Americans are far more obsessed with our royal family than us Brits - I wonder why?

As for Royal Prerogative - it's extent is quite ambiguous and the final say on the legality of it's useage depend's solely on judicial judgement.

- Do you really think that would happen? The public would overthrow the Queen?

Well, we've done it before so history would suggest that we would.

If a monarch ever tried to overrule Parliament and enforce their will then one way or another that monarch would be removed.

But then again you with your infinite and superior knowledge of the UK, it's people, it's history, it's laws and it's customs etc have a far better qualified opinion on this matter than those of us who live here.

People are shaking in their boots to even mention the Royal Family in magazines and newspapers in even a mildly negative light, much less downright implying certain things.

Go into any pub, club or other place where we Brits tend to meet and discuss things and you'll openly here countless conversations etc with people freely expressing whatever opinion they like.
Many publications and organisations are openly anti-monarchy and discuss their dislike and discontent.

Then again, I'm seeing a lot of stories out of England involving people being arrested for insulting one another.

Where?
Examples please.

You boys and girls across the pond seem to have a big problem with Lizzy being insulted.

Plenty of magazines etc take the piss out of The Queen and her family - but there are boundaries, same as anyone else - or do you suggest that she should be treat differently to everyone else?

- Sure. But capital punishment didn't end in the UK until 1965, and it was only until 2004 that your government was finally able to prohibit its restoration. At last you're making some progress,

Unlike the USA, between 2007 and 2011 only China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia executed more people than the USA - exalted company and something to be proud of.
Of the 50 US States only 17states do not enforce capital punishment - some progress.

now all you need is absolute freedom of the press (love that your Royal Family is trying to shut down magazines for nude photos) and to stop treating a queen as an untouchable goddess.

Do you think that MSM in the USA would publish topless figures of The First Lady or The Presidents daughters?

The Press in the UK is rotten to the core - exactly the same as the USA - but there are still some ethical and professional reporters out there.

A Head of State that can declare war,

Technically yes, but in practice no.

Some of the best explanations of this are given here.
answers.yahoo.com...

I assure you, if I thought for one minute that the monarch was dictating or even unduly influincing government policy then I would do everything possible to make sure she went the same way as some of her predecessors.

There is much that is wrong with the UK's electoral and parliamentary systems - Liz's involvement and powers are the least of our worries.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


The monarchy is a profit center for the UK as the crown lands bring in about 200 million pounds a year and we give them back about 50 million but most of that goes on essentials like keeping the palaces repaired/security via police etc and as for sitting on piles of gold with funny hats they belong to the nation so they ain't hers..and she has very little choice in the matter as tradition decree's she must turn up at x wearing y

The monarchy costs less per year in the UK than it cost just to host Obama's investiture never mind the rest of the stuff he can claim for

And as for royal power...theres a few technical powers she has but to exercise those powers would probably cause more trouble legally than its worth and the best powers she has are those of being unable to be tried in court and the only person in the UK to have a car without a number plate and as for declaring war unless it was the frenchies across the channel we'd probably just ignore her

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

When comparing the violent crime rates of America with the UK the statistics all appear to show that America has less violent crime than the UK, these statistics I have found vary depending on the source.

They show nothing of the sort. America has greater rates for all forms of crime in comparison to the UK. Skewing statistics by not including aggravated assault or some other blatant omission in order to show that the "gun-banned" UK has a greater violent crime rate than the US just shields from reality those who barely venture into it anyway.

Due to funding cutbacks the police try to make everything violent if possible as violence is something the police are seen as needed to help with thereby making their case to keep getting paid.....they have to ensure theres enough work to ensure their own survival and in todays world stats are the king

The British do not need guns. We do not need to have this ridiculous fixation that the majority of America has with guns to rear its ugly head in our country. As much as I respect America's 2nd Amendment and the rights American's have there is a clear issue that Barack Obama needs to grasp and take hold off when it comes to firearms in America. Increased access to firearms will lead to increased crime where firearms are used. People can argue with stats and figures purporting that gun crime is down - it is not. Stories come out of the states almost hourly about gun crime.

Oh lord, not this again.

Shotguns - Perfectly legal for private ownership. Requires a shotgun licence (costs £50), and cannot be refused unless you have a criminal or mental instability background.

Rifles including semi-automatic - Perfectly legal for private ownership. Requires a firearms certificate (costs £50, but is different to shotgun certificate). Can be refused, if the police feel you have no justifiable reason to own one. However, unless you have a criminal background, or mental condition, its not often refused if you can show membership of gun club, or own land on which to shoot safely.

Handguns - All handguns are illegal for private ownership, however, certain classifications of handguns are available for practice and sport, but only at designated locations. Currently all "designated locations" are on military land, who do "gun clubs", for the public.

Muzzle Loading Handguns are available for private ownership on the same FAC as a rifle.

Certain antique or collectors handguns are legal to own without a licence (laughable how few people realise this one). They don't even have to be deactivated. I think the assumption is that the ammunition for them is no longer available.

In otherwords, dear OP, the government never took our guns, only applied certain, in my opionion, entirely reasonable restrictions on their ownership and use.

Also, in a home defence situation, a shotgun is infinitely betterthan a handgun. Its big, its scary, and doesn't have to be aimed that accurately to do damage, therefore since shotguns are still perfectly legal, your opening argument doesn't really carry that much weight.

reply to post by BMorris


i know, it's like banging your head against a brick wall isnt it.

i guess because many brits are not interested in owning guns (unless you live in the countryside, heaps of rifles and shotguns there), and those that do own and shoot dont make a song and dance about it, some folk just assume it's all verboten and never bother to check it out... there is some shocking ignorance on this.

go figure

i have to agree with what someone said earlier though, may as well as pistols in general to FACs but meh, it's a minor detail if you ask me.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


Please watch this pal, it may help you understand how the United Kingdom and British Empire function instedd of the drivel you keep spouting. Its only 5mins.

The United Kingdom Explained

There is also a thread here on ATS pertaining to the subject matter.