UK Gun Laws

[Drummond]

Here is the rub.

I generally believe brits to be more level-headed and responsible and informed than 'muricans. I can't back that up with proof.

Yet Brits do not trust themselves with gun ownership. I really wonder why Brits feel by-and-large they are incapible of handling the responsibility.

Some great points in your post, DMP, and thanks .. I agree with a great deal of it. But, I've singled out the point which I think I should disagree with.

What I think you're reflecting, without knowing it, is the great psychological differences involved. Most of us don't own guns because we've never considered it, because guns just aren't 'out there' for us to consider buying. But more, our society would consider carrying guns almost to be an alien concept. I'm far from young, but I've lived my life never once encountering anyone, ever, from the UK who owned one.

The one time I did find someone who owned a gun, as it happens, lived in Germany, and the only reason he had his gun was as a WWII souvenir, from his Third Reich army days. Otherwise I've literally (knowingly) never met a gun owner in my life.

'Trusting ourselves with gun ownership' isn't a factor. They're just not a part of our lives.

The British get reports of shootings in America, maybe a shootout at a school, or whatever, and I think the reaction is one of a lack of comprehension of why the gun was freely available enough to the shooter in the first place. But more, the overall reaction would be that America earns those situations just because guns are available. Putting it bluntly, they struggle to see it as a mark of a civilised country, that such freedoms to own firearms can exist.

We have NO enshrined right to carry guns, as you have (the very concept doesn't exist here). We have no Constitution that governs such freedoms at all.

And that is the big difference. Many generations of Socialist influence ensure that any move towards even considering gun ownership here will never happen. Those who preached otherwise, in the UK, would be thought of as 'gun nuts', needing professional help ... .

[darin]

Some great points in your post, DMP, and thanks .. I agree with a great deal of it. But, I've singled out the point which I think I should disagree with.

What I think you're reflecting, without knowing it, is the great psychological differences involved. Most of us don't own guns because we've never considered it, because guns just aren't 'out there' for us to consider buying. But more, our society would consider carrying guns almost to be an alien concept. I'm far from young, but I've lived my life never once encountering anyone, ever, from the UK who owned one.

The one time I did find someone who owned a gun, as it happens, lived in Germany, and the only reason he had his gun was as a WWII souvenir, from his Third Reich army days. Otherwise I've literally (knowingly) never met a gun owner in my life.

'Trusting ourselves with gun ownership' isn't a factor. They're just not a part of our lives.

The British get reports of shootings in America, maybe a shootout at a school, or whatever, and I think the reaction is one of a lack of comprehension of why the gun was freely available enough to the shooter in the first place. But more, the overall reaction would be that America earns those situations just because guns are available. Putting it bluntly, they struggle to see it as a mark of a civilised country, that such freedoms to own firearms can exist.

We have NO enshrined right to carry guns, as you have (the very concept doesn't exist here). We have no Constitution that governs such freedoms at all.

And that is the big difference. Many generations of Socialist influence ensure that any move towards even considering gun ownership here will never happen. Those who preached otherwise, in the UK, would be thought of as 'gun nuts', needing professional help ... .

I really appreciate that D - I guess what I should have written was 'What they're doing is tantamount to expressed distrust of themselves - as a society'. See what I mean?

Look, honestly, if LIVES were what mattered every country would outlaw cars. Because "cars" (its not really the car's fault, it's the driver's fault because probably nobody dies per year (statistically) from a car mechanical failure) kill more people than perhaps all the guns ever created in all time. hell, I bet Arrows are respsonsible for more deaths than guns if we go back far enough.

Does that make sense? I sure don't want to insult you. Your last line is telling, and very depressing.

[Perianne]

I've defended my house with a gun for the past 16 years minimum. We are safe. We have a sign up that we are protected as such. Bastards will think 2x before coming into a house that advertises that they will shoot a scumbag that tries to burglarize or harm their family. Peace of mind, security - when you have a family it's worth MILLIONS. I would be scared to death if I had to safeguard my family with a steak knife.

