Legalise firearms in the UK.

[Engineer1]

If no one was armed at the time then the 2nd amendment would have been required to legitimize the ownership of guns. You don't right laws for things that aren't relevant. Also didn't the US not want a standing army? Wasn't America big and empty meaning militias where required, wasn't America also founded out of a revolution meaning people may be a little wary of not having a means to defend themselves and their country. Also wasn't it a case that the government of America holds such low regard of the population they came up with their version of representative democracy.

[ErnestM]

The 2nd amendment was added at the enlightened behest of Thomas Jefferson. He realized that the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the populous. The next steps are control of speech (the press), religion, education and the economy. With a disarmed populous, tyrants or a tyrannical government can do, pretty much, whatever they want.

The 2nd amendment (as with all of the bill of rights) does not grant anything. Unlike a lot of other similar documents, the US Constitution is a document of limitations on government. The bill of rights simply recognizes certain natural rights (that is - rights that people, as individuals, are innately endowed with) and limits or disallows the government's ability to infringe on those rights.

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

And no, when firearms were legal in the UK we had substantially lower gun crimes than we do now that they are banned. Simple statistic, so I don't know where you got your information from.

What date are you using for 'guns being legal'?

[SmoothRB]

ErnestM said:

The 2nd amendment (as with all of the bill of rights) does not grant anything. Unlike a lot of other similar documents, the US Constitution is a document of limitations on government. The bill of rights simply recognizes certain natural rights (that is - rights that people, as individuals, are innately endowed with) and limits or disallows the government's ability to infringe on those rights.

Yes agree. OTOH now human rights has morphed into entitlements, stuff the state promises to provide/do for you.

For many people it seems entitlements trump natural rights. They don't care about religious freedom or freedom of speech only where the next Oreo is coming from or how much Avatar 3D costs.

[ErnestM]

SmoothRB said:

ErnestM said:

The 2nd amendment (as with all of the bill of rights) does not grant anything. Unlike a lot of other similar documents, the US Constitution is a document of limitations on government. The bill of rights simply recognizes certain natural rights (that is - rights that people, as individuals, are innately endowed with) and limits or disallows the government's ability to infringe on those rights.

Yes agree. OTOH now human rights has morphed into entitlements, stuff the state promises to provide/do for you.

For many people it seems entitlements trump natural rights. They don't care about religious freedom or freedom of speech only where the next Oreo is coming from or how much Avatar 3D costs.

Anything that the government grants to you can be limited, regulated or completely taken away. Until this dawns on the populous, and the entitlement mentality changes, freedom is limited.

By "petitioning the government" to ban guns (as was done after Dunblane), the people effectively said, "please limit our rights to possess or bear arms. You can also completely take it away. We feel that we are not to be trusted with this right..." Interesting that people that love freedom so much turn to the government in an attempt to limit that freedom.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1775

[PaulHogan]

SmoothRB said:

I'm all for it.

Maybe it would provide a check on our forever expanding authoritarian Government.

They would be less inclined to take our freedoms away?

Are you still 'all for it', OP?

[hairykrishna]

Massacres like today's can easily be argued either way in the legalise guns debate. There's the argument that with even more restrictive gun laws he might not have had a gun to go crazy with. There's the counter argument that with some kind of legal carry law and legalised handguns a responsible citizen could have dropped the fker before he got much further than his first unfortunate victim.


Personally I still feel that our current guns laws, possibly with a few minor tweaks in the direction of being relaxed, work just fine for us. I hope they don't bring in some stupid knee jerk legislation as a result of today.

[Jem0911]

Did today's shooter have a Certificate to hold a shotgun?

[supersingle]

I'm pretty sure they'll use this as an excuse to ban air rifles. It's for our own good.

[dcb]

hairykrishna said:

I hope they don't bring in some stupid knee jerk legislation as a result of today.

I feel it's a racing certainty the politicos will want to be
seen to be doing something.

There are millions of guns used responsibly in the UK.

