Should we be allowed to bear arms?

[ralphchadkirk]

In the USA, citizens are allowed to own guns.

Should we, in the uk, have the same right to bear arms? Are out gun laws too restrictive - or too lax?

Discuss.

 

[Flamingo]

Only if I'm allowed shoot people in First Class on Standard tickets who tell me that "I have to sit here, there are no seats in Standard"

 

[Hydro]

In the USA, citizens are allowed to own guns.

Well, so are UK citizens, just subject to massive amounts of red tape, cost and severe restrictions on type.

I'm completely biased on this. I was a keen competition shooter in the Army, and would dearly, dearly love to take it up as a civilian, but I'm not in a position to satisfy the financial and administrative requirements to own firearms.

There should be more done on the authorities side to keep records of people who own firearms I think. After Michael Ryan at Hungerford, semi-automatic full bore firearms were banned. After Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, handguns were banned. Derek Bird owned firearms that satisfied all current legal requirements IIRC, yet still managed to kill twelve and evade the police. Those with a reason to kill will do so regardless of type; the person is the weak link here. Should we limit keeping firearms at home? I could live with storing my personal firearms at an authorised range or club. Those who require them for work purposes, i.e. farmers or vets could have dispensation to keep them at home/work.

You would be very surprised at what you can legally own in the UK; there is a well established .50 calibre shooting association here that regularly uses military ranges to conduct 1200+yard shooting. A skill that I would dearly love to try.

 

[gordonthemoron]

only Swiss people (men) and criminals need guns

 

[SS4]

The USA have the right to bear guns guaranteed by the Constitution so changing their gun laws would be very tricky indeed.

I think the current private ownership restrictions should continue perhaps with the addition of better tracking of those registered owners, for example mental health checks yet make it easier to allow people to shoot at licensed premises such as the ranges described by Hydro. If someone could go to a range and shoot targets I can't see that doing any harm plus it would be easier to police.

Killers who kill with guns will always kill, but still having it hard to obtain guns would minimize their use for intimidation or spontaneous shooting. When it comes down to it Dunblane remains pretty much the only school shooting in Great Britain whereas it's depressingly common in the states.

 

[Hydro]

only Swiss people (men) and criminals need guns

What about Swiss criminals? Can they have two guns?

I think private ownership being banned should continue yet make it easier to allow people to shoot at licensed premises such as the ranges described by Hydro. If someone could go to a range and shoot targets I can't see that doing any harm plus it would be easier to police.

Private ownership is NOT banned in the UK.


There should never be any argument for introducing a "right to bear arms" in the UK. We do not have the culture for widespread use of firearms. The nation ****s itself when trained coppers have to use their weapons. As a nation, we are fairly ignorant about use and culture of firearms, and thus we have no right to be as open with them as the likes of the US. Switzerland has a citizen army mentality; men are required by law to keep an issued rifle at home, and can indeed buy their service weapons from the military. It's a question of culture.

 

[SS4]

Private ownership is NOT banned in the UK.

My mistake, I meant to maintain the current restrictions perhaps adding better tracking of owners.

 

[wintonian]

Some people already have the right to bear arms in the UK as granted by the College of Arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Arms#The_right_to_bear_arms

As for allowing anything that fires lethal projectiles at people that is a ridiculous ideas that belongs firmly in the USA.

 

[me123]

I've got to say no. This is one of the areas when, especially when compared to America, we've definitely got it right.

Have a look at this graph:
Click here
It correlates gun ownership with intentional firearm death rate per 100,000 population. It clearly shows a strong correlation between gun ownership and intentional firearm deaths (suicide and homocide). A quick look at the well referenced wikipedia article on the subject will also show you that in only 0.2% of recorded incidents are guns used for self defense; firearms is the most common method of suicide in the USA; guns intensify crime situations and lead to an increased probability of death and ; there is a strong correlation between firearm ownership and having a criminal record; mortality in gun crime is much greater than mortality in knife crime...

There's just nothing good about guns. even the self defense argument falls apart when you consider that having a gun (even for self defense) actually increases the risk of injury to anyone; this includes the person holding the gun.

The fatal accident rate in America is much much higher than it is in Scotland, and in England & Wales. We're not perfect, but we're doing things right on the whole. Our strict gun laws (which are amongst the strictest in the world) keep deaths and accidents at a low level, and long may it continue. Contrary to what you may see in the media, we don't actually have a significant problem in the UK with gun crime and, whilst anything above 0 incidents is always going to be too high, our strict laws have undoubtedly played a key role in maintaining a low gun crime rate.

 

[Hydro]

There should be controlled access to firearms to those who wish to use them for sporting or recreational purposes. There is a reason why the police and military have training in firearms handling; they are potentially dangerous. Keeping weapons in armouries at licenced clubs and ranges removes the risk of someone having access to them at home. A condition of a firearms licence should be successful completion of a weapons handling test upon application, and refreshed every year, as per the military.

Self defence hasn't held much water with me. It takes a lot of training and respect to be proficient and safe in firearms handling and I don't like the idea of a panicking poorly trained person being able to get their hands on a firearm that is too easily accessed in the heat of the moment.