[Noir]

I've said, and will always maintain, that the English 2011 riots, which spread across much of that country and persisted for the better part of a week, could've been stopped in their tracks if ONLY shopkeepers, etc had been empowered to defend themselves and their property. But, they weren't, and we saw where that led.

Such truth, I can only imagine that if a riot were to take place in a U.S. City it'd be over before the evening news, ain't that so Drummond?

[indago]

We have NO enshrined right to carry guns, as you have (the very concept doesn't exist here). We have no Constitution that governs such freedoms at all.

You could say that we "Keep and Bear Arms" BECAUSE of the British...

[jimnyc]

Such truth, I can only imagine that if a riot were to take place in a U.S. City it'd be over before the evening news, ain't that so Drummond?

When you see riots, and people getting assaulted, and businesses being destryoyed and burned down - that's happening to folks and shops where there is no one armed. I can post many videos of folks IN their businesses, guarding with rifles and hand guns during the riots - and surprisingly no harm or destruction comes to the inside of their business.

[Drummond]

You could say that we "Keep and Bear Arms" BECAUSE of the British...

Such wisdom ....

[Drummond]

This is JUST what a certain Brit forum badly needs to see ....

[Perianne]

This is JUST what a certain Brit forum badly needs to see ....

You can post it there. Tell them it is a gift from Perianne. They might remember me.

[Drummond]

I really appreciate that D - I guess what I should have written was 'What they're doing is tantamount to expressed distrust of themselves - as a society'. See what I mean?

Look, honestly, if LIVES were what mattered every country would outlaw cars. Because "cars" (its not really the car's fault, it's the driver's fault because probably nobody dies per year (statistically) from a car mechanical failure) kill more people than perhaps all the guns ever created in all time. hell, I bet Arrows are respsonsible for more deaths than guns if we go back far enough.

Does that make sense? I sure don't want to insult you. Your last line is telling, and very depressing.

DMP, I agree ! I see things your way.

Talking of cars, though, don't imagine we don't have laws about them, too. I'm genuinely asking ... do you have seat belt laws ? Do you have any laws against mobile phone usage in them ?

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phon...riving-the-law

It’s illegal to ride a motorcycle or drive using hand-held phones or similar devices. The rules are the same if you’re stopped at traffic lights or queuing in traffic.

It’s also illegal to use a hand-held phone or similar device when supervising a learner driver or rider.

You can get an automatic fixed penalty notice if you’re caught using a hand-held phone while driving or riding. You’ll get 3 penalty points on your licence and a fine of £100.

Your case could also go to court and you could be disqualified from driving or riding and get a maximum fine of £1,000. Drivers of buses or goods vehicles could get a maximum fine of £2,500.

As for carrying knives in public ...

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q337.htm

It is illegal to carry any sharp or bladed instrument in a public place (with the exception of a folding pocket knife, which has a blade that is less than 7.62 cm (3 inches)).

A lock knife is not a folding pocket knife and therefore it is illegal to carry around such a knife regardless of the length of the blade (if you do not have reasonable excuse). A lock knife means a knife which is similar to a folding knife, in that there is a spring holding the blade closed. However, a lock knife has a mechanism which locks the blade in position when fully extended, the blade cannot be closed without that mechanism being released. A lock knife is not an offensive weapon per se (because these knives were made with a specific purpose in mind and not as a weapon). However, possession of a lock knife in a public place without reasonable excuse is an offence.

Possession of a multi-tool incorporating a prohibited blade/pointed article is capable of being an offence under this section even if there are other tools on the instrument which may be of use to a person in a public place (screwdriver, can opener).

The ban is not total, it is for the person in possession of such an instrument to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she had good reason for its possession. It will have to be genuine, for example, someone back packing across the Lake District may reasonably be expected to have a knife for the preparation of meals. It will be far more difficult to justify on the streets of a city or town, but there will be occasions when someone is genuinely going to a martial arts sport or scout meeting (which is easily checked).

