Should gun ownership be legalised in the UK?

[Dream Angel]

If you have a liscence, you can have a gun, so technically it is already legal. My Dad and 12year old brother both have guns (my Dad obviosuly looks after my bros). My Uncle has a gun.

People who want to have a gun for hunting, target shooting etc (ie the ones that wont go around shooting innocent people) wouldnt have a problem with a liscence.

 

[rojse]

But the point in restricting the sale of guns is that firearms are used far less often in crimes of passion, or where the perpetrator puts in no fore-thought before executing the act.

On the other hand, it still does means people might use guns for pre-meditated crimes.

 

[Makaveli]

If the people want to be able to defend themselves, they should be allowed to do so. If they do not want the right, it should not be forced upon them.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hello there.

I'm suprised how extensive the topics spread from on this site, it's nice to have threads dedicated to things other than religion here which is pretty good, and I've always liked debates like this on how to combat societies problems.

Well, my stance on the issue of firearms in the UK, and in a country in general is erm...... circumstancial. There are multiple sides to the debate, both with pro's and cons, like how a pro of firearms being made available to the public is that it apparently would increase the safety of individuals, on the other hand, it could lead to more murders.

You can kill a person with a gun, a knife, a screwdriver, a pair of scissors, a shard of glass, a car, an axe, a hammer, a drill - anything! So many items that we use in our day to day lives can be used to kill someone. I think the problem is not neccessarily the idea of what items civilians posses that are capable of destruction (e.g. a car, kitchen knife etc), but instead it's about the criminal conscience of the society - how many people would decide to murder someone, and even if you stripped them naked they could still kill someone with their own bare hands.

I think the priorty should be about sterilizing and ultimately removing the negative aspects of society that lead to criminal behavour, and keeping those who do break the law firmly in an isolated cell. But of course, anyone can say that, it's far too easy just to say "oh yeah well here's what we'll do, we'll focus on making our society a utopia, and then no-one will need guns because no one will commit serious crimes!"

Of course, I do believe though, that the goal should be to stop people wanting or (and most important) needing to commit crimes to survive.

Obviously the society would need political stability, economic prosperity, ever advancing education, ever improving quality of life, ever improving distribution of wealth and opportunities etc, and let's not forget - a zero-tolerance police force with real punishments for crimes, unlike how it is in the UK at the moment.

So, in context to the UK's civilain population having access to firearms, honestly I'd say no. Even my father, who has been a Police Officer for almost 25 years now says it would be a catastrophic mistake, as he says that the general public are the most untrustworthy of people, and if given the context of our countries ever-rising scumbag population, we'll only see more gangs on the street, but this time with guns, more murders, more crimes, more accidents with firearms etc.

Why? Because our Police Force have been practically disabled by our government, being bunged up in offices whilst the useless PCSO's walk the streets. Firearms, and any method of Civilians trying to uphold the law, should not substitute a proper, well-equipped and professional Police force. Not only that, but if both the criminal and the Police carried guns, it makes the Police's job 1,000 times harder. Legalized guns may work in a more sensible country, like maybe NZ or Singapore, but in the UK - nope, not in my opinion.

I'd like to hear your feedback on this.

One last question: do you think it's right to prohibit a possession/potential possession from the civilian population, due to it being for their safety?

 

[TheSunscientist]

Hello there.

I'm suprised how extensive the topics spread from on this site, it's nice to have threads dedicated to things other than religion here which is pretty good, and I've always liked debates like this on how to combat societies problems.

Well, my stance on the issue of firearms in the UK, and in a country in general is erm...... circumstancial. There are multiple sides to the debate, both with pro's and cons, like how a pro of firearms being made available to the public is that it apparently would increase the safety of individuals, on the other hand, it could lead to more murders.

You can kill a person with a gun, a knife, a screwdriver, a pair of scissors, a shard of glass, a car, an axe, a hammer, a drill - anything! So many items that we use in our day to day lives can be used to kill someone. I think the problem is not neccessarily the idea of what items civilians posses that are capable of destruction (e.g. a car, kitchen knife etc), but instead it's about the criminal conscience of the society - how many people would decide to murder someone, and even if you stripped them naked they could still kill someone with their own bare hands.

This is the issue: guns are designed to kill, whilst the objects you mention are not, but have a secondary purpose as a weapon.

A lot of gun culture and the resulting killings/injuries are as much to do with the culture and mindset of the population that holds them.

Looking at Canada and the US, which both allow guns for self-defense, part of the issue is the culture. In Canada, guns are largely seen as the last resort, and any shots fired have to be absolutely necessary. This is in contrast to the US where guns are largely seen as the ultimate way to solve any potentially hostile situation, and not just as a last resort.

I think the priorty should be about sterilizing and ultimately removing the negative aspects of society that lead to criminal behavour, and keeping those who do break the law firmly in an isolated cell. But of course, anyone can say that, it's far too easy just to say "oh yeah well here's what we'll do, we'll focus on making our society a utopia, and then no-one will need guns because no one will commit serious crimes!"

This is where socialist society is supposed to come in. Socialism focuses on minimalising those factors which may cause people to commit crimes- poverty in childhood, ill-education, lack of jobs etc.

Of course, I do believe though, that the goal should be to stop people wanting or (and most important) needing to commit crimes to survive.

Obviously the society would need political stability, economic prosperity, ever advancing education, ever improving quality of life, ever improving distribution of wealth and opportunities etc, and let's not forget - a zero-tolerance police force with real punishments for crimes, unlike how it is in the UK at the moment.

Again, this is where socialism comes in.

On the note about zero-tolerance, a line has to be drawn between 'zero-tolerance' and a police state. Otherwise a strong stance on crime turns into a situation where stupid stuff is a crime.

So, in context to the UK's civilain population having access to firearms, honestly I'd say no. Even my father, who has been a Police Officer for almost 25 years now says it would be a catastrophic mistake, as he says that the general public are the most untrustworthy of people, and if given the context of our countries ever-rising scumbag population, we'll only see more gangs on the street, but this time with guns, more murders, more crimes, more accidents with firearms etc.

In which case the problem isn't the guns but the people, but is this reason to ban ANYONE from owning a weapon?

Why? Because our Police Force have been practically disabled by our government, being bunged up in offices whilst the useless PCSO's walk the streets. Firearms, and any method of Civilians trying to uphold the law, should not substitute a proper, well-equipped and professional Police force. Not only that, but if both the criminal and the Police carried guns, it makes the Police's job 1,000 times harder. Legalized guns may work in a more sensible country, like maybe NZ or Singapore, but in the UK - nope, not in my opinion.

I'd like to hear your feedback on this.

Even if the police force was brilliant, the onus of protection against crime comes onto you and me. It's not the police's job to lock the doors, hide away valuables in my home, keep hold of my rucksack in public etc.

One last question: do you think it's right to prohibit a possession/potential possession from the civilian population, due to it being for their safety?

I don't because you could be punishing a majority for the actions of the minority.

 

[Aquitaine]

"This is the issue: guns are designed to kill, whilst the objects you mention are not, but have a secondary purpose as a weapon.

A lot of gun culture and the resulting killings/injuries are as much to do with the culture and mindset of the population that holds them.

Looking at Canada and the US, which both allow guns for self-defense, part of the issue is the culture. In Canada, guns are largely seen as the last resort, and any shots fired have to be absolutely necessary. This is in contrast to the US where guns are largely seen as the ultimate way to solve any potentially hostile situation, and not just as a last resort."

Yes, I agree. At the end of the day, no matter what possessions someone has, whether they be axes, chainsaws etc, it's the mentality of the person that generally can decide whether the chainsaw is goingo be used for cutting down a tree, or a pregnant woman. Hence why I've referred to modern British society, since this wasn't a thread about legalizing guns globally, but in the UK, so you've gotta take it in context to the current mentality of the British public, which in my opinion, has some areas which would be deemed too irresponsible for owning a car let a lone a gun. However, I also don't think guns are a large desire in this country, as opposed to say the US. The way I see it is that overall a society needs to be mature enough beofre it can play with the big toys. I don't neccessarily believe guns should never be legalized, I just mean in context to current UK society in general. I have the same feeling about Alcohol, once a society has proven responsible enough then they should be allowed access to certain "perks" (i.e alcohol, private ownership of a firearm etc). If they show signs of becoming reckless, then things might need to be taken away temporarily, and rules/discipline to be revised/reinforced.