 

[GB]

If we are talking about proper firearms then I'd agree with Hydro in that there should be proper supervised facilities where those that want to take up the sport can do so in a safe and controlled manner. I see no need for regular homeowners to own such weapons.

I do think however that the laws brought in over the last couple of years regarding airsoft etc is way to restrictive (and make no sense).

 

[Hydro]

I do think however that the laws brought in over the last couple of years regarding airsoft etc is way to restrictive.

I think it was implemented poorly and was a classic knee jerk response. In the case of airsoft replicas, you can still buy them subject to the age restrictions but they are luridly coloured in flourescent paint. If you want to buy them over the counter in realistic colours, then you must be a proven member of a airsoft club or site, a theatrical or re-enactment group. If this is to deter those from using replicas in crime, then surely they will just buy the coloured versions and spray paint them realistically!

Plus, deactivated firearms are not covered by the above regulations! Though to be honest, the prices of deactivated firearms is probably enough to put off the average criminal!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm keeping my cards close to my chest here, but posters that have been around a while will probably be able to guess!

 

[GB]

I think it was implemented poorly and was a classic knee jerk response. In the case of airsoft replicas, you can still buy them subject to the age restrictions but they are luridly coloured in flourescent paint. If you want to buy them over the counter in realistic colours, then you must be a proven member of a airsoft club or site, a theatrical or re-enactment group. If this is to deter those from using replicas in crime, then surely they will just buy the coloured versions and spray paint them realistically!

Thats right, all well and good if you wan't to be a member and attend regular events but those that either prefer to collect or use them on their own land it is a big (and expensive) restriction.

Plus, deactivated firearms are not covered by the above regulations! Though to be honest, the prices of deactivated firearms is probably enough to put off the average criminal!

Thats not all, paintball (Real Action Markers) and air rifles/pistols that fire .177 or .22 (under a certain power) are also not covered.

None of these are covered by the airsoft restrictions and as they can do far more damage, look and act like the real thing more than alot of airsoft I find a little odd.

 

[Hydro]

Thats right, all well and good if you wan't to be a member and attend regular events but those that either prefer to collect or use them on their own land it is a big (and expensive) restriction.

I know, it put a nail in my collecting ambitions.

 

[O L Leigh]

The American "right to bear arms" is an historic anachronism going back more than 200 years. The idea behind it is to enshrine the American citizen's right to rise up and protect their liberty against a tyrannical power and nothing more than that. Given that the systems and organs of government are now completely different, the likely need for a popular armed uprising is reduced to nothing. Therefore this so-called right is nothing more than an American's cultural links to the past.

However, you try changing it and you're in for a whole world of pain. Irrespective of the harm that gun ownership is doing in America, you are going to have real problems persuading Americans that the moment that this constitutional right was intended to prevent has now long past and that this right no longer needs to be exercised quite so vigourously.

The UK thankfully does not have this historical or cultural quirk, and nor does it have a constitution setting out the rights of it's citizens, so we would never have had such a right granted to us anyway. The closest we would have ever got to this situation would have been several hundred years ago with the need for archers. However, gone are the days when every young man in the village would be expected to practice the long bow in case of the need for military service because the need for such a capacity has passed.

But if I were an American citizen I'd want to add my own twist on the Second Amendment by exercising my right to arm bears.

O L Leigh

 

[Hydro]

Paraphrasing Family Guy here:

(Founding Fathers gathered around a table discussing the Constitution of these United States)

"I don't see what's confusing about it. Everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall" *gestures to bear arms on a plaque*

 

[scotsman]

There is absolutely no reason for a civilian owning a gun. Ever.

 

[455driver]

No no no no no no and no absolutely no way, oh except in the circumstances that Flamingo outlined earlier then yes! oh and chavs playing crap music loadly on their phones (automatic rifles to deal with them )

Me fickle, never!

 

[Hydro]

There is absolutely no reason for a civilian owning a gun. Ever.

Your opinion. Shooting has been a recreational activity for hundreds of years. In the hands of a recreational shooter, a gun is nothing more than a long distance hole puncher. Which is why I am against blanket banning the civilian use of firearms, and instead advocate use in a controlled, supervised environment where firearms are not allowed to leave controlled premises.

There is no reason for a firearm to be kept at home or to leave a range environment except potentially for professional purposes.

 

[CarterUSM]

I used to shoot with my father from a young age on land and in clubs, and who has a licence still(i think), and a little during my time as a reservist, not to mention some 2.2 stuff as a cadet. I tend to agree with Hydro on the matter. Scotland will soon require air rifle users to be licensed I believe, which is disappointing as it was a real part of growing up to me being able to go out with your rifle, and shoot cans off a ledge or bottles in the river. Probably necessary now however due to idiots all over the shop with no respect for firearms, or anyone for that matter.

 

[Geezertronic]

There is absolutely no reason for a civilian owning a gun. Ever.

What about shooting for sport like that seen in the Olympics (not hunting)? Could the same be said for Archery as that is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands?