Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Not really, any normal person can get a gun in 6 months or less if you are in a rural area. Certificates last for 5 years, plenty of time to develop mental illness or such. I could quiet easily acquire a firearms licence should I wish. The rules aren't particularly strict at all, I don't have a criminal record, I don't have a history of mental illness and could justify my ownership at present or with a membership of my local gun club. Its pretty much the minimum level.

    You've used one example to brush aside hundreds of others. The bottom line is legal gun owners do commit crime, that is stone cold fact. The system is not infallible and it cannot predict future behaviour of individuals.

    Yes, and seeing as we can't predict the actions of people we generally limit their ability to commit large amounts of a damage. Just because I carry a knife doesn't mean I'm going to stab someone, but I'm still not allowed to carry one because it reduces the chance I would if I wanted. I could get caught, I might not have it with me, the knife I wanted was restricted for sale, or other such reasons all reducing the chance of me committing a crime and limiting the scope of that crime.

    ....

    Because if the idea of banning a car would effectively render us a 3rd world nation economically, and banning knives would making eating and food prep very difficult. Not problems encountered with guns. We also do restrict those things, and do ban things. Certain knives are banned, certain cars are not road legal and their a restrictions on operating. Certain guns are also banned. We have limits in the same was there is not a blanket ban on guns due to people needing them for pest control or sport.

    I think you are creating your own reality with regard to knives and cars to suit your argument. We don't just accept deaths in either case, we are constantly having more and more restrictions to limit the deaths in both cases.
    I go shooting myself and know many people who do the same, and the licensing system IS strict. Much stricter than you seem to think it is. The police do all sorts of background checks before granting (or denying) a license, including mental health and character references. The license can be revoked at any time, and an irresponsible owner will quickly lose their guns. Even responsible owners have guns taken off them temporarily if any allegation (whether true or not) is made against them, while that is being investigated.

    Legal gun owners do not commit crime, or if they do, they don't keep their guns for very long. Prison sentences will affect your future ability to apply for a license, and longer prison sentences result in a lifetime ban. Legal gun owners are some of the most law abiding people in society - this is fact which no one except the most extreme anti-gun campaigners dispute. They are held to a higher standard than most other people due to how easy it is to lose their guns.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomCostsTax)
    What kind of store are you talking about? If it was just a corner shop or mini supermarket and more than two people tried to stick it up, then they wouldn't make any money between themselves. If it was a big retailer, then the armed robbers would be taking a risk of running into security guards and god knows how many members of the public who may also be armed.
    Fair enough. My point is that I don't need a gun personally and have never found the need to be in possession of one. This only time I feel like I could get into an altercation with someone is if in a club environment, when alcohol seems to increase people's aggression. Saying that, being in possession of a gun while intoxicated is not something I'd like to do.

    I understand the need for guns for "self-defence", but there are going to be criminals (thieves,sex offenders, killers, drug dealers) who are more likely to possess a gun than the average person. These kinda people are a hell lot more dangerous. It only takes a look into some of America's history and you can see the easy access to firearms has caused a lot of deaths. In South Central, LA in the 80's, gun crime was rife as two gangs were at war with each other. Pretty much every day, someone was killed through gun crime.

    I'm not a fan of letting people take what isn't theirs (like money or someone's life), but introducing guns in our society is clearly going to increase the incidence of gun crime. I'm not saying levels are going to reach anything like America's. I'm aware that America is full of money-hungry, trigger-happy people. Nights out are going to be less safe. Bouncers would have to probably go out with protection, while potential clubbers looking for trouble are more likely to cause more serious damage
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A liberty too far.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by 9MmBulletz)
    Fair enough. My point is that I don't need a gun personally and have never found the need to be in possession of one. This only time I feel like I could get into an altercation with someone is if in a club environment, when alcohol seems to increase people's aggression. Saying that, being in possession of a gun while intoxicated is not something I'd like to do.

    I understand the need for guns for "self-defence", but there are going to be criminals (thieves,sex offenders, killers, drug dealers) who are more likely to possess a gun than the average person. These kinda people are a hell lot more dangerous. It only takes a look into some of America's history and you can see the easy access to firearms has caused a lot of deaths. In South Central, LA in the 80's, gun crime was rife as two gangs were at war with each other. Pretty much every day, someone was killed through gun crime.

    I'm not a fan of letting people take what isn't theirs (like money or someone's life), but introducing guns in our society is clearly going to increase the incidence of gun crime. I'm not saying levels are going to reach anything like America's. I'm aware that America is full of money-hungry, trigger-happy people. Nights out are going to be less safe. Bouncers would have to probably go out with protection, while potential clubbers looking for trouble are more likely to cause more serious damage
    You might feel like that, but there are plenty of other people that believe they should legally be able to own a firearm for the purposes of self defense. It wasn't long ago that someone shot eight rounds at people indiscriminately on my own high road. What are you supposed to do during scenarios like this? Hold tight and wait half an hour for the police?

    If you look into Americas gun crime in place like New York, 75% of firearms offences were committed with illegal weapons. Why? because no criminal with slightest intelligence would use a legally registered gun that could be traced back to them.

    And remember, this thread is about Firearms not just guns. That includes tasers and even pepper spray...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomCostsTax)
    You might feel like that, but there are plenty of other people that believe they should legally be able to own a firearm for the purposes of self defense. It wasn't long ago that someone shot eight rounds at people indiscriminately on my own high road. What are you supposed to do during scenarios like this? Hold tight and wait half an hour for the police?

    If you look into Americas gun crime in place like New York, 75% of firearms offences were committed with illegal weapons. Why? because no criminal with slightest intelligence would use a legally registered gun that could be traced back to them.

    And remember, this thread is about Firearms not just guns. That includes tasers and even pepper spray...
    Tbh, wasn't aware that pepper spray and tasers were banned until I read up on it just now. If that's the case, then they should be legalised at a minimum for self-defense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I go shooting myself and know many people who do the same, and the licensing system IS strict. Much stricter than you seem to think it is. The police do all sorts of background checks before granting (or denying) a license, including mental health and character references. The license can be revoked at any time, and an irresponsible owner will quickly lose their guns. Even responsible owners have guns taken off them temporarily if any allegation (whether true or not) is made against them, while that is being investigated.

    Legal gun owners do not commit crime, or if they do, they don't keep their guns for very long. Prison sentences will affect your future ability to apply for a license, and longer prison sentences result in a lifetime ban. Legal gun owners are some of the most law abiding people in society - this is fact which no one except the most extreme anti-gun campaigners dispute. They are held to a higher standard than most other people due to how easy it is to lose their guns.
    You make the assumption I don't know about gun licensing, a you should have guessed from the statement I could easily get a licence if I wished, I well aquatinted with the shooting scene. The step are not much stricter, they are the bare minimum acceptable, unless you think character references, health checks, are somehow above and beyond for the normal person. The simple fact is, so long as you have previously been a law abiding citizen which the vast majority of the country have, and can justify your requirement with a police chief which isn't a particularly difficult process, there is no reason your application would be declined. Again, so long as there are no mental or criminal issues and correct storage at the time of checks there is no reason your licence should be revoked early. I also think you've missed the point of this paragraph.

    "Legal gun owners do not commit crime". Its simply not true,. There is no leeway in the fact its an absolute, its not even a half truth, so why say it? Are you seriously suggesting I could not find a single crime committed by a legal gun owner? Legal gun owners are not the major proponents of crime, and legal guns are not the major tools of criminals, but the idea they the people or their guns do not commit crime is incorrect. As I said, you seem to have missed the point of the part of the discussion you have selected, it was not some idea that legal gun owners are a threat, it was his proposition that it was the licensing procedure that is responsible for lower gun deaths and as such restriction of firearms was unnecessary. The licensing procedure relies on the mental health system, one of the most lacking areas in the NHS and still massively reliant upon self reporting. It relies on upon gun owners to ensure their guns are not lost or stolen, which they are in the thousands. Its not the idea that legal gun owners are likely to commit crime, its the point that because you hand a gun over to someone who is by all means deemed safe that is not to say it is still in the hands of a safe person, let alone the same safe person, 12 months from then and the licensing procedures cannot change that. There is not complete separation between the legal system and criminal behaviour as suggested.

    That's why its important to limit the gun to use, what is the requirement and is this firearm in excess of that. His justification for the requirement of semi auto rifle and handgun ban is the Olympic team needing to train and fun. I said that politically is a non starter, a small number of people wanting to overturn the most used weapons for murder for a minority sport, and the introduction of a weapon most popular with massacres stateside for the purpose of fun. Its not going to gain traction anymore than a proposition for a fully automatic weapon.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    You make the assumption I don't know about gun licensing, a you should have guessed from the statement I could easily get a licence if I wished, I well aquatinted with the shooting scene. The step are not much stricter, they are the bare minimum acceptable, unless you think character references, health checks, are somehow above and beyond for the normal person. The simple fact is, so long as you have previously been a law abiding citizen which the vast majority of the country have, and can justify your requirement with a police chief which isn't a particularly difficult process, there is no reason your application would be declined. Again, so long as there are no mental or criminal issues and correct storage at the time of checks there is no reason your licence should be revoked early. I also think you've missed the point of this paragraph.

    "Legal gun owners do not commit crime". Its simply not true,. There is no leeway in the fact its an absolute, its not even a half truth, so why say it? Are you seriously suggesting I could not find a single crime committed by a legal gun owner? Legal gun owners are not the major proponents of crime, and legal guns are not the major tools of criminals, but the idea they the people or their guns do not commit crime is incorrect. As I said, you seem to have missed the point of the part of the discussion you have selected, it was not some idea that legal gun owners are a threat, it was his proposition that it was the licensing procedure that is responsible for lower gun deaths and as such restriction of firearms was unnecessary. The licensing procedure relies on the mental health system, one of the most lacking areas in the NHS and still massively reliant upon self reporting. It relies on upon gun owners to ensure their guns are not lost or stolen, which they are in the thousands. Its not the idea that legal gun owners are likely to commit crime, its the point that because you hand a gun over to someone who is by all means deemed safe that is not to say it is still in the hands of a safe person, let alone the same safe person, 12 months from then and the licensing procedures cannot change that. There is not complete separation between the legal system and criminal behaviour as suggested.

    That's why its important to limit the gun to use, what is the requirement and is this firearm in excess of that. His justification for the requirement of semi auto rifle and handgun ban is the Olympic team needing to train and fun. I said that politically is a non starter, a small number of people wanting to overturn the most used weapons for murder for a minority sport, and the introduction of a weapon most popular with massacres stateside for the purpose of fun. Its not going to gain traction anymore than a proposition for a fully automatic weapon.
    The system is quite strict. If the system works properly (and there is no good reason why it shouldn't) the police will quickly find out any incidents involving legal gun owners and if a crime has been committed, they face losing their license. Licenses will not be granted until a Firearms Enquiry Officer is satisfied that an applicant poses no danger to the public.The police have quite wide discretion over whether to grant or deny an application. The licensing process involves hours of paperwork and referees have to answer all sorts of personal questions about you (including information about any family problems). The police also ask family doctors about alcohol issues, any mental issues and drug abuse, etc.

    3 month+ prison sentence - lose guns and license for 5 years.
    3 year+ prison sentence - lose guns and licenses permanently.

    Any serious incidents involving legally held guns are the result of a lapse in law enforcement, not any problems with the laws themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you should not be able to defend yourself, so I can rob you

    I want to feel superior when I rob an old woman when I home invade I don't want to feel threatened by you, I don't want you to be able to keep guns then I will feel afraid.

    I am the criminal I have rights
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hellooooo!!!!! whats wrong with people on here, you do realise that i can own a barrette 50-cal in england or a double barrel or semi automatic 22, guns ARE LEGAL IN ENGLAND ALREADY handguns and i repeat HANDguns were made illegal because there easier to conceil. We have licencing that keeps guns in the right hands and theres thousands of guns smuggled into this country every year by criminals which cant been tracked to owners HOW SWITCHED OFF AND ARROGANT ARE YOU PEOPLE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The system is quite strict. If the system works properly (and there is no good reason why it shouldn't) the police will quickly find out any incidents involving legal gun owners and if a crime has been committed, they face losing their license. Licenses will not be granted until a Firearms Enquiry Officer is satisfied that an applicant poses no danger to the public.The police have quite wide discretion over whether to grant or deny an application. The licensing process involves hours of paperwork and referees have to answer all sorts of personal questions about you (including information about any family problems). The police also ask family doctors about alcohol issues, any mental issues and drug abuse, etc.

    3 month+ prison sentence - lose guns and license for 5 years.
    3 year+ prison sentence - lose guns and licenses permanently.

    Any serious incidents involving legally held guns are the result of a lapse in law enforcement, not any problems with the laws themselves.

    Hey dont worry people just don't use there brains any more or think about doing some research before throwing judgement it just makes me laugh how many peole dont realise that its just handguns which are illegal in england rifles, semi auto 22s and shot guns are legal to own and you can even get handguns with extended barrels which make them legal, people need to start thinking outside of the box and less in the tv reality bull****
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    lol nty
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emma122)
    yeh like that's gone so well in America, the numerous school shootings, no way in hell should fire arms be legalised, I will move out of the country if that happened
    Ah, the joys of ignorance. You have read up on Switzerland haven't you?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomCostsTax)
    In my opinion, there is no real reason why we shouldn't be able to own a firearm, for self defense.

    Statistics show that in the UK: A rape is reported every 6 minutes, every 30 minutes someone is robbed at knifepoint, a house is broken into every two minutes and on average two women a week are murdered as a result of domestic violence.

    People should be able to fully defend themselves and their families.

    What are your thoughts?

    (Original post by rainingmen)
    There hasn't been a school shooting since 1996, the US has had 31 since Columbine. Guns on their own can cause no good or bad, but the more guns there are the more likely they are to be used incorrectly
    This pretty much ends the thread for me. Guns are simply not needed in the UK or anywhere outside the Armed Forces, Swat, Police and such.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    **** that. I do not want the idiots in this country arming themselves.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee R)
    Guns are simply not needed in the UK or anywhere outside the Armed Forces, Swat, Police and such.
    That is simply not true at all. There are many hundreds of thousands of people who shoot for sport including shotguns, rifles and air rifles. Not only sport but also pest control (agriculture and conservation), for which guns are essential. I think those people would disagree with you - they definitely need those guns.

    I wouldn't want to go down the USA route but some people in the UK do need guns and we don't need any further restrictions. The argument that "no one needs guns" is a fallacy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    That is simply not true at all. There are many hundreds of thousands of people who shoot for sport including shotguns, rifles and air rifles. Not only sport but also pest control (agriculture and conservation), for which guns are essential. I think those people would disagree with you - they definitely need those guns.

    And for those reasons you can apply to get a gun licence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee R)
    And for those reasons you can apply to get a gun licence.
    OK, your original comment was a bit broad and suggested that nobody outside armed forces and police should have any sort of gun. Thanks for clearing that up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    OK, your original comment was a bit broad and suggested that nobody outside armed forces and police should have any sort of gun. Thanks for clearing that up.
    What my point was; walking into a shop and walking back out with a Baretta or a Magnum, machine gun or some other crap
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomCostsTax)
    In my opinion, there is no real reason why we shouldn't be able to own a firearm, for self defense.

    Statistics show that in the UK: A rape is reported every 6 minutes, every 30 minutes someone is robbed at knifepoint, a house is broken into every two minutes and on average two women a week are murdered as a result of domestic violence.

    People should be able to fully defend themselves and their families.

    What are your thoughts?
    Completely retarded idea. If householders and members of the public start regularly carrying guns, all that will happen is the criminals start carrying bigger guns, and rather than risk getting shot, they will just shoot you first. Muggings and robberies will become murders.

    At the moment, chances are that if you get robbed or mugged, the worst thing the assailant will have is a knife, and he will almost certainly not use it, because he won't feel threatened. Start legalising firearms and all that changes.

    You need to study a little game theory and actually look what the new Nash Equilibrium would look like.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Ah, the joys of ignorance. You have read up on Switzerland haven't you?
    Because a small, rich, mountainous country is such a valid comparison for the largely poor, urban population of the UK. :facepalm2:
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.