The penalty for committing this offence is a maximum prison sentence of four years.

Laws against breathing in a public place, are as follows ..........

[darin]

For me? I'd never shoot anyone unless I had to. Tresspass. hell, break in. Whatever - I have NO desire to shoot anyone. I think MOST gun owners feel like me.

[Drummond]

For me? I'd never shoot anyone unless I had to. Tresspass. hell, break in. Whatever - I have NO desire to shoot anyone. I think MOST gun owners feel like me.

We actually had a case, some years ago, of a British man who felt differently. He owned a shotgun (he did not have a gun licence for it). He defended his farmhouse against two burglars ... and shot and killed one of them. It all became a very nasty business, dragging on for years. See .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm

Following Tony Martin's release from custody, BBC News Online looks back at events since 16-year-old Fred Barras was killed at Martin's isolated farmhouse.

20 August 1999: Fred Barras, 16, suffers fatal gunshot wounds near Tony Martin's isolated Victorian farmhouse, Bleak House, in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

His friend, 29-year-old Brendan Fearon, is taken to hospital in King's Lynn with gunshot wounds to his legs.

23 August 1999: Martin, 54, is charged with murdering Mr Barras and wounding Fearon with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

24 August 1999: Martin is remanded in custody at King's Lynn Magistrates Court.

7 September 1999: Judge David Mellor rules Mr Martin should be freed on conditional bail at a 30-minute hearing behind closed doors at Norwich Crown Court.

9 September 1999: Hundreds of mourners congregate for Fred Barras's funeral at St Mary Magdalene Church in the centre of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Mr Martin has his bail revoked and is returned to Norwich prison for his own protection.

10 January 2000: Fearon and Darren Bark, 33, both from Newark, Nottinghamshire, admit conspiring to burgle Bleak House, accompanied by Fred Barras.

At Norwich Crown Court Fearon is jailed for three years for conspiracy to burgle, Bark is sentenced to 30 months.

10 April 2000: At Norwich Crown Court, Martin denies murdering the teenager and attempting to murder Fearon, wounding Fearon with intent to cause injury and possessing a Winchester pump-action shotgun with intent to endanger life. He admits not having a firearms licence.

14 April 2000: Norwich Crown Court hears that Martin is taken to a secret address under police protection after death threats are made against him and reports of a £60,000 price tag on his life emerge.

19 April 2000: Martin is jailed for life for the murder of Fred Barras, with 10 years to run concurrently for the wounding offence and a further 12 months for possession of an illegal firearm.

20 April 2000: Martin's solicitor, Nick Makin, pledges to appeal against his client's conviction.
Martin's legal team say a female juror has reportedly called an independent Norfolk radio station claiming they received threats during the trial.

21 April 2000: The independent Broadlands 102 FM radio station in Norwich insists the woman who contacted the station did not mention being threatened.
Tony Jones, the uncle of Mr Barras, denies anybody connected to the teenager's family made any attempt to intimidate jurors.

25 April 2000: Officials at Norwich Crown Court decide not to launch an inquiry into the allegations of jury intimidation during the trial.

After several hours of discussions, they conclude there is no hard evidence to back up the claims, in the absence of any formal complaints to police.

26 April 2000: The family of one of the jurors tells the BBC members of the jury believed they were being stared at by people in the public gallery and felt afraid leaving the court.

Martin's legal team say they will pursue the claims to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get their client's murder conviction quashed.

28 April 2000: Martin's lawyers fax a notice of appeal against his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal in London.

19 June 2000: The appeal begins. Three Court of Appeal judges rule that police can take the unusual step of submitting written questions to the jurors in the trial over whether they were intimidated.

27 July 2000: Mr Justice Curtis grants permission for Martin to appeal against his conviction for unlawful wounding but against the murder charge.

6 August 2000: It emerges that Fred Barras's family is to seek compensation for his death.

14 August 2000: Martin announces he intends to replace his solicitor and barrister with a new legal team.

29 August 2000: Martin launches a new appeal against his murder conviction, claiming that he was not properly represented at his trial.

15 October 2000: Martin's supporters appeal for funds to help him fight his murder conviction.

10 August 2001: Fearon is freed from prison following a parole board hearing.

15 October 2001: Michael Wolkind, QC, who heads Mr Martin's new legal team, tells the Court of Appeal that his trial lawyers had not presented Mr Martin's own account of what happened.

He said there was "compelling" evidence to show that the farmer acted in self-defence and under provocation or diminished responsibility.

17 October 2001: Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf - sitting with Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson - reserves judgement on Mr Martin's appeal to a later date and says their decision would be given "as soon as possible".

30 October 2001: Martin's murder conviction reduced to manslaughter, and his 10-year sentence for wounding Fearon is cut to three years, to run concurrently.

29 June 2002: Burglar Fearon announces he is to sue Martin for £50,000.

27 September 2002: Charlton Heston, former actor and president of the US National Rifle Association, gives his support to Martin.

16 January 2003: Martin's bid to be released early on parole is rejected.

15 April 2003: Fearon's bid to sue Martin is rejected by judges.

13 June 2003: On appeal Fearon wins the right to sue Martin.

24 July 2003: Martin moved from Highpoint Prison in Suffolk to a secret location.

25 July 2003: Fearon released from prison early after being jailed for drug dealing.

26 July 2003: Home Secretary David Blunkett asks for the Prison Service to explain Fearon's early release.

28 July 2003: Martin released from custody

[Drummond]

You can post it there. Tell them it is a gift from Perianne. They might remember me.

Oh, I'm tempted !

[Gunny]

Some great points in your post, DMP, and thanks .. I agree with a great deal of it. But, I've singled out the point which I think I should disagree with.

What I think you're reflecting, without knowing it, is the great psychological differences involved. Most of us don't own guns because we've never considered it, because guns just aren't 'out there' for us to consider buying. But more, our society would consider carrying guns almost to be an alien concept. I'm far from young, but I've lived my life never once encountering anyone, ever, from the UK who owned one.

The one time I did find someone who owned a gun, as it happens, lived in Germany, and the only reason he had his gun was as a WWII souvenir, from his Third Reich army days. Otherwise I've literally (knowingly) never met a gun owner in my life.

'Trusting ourselves with gun ownership' isn't a factor. They're just not a part of our lives.

The British get reports of shootings in America, maybe a shootout at a school, or whatever, and I think the reaction is one of a lack of comprehension of why the gun was freely available enough to the shooter in the first place. But more, the overall reaction would be that America earns those situations just because guns are available. Putting it bluntly, they struggle to see it as a mark of a civilised country, that such freedoms to own firearms can exist.

We have NO enshrined right to carry guns, as you have (the very concept doesn't exist here). We have no Constitution that governs such freedoms at all.

And that is the big difference. Many generations of Socialist influence ensure that any move towards even considering gun ownership here will never happen. Those who preached otherwise, in the UK, would be thought of as 'gun nuts', needing professional help ... .

The fallacy to your argument is you live on an island. It's a LOT easier to control importation of illegal crap, like guns. We, as we keep pointing out, have Central and South America attached to us. We can't even keep the illegal PEOPLE out.

[Drummond]

The fallacy to your argument is you live on an island. It's a LOT easier to control importation of illegal crap, like guns. We, as we keep pointing out, have Central and South America attached to us. We can't even keep the illegal PEOPLE out.

Point basically taken, though I'd also say that we have our Channel Tunnel to contend with. Only recently there was a case of one of the many migrants massed at Calais managing to not only get into the Tunnel, but to walk nearly the length of the tunnel. He didn't succeed, though he nearly did.

The massing of illegals at Calais, and formerly at Sangatte, is part of an ongoing problem. Some illegals DO manage to get through.