UK Gun Laws....OUCH!!!!


PDA






Banta
August 12, 2006, 10:58 PM
I used to think Canada's gun laws were tough but after recently purchasing my first couple of handguns I now realize they aren't even remotely as bad as some Americans make them out to seem. Now you want to see harsh gun laws, just take a look at the UK. (I'm especially amazed by what they consider a "large" quantity of ammo)

http://www.wktimes.co.uk/content/brent/wembleychronicle/news/story.aspx?brand=WKCOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newswkc&itemid=WeED13%20Jun%202006%2017%3A51%3A54%3A613

If you enjoyed reading about "UK Gun Laws....OUCH!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Stiletto Null
August 12, 2006, 11:02 PM
44 + 2 +3 + 15...64 rounds.

I can go through that many rounds in one session just out of my Mauser.

Nathan Williams
August 12, 2006, 11:03 PM
Sad really, this from the country that gave us the magna carta.

Eightball
August 12, 2006, 11:05 PM
Politics and firearms have almost been mutually exclusive throughout history--progress in one doesn't necissarily equal progress with the other. But WOW, those are some messed up laws. 3 years for having 44 "unfired" rounds, of varying types. And that's a "stash of ammo". We should invite british authorities into our homes---where autoloading firearms can exist (unless you're in CA :P ), and we have thousands of rounds.

Euclidean
August 12, 2006, 11:21 PM
My brain just exploded... things like this make me wish the zombies would hurry up and get here.

MrZ
August 13, 2006, 12:07 AM
Sad imo...

Very sad.

benEzra
August 13, 2006, 12:20 AM
I used to think Canada's gun laws were tough but after recently purchasing my first couple of handguns I now realize they aren't even remotely as bad as some Americans make them out to seem.
Don't you guys have tight restrictions on AR-15's, mini-14's, and such, and a 10-round capacity limit?

To me, that is indeed very, very, very bad. Not as outrageously bad as the UK, but a big step in that direction. Certainly as bad as California.

(Other than your gun laws, I like Canada a lot, though. No offense intended!)

Cosmoline
August 13, 2006, 12:31 AM
Canada is similar to some of our more anti-gun blue states. But it's a really big country and there's still a strong gun culture esp. in the rural areas. The biggest stink is made over handguns and "scary looking" long guns. Traditional hunting rifles that are totally banned in the UK are very widespread in Canada. There are millions and millions of them. If they locked people up there for owning cartridges, most of the population in BC, Alberta, the Yukon and NWT outside the cities would be locked up.

The UK is much, much worse. In fact it's far worse than continental European nations, many of which have well entrenched gun clubs and better laws for full auto and silencer possession than we do in the states.

Banta
August 13, 2006, 01:23 AM
"Don't you guys have tight restrictions on AR-15's, mini-14's, and such, and a 10-round capacity limit?
To me, that is indeed very, very, very bad. Not as outrageously bad as the UK, but a big step in that direction. Certainly as bad as California."


I am not really into the AR-15, Mini-14 type of guns (yet) but allot of the guys up here are. You can own pretty much most of them with the exception of Full Auto or Silencers. We do have a 10 round capacity limit and for what it's worth this does not apply to .22's. We are not limited to the caliber or amount of handguns or rifles we can purchase plus we can purchase as much ammo as we like. I have noticed that we do have a few relaxed laws compared to the US such as when we purchase a handgun online we can have it shipped directly to our door (It has to go through a FFL dealer in the US right?) plus we can purchase guns from Norinco and the likes which are banned from US import. There are some other laws which are stricter than the US but honestly, If you have no criminal record or mental health problems you will have no problem getting the licensing required to purchase rifles or handguns.

Like Cosmoline said in his post we do have quite a strong gun culture especially in the rural areas and this was shown when our Liberal government came out with the rifle registry a few years ago. Probably half of all the rifle owners refused to register their guns and this issue was a never ending thorn in the governments side. Now that we have a Conservative government in power their plan is to scrap the rifle registry.

Cromlech
August 13, 2006, 03:18 AM
Cosmoline Wrote: Traditional hunting rifles that are totally banned in the UK are very widespread in Canada.

Are we talking about semi-automatic, traditional hunting rifles here? :confused:

You can own a single shot bolt-action Steyr .50 rifle in the U.K still. Magazine capacity isn't restricted really, apart from on shotguns.

Fosbery
August 13, 2006, 07:12 AM
These two people were not arrested because they had 'too much' ammunition, they were arrested because they had ammunition for which they had no permit (ammunition and firearms are treated just the same).

There is no limit on how much shotgun ammunition a person can have, and limits on the ammount of other ammunition a person can have are decided between you and the police. In my experience, you get what you ask for, I've never been told 'that's too much'.

There are no restrictions on magazine capacity, even on shotguns. The only time ammunition capacity is an issue is when deciding if a shotgun is a section 1 shotgun or section 2 shotgun (section 1 is over 3 rounds, section 2 is 3 rounds or under).

Tradititional hunting rifles such as leverguns and boltguns are perfectly legal.

Banta
August 13, 2006, 10:15 AM
Fosbery, I guess it's just a bit surprising to read about someone getting arrested for possessing ammo whether they are licensed or not, not to mention what we would consider such a small quantity of it. Maybe if the person had thousands of rounds of ammo and had been caught reselling it illegaly I could understand the justification of the harsh sentence. Have these laws cut down on Gun crime in the UK?

Cosmoline
August 13, 2006, 03:42 PM
Tradititional hunting rifles such as leverguns and boltguns are perfectly legal.


And slaves were free to leave the plantation, just so long as they got their master's permission. It wasn't illegal at all!

That's a pretty bizarre view of the world boyo.

Fosbery
August 13, 2006, 03:47 PM
Lol, of course they havn't. Fewer legal guns = more crime.

@ Cosmoline: Permits for such guns are 'shall issue'. To deny a permit to someone the police need to probe there is a very good reason why you shouldn't have one e.g. you're clinically insane.

Mumbles_45
August 13, 2006, 04:11 PM
and two fired cartridges with shortened cases

those evil "readily concealable" spent casings

Tom Servo
August 13, 2006, 08:32 PM
My brain just exploded... things like this make me wish the zombies would hurry up and get here.
Euclidean, that's going to be my new sigline!

I almost caught myself saying, "wow, our laws are nowhere near that bad," but it occurs to me that it's only a matter of time.

gitarmac
August 13, 2006, 11:05 PM
about the gun laws if you don't have the right to use them in self defense. Guns were not invented to punch paper and it's nice you can use them for target shooting but you can target shoot with a bb gun or air rifle for that matter.

I don't think of gun laws as an issue of laws that affect guns and gun usage, I think of them in terms of self defense. Is anybody "allowed" to defend themselves anymore? With anything other than a rape whistle?







Margo

TIZReporter
August 13, 2006, 11:18 PM
At http://www.infozonenews.com/freedom.html there are several items on some of the laws and restrictions on freedoms in the UK and the United States and Australia.

Not only do you have to have a licence to possess a gun, but believe it or not, you also need a licence to own and use a television set.

The WFSA has a very good site with links to laws in several countries.

While it might sound good, in the United States to ignore the international scene, remember where many guns are made -- Europe.

The Brits have it bad, but in Canada the Liberals have proposed a handgun ban.

All gun owners, regardless of where, and why type of gun must unite and realise an attack on any gun owner, or any gun is an attack on all of us.

TIZ

Boom-stick
August 14, 2006, 06:02 AM
There is no limit on how much shotgun ammunition a person can have,
Except SLUG:D

I've never been told 'that's too much'
I have:evil:

1200 .22lr
600 .44mag
600 9mm
600 .45ACP
600 .445
600 .308
600 .223
300 12g slug

My new FLO wasn't what I'd decribe as a true example of happiness at this request, it's been 3 weeks and I'm still waiting for an answer:confused:

sterling180
August 14, 2006, 08:22 AM
UK Gun Laws....OUCH!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to think Canada's gun laws were tough but after recently purchasing my first couple of handguns I now realize they aren't even remotely as bad as some Americans make them out to seem. Now you want to see harsh gun laws, just take a look at the UK. (I'm especially amazed by what they consider a "large" quantity of ammo)

My friend,20 years ago our laws and choices were similar to yours and to the Australians-but because of our gun massacres,involving various weapons and ammunition-we have become very strict and authoritarian-in terms of private ownership.

The Aussies have harsher controls than us,on semi-auto rifles and pump-action/semi-auto shotguns(because they are banned.)but are still allowed handguns-unlike us.The GCN movement and Blairs communist party ended that for us completely-except for our really long handguns.:fire: :fire: .

Now then,back to the history of the demise of the "good guns",from the UK mainland.

1989: Tory toffs said "You don't need SLRs,so we will grab them,because you could be another Micheal Ryan".I believe that Marc Lepine,caused a similar effect in Canada-in this year-but your government were more sensible than us.

1997:Handguns are banned,because of Thomas Hamilton and angry mothers wanted justice for the deaths of their kids,so theyhelped form the GCN and Mothers against Guns in the UK and demand that handguns should be banned-by annoyingly pressuring both Tory and Labour governments.The former are way too liberal,towards people instead of shooting people-so they banned our handguns.

TIZReporter
August 14, 2006, 08:44 AM
Sterling,

I respectfully submit that it wasn't the massacres as much as it was a lack of proper research, and proper political lobby efforts.

The research clearly demonstrates that the path taken in Britain is not having the results intended.

The changes to British society we are seeing with the anti-social behavior legislation, knife bans and the handgun ban are all evidence that in Britain there are not effective groups which can make the needed impact with bureaucrats and politicians, let alone the public.

There is a lesson for all of us in Britain, because as a former bastion of liberty and freedoms, Britain is not the land it was.

TIZ

Onmilo
August 14, 2006, 08:50 AM
Wow, and I just bought 250 rounds of 9mm, 200 rounds of .223, and 160 rounds of .308 at my local Dunhams and nobody even batted an eye at my purchase, heck I even live in one of the more gun restrictive states too,,,,God bless the good old USA.

Nathan Williams
August 14, 2006, 12:15 PM
Wow, and I just bought 250 rounds of 9mm, 200 rounds of .223, and 160 rounds of .308 at my local Dunhams and nobody even batted an eye at my purchase, heck I even live in one of the more gun restrictive states too,,,,God bless the good old USA.

Onmilo, just wait and see what our friendly govenor trys to pull if he gets another 4 years this Nov :barf: . Are you aware of his recent attempt at a ban on all semi-automatics? The things Rod has in mind for us make ********** look ideal :( .

gitarmac
August 14, 2006, 05:20 PM
My friend,20 years ago our laws and choices were similar to yours and to the Australians-but because of our gun massacres,involving various weapons and ammunition-we have become very strict and authoritarian-in terms of private ownership.



Ok, then can the few private owners use the weapons they are "allowed" to own to defend themselves against "massacres"? Can anybody defend themselves against anything?

This is the second thread that I've tried to get an answer to that question. What good is owning a gun if you cannot use it to defend yourself with? It seems to me that the issue isn't so much guns as the right to self defense. The restrictive gun countries are also the passifist mindset countries in which defending yourself is viewed as more morally wrong then the crime in which you are defending yourself from.

That's what it seems like to me anyway and so far nobody has been able to site an instance to dispute it.

Cosmoline
August 14, 2006, 05:25 PM
@ Cosmoline: Permits for such guns are 'shall issue'. To deny a permit to someone the police need to probe there is a very good reason why you shouldn't have one e.g. you're clinically insane.

Permits for handguns and rifles are shall issue in the UK? That's news to me.

Mk VII
August 14, 2006, 05:33 PM
It's up to the applicant to make out his case, not for the police to make out a case against him.

What good is owning a gun if you cannot use it to defend yourself with?

Because it's for sport. Not for killing people. You even talk to them about the possibility of using your gun for defence here and you will loose your licence, permanently, and the courts will consistantly back this approach.

Cosmoline
August 14, 2006, 05:55 PM
That's madness. Absolute madness.

Banta
August 14, 2006, 07:53 PM
"The Brits have it bad, but in Canada the Liberals have proposed a handgun ban."


Yeah they had proposed a handgun Ban. That is probably one of the reasons they were turfed out of office. Banning guns goes over well in Toronto but the Liberals "shot themselves in the foot" with the Western Provinces and the rural votes. One of the election platforms of the Conservative government which is now in power is to dismantle the gun registry which had become a hugely expensive beaurocratic mess and considering half the people defied the law and refused to register their guns it was pretty much useless even in the eyes of the law enforcement community.

gitarmac
August 14, 2006, 08:50 PM
Sheesh, isn't anybody going to address the issue about self defense. ENOUGH WITH THE GUNS ALREADY!!!! If the only thing you can do with them is take them out, fondle them, and shoot some paper THEN IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU CAN OWN GUNS OR NOT!!! :banghead:


I'm simply not going to let this matter drop until somebody addresses it! :)

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 07:41 AM
I already have.

Odd Job
August 15, 2006, 09:26 AM
@ Fosbery

Thanks for your good info, I am learning a lot from you. I have two questions:

1) What is the difference between a Section 1 and Section 2 shotgun? Is it Semi-auto vs pump, or what? What types of shotguns could you get here (I would like to get a Neosted to play with).

2) Where does the Airrow fit in? I presume if I get the cartridge based Ruger10/22 archery gun, it goes on the ticket as a 10/22 or .22 rifle and the fact that it can launch arrows is sundry. But what about the stealth gas version, that launches the arrow at 600fps? I presume that must go on the ticket like an over-powered air-rifle? Here's the page with the Airrow stuff:

http://www.swivelmachine.com/html/stealth.htm

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 10:00 AM
To be a section 2 shotgun it must not have:

A detachable magazine

Any magazine capable of holding more than two rounds

A barrel less than 24 inches in length

A revolver mechanism

It must also be a smooth bore gun (musket or shotgun).

You can have pumps or semis it makes no difference, but the magazine must be fixed and hold no more than two rounds.

If it holds more than two rounds, or the magazine is detachable, then it's a section 1 shotgun.

A Neostead I believe is a revolver, so no matter what it could not be a section 2, and would have to be a section 1. You'd need a 24 inch barrel, or longer, which you'd need to order special as Neosteads don't have barrels that long as far as I know. For all the cost and trouble, you might as well get a Benelli.

Usually, bows and crossbows are not regulated in any way because they do not have barrels. That Airrow thing seems to have a rifled barrel making it a rifle under British law. Therefore, those which are not .22 RF must not be self-loading but otherwise I THINK they'd be legal but as always, ask your local firearms officer and check.

sterling180
August 15, 2006, 10:33 AM
1) What is the difference between a Section 1 and Section 2 shotgun? Is it Semi-auto vs pump, or what? What types of shotguns could you get here (I would like to get a Neosted to play with).

A Neostead I believe is a revolver, so no matter what it could not be a section 2, and would have to be a section 1. You'd need a 24 inch barrel, or longer, which you'd need to order special as Neosteads don't have barrels that long as far as I know. For all the cost and trouble, you might as well get a Benelli.

If you arrived in the UK 19 years ago,you could have bought a Neosted over the counter,with a FAC:Section 1 license.You could have also had bought any section 1 assault rifle and a Vector pistol(up until mid 1996.)-but because of Hungerford and Dunblane-these options are no longer available,to you-the citizen.

In the UK,you can buy any shotgun,that has the specifications,that are stated by Fosbery.Riot shotguns are still legal providing that it has a minimum barrel length of 24" or more.

A standard Neostead is classed a prohibited shotgun,because it is a short-barrelled shotgun-but you could have it modified,to meet UK laws,but it is better to spend your money on the following shotguns: Spas 12,Spas 15,Saiga 12,Remington 870,etc.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 10:53 AM
SPAS 12??? Heavy unreliable piece of junk if you ask me. Benelli, Remington or a SPAS 15 would be money better spent.

Boom-stick
August 15, 2006, 12:58 PM
Yeah, but an SPAS 12 just looks so god-dam cool!!!:D

IIRC SPAS 15 are more unreliable than the 12's?

Can you defend yourself.....
Yes and No.

If someone breaks in whilst you just happen to have your gun out of the safe that you keep it in 24/7, then you can use it to defend yourself, BUT explaining why you're cleaning a loaded rifle at 3am could take some doing.

Dain Bramage
August 15, 2006, 01:22 PM
SPAS 12??? Heavy unreliable piece of junk if you ask me. Benelli, Remington or a SPAS 15 would be money better spent.

I'm sorry. I thought we weren't actually allowed to comment on guns in Brit gun threads. :D

Odd Job
August 15, 2006, 01:35 PM
@ Fosbery

I was looking at this Neostead here:

http://users.iafrica.com/n/nj/njj741t/feature.html

But I suppose that may not even be produced/available. If it was available, I presume it would be Section 1 because of capacity.

I will make enquiries about the gas-powered archery gun. They can make a smooth-bored version of that and I wonder where it will find itself in the rules.

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 01:38 PM
Whoops, I got mixed up with the Striker/Streetsweeper and the Neostead. Damn South Africans with their silly names :p

Ok, so it won't be a revolver so I suppose you could make it section 2. You'd probably need a gunsmith to limit that magazine though. If I remember correctly, it actually has two magazines, so theoretically it could hold 5 rounds and still be a section 2. You'd need to lengthen the barrel though.

If you had a smoothbore, single shot Airrow (or one with a magazine holding no more than two round) and a barrel no less than 24 inches in length, it would be section 2.

Cousin Mike
August 15, 2006, 06:10 PM
...there was a time when I wanted to visit England.

I feel bad for the Brits, but unfortunately it seems that most of them have bought into the new wave of European anti-gun hype. If you think your average American is a sheep? Take a look at some of the comments Brits make about guns and gun control. They think we are violent barbarians here in the U.S. for wanting to own evil black rifles... "that were only made to kill people." They use phrases like "gun culture" with disdain. They also seem to 'feel secure' with cameras pointed everywhere and the government tracking every move their cars make. It's really 1984 over there. Even some of the comments by our English members seem to reflect this type of thinking to some extent.

Because it's for sport. Not for killing people.

Madness... Guns were designed to kill... efficiently and effectively... and no one should ever mistake or forget that. May I remind you, that if certain people didn't deploy guns on your behalf, in service to your country, TO KILL PEOPLE...

...you'd be posting on this site in German, sir.

The sad thing is, in general... the majority of the population seems happy about it, and they think that their country has the right idea.

"Those who would trade liberty for security..."

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 06:12 PM
^Pure fallacy on the speaking German thing.

Otherwise, quite right.

Cousin Mike
August 15, 2006, 06:14 PM
:D

I was being sarcastic.

Edit: The German thing, however, is not fallacy. I was not saying that Americans gained your freedom in WWII. However, what I was saying was that if your own countrymen did not fight the Nazi's... with guns... you be speaking Deutch, buddy.

That, I stand by.

Mk VII
August 15, 2006, 06:21 PM
No, I'd be posting in Russian.

Self-defence; that dog won't hunt here, no matter how much you tell us it ought to. You absolutely will not get any of the political parties to agree with such a view. They wouldn't even risk being soiled with it, and their answer would be, "Yes guns are made to kill and that's why nobody but soldiers and, on occasional necessity, policemen, should be allowed to play with them."

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 06:22 PM
^Ah sorry, Mike. I thought you meant 'certain people' were Americans. No harm, no foul :)

Aye, seld-defence is an issue i.e. most parties want to show off how much they support self-defence. But no main stream party will put guns and self-defence together. I don't think we have any chance of gaining gun rights through proclaiming self-defence or warding off dictatorships (you know, like the one we have) so most people resign themselves to this and just say 'they're only for sport' which is really the best way to go in this country I'm afraid. Most shooters I have met agree with an armed citizenry, to one degree or another, but most would never say so in public because it would be suicidal for the shooting community.

Cromlech
August 15, 2006, 07:26 PM
Madness... Guns were designed to kill... efficiently and effectively... and no one should ever mistake or forget that. May I remind you, that if certain people didn't deploy guns on your behalf, in service to your country, TO KILL PEOPLE...

You sir, are correct. BUT, you have to realise that this (Sensible) line of thinking would get you labeled as a mentally unstable (OMG Wite narzi supreemarsisst terrororororist fashistt babee-kiling murdurrererrrererereer!!11) person here in Britain.

Oh, and German is a great language. You're using a (admittedly reworked/evolved + Latin influenced) 'cousin' of it now...


RINNATH AND HIDATH, MAEGDEN-CILDAN!

:D :D :D

Cousin Mike
August 15, 2006, 08:39 PM
Fosbery - I'm glad we cleared that up. I didn't realize how that might have looked until I re-read my own post. :)

You sir, are correct. BUT, you have to realise that this (Sensible) line of thinking would get you labeled as a mentally unstable (OMG Wite narzi supreemarsisst terrororororist fashistt babee-kiling murdurrererrrererereer!!11) person here in Britain.


How did this happen?!?

This is a serious question. I know about the school shootings and everything, but seriously... how did you guys go from having the same laws we have here, to having the very notion of wanting to defend one's self criminalized? Was it all a knee-jerk reaction to the shootings? Is there any talk of trying to re-claim your right to arms? Or is the general population over there so completely anti-gun that it's worthless?


It just doesn't seem to make sense. Of course, you could always move to the U.S. - considering what our currency is worth compared to yours, that might not be a bad move, either.

You'd have a lot of money left over to indulge your new, unrestricted hobby... as long as you don't move to Illinois or ********** :D

Fosbery
August 15, 2006, 09:18 PM
Well, up until the 20's guns were exactly the same as a loaf of bread or an arm chair: no restrictions at all.

Then the government got concerned over left-wing groups, some of them armed, who might cause a revolution, like in Russia. A certification system was introduced where you would have to pay a fee at the post office to purchase a gun and this would be kept on record.

Over time this become more elaborate, eventually evolving into the system we know today with the need for 'good reason', background checks, the need for referees, long waiting times, maximum ammount of ammunition and so on. These things were often not laws, but guidelines and policies so never got attention until it was too late. And even when they did or when they were laws, so few people owned guns that few people were bothered by it. Britain was tamed with bows and arrows long before firearms were invented, unlike America, so there was no history and tradition of gun ownership amongst ordinary people. The odd person might have a derringer or something, ex-army types might have a .22 rifle, and farmers and the aristocracy, maybe the odd bar-keep, had shotguns but that was about it.

Back then, people had enough trouble putting food on the table, let alone worrying about buying a gun.

Well, in 1945 the Home Office decided that self-defence (preservation of freedom etc) would no longer be a 'good reason'. Up until then, any reason was good enough really, but afterwards only things like hunting and target shooting were valid.

This decision was made in secret, it was not a law but a guideline for police to follow. It only became public in the 1980's.

So, we never realised that guns for the express purpose of self-defence were gone. They just faded away.

This way, people lost all empathy with gun owners because hardly anyone knew one or was one.

Constant media and government propoganda finished the job. We're relentlessly pounded with stories and articles about how we need to stop people carrying knives and guns, how guns are evil and so on. It's all done so well. You'll have a newsreader announce "A man was arrested last night for the muder of such and such and police say they have found a gun in his house". You barely think to say "Hang on, so what if he has a gun? He has every right to! You don't announce 'a draw full of kitchen knives was found'!" and after people who don't really care have heard it 1000 times, they accept that guns = bad.

Now, the only people who carry proper knives are criminals (except maybe carpet fitters,, hunters, electricians etc) so knives are associated with criminals. People assume that if you were allowed to carry knives whenever you wanted, the criminals would have it easy as there'd be on law stopping them. I know it makes no sense but people don't think about it too hard and when they do, they just sput government rhetoric like 'it's be taken away and used against you' and 'the police will protect you'. Same for guns. With the exception of the small shooting community, only criminals have guns so that's what they're associated with.

Spotted Owl
August 16, 2006, 02:47 AM
Here in the U.S. we're citizens. In the U.K. you're subjects. Perhaps that's the difference.

Cromlech
August 16, 2006, 04:12 AM
My dear American friends, you misunderstand!

Of course we all have the right to self defense here!


We just don't have the means to self defence. See, it's not that bad here you silly-billies. :rolleyes:

I think I just broke my sarcasm-meter. :D

Vairochana
August 16, 2006, 04:41 AM
In Australia we don't even have a right of self defense, let alone owning firearms for same.
I think our problem is a lingering convict/colonial attitude where we do what the bosses say cos they know best and who are we to question.
So much for the individual ANZAC spirit and all.

sterling180
August 16, 2006, 06:19 AM
In Australia we don't even have a right of self defense, let alone owning firearms for same.
I think our problem is a lingering convict/colonial attitude where we do what the bosses say cos they know best and who are we to question.
So much for the individual ANZAC spirit and all.

True,but at least you held on to your pistols and pump-action centrefire rifles,unlike us in the UK.Why wern't pumps banned in 1997,along with the semi-auto rifles and semi-auto shotguns and pump-action shotguns? I would have thought that a rifle has a greater range than a shotgun:confused: except slug rounds.

By the way,your PM needs a brain transplant and needs to be desposed,oh sorry I meant deposed,from office.The same for Mr Blair too.

If Blair shoots a gun in the US,on Bushes ranch-then we can organize a pro-gun rally-outside of the Number 10 enclosure.Wake up Blair,you muppet and stop letting the GCN walk all over you.

sterling180
August 16, 2006, 06:23 AM
Here in the U.S. we're citizens. In the U.K. you're subjects. Perhaps that's the difference.

Yes,we are subjects of comerade Blair and his socialist misfits.Not even he or the queen,can own a pistol or an assault rifle,thanks to his and the previous Tory governments efforts.

Are those polititions totally insane,to deny us and themselves,the weapons that they prohibited?

Metapotent
August 16, 2006, 06:57 AM
Quote:
Madness... Guns were designed to kill... efficiently and effectively... and no one should ever mistake or forget that. May I remind you, that if certain people didn't deploy guns on your behalf, in service to your country, TO KILL PEOPLE...


You sir, are correct. BUT, you have to realise that this (Sensible) line of thinking would get you labeled as a mentally unstable (OMG Wite narzi supreemarsisst terrororororist fashistt babee-kiling murdurrererrrererereer!!11) person here in Britain.

Oh, and German is a great language. You're using a (admittedly reworked/evolved + Latin influenced) 'cousin' of it now...

I love that sharp-whitted and sarcastic British attitude. Filled with truth, yet intended to be hostile but only slightly so.

Love it.

P.S. I speak German anyway...4 years of it in highschool and I was an exchange student my senior year. What I found interesting in Germany is that this generation of youth completely immitate US culture, yet they find it 'cool' to root for communists and terrorists. I found it kind of strange/hilarious to hear a german kid saying "The US capitalist imperialism is the cause of all the world's evils" in between his sips of Coca Cola, while wearing Nike shoes and a KISS shirt.

Boom-stick
August 16, 2006, 08:29 AM
I think I just broke my sarcasm-meter.

Yes, yes you did:evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "UK Gun Laws....OUCH!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!