This is where socialist society is supposed to come in. Socialism focuses on minimalising those factors which may cause people to commit crimes- poverty in childhood, ill-education, lack of jobs etc.

Socialism? Honestly I really don't know much about Politics, and AFAIK I don't support any Political ideology.

Again, this is where socialism comes in.

^

On the note about zero-tolerance, a line has to be drawn between 'zero-tolerance' and a police state. Otherwise a strong stance on crime turns into a situation where stupid stuff is a crime.

Of course, of course. As with all things, there needs to be a line. The same with discipline, punishment, education, wealth etc. Perhaps "zero-tolerance" was a bad phrase to use, although it's in relation to serious crimes, not petty littel things. The current situation in the UK is the total opposite, real criminals like the murderers, rapists, child-molesters, theives etc all get a short sentences, some even escape jail, others get a cushy jail cell with Sky TV, free Gym, Internet, PS2's, and some "Human Rights" Bureaucrat always ends up letting them off half way through their sentences. There's even been cases where prisoners have been able to get access to drugs,and when given the option to escape, they've declined! Where as, if you're caught speeding by an extra 2MPH, or you're a WW1 Veteran who can't afford to pay your Council Tax - you're throwin in jail big time.
I don't really wanna get into what I think should be done in the UK about crime, because that's going off the topic so......

In which case the problem isn't the guns but the people, but is this reason to ban ANYONE from owning a weapon?

Yes, it's always the people, not the possession. However sometimes there needs to be a line drawn there too. Guns don't kill people, it's the Human pulling the trigger and aiming the gun. The problem is that it seems to be very difficult to let the right people carry firearms and no the bad ones, because a good person could instantly "snap" and go on a rampage. The only solution I could thinkof (if guns where going to be made legal in the UK) would e to not allow an individual to personally own a weapon, but instead to establish local gun firing ranges, which were monitored/guarded by armed professionals, where you enter with nothing (weapon/ammo-wise), choose a gun, get some bullets and fire away at the range, then after you're done, take the gun back along with the ammo, and leave with nothing again.

Personally, guns have never done anything for me, and no-one that I know has ever been "into" them. I really don't think that a lot of people in the UK will miss not owning a firearm, although it's not wise to speak for other people, but living there 20 years now, I really think we're happy without them - the only thing we want is for a stable economy, decent public services/forces, stable careers, safe streets, low crime etc - but then agian that's what everybody wants. However, with a country that has a strong cultural identity with guns like the US, it's a whole different ball game - because with the US guns are a key part of their culture.



Even if the police force was brilliant, the onus of protection against crime comes onto you and me. It's not the police's job to lock the doors, hide away valuables in my home, keep hold of my rucksack in public etc.

Well, I wouldn't say that the onus of protection against crime comes onto the general public, instead I'd say the onus of making sure one doesn't disregard their own common-sense and responsibility as a Civilian, to look after their possessions and not make foolish decsions that're just begging to be a victim of crime, along with the duty as a Citizen to co-operate with the Law, to work for your nation's interest and to provide/develope for your families interest.

I don't because you could be punishing a majority for the actions of the minority.

Fair enough. My personal answer to the question that I asked would be to at first restrict/discourage the public from a certain possession, until they show evidence of being responsible enough to use them, where they can then have access to them. The only problem is that it's not exactly easy to judge a society as "ready" to own something.

 

[iloveislam]

If you want to reduce the population of the UK by thousands of innocent people each year, guns would be a great way to do it.

No.

The evil practise of Abortions are already doing that job.

"In 2008 a total of 195,300 abortions were performed on residents of England and Wales"
Source: Department of Health

Gun crime in America kills around 11,000 people a year. That's quite a low number compared to 195,300.

 

[Panda]

No.

The evil practise of Abortions are already doing that job.

"In 2008 a total of 195,300 abortions were performed on residents of England and Wales"
Source: Department of Health

Gun crime in America kills around 11,000 people a year. That's quite a low number compared to 195,300.

This thread isn't about abortion, please talk about abortion in the correct thread.

 

[Sunstone]

I think tanks should be legalized in the UK. There would be a lot fewer muggings if everyone had a tank.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think tanks should be legalized in the UK. There would be a lot fewer muggings if everyone had a tank.

I've driven in London. A tank would've made it a lot easier to go from Covent Garden to Regent Street.

...parking is a whole 'nother issue though.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We used to have guns in the UK
I am not sure when they were outlawed , but it was after the second world war.
Both my Step father and Grand father had Revolvers and shot guns. And I had a shot gun Up to the 60's.
Farmers can still have shot guns, but they have to have a locked Gun safeand go through the full police check.
You may not keep a solid shell gun of any kind at home. Target shooters can use Olympic style rifles which must be Kept in the Club armory safe.
Any person wanting a licence for a shot gun or target rifle must have a police and medical check and be a "suitable" person. and will need their proposed safe checked before purchase.

The fact that only Criminals might carry guns is not a problem, as to be carrying one is defacto proof of guilt., and the quickest route to goal.

 

[TheSunscientist]

We used to have guns in the UK
I am not sure when they were outlawed , but it was after the second world war.
Both my Step father and Grand father had Revolvers and shot guns. And I had a shot gun Up to the 60's.
Farmers can still have shot guns, but they have to have a locked Gun safeand go through the full police check.
You may not keep a solid shell gun of any kind at home. Target shooters can use Olympic style rifles which must be Kept in the Club armory safe.
Any person wanting a licence for a shot gun or target rifle must have a police and medical check and be a "suitable" person. and will need their proposed safe checked before purchase.

The fact that only Criminals might carry guns is not a problem, as to be carrying one is defacto proof of guilt., and the quickest route to goal.

The problem with the current system in my opinion is that it is too drawn-out and seemingly heavy-handed bearing in mind that most gun owners in the UK are either farmers or hunters.

It also means that Britain has lost its shooting Olympic medals, as now the teams can't easily practice.

You cannot allow a minority of people to spoil it for a minority. Guns are only as safe as the shooter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just talked to my future father-in-law today about the subject. He is from Holland, and has lived in several European nations, including England. According to him, the way they have the gun laws work fairly well. Also, the black market for guns, according to him, is not easy to find, and the sellers are very selective about who they sell to.
And no, it would not help crime rates. They have knives. All that would happen is that people would replace there knives with guns.

I'm not sure how guns work in the UK...I know whenever I watch TV shows about British cops the cops never have guns on them (which is odd I would think).

My father-in-law said, that at least in Germany, they are concealed.

 

[kai]

To buy a gun here would you mean you are going to commit a criminal act in buying it and using it, so you would have to go to a criminal to buy it. Now not all criminals sell Guns so you would have a hard job finding someone to sell you one, unless of course you are already that way inclined or moved in those circles

 

[monta]

The problem with the current system in my opinion is that it is too drawn-out and seemingly heavy-handed bearing in mind that most gun owners in the UK are either farmers or hunters.

It also means that Britain has lost its shooting Olympic medals, as now the teams can't easily practice.
.

Olympic medals has to be the most bizarre argument for legalising gun ownership I have ever heard.

You cannot allow a minority of people to spoil it for a minority. Guns are only as safe as the shooter

This is not unique to guns, there are people who are not adversely affected by various narcotics, there are people who will never be in a car accident who have to wear seatbelts and handsfree kits.

For me a good indicator that someone shouldn't have a gun is their desire to own one.

 

[Aquitaine]

In my opinion. No guns for the UK public.

Out with the crap Government.
Out with the PCSO's and the useless Government bureaucracy.
Out with the Criminal's Rights Act.
Out with the fancy 5-star Prison system.
Out with the Big-Brother "anti-Terror" legislation.

In with a decent Goverment.
In with a real Police Force.
In with real jails and sentences.
In with real punishments and deterrents
In with real discipline from Home, Schools, and in Public.

Problem solved, no-one from the public will need or want to carry guns.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And no, it would not help crime rates. They have knives. All that would happen is that people would replace there knives with guns.

If you were a criminal and had to choose who to attack, in any method, you'd much prefer to go after a person with a knife than a person with a gun.

And if you're stupid enough to attack a man with a gun, you deserve to get shot.

 

[Aquitaine]

If you were a criminal and had to choose who to attack, in any method, you'd much prefer to go after a person with a knife than a person with a gun.

And if you're stupid enough to attack a man with a gun, you deserve to get shot.

