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

originally posted by: Lucifer84
The majority of guns in the UK are actually conversions from non lethal pistols. This is why they are so inaccurate. You can fire straight and the bullet will fly out of the barrel to the left or the right. People do this as its easier to acquire an non lethal pistols such as BB guns or Air rifles etc... I'm not entirely sure on hows it done but i have seen the barrels get drilled out for a real bullet to go through but didn't really pay attention to the rest of the process.

Also if you know where to go you could quite easily get a real gun or conversion, Lads in the UK will happily give you a gun they may have used before, knowing that you will get the blame for any previous uses of that particular gun and free them from the responsibility. These are not the type of people you grass on..... but you would know that already if you knew them

Source: I was once a wannabe gangster....a very long time ago

I hear they occassionally blow up when fired. Not usually on the first shot, but the BB/blank guns aren't designed to survive the stress of a powder propelled bullet.

a reply to: Antigod

My mate got offered hand grenades when he was doing tree surgery at an army camp. Not being flippant but I hear they blow up when fired too. There's plenty of stuff about. Support your local constables.
www.policeconstables.org...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


lol, really? So you want to impose your ideals and views on others, who knew?...

Im not though.

I fully respect the 2nd Amendment if that's what the USA wants.

But I don't live in the USA and the majority here want assault rifles and hand guns banned. And look sweetheart we live in a democracy in the UK not a constitutional republic.

Dont like it it? Dont live here.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW, in case you didn't know New York has very restricted laws on firearms similar to Chicago and they happen to be a couple of the most gun crime ridden states in the Union...

Whoopy effing Do THATS YOUR BLOODY COUNTRY NOT MINE!

Your country your problem.

We talking about the UNITED KINGDOM here not the USA. Our country our ways. Dont like em? Well stuff you stay in the USA we dont care, shut up and stop interfering.

originally posted by: Kryties and the Americans use insults and intimidation to answer back.

What you expect from the neighborhood bully.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


Listen what MANY BRITONS have to say about the issue, and stop trying to impose your draconian views and ideals on others...

Guess what UK is a DEMOCRACY. Yes some still want guns, I wouldn't mind them. But the majority wont. It how it works here.

Dont like it? Dont live here! Stay in the USA and keep your own ways and values and stop trying to force them on others!

Thankyou, you just described the Americans comments and reactions in this thread perfectly.

Well done

LOL what an inane comment to make, when it is obviously people like YOU who want to control how other people live, at least when it comes to subjects like "gun control"...

I don't want to impose my views and make you own a gun, people like YOU want to heavily restrict or even ban firearms...

Try to make some sense if you are going to discuss this topic...

originally posted by: crazyewok


Guess what UK is a DEMOCRACY. Yes some still want guns, I wouldn't mind them. But the majority wont. It how it works here.

Dont like it? Dont live here! Stay in the USA and keep your own ways and values and stop trying to force them on others!

WOW... first of all my statement was about "personal choice", something which you obviously don't want and want to control, among some other people... Not to mention that there are many Britons who disagree with you on this topic. Did you even completely ignore the statement that it was the largest protest in the UK, at least up and until the time the protest occurred?... That in itself is a clear message that a lot of Britons not only disagree with you and your dictatorial views, but more Britons feel/felt gun control is a big issue in the UK and want to take back this right than on any other issue in the UK. Again, at least up and until that protest occurred.

Second of all, I didn't make ANY statement that in the UK people should implement American laws, in fact it was your friend and ATS member "Kryties" who made statements about American values being antiquated, and how Americans should allow people like him to control our laws...

In fact, let me even excerpt part of his statements...

originally posted by: Kryties

...
America needs to do one of two things: Either wake the hell up to itself or close yourselves off from the rest of the world entirely and stop poisoning us with your vile foreign policy and antiquated, backward views.

America has had its day. You failed. Time to let the rest of us fix what you lot messed up so badly.

Talk about "armchair dictator wannabes"...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Not to mention that there are many Britons who disagree with you on this topic. Did you even completely ignore the statement that it was the largest protest in the UK, at least up and until the time the protest occurred?... That in itself is a clear message that a lot of Britons not only disagree with you and your dictatorial views, but more Britons feel/felt gun control is a big issue in the UK and want to take back this right than on any other issue in the UK. Again, at least up and until that protest occurred.

This is a good point, though I would qualify it a little. I understand that the vast majority of the British are apathetic towards gun control, they don''t really care either way as long as criminals don't have them. There was a study on this but I'm afraid I've not been able to track it down, which is a shame. The issue is that the anti-gun crowds generally claim the apathetic people as part of their support base, claiming moral superiority on that basis.