I fail to understand how even tighter restrictions can help
prevent tragedies like today in West Cumbria.

[BBYeah]

The number of retards in the UK is fast approaching if not exceeding the USA, so I'd favour less guns, not more.

[supersingle]

BBYeah said:

The number of retards in the UK is fast approaching if not exceeding the USA, so I'd favour less guns, not more.

With grammar like that I wouldn't trust you with a gun either.

[Pesty]

I dont want to own a pistol and I am damn sure most of the people I meet shouldnt own one either but.

I would like to go to a range, rent a pistol, fire 100 pieces of lead at a piece of paper then go home.
The range owner can then lock the pistol back in the safe everybody is happy. I don;t want to walk round doncaster packing, it would be too tempting to put two fast one slow in teh nearest chav.


Whats wrong with that? (apart from the price of bullets these days) How can that possibly be dangerous. FFS if its the range owner they are worried about how about having it at a police station?

[Jimbeaux]

BBYeah said:

The number of retards in the UK is fast approaching if not exceeding the USA, so I'd favour less guns, not more.

Brilliantly worded retort. Us retards in the U.S. applaud you.

[FasterFreddy]

Pesty said:

I dont want to own a pistol and I am damn sure most of the people I meet shouldnt own one either but.

I would like to go to a range, rent a pistol, fire 100 pieces of lead at a piece of paper then go home.
The range owner can then lock the pistol back in the safe everybody is happy. I don;t want to walk round doncaster packing, it would be too tempting to put two fast one slow in teh nearest chav.


Whats wrong with that? (apart from the price of bullets these days) How can that possibly be dangerous. FFS if its the range owner they are worried about how about having it at a police station?

FAC holders don't tend to take their firearms out with them at night.

Do you really think they have gone to all the trouble of filling out the forms, paying for their licence, going through the interview, getting the referees to sign their forms, installing an approved gun cabinet in their home, making sure their home security is to the required standard, joining a local gun club, going through the probationary period and all the other formalities necessary to own a firearm in the UK, just to "walk around Doncaster packing"?

No, they have done it because they want to own a gun for sporting or work-related reasons and so they tend to be a little more serious about gun ownership and the accompanying responsibilities than those people, like yourself maybe, who want to fire a gun for a bit of fun but don't want the responsibilities of owning one.

The question of holding guns at clubs or Police stations has been examined before and is impractical, very costly and dangerous.

I'd say right now, firearms laws are as strict as they need to be. It's the policing and administration of the current laws which may need to be reviewed.

[Silent1]

Pesty said:

I don;t want to walk round doncaster packing, it would be too tempting to put two fast one slow in teh nearest chav.?

If you genuinely mean that then perhaps you shouldn't ever be allowed access to a firearm, seeing one as a way or 'sorting people out' is quite a dangerous mindset.

[Pesty]

FasterFreddy said:

Pesty said:

I dont want to own a pistol and I am damn sure most of the people I meet shouldnt own one either but.

I would like to go to a range, rent a pistol, fire 100 pieces of lead at a piece of paper then go home.
The range owner can then lock the pistol back in the safe everybody is happy. I don;t want to walk round doncaster packing, it would be too tempting to put two fast one slow in teh nearest chav.


Whats wrong with that? (apart from the price of bullets these days) How can that possibly be dangerous. FFS if its the range owner they are worried about how about having it at a police station?

FAC holders don't tend to take their firearms out with them at night.



Do you really think they have gone to all the trouble of filling out the forms, paying for their licence, going through the interview, getting the referees to sign their forms, installing an approved gun cabinet in their home, making sure their home security is to the required standard, joining a local gun club, going through the probationary period and all the other formalities necessary to own a firearm in the UK, just to "walk around Doncaster packing"?

No, they have done it because they want to own a gun for sporting or work-related reasons and so they tend to be a little more serious about gun ownership and the accompanying responsibilities than those people, like yourself maybe, who want to fire a gun for a bit of fun but don't want the responsibilities of owning one.

The question of holding guns at clubs or Police stations has been examined before and is impractical, very costly and dangerous.

I'd say right now, firearms laws are as strict as they need to be. It's the policing and administration of the current laws which may need to be reviewed.

I am not talking about current FAC owners within the current laws, I thouroughly agree with you.

I was talking about if they legalised it and anybody had access as per the title of the thread. Perhaps I meet too many nutters.
Could you explain a bit more as to the Dangerous,impracticle and costly statement?

Silent1 said:

Pesty said:

I don;t want to walk round doncaster packing, it would be too tempting to put two fast one slow in the nearest chav.?

If you genuinely mean that then perhaps you shouldn't ever be allowed access to a firearm, seeing one as a way or 'sorting people out' is quite a dangerous mindset.

Yes I absolutely mean all problems can only be solved by shooting somebody. Do you really need to put a smiley on every lighthearted comment on PH these days?

Edited by Pesty on Thursday 3rd June 07:20

[zakelwe]

hairykrishna said:

There's the counter argument that with some kind of legal carry law and legalised handguns a responsible citizen could have dropped the fker before he got much further than his first unfortunate victim.

I don't think that argument washes because shooting spree killers use surprise. For instance, you'd think that at a US army base the shooter would be dropped quickest of all, but we have seen that even at a US army base a shooting spree gunman can make an awful lot of victims.

Also, it doesn't make the police's job any easier if a lot of people are the vicinity all carrying arms.

Andy

[mrmr96]

zakelwe said:

hairykrishna said:

There's the counter argument that with some kind of legal carry law and legalised handguns a responsible citizen could have dropped the fker before he got much further than his first unfortunate victim.

I don't think that argument washes because shooting spree killers use surprise. For instance, you'd think that at a US army base the shooter would be dropped quickest of all, but we have seen that even at a US army base a shooting spree gunman can make an awful lot of victims.

Also, it doesn't make the police's job any easier if a lot of people are the vicinity all carrying arms.

Andy

I agree with Hairy. If you have one nutter in 10m people then when he goes on a spree there will be 9,999,999 others out there who are not nutters who can stop him pretty damn quick.

This only works if people are carrying guns on the street like in the USA. One MASSIVE problem with this, though, is that most people can't shoot for st and so the chances of collateral damage increases.

Also, the comparison to the Army base in the USA isn't fair, because it took place in an area where there were no guns. If it had taken place in the street in a town in a state where carrying a gun on the street is legal then I think you'd find that the nutter got stopped before the twelfth fatal victim.

[zakelwe]

mrmr96 said:

zakelwe said:

hairykrishna said:

There's the counter argument that with some kind of legal carry law and legalised handguns a responsible citizen could have dropped the fker before he got much further than his first unfortunate victim.

I don't think that argument washes because shooting spree killers use surprise. For instance, you'd think that at a US army base the shooter would be dropped quickest of all, but we have seen that even at a US army base a shooting spree gunman can make an awful lot of victims.

Also, it doesn't make the police's job any easier if a lot of people are the vicinity all carrying arms.

Andy

I agree with Hairy. If you have one nutter in 10m people then when he goes on a spree there will be 9,999,999 others out there who are not nutters who can stop him pretty damn quick.

This only works if people are carrying guns on the street like in the USA. One MASSIVE problem with this, though, is that most people can't shoot for st and so the chances of collateral damage increases.

Also, the comparison to the Army base in the USA isn't fair, because it took place in an area where there were no guns. If it had taken place in the street in a town in a state where carrying a gun on the street is legal then I think you'd find that the nutter got stopped before the twelfth fatal victim.

Not only can people not shoot for st they tend to shoot themselves, you have to trade a huge increase in accidental killings over a year compared to successful stopping of spree killers. You'd also have more single firearms killings as arguments that normally would end with a thrown punch or two got escalated. So all that sort of thing has to be offset against success against law abiding citizens who have gone AWOL mentally.

You can probably tell I have strong thoughts on this, so I will shut up now for the moment

Andy