But then where do we (the society) draw the line on powerfull weapons that people can carry?

If you're a criminal and had to choose who to attack, yeah you'd go for the guy with a knife rather than the guy with a pistol.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the Pistol rather than the guy with the pistol & body armour.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the Pistol & body armour rather than the guy with the P-90, body Armour and frag grenades.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the P-90, body armour and Frags rather than the guy with all of the above, and who is in an armoured vehicle that features a mounted .50 cal assault gun.

How far should the line be drawn with regards to what civilians should be allowed to equip themselves for the purpose of "defense"?

In the context of the UK, the way forward is to gradually eliminate the "need" and "want" for someone to want to commit a crime. However it is a long-term and costly procedure, but for the long-term and final benefits it's definitely the way forward.
A society doens't need to arm itself to be safe, providing that the Police do their job properly.

In my opinion, the focus should be crime prevention/curing, rather than leaving crime to grow and just give Joe Public his own gun so he can "sort it out himself".

 

[Poisonshady313]

But then where do we (the society) draw the line on powerfull weapons that people can carry?

That's a good question... but I do hope you understand that it is a separate one from the topic question of legalizing gun ownership in general.

If you're a criminal and had to choose who to attack, yeah you'd go for the guy with a knife rather than the guy with a pistol.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the Pistol rather than the guy with the pistol & body armour.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the Pistol & body armour rather than the guy with the P-90, body Armour and frag grenades.

Just like you'd go for the guy with the P-90, body armour and Frags rather than the guy with all of the above, and who is in an armoured vehicle that features a mounted .50 cal assault gun.

How far should the line be drawn with regards to what civilians should be allowed to equip themselves for the purpose of "defense"?

Dunno. Never gave a thought as to where to draw that line.

A society doens't need to arm itself to be safe, providing that the Police do their job properly.

The police can only do so much. And hope that they're not too late too often.

Consider Bernard Goetz. On the subway, attacked by a group of four guys. He could have been severely beaten, or even killed if he hadn't shot them first.

Goetz fired an unlicensed revolver five times, seriously wounding three of the would-be muggers and rendering the fourth a paraplegic. The initially unknown shooter, dubbed the "Subway Vigilante" by the New York press, was both exalted and vilified in the media and in public opinion.
Goetz surrendered to police nine days later and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several gun crimes. A Manhattan jury found him not guilty of all charges except an illegal firearms possession count, for which he served two-thirds of a one-year sentence

In my opinion, the focus should be crime prevention/curing, rather than leaving crime to grow and just give Joe Public his own gun so he can "sort it out himself".

Self defense is crime prevention, and those who use guns to commit crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Aquitaine]

The police can only do so much. And hope that they're not too late too often.

Consider Bernard Goetz. On the subway, attacked by a group of four guys. He could have been severely beaten, or even killed if he hadn't shot them first.

Well, true I'd admit that no matter what there will never be 0% crime, and that the Police are only as effective depending on how they're managed.

Personally though, I think that the solution is to bring about a comprehensive long-term total refurbishment of the said society (in this case, Saudi Britain).
Of course, giving the public weapons for self-defense is one option, but I think it's just too dangerous, and that there are much better alternative that will have long-term benefits.

Now, I really don't know much about Politics etc, but my best guess is that Crime is a response caused by multiple factors:

Economics.
Education.
Discipline.
Family unit.
Jobs.
Safety.
Quality of life.

They're obvious not all the factors, and they're not in any order, but what I'm trying to say is that the path to addressing/reducing crime is like a spider trying to make a web. If you look at a spider's web, there's a central point (in this case it's crime) and then there's 10, 20, maybe 30 or higher different bidges that extend outwards and enable the web to grow and support itself. If you wanna take out the central area (and the web as a whole), you have to simultaneously cut off all the bridges that extend outwards (in this case, the negative aspects of the things I listed up above), and then the whole web falls down and crumbles.

I know it's a really lame metaphor but when I visualize crime and it's effect/reasons in my mind, that's what I see.

To me, arming the public for Self-Defense would fall under "Safety", so that's only one of the many many bridges that the spider's web is using to stay upright. Arming the public is one attempt to "cut" one if the web's bridges, but cutting that one alone still leaves the web with enough alternative bridges for it to stay upright and present.

I hope that makes sense.