The argument is really between the two minorities with a particular viewpoint. As with many things, these differences are also regional - the anti-gun crowds tend to be disproportionally represented in the larger cities while the pro-gun crowds tend to be better represented in the non-urban areas. In this respect I think we mirror the US, with many cities having a vastly different political leaning than the rest of the state - yet it's the cities that usually decide what will happen!

Which of these two minorities is bigger? I'd certainly say the anti-gun mafia are the loudest, with far more favourable press coverage. Nothing increases newspaper sales like whipping up a frenzy over a tragedy. It's worth pointing out that the number of "tragedies" we've had relating to legally-held firearms since 1987 could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand...

In a nation with over 60 million people, 1.8 million guns is basically none when compared to the U.S., which pretty much has 1 gun for every single man, woman, and child.

Stirring up animosity between different nationalities is a common tactic for burying relevant comments. When you see one of these silly, childish arguments on ATS look for the preceding comment.

The thing to remember is that you don't need an actual shotgun/firearms license to go out and bag a few clay pigeons or ducks just someone who does have a license to supervise so there is a lot more people who enjoy shooting than the stats show, we got small houses over here (ok texans we know our country aint much bigger than your kitchen cupboard) and to have a firearm you need to have a safe to the relevant British standard so why spend all that money buying guns/safes when you can just go out with a friend who's got all that covered already especially if its only a rare event to go out shooting.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
...
Which of these two minorities is bigger? I'd certainly say the anti-gun mafia are the loudest, with far more favourable press coverage. Nothing increases newspaper sales like whipping up a frenzy over a tragedy. It's worth pointing out that the number of "tragedies" we've had relating to legally-held firearms since 1987 could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand...

You are making a really good point with those arguments. However, I would say that at least in the U.S. there are as many people who care about keeping the Second Amendment as there are Americans who think it should be forever banned. At least as many. Not to mention that most crimes with handguns occur in cities and states which have heavy restrictions or even bans on handguns and/or other firearms such as the cities of Detroit, New Jersey, and New York.

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
Follow on Twitter
on February 06, 2014 at 9:01 AM, updated February 11, 2014 at 4:46 PM

By Danielle Thompson

New Jersey faces an epidemic of violent crime, threatening the safety of each New Jersey resident. Set party affiliation aside for a minute and think of the severity of the homicide rate in New Jersey.

According to a Jan. 1 Star-Ledger report, Newark has seen its murder rate spike, with 111 murders in 2013. To put this in perspective, that’s the highest murder rate Newark has seen since 1990. For cities with a population from 100,000 to 499,000, Newark ranked seventh for highest crime rate in 2013. Newark’s murder and crime rate have consistently remained high over the years and the solutions being implemented prove to be drastically ineffective.

Current attempts to lower the crime rate have failed. Newark’s law enforcement confiscated about 1,000 guns and collected about 1,700 firearms from a gun-buyback program in early 2013. Newark then proceeded to experience the highest murder rate the city has seen in years.

The definition of a criminal is a person who disregards the law. Strict gun control laws and gun-buyback programs don’t affect criminals’ behavior. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
...

blog.nj.com...

That article I excerpted from above also states and I quote.

...
A city similar to Newark with an astronomically high murder rate is Detroit. James Craig was appointed as Detroit’s police chief and has since changed the city’s tune, advocating for citizens to arm themselves, and generously granting concealed pistol licenses (CPL) to Detroit residents.

"There’s a number of CPL holders running around the city of Detroit," Craig said last month. "I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction."

The Detroit News reported that city police records show 73 justifiable homicides since 2011. Most of these incidents involved armed citizens defending themselves from a criminal intent on doing harm.
...

blog.nj.com...

BTW, the above is a news website.

The chief of police of Detroit, James Craig, used to be in favor of the very restrictive laws and bans on firearms, but after years of seeing what such tactics does to the city and it's people he changed his mind and since then he is advocating for law-abiding civilians to arm themselves with firearms and conceal carry handguns.

I will go even a step further. In cities where "open carry" is allowed and the police or other regular people don't get emotional when they see a civilian armed, there is a reduction of crime in general.

The argument that if people had handguns and were able to open-carry in the U.S. and then criminals would be able to steal the firearm and kill people doesn't fly. Because where there is a man or woman who is exercising their right to open carry, there are many others. So if a criminal tries to steal a firearm from a law abiding citizen multiple law abiding citizens would pull their firearms on the criminal/criminals.

BTW, again, I am not promoting that every nation should "enforce" American laws such as the Second Amendment, but I am a firm believer that people should have the ability to choose individually whether to be armed or not.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The main thing is it would be as mighty a change to the UK to allow carrying as it would be to get rid of the 2nd in the US, its not just laws but cultural attitudes and stripping bubba from his guns will be as bad as letting kev the chav here in the uk get his hands on a gun as both sides are not prepared for the sudden change

and personally i'd rather the chav's in their vauxhall nova's don't spent half their time drinking white lightening and the other half spraying the UK with bullets

a reply to: Maxatoria

At least their aim would be off.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The main thing is it would be as mighty a change to the UK to allow carrying as it would be to get rid of the 2nd in the US, its not just laws but cultural attitudes and stripping bubba from his guns will be as bad as letting kev the chav here in the uk get his hands on a gun as both sides are not prepared for the sudden change

and personally i'd rather the chav's in their vauxhall nova's don't spent half their time drinking white lightening and the other half spraying the UK with bullets

The difficulty there is that Kev the Chav still has access to firearms. Letitia Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis were killed with a (converted) MAC 10 fully-automatic submachine gun - something which hasn't been legal for civilian ownership since 1936, some 70 years before the murders and some 30 years before that make and model of firearm was even designed. All that "banning" malarky didn't manage to stop those people getting shot.

We already have fairly tight firearms licensing in place and getting one is not straightforward. Would Kev the Chav manage to get a license? If he did, doesn't that rather show that he's not as chavvy as he might appear?

It wouldn't be anywhere near the level of change as you might think. Handguns were available for private ownership in our lifetimes, and I bet there's at least a handful of ATS members in the UK who had owned them prior to change. Of course, the question here goes a bit further - carrying for defence. That would be a bigger shift, but again "self defence" was an acceptable reason up until 1946 - perhaps beyond most if not all members' memories, but still not that far distant. Were many ever actually used in self defence? It seems not - just because the option is available, it doesn't mean that people will go to it as their default answer. If people do end up using them justifiably in a self-defence scenario (that is, one that merits the use of lethal force)... doesn't that rather prove that they have a genuine place?

Having said that, of course, we are not generally a violent society, despite what the newspapers say. There are a few pockets of genuine concern - mostly centered around certain areas of certain major cities - with gun crime generally involving inter-gang/group disputes. Even if I were permitted to carry a pistol for self defence, I can't imagine needing or wanting to carry it for 99.9% of the places I visit. For that 0.01% where I would like to have it, I couldn't carry it anyway for other reasons!

Regardless, even though I wouldn't do it, I believe that we should still have the opportunity to do it if we so wished. I also believe that our current licensing regime, when properly applied, would successfully reduce many of the perceived problems. I don't think that it would really increase gun crime, as it would still be easier for the criminals to source illegal untraceable firearms through their existing networks rather than go through the hassle and background checks needed for a licensed registered firearm.

a reply to: EvillerBob

How we feel about it is the deciding factor in what occurs, not the availability or legality. Confidence in the police acting quickly and effectively is paramount. Supporting the police in their political struggle will keep us as safe as is possible.

www.policeconstables.org...

Our confidence in an appropriate response equals fear of a rapid response for those who would misuse firearms.

If you are threatened with a firearm and you're big enough you could always follow my grandfathers example. As a young Met bobby he was threatened with a revolver. He charged the bloke and took him down. It was the chisel thrust through his hand that left a scar for life, and he took that bloke down as well.

Police morale was at an all time low a year ago. Do whatever you can to boost it.

originally posted by: Kester
If you are threatened with a firearm and you're big enough you could always follow my grandfathers example. As a young Met bobby he was threatened with a revolver. He charged the bloke and took him down. It was the chisel thrust through his hand that left a scar for life, and he took that bloke down as well.

I'm glad to hear he survived, good reflexes and quick thinking certainly. The problem is... what if you're not a young Met bobby? I certainly can't move as fast as I could 10 years ago - or even two years ago before I was involved in a car accident. To borrow an old American advertising slogan, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal".

Confidence in the Police is absolutely vital, especially in the UK where policing has always been on the basis of consent. Peels Principles are, to my mind, the best basis that any police force could work on. There were such high hopes when Theresa May was appointed that we'd start the move back towards them, but that never materialised. I'm very pro-police and I feel that they have been screwed over so many times it's amazing that half of them are still turning up to work each day.

The chance of being threatened by a firearm are very, very slim. Much more likely to be threatened with a knife, or simply by a groups of youths - all of which can be equally deadly if things turn nasty.

People seem to have this strange notion that you're only under threat if the "other guy" has a gun, that it doesn't count if they "only had a knife", or "only had a baseball bat", or "were only giving him a good kicking". Simply. Not. True. As tough as the human body can be, a few taps in the wrong place is all it takes. If you're down on the ground and someone starts kicking, your chance of a life-threatening injury increases significantly. The people doing it might not intend to kill you - I'm sure they're also thinking "it's just a bit of a kicking" - but it's still a very real risk.

No matter how much confidence you have in the Police, it isn't going to do you much good when a problem arises. Realistically, many of the situations we are envisaging here will not involve the Police intervening to protect you, but arriving after the damage has been done, getting an ambulance for you and hopefully finding the people responsible. Unless you have your own pocket policeman or you're lucky enough to have a policeman within shouting distance, you're screwed. That's not a slight towards the Police, it's just a recognition of the fact that, based on 2011 figures at least, there was approximately 1 policeman for every 500 people in the UK if every policeman were working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

As the focus of the discussion seems to have shifted to self defence, it's worth pointing out that the law in relation to self defence would not need to change at all. The current law would handle a self defence shooting perfectly well, as indeed it has in recent times.

If handguns were legal, would I buy one? Absolutely. It wouldn't be kept on the bedside table at night, or tucked into my jeans when I went to the shop. I simply don't feel that I need to do either, and if I felt my local area became dangerous enough to need it, I'd move anyway for the sake of my children if nothing else.

No, instead, I'd take it to the range, just like my other firearms, and thoroughly enjoy making tiny holes in bits of paper, or taking last place in competitions, or spend painful amounts of money on buying new gadgets to go with it - just like I do now, in fact. But, I think the right should be available to me to take it with me while shopping if I wished.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

WOW... first of all my statement was about "personal choice", something which you obviously don't want and want to control, among some other people... Not to mention that there are many Britons who disagree with you on this topic. Did you even completely ignore the statement that it was the largest protest in the UK, at least up and until the time the protest occurred?... That in itself is a clear message that a lot of Britons not only disagree with you and your dictatorial views, but more Britons feel/felt gun control is a big issue in the UK and want to take back this right than on any other issue in the UK

Yes, most of them read American BS sites about gun crime in the USA and don't realize it isn't the same here.

Actually ask people face to face in the UK and most of us are quite happy with the handgun ban. The only people I know who want handguns (brother and gun-nut mate) I wouldn't trust with a water pistol. Most of us don't want handguns. So, we don't have handguns. Democracy. I disagree with EvillerBob about handgun support, country types usually want higher powered hunting rifles not handguns (me included). They also don't see guns in the hands of inner city drugs dealers, which is probably why urbanites have a downer on handguns. The majority support the handgun ban. I remember a poll from a a couple of years ago that actually asked people face to face and came out with a majority supporting a ban.

Your homicide rate is 4 to 5 times higher than ours and it's all down to gun crimes. It's stunningly rare to have a mugger or a burglar use a gun, in fact I couldn't find a case of 'shot by burglar' in recent history. They are that dear now that if you could afford one you wouldn't be robbing or burgling.

And the 'only criminals have guns?' U.K. law enforcement officials now estimate that only around 1,000 guns are in use by criminal elements in the entirety of the U.K. I'd say that was pretty successful gun control. In fact there was a gang war here where both sides were renting the same gun from a third party.

that it was the largest protest in the UK, at least up and until the time the protest occurred?...

What protest? Not being funny, genuinely what protest?

BTW, again, I am not promoting that every nation should "enforce" American laws such as the Second Amendment, but I am a firm believer that people should have the ability to choose individually whether to be armed or not

You basically take away MY choice at living in a handgun free environment when you do that. I choose NOT to be in danger from gun wielding muggers, burglars and my crazy assed neighbor on a killing spree. Last time I checked you are about 6 times more likely to die from gunshots than a knife attack, I'll take the lower risk.

Actually dug out some stats:

32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

So in this case guns are four times more dangerous, and I've seen a page where someone worked out from the hospital admissions that knife wounds were fatal 4% of the time and gunshots 22%. (5.5 times more deadly).

I think this actually covers the difference in UK/USA homicide rates per capita, which are normally about 4/5 time higher in the USA.

It's harder to kill with a knife. You are also more likely (as an aggressor) to be killed with your own weapon if you have a knife.

reply to: wills120

Ok, you made several wild claims there, let's jump to the last one - the one you claimed that I consider myself a subject of the queen.

Can you link me to your sources which confirmed thisa for you?

I don't consider myself a subject of anything. Next - you asserted that I'd no respect for your heritage...guns are your heritage? Where did I disrespect your heritage?

Lastly, you ended your comments by disrespecting what you assumed to be my heritage...nice.

You also said that we, subject of her royal highness - are entitled to our opinion and that you 'don't care' - so one has to enquire as to why you're even reading this thread, let alone responding to it?

That's the attitude of folk these days...I don't care, well people should care what other people think. I care, I care that you think we british love our queen simply because she exists...well, sorry to shatter the illusion of tea and biscuits, cross dressing chappies in bowlers hats old chap, what ho - but it ain't nuffink like that here nor nuffink!

I'd happily tell you what I think of Lizzie and old phil, but I'd get banned for being lewd.