A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today.


PDA






sterling180
June 2, 2010, 10:22 AM
Hello there THR members&I bring to you a sad day,in our country,as a lunatic taxi-driver,went postal and shot dead& several people.The amount of casulties is unclear,as the cops have sealed off the town in Cumbria.Just like Micheal 'Rambo' Ryan,back in 1987,this guy has caused a gun massacre.It happend at 10.30 AM GMT.

I'll kep you all informed,as more information is available to me.The last time I was worried about our gun freedoms,was back in '96,after the Dunblane massacre,with handguns.So lets wait and see the fallout that the antis will bask in.:cuss:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10215998.stm

If you enjoyed reading about "A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
June 2, 2010, 10:33 AM
Banning of firearms doesn't prevent this sort of thing although Banners will say that such bans reduce them to the rare and extraordinary event.

It will be interesting to see if the police can determine where the gunman, Derrick Bird, got his weapon in a country where total government control of firearms ownership is touted. It will also be interesting to see if there's any backlash against the government for lying to the subjects of the UK that shootings and mass shootings can be prevented by total government control of firearms ownership.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 10:38 AM
Banning of firearms doesn't prevent this sort of thing although Banners will say that such bans reduce them to the rare and extraordinary event.
Oh,I agree&its totally spot on my friend,but Im very concerned after the number of fatalities&the nature of the crime,that we will have tighter restrictons or worse still,bans.They justify another ban,possibly like how they did,back in '88,with the Hungerford killer,in saying that he:had no criminal record&never came to police attention.

By the way,this incident has saddend me alot&made my day,very miserable.A female colleage of mine,whom I rung up just now,has now gone totally anti-gun,saying that 'no one should own a gun'.This friend of mine,is called Gemma,&she was a friend,whom I tried to get to come clay-shooting,with me.

bthest86
June 2, 2010, 10:45 AM
First n' foremost no one should gloat over this tragedy but yes this is kind of thing will happen. No matter how much restrictions, control, licenses, or permits a government has these nuts will always get through and no one is the wiser until it is too late.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 10:54 AM
News in,that apparently his body has been found&a gun has been recovered,believed to be that of a shotgun.What type,I don't know,as of yet.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7142477.ece

hso
June 2, 2010, 11:10 AM
It's reported the weapon used in the shootings is a shotgun and that the murderer was a well liked and well known member of his community. There's nothing indicating any criminal history or association or gang links.

THR doesn't present "crime stories". We instead need to focus on the RKBA aspects and impact of this incident.

berrieberrie
June 2, 2010, 12:16 PM
It will be interesting to see if the police can determine where the gunman, Derrick Bird, got his weapon in a country where total government control of firearms ownership is touted.

That's the catch: up until now, there wasn't total government control in the UK - it was still possible and relatively easy to own bolt action rifles and shotguns. It is very likely that the shooter was a legal gun owner. As a freedom- and gun-loving European, I am afraid that this might become the perfect excuse for a total ban - "See ? We need to ban them all !"

Blackbeard
June 2, 2010, 01:44 PM
I wonder how the new coalition government will view this incident. Any Brits care to share how the different parties view gun control? My suspicion is that all of them are for it.

Polar Express
June 2, 2010, 01:51 PM
This American would like to extend his condolances to your Country and those affected by sad event.

PE

Cosmoline
June 2, 2010, 01:51 PM
UK members--what are the chances for a shotgun ban after this? What are the new government's views on such matters? Are they better or worse than Labour?

ccsniper
June 2, 2010, 01:53 PM
keep us updated as to the RKBA part of the story

razorback2003
June 2, 2010, 02:28 PM
I hate to see people killed by a nutcase like this. I wonder if the guy legally possessed these firearms...but he obviously illegally carried them in public and illegally murdered people. At least he saved the public the trouble of trying him in court.

Intrepid Dad
June 2, 2010, 02:33 PM
This American would like to extend his condolances to your Country and those affected by sad event.

Agreed. So many lives are impacted by a crime like this. It's sad.

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 2, 2010, 02:37 PM
Let obviously won't get as much attention as what's been going on in China recently. They have a terrible gun ban, but the psycho's still manage to waste people with blades.

Fred West
June 2, 2010, 02:45 PM
It's been confirmed that 12 people died. It would appear he used a rifle and possibly a shotgun as well. I'm afraid this will have far reaching consequences for shooting over here. I think after this all we'll be left with is muzzle loaders and possibly .22's. I hope I'm wrong.
Needless to say, condolences to everyone involved.
Fred.

UKarmourer
June 2, 2010, 02:53 PM
Well here is a link to the BBC timeline on the incident.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10216179.stm

As to the RKBA issue, well, I was at my clay club when this hit the radio, our instant reaction was, must be time for another ban!
Hungerford - bye bye semi-auto full bores
dunblane- bye bye pistols
now cumbria- what next?

At the moment almost anyone with a good reason (sporting or hunting use) can get a shotgun cert and own shotguns (up to 3 shot cap)
a section 1 firearms cert is required for anything else.

I am in the process of applying for my SGC through my clay club, was going to apply for my FAC, might wait a bit, last time the legislation was pushed through at an amazing speed.

Unfortunately the govt will listen to the public, who are kept in a fearful state by the media, the fact that most firearms incidents are carried out with illegaly held weapons & replicas matter not one bit- 3 FAC holders have gone bonkers, 2 of them caused bans, watch out watch out!

On another downside, any hope i had of continuing to work in the firearms field when I leave the army has gone right out of the window if we have another ban. Another good reason to emigrate!

Mike J
June 2, 2010, 02:58 PM
I also am sorry for the tragedy that has visited the UK.
I hope someone in the government will have enough sense to realize that bans do not stop crime. Incidents will happen-the availablility of arms is not the problem the problem is with people.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 02:59 PM
Did you know that he apaprently had another gun,a .22 rimfire rifle.Don't know whether or not it was a semi or a bolt,but Ive read a .22 rimfire rifle was used.Also I believe that the repeal for the N02 Act of the 1997 ban will wither and die on a vain too,I'm hoping that the shotgun used,isn't a pump-or a semi-auto,for obvious reasons.
UK members--what are the chances for a shotgun ban after this? What are the new government's views on such matters? Are they better or worse than Labour?
Well,judjing by the amounbt of pro-gun Tory supporters who supported Cameron,there might not be a ban,but I recon that now the gun control network,will gain greater support.Also as for our relaxation of pistols,I doubt that it'll happen now.100% sure that this bloke was a Section1&2 license holder&that the guns were 100% his&not stolen.

If the Green Party got into power,under Caroline Lucas,than guess what,bye bye everything,minus single&double-barrelled game guns.Gone within a year,as these hippies would do it.

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 2, 2010, 03:00 PM
Yep, I'm trying to get to the US as well for the exact same reason. It's not as easy as you think, even trying to visit th country is hard :(

hso
June 2, 2010, 03:00 PM
For the UK members, what is required for you to have a shotgun or rifle?

Do you need to have prior approval before purchasing? Is it a license issued by the government? Can you walk into a shop, fill out a form and walk out with your shotgun without the government approving of you?

loadedround
June 2, 2010, 03:03 PM
I have relatives in England, so I offer my condolences also. It is a pity to what the citizens of this once proud country have been reduced to, almost to the point of being serfs.

Prince Yamato
June 2, 2010, 03:04 PM
Semi-auto .22 rimfire rifles are allowed in the UK. Wanna bet those get banned?

On the other hand this might go the other way and people will realize that extreme gun bans do nothing.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 03:12 PM
Semi-auto .22 rimfire rifles are allowed in the UK. Wanna bet those get banned?

On the other hand this might go the other way and people will realize that extreme gun bans do nothing.
I think that there will be a protest&petitions signed about anti-gun ownership,etc.At least we've got the Tories on board,instead of Labour,who is aligned with the Gun Control Network,who got us handguns banned.

.22LRs survived Hungerford&Dunblane gun purges,so they might survive now.Alot of folks use .22lrs anyway.Politics is too liberalised these days.Im pretty sure that in that comunity there were other gun owners too&in rural comunities,guns are a way of life.

UKarmourer
June 2, 2010, 03:14 PM
hso,
here is a link to what is required in my county.
http://www.hampshire.police.uk/Internet/advice/firearmslicensing/

short answer though, shotgun cert, apply, with photos etc, secure storage etc, checks carried out (inc home visit) cert issued.
Firearms (section 1) as above but with references from 'pillars of the community' types
so no, I believe I can purchase an air rifle (under 12 ftlbs) ftf but my details will still be recorded.

Any good visa tips for the USA?

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 03:18 PM
Do you need to have prior approval before purchasing? Is it a license issued by the government? Can you walk into a shop, fill out a form and walk out with your shotgun without the government approving of you?

While in the USA myself, the most informative way it is put is thus:

The individual must prove that they have a need for most firearms for a permit, but for certain shotguns it was the reverse. The government must prove that the individual should not have a shotgun, otherwise it was approved.
Which resulted in shotguns being the firearms someone could acquire even in locales where you were dealing with restrictive police that do not like to issue permits.


As put on a wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom :

Shotguns (Section 2 Firearms under the 1968 Act as amended) are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[4] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.


I would be interested in hearing if the killer used an above described shotgun as well.
24" barrels and 2-3 round capacity.
Or a gun that started out as such before being hacked down.
Or if it was one that required a firearm certificate, like your typical American pump shotgun.



I had heard some hopeful that since the new prime minister was a shooter himself there would be an easing of some laws.
Like perhaps .22 handguns being allowed again.
In such an anti-gun place this incident will likely keep that from happening.
Making the conservatives unlikely to reduce firearm restrictions, and the labor party eager to pass additional restrictions as soon as possible.

wingsof
June 2, 2010, 03:19 PM
I threw up when I heard this (Just after eating a big meal), terrible thing to hear and my heart goes out to all of the victims. I have a feeling the UK will have a total ban on firearms if the guy was a legal gun owner.

But what I am very concerned is their would be a copycat crime in Australia. I got the idea from the fact the last massacre we had in Aus was a copy cat shooting of the last one in England.

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 03:20 PM
It should also be noted they are quite restrictive of even the ammo someone can buy.
Just buying some slugs or buckshot is not as simple of a process as buying some birdshot or target loads.

Fred West
June 2, 2010, 03:21 PM
HSO,
It's not that difficult, at the moment anyhow, to get an FAC providing you haven't been too naughty in the past. Any crime of violence would probably prevent you from being granted one as would any conviction for a firearms offence (this includes air rifles). If you have served a term of imprisonment of 3 years or longer you're banned from possessing firearms for life.
Here's a link to the various forms you have to fill in to apply. http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/certificate-application-forms.cfm
Talk about jumping through hoops.
Hope this helps.
Fred.

Mk VII
June 2, 2010, 03:22 PM
Past incidents of this type have never failed to result in major changes to British gun control, invariably for the worse.

There is little difference between the parties on gun control, only degrees of strictness.

A bad development in recent years has been the emergence of single-issue anti-gun pressure groups, who can be relied on to give the right response when the media presses their button. They are (very) small in numbers, but exert a wholly disproportionate influence.

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 2, 2010, 03:22 PM
There was an attempted massacre a while back maybe 1 or 2 years ago in Eastwood, NSW. Some nut kid was going to shoot up a mall, but they reported him acting suspiciously. Luckily he only wasted himself.

Really hope it doesn't happen here.

heeler
June 2, 2010, 03:23 PM
My deepest condolences to all in the U.K. and the suffering families.
It's a sad,sad situation when a person who's soul is that dark strikes out at the innocent.
Absolutely pathetic.
Very sad.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 03:26 PM
Unfortunately the govt will listen to the public, who are kept in a fearful state by the media, the fact that most firearms incidents are carried out with illegaly held weapons & replicas matter not one bit- 3 FAC holders have gone bonkers, 2 of them caused bans, watch out watch out!
This time around,all of us together shall&will not be the 'silent minorities' that we were many years ago.Im not as bothered by the Tories,as much,Im bothered by the Liberal Democrats,as they are lefties.The Tories will p off their supporters if they ban something,as well as the BASC&the Liberals,well judging from Nick Cleggs recent behaviour-they think he sold his sole for 30 pieces of silver-so we don't know where his loyalties lie.He'd probably sell us down the rivers for another 30 pieces of silver.

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 03:28 PM
But what I am very concerned is their would be a copycat crime in Australia. I got the idea from the fact the last massacre we had in Aus was a copy cat shooting of the last one in England.


That would probably be heavily influenced by how much air time the incident receives in Australia.
Will the media be showing the incident for days, and making a big spectacle out of it?
They certainly don't do that when someone drunk from a pub kills around as many people in a deadly crash between two full vehicles.


A week or two or more of solid dedicated air time as happened previously tends to be more suggestive to certain individuals. Producing copycats.
While just mentioning it with other news does not.

wingsof
June 2, 2010, 03:28 PM
There was an attempted massacre a while back maybe 1 or 2 years ago in Eastwood, NSW. Some nut kid was going to shoot up a mall, but they reported him acting suspiciously. Luckily he only wasted himself.

Really hope it doesn't happen here


Thats nothing compared to what happened in Adelaide a few weeks ago. Some guy wounded two police officers with an M16 (Apparently, but it could have just been an AR).

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 2, 2010, 03:31 PM
Yeah, that doesn't matter though since AR-15's are pretty much banned. The kid here used a Glock 17A.

We got to get The Shooters Party into federal parliament. TSP is doing a great job in NSW.

KBintheSLC
June 2, 2010, 03:33 PM
That's the catch: up until now, there wasn't total government control in the UK - it was still possible and relatively easy to own bolt action rifles and shotguns. It is very likely that the shooter was a legal gun owner. As a freedom- and gun-loving European, I am afraid that this might become the perfect excuse for a total ban - "See ? We need to ban them all !"

I hope that before the Brits make such a knee jerk reaction they remember that China has a total ban on gun ownership... and it has done nothing to make the country any safer either. Instead of guns, the crazies are just attacking with knives, clubs, stones, cars, etc. Where there is a will there is a way. Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if desired.

The bottom line is that tragedies happen in society, and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. Humans are emotional and inherently unstable. This is why people should be able to defend themselves.

wingsof
June 2, 2010, 03:34 PM
That would probably be heavily influenced by how much air time the incident receives in Australia.
Will the media be showing the incident for days, and making a big spectacle out of it?

It's top News on the News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au) website, so it will no doubt make top news on TV.

Oh and has anyone found if the guy was a legal gun owner?

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 03:38 PM
Yeah, that doesn't matter though since AR-15's are pretty much banned. The kid here used a Glock 17A.

Well to the mass public which no longer owns a gun in a country that is typically anti-gun, it does not matter.
Most citizens don't even understand what is legal or restricted out of reach of most.
It is yet another gun causing crime. :rolleyes:
Which means there is not enough restrictions yet to prevent gun crime, misuse of guns, and the latest one: a gun culture that encourages firearm use.

The European Union just passed some major anti-gun legislation a few years ago and said a prime reason was specifically to keep a strong gun culture from forming, and preventing the public from gaining the belief they are entitled to a right to arms.

So they are not just after the guns anymore, but the culture itself so they won't have to fight it in the future.
Misuse of any gun, legal or not, is an excuse to rally against such a culture, and keep it weak or non-existent with new rhetoric and laws passed with the purpose of keeping guns from being common.

wingsof
June 2, 2010, 03:42 PM
Yeah, that doesn't matter though since AR-15's are pretty much banned. The kid here used a Glock 17A.

We got to get The Shooters Party into federal parliament. TSP is doing a great job in NSW.

Crap... That would give more ammo (excuse the pun) for the Greens and the Nazi Coalition for Gun Control for a ban on semi-auto handguns.

Oh and I voted TSP on the last state elections in SA. Not sure if i'll vote for them since I plan on voting for the Liberal Democratic Party (Only libertarian party) for the federal election.

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 2, 2010, 03:44 PM
"He was not aware of him owning a gun, or being a member of any gun club, he said. A neighbour also said he had never seen Bird carrying a gun or a shotgun but he added that game shooting was not uncommon in the area."

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 03:54 PM
The truth is in such places pro-gun people are typically defeated legislatively because they argue for recreational use.

You have gun people arguing in favor of firearm privileges so they can do recreational activities. Then you have the antis arguing against guns because they can be misused to seriously injure or kill people.
So the argument becomes: Recreational ability vs Lives.
With such an argument the outcome is almost already decided.

Now with the arguments more common in the US, primarily self defense (even though the right stems from the ability to keep tyranny in check) you have an argument which is stronger:
Good use of firearms to save lives, or stop people trying to hurt others on one side VS the antis highlighting misuse of firearms to injure or take lives.
The argument becomes more about lives vs lives, and what freedoms someone should have for that purpose.
Instead of lives vs recreation, it is lives vs lives.
You cannot win arguing for the ability to hunt, or target shoot at the range on occasion.
(Yet that is all that has become politically acceptable in many nations.)

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 03:54 PM
He was not aware of him owning a gun, or being a member of any gun club, he said. A neighbour also said he had never seen Bird carrying a gun or a shotgun but he added that game shooting was not uncommon in the area."
Either Bird stole the guns from his parents house,after an arguement&went on the spree,after this or that he might of owned a license.I believe that Bird was a gun owner&that the neighbour wouldn't of known about this,anyway,as Bird never really talked alot&was very quiet,around people.If someone doesn't talk about owning guns&are very discreet with transporting the guns,in locked-cases that look like stage-equipment or camera -cases-then who's to know properly?
Most people can't tell what a long-gun case looks like,except for ones in the shape of a guns.

Ben86
June 2, 2010, 03:57 PM
It's quotes like this that highlight the unrealistic ideology that fuels draconian gun control:

"This kind of thing doesn't happen in our part of the world," local lawmaker Jamie Reed told the BBC. "We have got one of the lowest, if not the lowest, crime rates in the country."

This quote is from the AP story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100602/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_shooting

There you have complete acceptance by the people that if guns are outlawed it keeps them out of people's hands. It doesn't, criminals who already have a disregard for the law, still get them. Which leads me to believe that if the criminals have guns why shouldn't you the law abiding citizen? And while people in the UK may use less firearms to commit violent crimes they use more knives and other primitive weapons. So gun control's effect on crime is nil. But then gun control is more about control and less about guns after all isn't it?

By the way UK people should use this tragic incident to argue for the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens so that massacres like this can be stopped quickly. Don't let the anti-gun crowd twist this around into an incident for more gun control, although I'm not sure how much worse it could get.

Les Maynard
June 2, 2010, 03:58 PM
So sad.This American would like to extend his condolances to your Country and those affected by this sad event.If you did not have the weapons ban,just maybe a licensed concealed carrier could have saved some lives.:fire:

Mk VII
June 2, 2010, 04:26 PM
That dog won't hunt here. It's more likely to be argued that access to firearms should be restricted to the smallest possible segment of the population.

razorback2003
June 2, 2010, 05:10 PM
Isn't gun ownership fairly expensive in the UK? I have always been under the impression that you had to be a member of a gun club (probably not cheap) or a hunter (again not cheap in the UK). I am an American in Tennessee and a member of a gun club....but the idea of having to be a member of a gun club would weed out a lot of people....also the expensive requirement to be a hunter. I have heard that hunting in the UK is more expensive than in the States because it is all done on plantations. I am under the assumption that UK hunting clubs are not just a bunch of guys who get together and lease timber/paper company land to deer hunt on.....pull the RV's up...build a fire...and camp out.

Dnaltrop
June 2, 2010, 05:14 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

Ban guns... Ban knives...


Last Updated: Thursday, 26 May, 2005, 23:48 GMT 00:48 UK


Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

Doctors say knives are too pointed
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal


~~~
I predict when someone goes berserk, and kills 6 people with a cricket bat, and some ass starts legislating... Someone will stand up to inject sanity into the arguments.

There will always be a segment of the population predisposed to violence, and the worst voice is always the loudest.

I still hold out enough optimism that most of my fellow man can be trusted with more than a Spork in their everyday lives.

hso
June 2, 2010, 05:21 PM
It's not that difficult,

Matter of perspective.

I have purchased shotguns, rifles and handguns from friends without any government involvement.

I can purchase the same from a local gun shop with only an up or down background check to verify that I'm not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. No record of the sale goes to the government.

If I understand what's been said, in the UK you have to get prior approval just to be able to purchase in the form of a "certificate" and you can only do so with government tracking of each and every purchase. Sounds like total government control of firearms purchase and possession in the UK vs. what most American citizens experience.

Is more government control possible, you bet, but if the government decides if you can even qualify to purchase common firearms and they approve and track each individual purchase then they totally control firearms ownership.

Even with this total control of firearms ownership they can not prevent these sorts of incidents. Even if they switch to total banning they can't totally prevent them either.

happygeek
June 2, 2010, 05:29 PM
Wow, just wow. If you can't stop people from making knives in prison, how in God's name do you expect to do anything about knives out in public?

happygeek
June 2, 2010, 05:31 PM
It sounds like in the U.K. gun ownership is kinda like this:

You have the right to free speech. However, you have to be a licensed writer for a recognized newspaper to practice said right. The government also censors what wording you're allowed to use in your articles.

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 05:38 PM
I predict when someone goes berserk, and kills 6 people with a cricket bat, and some ass starts legislating... Someone will stand up to inject sanity into the arguments.



I doubt it. Kitchen knives are far more useful to a larger segment of the population than cricket bats. Yet their was pretty strong support in some areas and media pushes towards prohibiting even ownership of pointed knives over a certain length. Which would have outlawed a typical chef's knife even in the home.

They have successfully banned glass in many cities for use in public, like glass in pubs.
Glass bottles, mugs etc being prohibited items in some cities.
In others they are trying to.
Here is Glasgow glass ban: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/86868

Others engage in temporary bans, which often become examples for a future permanent ban after "success".
Like this recent one in Sussex:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8189367.World_Cup_glass_ban_in_Sussex_pubs/

You can find many cities all over the UK which have banned or are trying to ban glass.

More "glassing" statistics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8495617.stm

Nearly 87,000 injuries are caused by glass attacks each year in England and Wales, according to the Home Office. Many more are hurt as a result of accidents.

So they are even trying to create glasses which are not effective weapons.


There is a strong movement banning glass in the UK, and it has been successful in several towns.



So as for cricket bats? They could certainly require they be kept in some sort of armory. Perhaps only stored locked in sports lockers and transported in a secure manner to and from games and events.
The population would learn to take it in stride. They have to transport airsoft plastic pellet shooting guns in such a manner already, and the penalties for violation are steep.
They even need to demonstrate they are part of an acting club or theatre etc to possess various toy guns!
Something many airsoft enthusiasts do to use plastic pellet shooting toys!



Don't even get started on self-defense laws in the UK.
Most of what is justified in the US is "being a vigilante" in the UK and criminal itself.

throdgrain
June 2, 2010, 05:41 PM
I wonder how the new coalition government will view this incident. Any Brits care to share how the different parties view gun control? My suspicion is that all of them are for it.


The way I see it, if the Labour party was still in power now they would be composing a series of laws as we speak to control when you can go out of your house with a valid permit, on the principle ITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

However the Conservatives are I would suggest unlikely to add any further laws upon us shooters, they are mostly pro-countryside stuff and unwilling to make laws that help no-one.

Who can tell though. If they took my shotguns away from me I think I would have to emigrate :(

BHP FAN
June 2, 2010, 05:43 PM
Zoogster said:''You cannot win arguing for the ability to hunt, or target shoot at the range on occasion...''
genius,that.

Mk VII
June 2, 2010, 05:53 PM
However the Conservatives are I would suggest unlikely to add any further laws upon us shooters, they are mostly pro-countryside stuff and unwilling to make laws that help no-one.

It was them who stuffed us in 1987 and 1996. The other parties wanted a bit more, but only a bit.

Zoogster said:''You cannot win arguing for the ability to hunt, or target shoot at the range on occasion...''
genius,that.

You absolutely will not win here arguing for self-defence. That will not be tolerated.

Marlin 45 carbine
June 2, 2010, 05:54 PM
sympathys for the killed and injured and their familys. it's just really sad when the totally innocent are the prey for someone that for whatever reason snaps. doubly bad that no one had a firearm to fire at the killer.

Ben86
June 2, 2010, 06:18 PM
You absolutely will not win here arguing for self-defence. That will not be tolerated.

What? I hope you jest. If not, please elaborate. Is the right to self-defense not seen as a right anymore in your country? If not, what are their justifications for denying this right?

Mk VII
June 2, 2010, 06:34 PM
Because firearms are not regarded as an acceptable means of personal protection here. That applies even to security guards transporting large sums of money.

Odd Job
June 2, 2010, 06:40 PM
Unfortunately this will result in restrictions, if not a ban, depending on the weapon and the circumstances under which the murderer acquired it. Here are my thoughts on this:

1) We have a new government and this government will want to be seen to be able to handle/fix/otherwise remedy a major problem such as this. It doesn't matter whether the remedy works or not, it only matters whether the majority of the people agree with whatever the remedy is and can be persuaded that it will work.

2) Much depends on whether he was a firearms certificate (FAC) holder and whether that shotgun was on the FAC. It doesn't matter that we know that a ban doesn't work to stop crimes being committed with firearms. What will matter to the majority of the people in the UK is the obvious (to them) association between a gun that was "given" or "granted" to a man who subsequently used it to murder 12 people. That is the majority logic, which has the converse assumption that this event could not have occured if he wasn't "given" or "granted" the gun. That's what we are dealing with here, and that's the sad truth. The mechanism by which this has become the majority mentality here in the UK is a matter for debate in another thread.

3) There is not one FAC here in the UK. The shotgun is on a shotgun certificate unless it has a cartridge capacity of more than three (there may be other specifications too, I am not well-versed on it) but the fact remains that there are two certificates and the requirements to be granted these certificates are different.

4) A traditional firearms certificate (such as what I have my .22 rifle on) is more difficult to get than a shotgun certificate because there is an adversarial bias against the applicant which makes it HIS responsibility and onus to convince the authorities why he should have it. The shotgun certificate places the bias on the authorities who must prove why he cannot have it.

If I was asked to bet on what will happen here, then there are two possible outcomes depending on whether the gun was licensed or not:

Unlicensed: that situation is better for us, but then they can still put in mandatory additional security requirements on the assumption that this would stop future guns being stolen and used to murder 12 people. They might specify that the guns have to be kept at a range or they might specify frequent inspections of home safes at the gun owners' expense. At the same time they might say we need an overall streamlining of the rules and from now on there will be one FAC with the adversarial bias against the applicant whether this is a shotgun or a .22 rifle.

Licensed: individual shotgun ban definitely (with or without a requirement that other weapons now have to be kept at a range). Possibly shotguns might be available for sporting use under the control of a certified company or accredited hunter/guide (kind of like how you can't buy a relaistic airsoft gun anymore unless you have a 'skirmish' club that you belong to).

All sorts of things could happen because of this one prick. Unfortunately I don't believe that the net result will be no change. I believe we are going to lose something here whether the gun was licensed or not, and it will be much worse for us if it was licensed.

Ben86
June 2, 2010, 06:41 PM
Because firearms are not regarded as an acceptable means of personal protection here. That applies even to security guards transporting large sums of money.

Even whilst being shot at by others?

Mk VII
June 2, 2010, 06:45 PM
They absolutely will not tolerate anyone who wants to acquire firearms for that purpose and if they even think that this was your ulterior motive for getting what you have got then they will revoke instantly, and defy you to go to court and prove that they are wrong, and the courts will back them on this.

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 06:47 PM
There is not one FAC here in the UK. The shotgun is on a shotgun certificate unless it has a cartridge capacity of more than three (there may be other specifications too, I am not well-versed on ot) but the fact remains that there are two certificates and the requirements to be granted these certificates are different.
A Section 1 Shotgun..ie a repeating pump,semi,short-barrelled double or lever,are classed as firearms&that 'good reason' of ownership is required for them.Good reasons include 'Practical shotgun& Cowboy action-shooting'.The latter is for the coach&lever guns,too.
A non-target shooter,such as a wild-fowler can apply for a Section 1 shotgun,for wetland shooting,where more than three shot capacities,are required.

Odd Job
June 2, 2010, 06:49 PM
Thanks, that rings a bell. It's been a while since I had my FAC and currently my shotgun certificate is blank.

agd1953
June 2, 2010, 06:51 PM
under british law not one of the victims had a right to self defence. To defend your self will get you sent to jail.:scrutiny:

sterling180
June 2, 2010, 07:03 PM
The way I see it, if the Labour party was still in power now they would be composing a series of laws as we speak to control when you can go out of your house with a valid permit, on the principle ITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.
Im hoping that the shotgun wasn't a repeater,or we might face a ban on them,except for wild-fowlers,etc,much like the ban in Australia,after the Port Arthur massacre.The rifle is probably a semi-or a bolt.Ive just emailed Chris Graffius,of the BASC&he is committed to fighting for our corner,in the up&coming months.The pistol cause he thinks,is a huge set back,destroying 8 years worth of hard-work,to the start of the campaign.Also I think that alot of so-called pro-gun Lib-Dem&some Tory Mps, now will withdraw their support for us to shoot handguns.:fire::cuss:
Cameron should never of made that stupid coalition government,but Im glad that we are facing the Tories,as the damage limitation,will be slightly less than Labours.

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 07:17 PM
Is the right to self-defense not seen as a right anymore in your country? If not, what are their justifications for denying this right?

Self defense is allowed, but very limited, and nothing like in the US, with or without firearms.
Force generally must be met with equal force and no more.
If someone is trying to beat you to death, pulling a weapon would likely result in prison, never mind that it was probably carried illegally to begin with if it was an actual weapon, an additional crime.

Self defense is not a valid reason for firearms, and firearms must legally be stored in a way that for all practical purposes makes it impossible to have one available for self defense.
By definition you have to be a criminal illegally storing a firearm to be able to use one for self defense in all but the rare circumstances. Otherwise it will be properly locked up in storage, unloaded. If you had the time to go to the storage location, unlock it, load it, and be ready to meet the intruder you had an awful lot of time and a rare crime. (The person prosecuting you may even argue less time would have been required to flee out the back door and make it down the block :neener:.)

As a result there is no real practical argument that a firearm is for self defense. Never mind that shooting other people, even in self defense, is not a PC idea in the UK. Unless done by the police, and even then...



under british law not one of the victims had a right to self defence. To defend your self will get you sent to jail.
Practical self defense is unavailable. But self defense with an active shooter would be entirely legal.
They could use lethal force to meet the threat. However they would legally have little available means. They could not legally have a gun, a knife, or most other weapons in public.
They would have to improvise, and many things carried for the intent of improvising are also illegal. Carrying a cane with no underlying injuries for example or a doctors note can be prosecuted as carrying a weapon.
So something suitable would just have to be sitting around to try to stop a gunman with.

wingsof
June 2, 2010, 07:37 PM
Im hoping that the shotgun wasn't a repeater,or we might face a ban on them,except for wild-fowlers,etc,much like the ban in Australia,after the Port Arthur massacre.

Yeah, you better hope legal or not. The Port Arthur killer used an illegally held AR-15 and L1A1 SLR. The prime minister at the time was a RIGHT WING anti-gun person who just said "Oh he may have gotten it illegally, but it was legal for someone to possess at the time". 2 weeks later, all semi-auto rifles/shotguns, pump action shotguns are illegal for ordinary citizens to hold, $500,000,000 of taxpayers money down the drain to compensate those who turned their guns in.

Either way, legal gun owners are screwed, but at least you don't have the Labour party in power.

leadcounsel
June 2, 2010, 08:32 PM
Sorry for your loss in this tragedy. Some of my best friends are Brits living in London and other areas.

Time for Brits to stand up against their oppressive government with... oh wait, you've given up your guns. Well you can use ... oh wait you can't own knives either. Ooopps....

In all seriousness, this demonstrates why gun control doesn't work and why it just creates defenseless victims.

On my last trip there (I've been many times) I was shocked to learn that individuals have almost no right to self defense!!! :(

If I were a British subject, I would do all I could to change the laws to allow self defense and gun ownership. Realizing that will never happen I would flee to a free(er) place like the USA and move to one of the free states and get citizenship here.

trueg50
June 2, 2010, 09:20 PM
Question, in this CNN picture, is she not carry a sidearm of any kind? Kind of odd to see a law enforcement officer without one.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/02/uk.england.shootings/t1larg.police.cumbria.gi.jpg

Zoogster
June 2, 2010, 09:23 PM
is she not carry a sidearm of any kind? Kind of odd to see a law enforcement officer without one.

Most police in the UK do not carry a firearm. They have special firearm police that are called when a gun is deemed necessary or potentially needed.
Like any situation involving a firearm, (or potentially at the home of someone registered as a gun owner) or where other weapons are being used, etc

But no, most UK police do not have firearms during a typical day.

stickhauler
June 3, 2010, 12:49 AM
My condolences to those affected by the actions of this madman!

But as for whether this will lead to further bans, perhaps, but maybe not. In the aftermath of the attack of the resort in Mumbai, people in India are trying to overthrow the anti-gun laws restricting them from owning and using firearms.

Zoogster
June 3, 2010, 01:02 AM
In the aftermath of the attack of the resort in Mumbai, people in India are trying to overthrow the anti-gun laws restricting them from owning and using firearms.

Because they are afraid of people from a national enemy. India and Pakistan have been strong rivals, and have disputed territory, military engagements, hostility, and both are nuclear weapon states who share a border.
Once actually being the same nation, and then divided along religious borders. Hindu on one side and Muslim on the other.
The individuals responsible arrived by boat from Pakistan, split up, and attacked different sections of the city.
So the fear generated from that incident is greatest from foreign invaders who will bring their own weapons, not other Indians who the government has any control over.
Burma (with various other names) on the other side has a similar history.
Many former portions of British India now competing enemies.


Even the UK became pro-gun when faced with German invasion. The government was all in favor of arming citizens.
That quickly ended when the threat of foreign invasion was over, and many donated American arms given just for that purpose were dumped into the sea.

Slightly different psyche involved. Both in the citizens, and in the government rulers when the perceived threat is foreign rather than domestic.

armoredman
June 3, 2010, 01:49 AM
All those in UK who are good gun people, we would be happy to have you here!

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 3, 2010, 02:13 AM
All those in UK who are good gun people, we would be happy to have you here!

We'd would happily move if it wasn't like trying to get blood from a stone :( I think it's mostly chance now, you've got to enter a citizenship lottery.

happygeek
June 3, 2010, 02:14 AM
Heck, it's probably faster and easier to legally immigrate the the states, acquire citizenship, and legally buy an AR then it is to legally buy an AR in England.

Daniel
June 3, 2010, 02:42 AM
My, I think the rabbits and birds might be getting ready to cheer!

Why, since a rabbit gun (.22 rifle) and a shotgun (a fine double no doubt) were reportedly used, both of which are plentiful and legal to own in the UK.

Or perhaps, people may realize that things like this rarely happen, like getting brain cancer, and nothing you can do can stop freak and rare events from happening.

It could be matches and a hotel next time, who knows?

RIP.

UKarmourer
June 3, 2010, 03:12 AM
To those of you saying we should come to the US, HAHA
I wish, I am aserving member of the armed forces, have deployed 4 times alongside our 'partners on the war on terror', I emailed the immigration people a couple of years back.
I have 2 seperate technical roles, have no disciplinary record, a wife who is medically trained.
I would be willing to serve in your armed forces.
big fat no.- unless I have enough cash to be an economic immigrant or start a business.
and we cant enter the green card lottery either- too many brits have emigrated in the past 5 years (the ones with money I guess)

FirearmsEnthusiast
June 3, 2010, 03:37 AM
My, I think the rabbits and birds might be getting ready to cheer!

Why, since a rabbit gun (.22 rifle) and a shotgun (a fine double no doubt) were reportedly used, both of which are plentiful and legal to own in the UK.

Or perhaps, people may realize that things like this rarely happen, like getting brain cancer, and nothing you can do can stop freak and rare events from happening.

It could be matches and a hotel next time, who knows?

RIP.

I heard it was a single shot shotgun.

Mk VII
June 3, 2010, 04:40 AM
Question, in this CNN picture, is she not carry a sidearm of any kind? Kind of odd to see a law enforcement officer without one.

She's only a CPSO, aka 'C3P0s', plastic policemen', or 'imitation coppers'. They are low-level useless witness-in-uniform types who aren't actually allowed to do anything other than stand around keeping the public from wandering into the scene, as here.

throdgrain
June 3, 2010, 05:06 AM
Maybe they wont be pushing for any further laws ... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10220974.stm)

Heres hoping.

To the person asking about that WPC, the vast, VAST majority of policemen and women in Great Britain do not carry guns, never have.

I know I've said all this before, but our countries are very very different in that. At the bottom of the link, check the amount of gun related deaths. it's very rare, yet they still use it as a stick to beat us with.

Calibre44
June 3, 2010, 05:38 AM
This is indeed a tragic incident and my heart goes out to the families and friends who have lost loved ones.

However this is a time for the shooting community here to be strong and not hide away like we did after Dunblane and Hungerford feeling guilty for something we didn’t do. The problem with a situation like this is that it if fuelled with emotion and a difficult time to debate sensibly with people the positive side of gun ownership.

The fact is, that death by guns over here is rare compared with all other deaths. For example approx 1700 people in the UK die every day resulting in approx 5000 people left to deal with their bereavement. By the end of this year more than 600000 people who were alive on 1st January will be dead, and if guns did not exist that total would not be noticeably affected. We have built up a range of shooting sports, which give pleasure to millions – of course there is a risk attached, but there is risk associated with almost everything we do. We need to put this into perspective.

I hope that the Government will not succumb to public and anti’s pressure and inflict another knee-jerk legislative Armageddon on law abiding gun owners – however, I fear the worse.

To make matters worse it seems that the culprit had legally held guns, but it wouldn’t surprise me if his personality profile, and social circumstances show that he should never have had access to guns in the first place – that may go in our favour.

throdgrain
June 3, 2010, 06:17 AM
Strangely enough I feel quietly confident that they wont introduce any further laws.

Hope I dont live to eat my words though :(

Calibre44
June 3, 2010, 06:21 AM
Strangely enough I feel quietly confident that they wont introduce any further laws.

Hope I dont live to eat my words though

Amen to that!

Carl N. Brown
June 3, 2010, 09:13 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-06-02-uk-shooting_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

A taxi driver drove his vehicle on a shooting spree across a tranquil stretch of northwest England, methodically killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before turning the gun on himself.



One of the comments at USAToday included:

Those of you who are under the delusion that crime is low in Britain are either very uninformed or have blinders on.

Since Britain outlined guns in 1996, violent crime has risen, and property crime has skyrocketed. During the same period the US has been liberalizing gun ownership and both violent crime and property crime have been decreasing.

FACT--2008--FBI Crime statistics reported 1,382,012 violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, robbery) in the United States (population 304M) for a rate of 4.5 per 1,000 people

FACT--2008--British Home Office statistics reported 912,612 violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, robbery) for England and Wales (population 52M) for a rate of 17.5 per 1000 people

The English violent crime rate is nearly 4 TIMES that of the U.S.

But the Brits are proud that their gun crime rate is lower. But the rate
of the kinds of crimes that might be deterred by defensive gun use--in
particular "hot burglary" or "home invasion"--is higher.

Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972):
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the
conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal
or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm withoutout restriction. Half
a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a
far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
That was Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police,
writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control
from the 1920 Firearms Act to the 1968 Act.

Between 1900 and 1920, UK had few gun regulations and one of the world's
lowest crime rates. Then UK had the 1920 BFA and the crime rate went up.
But UK still had a lower crime rate than USA. Then UK had the 1968 Firearms
Act and crime went up. But UK still had a lower gun crime rate than USA. Then
the 1986 and 1997 Amendments to the 1968 Act. Now crime is trending down in
USA and up in UK (although the changes in crime reporting methods make
year-to-year comparisons problematic).

Carl N. Brown
June 3, 2010, 09:35 AM
The "gangsta gun culture" has thrived in England since the 1996 bans.

What they are killing in UK and EU is the gun culture of hunting, self-defense, civilian marksmanship among those eliligle to volunteer for military service, historical collections, in other words the good aspects of the gun culture among the lawabiding.

The "gangster gun culture" is thriving especially among disaffected youths. An illegal gun is a status symbol in some circles. The gun bans seem to feed this forbidden fruit appeal.

The legitimate UK gun owners are a quiet minority; the anti-gun crowd are a loud minority (and loud catches the ear of the authorities). I am curious as to what the majority of Brits actually know, believe and feel about guns.

LaEscopeta
June 3, 2010, 09:43 AM
Gun control and ownership laws in the UK

BBC News home affairs correspondent
Page last updated at 9:43 GMT, Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:43 UK

...The UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. If you want to own a gun, it is very difficult to do so.

In the United States, you can declare that it is your constitutional right to bear arms. But in the UK, you need to spend hours filling in paperwork and proving to police officers that you are not a danger to society.

The system is administered by police forces in each part of the UK and in England, Scotland and Wales there are separate licences for shotguns and for other firearms....

Getting a licence is a long and complicated business. Every stage of the process is designed to reduce the likelihood of a gun falling into the wrong hands. It starts with an application form which asks specific questions about why the individual wants a gun, telling them they need to show "good reason".

The criteria are tougher for firearms than shotguns because weapons that fire bullets must only be used for specific purposes in specific places. These would include deer stalking or sports shooting on an approved range.

In contrast, shotguns tend to be used in more general rural circumstances, such as by farmers who are protecting livestock from foxes.

Independent referees provide character statements in which they are expected to answer in detail about the applicant's mental state, home life and attitude towards guns.

Those statements are passed confidentially to the police and are not seen by the applicant.

Police will often speak to an applicant's GP and look at their medical records for a history of alcoholism, drug abuse or signs of personality disorder.

Finally, senior officers will only approve an application if the prospective certificate holder has a secure location for the weapons, such as a gun cabinet....

FIREARM STATISTICS 2008-09

In 2008-09 firearms were involved in 0.3% or 1 in every 330 crimes recorded by police in England and Wales

Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive annual fall

Excluding air weapons, firearm offences decreased by 17% to 8,208
Handguns were used in 4,275 offences during 2008-09, a rise of 2% on 2007-08

There was a large fall in the use of imitation weapons, which fell by 41% to 1,511

Overall, firearm offences involving any type of injury were down by 41% in 2008-09, from 4,164 in 2007-08 to 2,458

There were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in 2008-09, the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years

Source: Home Office

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

Rest of article is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/10220974.stm

throdgrain
June 3, 2010, 09:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=player_embedded

Watch this - very accurate of these situations.

throdgrain
June 3, 2010, 09:48 AM
David Cameron: "You can't legislate for a switch flicking in someone's head."

Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson: "We need at this stage to provide whatever support we can to the community. No knee jerk reactions."


Thank god!

sterling180
June 3, 2010, 11:27 AM
David Cameron: "You can't legislate for a switch flicking in someone's head."
At last,a politition with some sense.Interestingly I had a conversation with my mum,earlier today,about this&she says that bans 'don't work'&that all gun users should succomb to section 7.1&3 status immediately-meaning:all guns to be kept at a secure facility for target or for professional use.The same woman 13 years ago said to me,that 'they should ban all guns,except for farmers with a special,special license'.Although it is a negative,anti-gun comment,its alot better than what she said years ago.She was more intolerant then.People will ask,why the government didn't act,when Robert Sartin stole his dads shotgun&blasted people with it,in 1989.

razorback2003
June 3, 2010, 11:30 AM
It looks like the new UK Prime Minister has some good common sense. At least he realizes that all the gun laws across the pond cannot keep the once in a blue moon nut from running the streets wild. He probably also realizes there is not much else left to ban over there.....hunting type weapons that so few of the population actually legally owns under such tight rules?

sterling180
June 3, 2010, 11:34 AM
Strangely enough I feel quietly confident that they wont introduce any further laws.

Hope I dont live to eat my words though
We will very probably, have to endure the wrath of Gill Marshall-Andrews,a do-gooder,who is chairwoman of the Gun Control Network.Our version of Rebecca Peters,for all of you International THR members,unfamiliar,with her name&association.She got handguns banned,partially because her husband was a Labour party MP,a multi-millionaire&influenced Tory&Labour polititions.They are a dishonest organisation,mixing half-truths&lies.Even the editor of Searchlight magazine is a slimeball.He was one of us before Dunblane&after that massacre he handed in his firearms(Pistols possibly:-)&criticised a BNP candidate for Lincolnshire,for having guns,the cheeky begger.:what::confused:

Although I dislike the BNP immensly,for their intolerance&unfairness,I don't believe in political hypocracy.The GCN are not all entirely anti-gun,as they only want all of our multi-shot guns banned,as they believe that these are more dangerous than single&double-barrelled arms.:rolleyes::banghead::p:p:rolleyes:
This proves everyone,that its they who are the hypocrits.This might blow over,but as for our chances of regaining handguns for the Olympics-well prepare for war.These slimebags will discredit us,evenmore now,by using this massacre as 'a wedge to impose more bans& restrictions upon us'.They stopped Labour from giving us our handguns back,with Jack Straw's(The demon headmaster lookalike:-)blessings.

meytind
June 3, 2010, 12:32 PM
To those of you saying we should come to the US, HAHA
I wish, I am aserving member of the armed forces, have deployed 4 times alongside our 'partners on the war on terror', I emailed the immigration people a couple of years back.
I have 2 seperate technical roles, have no disciplinary record, a wife who is medically trained.
I would be willing to serve in your armed forces.
big fat no.- unless I have enough cash to be an economic immigrant or start a business.
and we cant enter the green card lottery either- too many brits have emigrated in the past 5 years (the ones with money I guess)
UKarmourer, I am very sad to hear this. You and your wife sound like exactly the kind of people we need more of in this country. Please, don't give up. Keep trying. They'll have to let you in eventually.

Dnaltrop
June 3, 2010, 12:37 PM
Every time UK gun control comes up, I remember an old co-worker/friend who moved here from London.

The first 2 things he did
1) buy a gun
2) buy the widest luxury car he could find.

Can outlaw it as much as you want, as long as people want to shoot, they'll find a way.

KodiakBeer
June 3, 2010, 03:02 PM
The newspapers today, are saying only a .22 rifle and a shotgun were involved. The "pistol" found at the death scene seems to be a fabrication of the press. The man has been licensed to own a shotgun for 15 years and a .22 rifle for 3 years so , no doubt those were the weapons involved.
A story in the Telegraph suggests he went to the NHS for mental heath services and was turned away. He was going through some extreme family/financial/legal issues...

I wonder if any of our British readers can enlighten us on what shotgun ammunition is legal and available for shotguns? Could he have been shooting heavy buckshot - what do you call it there, SSB? Or is that banned? It seems like an awfully high fatality rate if he was just shooting birdshot.

Mk VII
June 3, 2010, 03:14 PM
No shotgun cartridge containing pellets bigger than .36in, and less than five of them, can be acquired. Not without the more restrictive FAC licence.

KodiakBeer
June 3, 2010, 03:24 PM
No shotgun cartridge containing pellets bigger than .36in, and less than five of them, can be acquired.

That's what we call 000 over here. Do you have to turn in the spent shells before buying five more? If not, he could have stockpiled quite a few of them.

Just speculation on my part... Most of these shootings were from a car window and I'm having trouble grasping how many people he killed, if he was using bird shot from more than just a few feet away.

Zoogster
June 3, 2010, 03:52 PM
I wonder if any of our British readers can enlighten us on what shotgun ammunition is legal and available for shotguns? Could he have been shooting heavy buckshot - what do you call it there, SSB? Or is that banned? It seems like an awfully high fatality rate if he was just shooting birdshot.


Anyone can also turn many bird shot rounds into lethal shells in a few minutes even if they were restricted.

Melting some lead into slugs is popular in the US, and can be really simple. We even had a video of some kid in a rural area who made his own slugs by pouring lead in a drilled hole in a piece of wood ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g06a6RWC4A ). The right diameter drill bit made the correct diameter hole in some wood, and melted lead was poured into it. A few seconds later it was popped out as a slug ready to be fired.
(Do not apply such techniques to rifle or pistol reloading!)
Here was a thread on it: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418620
An example of reloading in its simplest form.

We of course also have many who cast slugs with various tools or molds.
The LEE slug mold tends to be popular.



Or pouring in some larger shot, ball bearings, or something else in completed bird shot cartridges.
The individual wouldn't even have to reload the whole shell or even know how to reload, just pour out the bird shot and replace it with a larger projectile that have a similar weight.
That larger projectile now will be traveling as fast or faster (if it traps more gas behind it than the shot, or is lighter like steel ball bearings) than the shot payload.


"Ringing" was also an old popular poaching technique, or poor man's hunting load dating back to before the Great Depression. Essentially a bird shot round is cut below the shot, and the whole top of the hull is shot out in what amounts to a frangible slug.
I have also heard of people putting a drop of glue in with the bird shot, which would have the same result, the bird shot remaining a solid projectile with or without the shot cup until it impacts a target.

The only difference is the shape of the lead in one end of a shell that anyone can open.

Mk VII
June 3, 2010, 03:59 PM
A misunderstanding is developing here, no cartridge which contains no fewer than five pellets, not five rounds total.

Calibre44
June 3, 2010, 04:01 PM
That's what we call 000 over here. Do you have to turn in the spent shells before buying five more? If not, he could have stockpiled quite a few of them.


No you don't have to turn in spent shells - they go in the trash. You can buy pretty much as many shells as you want. In fact it pays to buy in bulk.

I don't do a lot of shotgun shooting so I buy 200 at a time.

The irony is though, that ammo has to be locked in a safe but shotgun shells can be kept anywhere in the house so long as they are out of the reach of children.

KodiakBeer
June 3, 2010, 04:05 PM
A misunderstanding is developing here, no cartridge which contains no fewer than five pellets, not five rounds total.

I see. So, 000 ("triple-ought" - six pellets) or anything smaller would be legal, but 0000 or slugs would be illegal.

sidibear
June 3, 2010, 06:47 PM
It now turns out he had a list of people he wanted to kill. He was apparently a bit of a loner who lived with his mother and his work colleagues made fun of him. He was a taxi driver and complained that some of the other drives stole his fares, he shot them. He told one of his workmates that he would be going on a rampage.
The police are getting a bit of stick for not acting sooner, but in all fairness Cumbria is a very big area not very well populated, bit like alaska. It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.

throdgrain
June 3, 2010, 07:13 PM
That's what we call 000 over here. Do you have to turn in the spent shells before buying five more? If not, he could have stockpiled quite a few of them.


Whaat?? I have at least 1000 shells here in this room I'm sitting in. Damn I must be in trouble :p

I was just watching a TV debating programe, and a prominant Left Wing politician, Diane Abbot, who is basically anti-everything, even she said the laws are ok as they are.

So maybe things will stay as they are. Not ideal by a long shot, but better than me having to bloody emigrate :)

Daniel
June 4, 2010, 01:13 AM
Someone said before that you can't argue sport/recreation.

You actually can.

You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.

Anyway, the evil handguns and scary looking rifles aren't allowed in the UK, so that's enough for even the most irrational, though probably still smart enough, politician.

The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.

You can then go on and show that the evil handguns and scary looking rifles won't allow someone to kill unarmed people anymore effectively than a single shot 12 gauge; the scary looking rifles are only good when fighting people who're also armed.

This is of course in countries that love licensing everything.

Sadly, people "feel" more than "think", as emotions are very hard for people to look past.

Hammerhead6814
June 4, 2010, 01:58 AM
So Europe's toughest gun-laws couldn't prevent a massacre from a guy with a .22 and a shotgun??? This is the same country that wants to ban knives with pointed ends and gives serious consideration to banning violent video games. They want to do all of that, despite the fact that this incident proves it's not working???

Something doesn't sound right when a pump action shotgun and a .22 bolt-rifle are referred to as an "arsenal" as the one lib MP put it. It really sounds strange when they say MORE legislation will prevent this, even though that's exactly what they said last time they restricted gun ownership and yet still this happens.

happygeek
June 4, 2010, 02:05 AM
You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.


The problem with that one is that sports like football only kill participants. Plenty of people who have never touched a firearm in their life have been accidentally shot, or intentionally shot as in this case.

Here in the states, the anti-gun groups are always trying to make as many laws to prevent you being [legally] able to have a firearm available for self defense as they can. Why? Because once someone gets a carry permit, they pretty much automatically became pro-gun and pro-self defense. The exact number of defensive gun uses is debatable, but it's undeniable that they're much, much higher than the number of murders committed with firearms in the states. Stories about granny shooting a young punk or group of punks who forcefully broke into her home to steal her retirement money certainly don't help the anti cause. Hence why they're always trying to legally prevent you from having the means of self defense handy.

killchain
June 4, 2010, 02:13 AM
It's like a bad horror movie.

it would have ended much, much sooner if the first person the bad guy met had a concealed weapon.

stickhauler
June 4, 2010, 02:15 AM
You folks over there are in my prayers. And for the military member who is responding to this thread, tell them you're a Hispanic, and the paperwork will fly through the system, you'll be an American almost before you can sign your name.

All I know is, the good men and women from Britain who perished in WW-II are spinning in their grave knowing how the country they died for have lost their rights by the actions of misguided politicians.

happygeek
June 4, 2010, 02:16 AM
I'm reminded of the time some kid went on a murderous rampage at a school. The principal literally ran to his car, which was parked just outside of the 1000 ft from the school rule, to get his pistol, then ran back to the school to stop the killer. I think 5 people were killed in that incident. Maybe if the principle had been legally allowed to carry at school only 1 or 2 people would have died.

Mk VII
June 4, 2010, 05:54 AM
The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.

There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.

razorback2003
June 4, 2010, 11:17 AM
That is sad if this guy was mentally ill, tried to get medical help, and was turned away by the doctor's office before seeing a doctor. That part looks like one of the larger flaws as to why the guy got wacked out enough that he didn't get counseling and medication that he needed to help him through his problems. He did choose to do his violent act, but medical attention might have greatly cut the chance of that killing others and himself down.

UK Armorer, I would welcome you to the USA as a productive resident and eventually a citizen. It sounds like you share many of the same values that we have here. It is a shame that those in the US Govt like to let illegals from south of the border and other people who can't even speak English into our country legally...while folks like you don't have a chance to get in.

A shotgun and a 22 rifle can kill people with the right shot placement and this nut proved it. This kind of disproved that one sort of firearm is more dangerous than the other....all firearms can take life and should be respected...whether it is an AR-15 or a Marlin 22 rifle...and at the same time they should all be legal...b/c again a 22 can kill just like a machine gun.

Zoogster
June 4, 2010, 12:44 PM
Someone said before that you can't argue sport/recreation.

You actually can.

You go and research all of the statistics of sports that aren't needed, which is pretty much all of them; find the amount of deaths caused by each one, and then compare them all. You'll find recreational shooting to be far down the list on dangerous sports. So, people will actually have to ban pretty much most sports to logically ban recreational shooting.


Well for their own good maybe, in a nanny state sure.

However the primary difference in the statistics is that most sports injuries only happen to willing participants in them.
While the injuries from firearms primarily happen to people who never signed up for them.

The only equally valid comparison would be injuries at the range from firearms, or perhaps people who volunteer for law enforcement or the armed forces.
(Or perhaps even choose to emigrate to a nation where firearms are a right of all citizens.)



Without the self defense argument you can only get so far, and it is often not going to be far enough to defeat the antis. It is unfortunate that self defense is no longer politically correct in such places. Of course not addressing it will keep it that way.

hirundo82
June 4, 2010, 01:26 PM
The best argument against, is pointing out how rare they are compared to deaths via other means, in addition to showing that the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.

There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.Because, of course, someone is less dead if they are murdered with a knife or club rather than a gun.

Cosmoline
June 4, 2010, 01:41 PM
Cumbria is a very big area not very well populated, bit like alaska

Just as an aside, Cumbria is listed as having a density of 73 people per square kilometer. We have less than 1 person per square kilometer. I also have to wonder if they were even trying to find the guy before the shooting.

Mk VII
June 4, 2010, 01:58 PM
You're running into British ideas of 'very big' and 'sparsely populated' here. This is a National Park which is a considerable tourist destination. Riven by ridges and valleys with numerous rivers which impede road travel. Some tourist spots are heavily populated, in the season. Mountaineering and walking are popular, habitation clings to economically viable spots. Upland hill farming, mostly sheep and marginally profitable, occupies much of the economy.

duns
June 4, 2010, 10:29 PM
Self defense has to become a politically correct notion in the UK if the tide of incorrect political decisions is to be reversed.

leadcounsel
June 4, 2010, 10:38 PM
To those of you saying we should come to the US, HAHA
I wish, I am aserving member of the armed forces, have deployed 4 times alongside our 'partners on the war on terror', I emailed the immigration people a couple of years back.
I have 2 seperate technical roles, have no disciplinary record, a wife who is medically trained.
I would be willing to serve in your armed forces.
big fat no.- unless I have enough cash to be an economic immigrant or start a business.
and we cant enter the green card lottery either- too many brits have emigrated in the past 5 years (the ones with money I guess)

HA - the irony is that you could buy a plane ticket to Mexico, spend a couple hundred dollars to sneak across the Texas/Arizona border, and probably get a warm welcome and amnesty from our current administration!

Kentucky_Rifleman
June 4, 2010, 10:52 PM
No matter how much restrictions, control, licenses, or permits a government has these nuts will always get through and no one is the wiser until it is too late.

Someone pointed out earlier that people will resort to knives and then clubs to work harm on others.

Someone else mentioned that the goal of social policy was to eliminate all weapons.

That will leave humans to strangle each other by brute force or kick the life out of each other. That's pandemonium, not civilization.

I stand 6'1" and tip in at 200 lbs. I can hold my own or better in most fights and I don't like the odds when I go unarmed.

Like Brother Colt's oft cited wisdom says:

"Be not afraid of any man
no matter what his size
if danger threatens call on me
and i will equalize"

KR

labhound
June 4, 2010, 11:59 PM
I'm still amazed that a country like England that came very close to being overran by Germany in WWII would ban handguns and would consider banning rifles and shotguns.

FourteenMiles
June 5, 2010, 12:58 AM
Stupid question: are UK police outfitted with firearms? Anymore info would be appreciated too (armament, protocals, et cetera).

Odd Job
June 5, 2010, 05:27 AM
They are not routinely armed, but there are special armed units. It's been a while since I spoke to one of the armed response vehicle guys in London, but some years ago they were armed with Glock 17s and MP5s in semi-only configuration.
In a talk given to us by members of C019, they also displayed the Glock and MP5 but had a G36 (also semi-only), a pump 12 gauge (I can't remember the make) and an Accuracy International .338 Lapua rifle.
They didn't bring it to the talk, but showed a video of a Barrett .50 being used to shoot water containers.

Y-man
June 5, 2010, 06:44 AM
To Zoogster et al:

My suggestion is fully training and arming the Police. Remember Robin Williams's saying:
The British Police, on seeing a fleeing criminal would shout: "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

If this had happened on the streets in the US, Europe (France, Greece etc...) where the cops on street beats/ patrols carry at least a holstered .38 revolver, hell; even in my country Nigeria: the cops carry (mainly rusty) Chinese AK 47 clones: the guy would have been brought down earlier with minimal loss to the public. I read somewhere that a Police station near where the Taxi rank shootings happened could only rush out to usher in the wounded and passersby into the station.

Some years ago, I witnessed an old grizzled Nigerian policeman swing his rifle (An old Mark 4, Lee Enfield?) up and take down a crazed drug addict who was rampaging on the street with a machete: he had already decapitated one person, and was hacking at the second victim (Who later died, sadly...) The madman took a round in his ear, was flung a few meters away, and didnt get the chance to kill more people! What is the message here: any gun in the hands of the police, is better than no gun at all...

@Zoogster:
Many people are doing a lot of "re-casting" of Birdshot: so restricting all to only birdshot would not stop a determined person: for good or bad.
My country has restrictions, very tight restrictions on firearms. We are (Barely) permitted to own shotguns for "hunting", and the only ammo available (Black market!) is Birdshot. So many of us did not settle for that.

Check out these:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/24/turning-birdshot-into-slugs-for-self-defense/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44877118@N04/sets/72157622941618467/

I strongly suggest the police are armed.

Mk VII
June 5, 2010, 08:29 AM
It won't happen. Some would have to be discharged as psychologically unsuitable, many others would resign rather than agree to it.

Harley Rider 55
June 5, 2010, 01:18 PM
Just because things are illegal doesn't mean you cannot buy them. I wonder if he smoked crack before his rampage?

Calibre44
June 5, 2010, 02:18 PM
Just because things are illegal doesn't mean you cannot buy them. I wonder if he smoked crack before his rampage?

There is a rumour that he was drunk ... but that hasn't been confirmed yet.

Carl N. Brown
June 5, 2010, 08:30 PM
the murder rate will stay the same; instead of guns, it's knives; instead of knives, it's clubs.
There are many here who would argue that that is, in itself, a desirable goal of public policy.

Ann Pearston of the Snowdrop campaign admitted that her goal was to get rid of legal guns and did not expect the 1996 Amendment to affect illegal guns or illegal use of guns, after a Kings College study suggested that illegal guns and illegal use of guns became a bigger problem than before the amendment.

For sake of argument I'll say that the overall murder rate could go up. For example, the typical wife-beater is taller, heavier and stronger than his victim, like most thugs who prey on the weak. Strong arm robbery is usually the strong against the weak or the old. A gun is more of an advantage to a victim for defense than it is to the violent criminal for offense, especial if the intended victim if old or female. Assuring that no victim will be legally armed emboldens the thug to attack with impunity, resulting in more violence not less, and more possibility of lethal violence. I wonder if this killer was emboldened to act as he did because he may have believed no one could defend against him?

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang (who personally hated guns) pointed out in a 1959 study of 588 homicides that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if the firearm were not present: his analysis of the background and relationship of the murderer and victim and circumstances of the crime led him to believe the murders would be attempted and could accomplished without a gun. In a 1968 study, he pointed out that in US jurisdictions that followed homicides through the legal system, 20 to 30 percent of voluntary manslaughters were eventually found to be self-defense. Self defense with a gun happens more often than the gun control crowd likes to acknowledge. Gun control does not affect the criminal, but it does either disarm the lawabiding or discourage self-defense.

trol79
June 6, 2010, 05:25 PM
Last year I read in gun-magazine about the british handgunban, & I read that guncrime has doubled since it, as also violent crime's having tripled. if that is correct this would be THAT demonstrative agument against guncontrol ror allover the world.

sterling180
June 6, 2010, 07:38 PM
An interesting article from the Sportsmans association:
http://www.sportsmansassociation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/britishfaithreguncontrol11may2009.pdf

Carl N. Brown
June 7, 2010, 12:07 AM
Interesting read. The Development of the British Faith in Strict Gun Control
by Derek Bernard.

Derek Bernard is a businessman based in the Island of Jersey. Although interested and active in target shooting from 1948 to 1979, he assumed that the constant refrain that""strict gun control" was a civilised necessity, must be substantially true. Surely the government, police and media would not repeat it so often if it were not true?

In 1979, however, he decided to try and understand the complex firearm laws (which he had never even read up to that point) and, further, attempt to determine which of the many control mechanisms in the law, actually produced the social benefits.

After 3 years of reading, writing and research he was forced -- with a considerable sense of shock -- to the conclusion that there were no measurable benefits to any of the control mechanisms, either individually or collectively. A further 27 years of amateur work in the field has greatly reinforced those conclusions.

That was the same conclusion reached by academic panels of US Centers for Disease Control CDC 2003 and National Academy of Sciences NAS 2004: that there were no measurable benefits from any of the gun control policies of the past several decades.

Oyeboten
June 7, 2010, 12:30 AM
My friendly wager?


He was off his antidepressents...and, had been under the psychiatric 'care' of a practioner or practioners who have heavy long term ties to intel, and or who subcontract from contractors who do.


This has been so in almost every instance of similar middemeanors and alledged assasins of famous persons for 40 odd years now.


Not what I would have expected, but then, I am just another naive Pilgrim.

UKShooter
June 7, 2010, 08:00 AM
Well it seems so far that we are going to get off fairly lightly.

The good news is, our new Prime Minister is himself a shooter and has a Shotgun Licence so he will be familiar with the process of obtaining licenses on a 1st hand basis. He is well aware that we have some of the strictest firearms laws in Europe if not the world.

He has spoken out saying that there will not be any knee-jerk legislation put in place because of this. He also said 'you cannot legislate against a switch going off in someones head'. Very sensible!!

The Conservatives are probably the most pro-gun of the main parties (excluding the BNP). They won't publically say it. A lot of the areas of the country that are Conservative strongholds are the more rural areas where firearms are still very much a part of every day life.

I live in such an area. I was in my garden the other day and my neighbour walked out and shot a crow off the telphone pole with a shotgun. Made me jump but its refreshing to know that parts of the country still have a more reasonable attitude to firearms. Until fairly recently I have always lived in and around cities.

I think the worst that will happen in terms of firearms law is that they may look to change it so that licenses are renewed more frequently than the current 5 years and possibly there will be further checks into applicants medical history at renewal time. At present though, you do have to grant access to your medical records when applying for a license so they can check for a history of depression or mental illness.

Could have been a lot worse..

UKShooter
June 7, 2010, 01:55 PM
The other sad thing about this that has just emerged:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm

Is that officers were present at the time of him shooting his first victim. However, because they were unarmed, they were not able to do anything. Several officers followed him in a van but after he pointed a weapon at them, they had to discontinue the persuit.

If those officers had been armed there might have only been 1 victim here :(

Cosmoline
June 7, 2010, 02:21 PM
Sad is not the word I would use for it. Multiple uniformed officers following a man on a shooting rampage and being unable to do anything about it because they're not armed.

Profound depths of hitherto uncharted idiocy.

throdgrain
June 7, 2010, 03:29 PM
Agreed :(

Mk VII
June 7, 2010, 04:05 PM
They absolutely will not arm the police here. We'd rather see this sort of thing happen occasionally than tolerate an armed police force.

sterling180
June 7, 2010, 04:25 PM
Sad is not the word I would use for it. Multiple uniformed officers following a man on a shooting rampage and being unable to do anything about it because they're not armed.
Too many do-gooders who live in the past,but then again the attitude of an unarmed police force,came from Sir Robert Peels legacy.If Peel had said 'yes,the police must have arms' then perhaps the British Bobby might of permanently have had his trusty 'comforter' in his holster,even today.From the percussion Colt&Adams revolver,throught to the Webley,then to the S&W .38&Brownings,then to the Glocks,H&K USPs,Berettas,etc.The Cheif Constable might of packed a Cheif's Special revolver,like his US counterpart..lol.
Going off topic here:The bobby could carry a handgun,if he chose to from the 19th Century,until 1936.This was the nearest to a fully armed police force.After that 'good reason' had to be demonstrated,by means of form filling,to the armoury sgt or Inspector.
Yes you are right&thank god that we have not succombed to any more negative legislation,in the form of bans,unlike after Dunblane.At least the cops aren't calling for our guns to be banned,like they did,after Hungerford too.No more bans please,just common sense.

Mk VII
June 7, 2010, 04:37 PM
The Peelian principles referred to above, to which frequently only lip service is paid these days, were:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

sterling180
June 7, 2010, 04:40 PM
Is that officers were present at the time of him shooting his first victim. However, because they were unarmed, they were not able to do anything. Several officers followed him in a van but after he pointed a weapon at them, they had to discontinue the persuit.

If those officers had been armed there might have only been 1 victim here
You know whats interesting about this:One officer who was killed during the Hungerford massacre,was discussing with his partner,on whether or not the police should be routinely-armed& this cop agreed that he should of been entitled to carry a S&W M10 .38 revolver(Standard issue then,for many police forces,in the UK:-)Unfortunately this man was ambushed by Micheal Ryan,who I think set a trap for him&the PC drove into a hail of bullets from Ryans AK47,which made swiss-cheese of that guys Vauxhall Senator.Ryan finished him off with multiple shots,from his Beretta 9mm,.His partner was shot at by Ryan,as he went near to the crahed Senator.If this officer had a .38 or a HI-Power,then Ryan might of been taken out&thus saving more lives in Hungerford,by preventing him from killing more people.

metalman8600
June 7, 2010, 04:51 PM
I'll just say that if England was on the track to remaining English, then a lot of problems wouldn't be happening. I'm sure Europe was a much safer place when it was actually European.

sidibear
June 8, 2010, 11:12 AM
Metalman, take a bow. Two sentences say it all.

Tacbandit
June 8, 2010, 11:19 AM
Sad...but true...!!! ^
Tac

sterling180
June 8, 2010, 03:15 PM
I'll just say that if England was on the track to remaining English, then a lot of problems wouldn't be happening. I'm sure Europe was a much safer place when it was actually European.
:Not sure what you're getting at.Do you mean on the road to being an ultra-socialist state &the same for Europe?I wish we had European gun laws,as we'd regainour fullbore semi-autos&pistols.:):)

sterling180
June 8, 2010, 03:17 PM
Im now hoping that there aren't anymore restrictions,as a result of this idiot&that we can at least regain handguns,if camerons a real man of substance.He should be,as he's entitled to a pistol or a fullbore semi-auto,if he reverses one of the bans.

UKShooter
June 8, 2010, 04:10 PM
He's not going to lighten the laws after this shooting spree. The best we can hope for is that they don't further tighten them. So far, it looks promising.

RockyMtnTactical
June 8, 2010, 04:13 PM
This kind of thing is always sad, but it is worse when you know that the govt had a hand in it in some way...

metalman8600
June 8, 2010, 04:59 PM
:Not sure what you're getting at.Do you mean on the road to being an ultra-socialist state &the same for Europe?I wish we had European gun laws,as we'd regainour fullbore semi-autos&pistols

That, and the fact that Western Europe is now just a colony for the rest of the world. Nothing more than lines on map, with no cultural or ethnic meaning. It brings problems.


It's like a combination of the books The Camp of the Saints and Nineteen Eighty-Four, except real.


To bring the topic back on track... gun control does not work. If someone can get sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate, a pipe and a projectile, then you can make a gun. I suppose machine shops are still legal in Britain? If so, any intelligent man can buy a small milling machine and lathe... and can produce their own semi-automatic weapon. An AK receiver can be made out of sheet metal in a garage! I don't know if one can buy non-serial numbered gun parts like the bolt and trigger group... but using your own design one can make a decent gun in a simple shop. If you have no shop, a single shot, terribly inaccurate and crude firearm can be made in a garage in a day by a 13 year old. If they plan to kill someone point blank, it gets easier. A simple spike with a powerful spring in a tube is much easier to make and just as deadly point blank. Gun control just keeps weapons away from lazy idiots.

How do they think people hunted before firearms? One can easily make a bow and arrow. It is simple, has decent range, and can fire pretty quickly. Better outlaw elastic cord and wood. Better yet, outlaw cars... maybe even outlaw birth... it is proven that the number one cause of death is being born in the first place.

Ben86
June 9, 2010, 01:56 AM
With a police force that is unarmed and a populace that is unarmed, how can they feel like anything but sitting ducks? How can they be satisfied with this? Civility over safety?

I believe that the people of England can turn their situation around. With enough factual proof that England is less safe with an unarmed populace and police force and support of political candidates that support gun rights, as well as a rebuke of those who don't, things can change.

duns
June 9, 2010, 03:00 AM
I believe that the people of England can turn their situation around. With enough factual proof that England is less safe with an unarmed populace and police force and support of political candidates that support gun rights, as well as a rebuke of those who don't, things can change.
How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety? It may be the case but very difficult to "prove". And i doubt that there are many political candidates who would be brave enough to argue for reversal of the existing regulations -- it would not be a vote catcher in England IMO as there has not been a culture of gun ownership in living memory.

sterling180
June 9, 2010, 01:22 PM
The first cause for gun control in the UK,as portrayed in this Crime&Investaigation Network,documentary re-construction of the Hungerford massacre,on August 19th 1987.Yes,he used assault weapons,yes he never came to police attention,but wouldn't he of used traditional sporting arms,if say,what he wanted to use was banned,much in the same way,that Derreck Bird used sporting arms,in his rampage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9-MkLXxfs
A French farmer used a double-barrelled,on a rampage in 1989,so whats the difference between this and a fullbore semi-auto?

sterling180
June 9, 2010, 02:05 PM
He's not going to lighten the laws after this shooting spree. The best we can hope for is that they don't further tighten them. So far, it looks promising.
I think I haven't made my point properly..ooops.I actually meant it as an afterthought,for he and that weasel Clegg to ponder on ,as our previous bans haven't benefitted anyone,other than these trouble-making,do-gooders.As Ive stated in the post above,if one things banned,then something else would be used instead.Also a direct point for Cameron to think about,as he's a gun license holder,himself& hunts&target shoots with his guns&that,one day he might look at a Glock 17,in a cops holster and say to himself&the officer:'That looks like alot of fun to shoot,at the range' shame I can't own one myself.Why can't I?Thats what I'd be asking myself,if I was a politition,in the House Of Commons.
Also,like you I know that its a major setback for handguns returning,for 2012,as the BASC suspects now,in definate.The trouble is that these polititions&these do-gooding members of the public are so 2-Dimensional about guns&the problem with this coalition,I think is,that they are two-faced,if they had to make a legislative law change.I couldn't believe that the Liberal-Democrats,would come out&support the cause of shooting.Although more party members were more anti than Labour,they aren't allied with the Gun Control Network.Ive researched these bans&my theories of why these polititions impose them&its about apeasement&the ballot box,as after the N02 clause of the pistol ban,was really absurd.

Ben86
June 9, 2010, 03:52 PM
How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety? It may be the case but very difficult to "prove". And i doubt that there are many political candidates who would be brave enough to argue for reversal of the existing regulations -- it would not be a vote catcher in England IMO as there has not been a culture of gun ownership in living memory.

Some pre-gun ban statistics versus some post-gun ban statistics concerning violent crime rates might do the trick. Concerning arming police, how many died in the line of duty because they did not have an effective means to fight back, meaning a gun? How many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms (public massacres)?

As far as political candidates that will support gun rights, if the popular support is strong enough they will. That's how they get elected in the first place, supporting (or at least acting as if they support) the will of the people.

Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics. There seems to be this overwhelming feeling on issues of dislike that goes something like: "Well I don't like it, but what can you do?" Then everyone just goes about their business, letting the elected officials do what they do, even if they don't like what they are doing.

KodiakBeer
June 9, 2010, 05:21 PM
Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics.

It's not the peoples fault, it's the political system. Our charter is designed around the limitations of government power. That's why so many federal laws are based on rather obscure premises like the commerce clause. In effect, politicians have to use subterfuge to invoke power over the states or peoples powers and rights. They often get away with it, but it's much more difficult to do without the law being struck down by the courts.

There is no such constitutional protections in the British charter since it's more like a starting point than an end point for government powers. The government can (mostly) do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

sterling180
June 9, 2010, 05:30 PM
The good news is, our new Prime Minister is himself a shooter and has a Shotgun Licence so he will be familiar with the process of obtaining licenses on a 1st hand basis. He is well aware that we have some of the strictest firearms laws in Europe if not the world.
We are only one of the strictest countries,in the Western world,as unfortunately there are some countries that have alot or slightly tighter restrictions than us:Japan,Taiwan,People's Republic Of China,Nigeria&finally Australia(Except for the fact they can at least own some ordinarily-sized handguns:-)Although Australia has an SLR ban,similar to the 1988 Ammendment Act but they can at least own ordinary handguns,but,they're restricted from a minimum size.On the other hand,they can't own a rifle,if it looks like 'a black rifle' as they tried to import a batch of UK-made straight-pull(Bolt-action,by means of the AR-15s cocking-handle,for those who don't know:-)Southern Gun Company AR-15s in the M16A2&M4A1 Carbine configurations.


Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics. There seems to be this overwhelming feeling on issues of dislike that goes something like: "Well I don't like it, but what can you do?" Then everyone just goes about their business, letting the elected officials do what they do, even if they don't like what they are doing.
Absolutely spot-on there,but its tough over here,getting points across to these arrogant,iron-fisted,morons in a positive way,without serious argument.I know this from my own experience of these particular persons.

Zoogster
June 9, 2010, 06:16 PM
Also a direct point for Cameron to think about,as he's a gun license holder,himself& hunts&target shoots with his guns&that,one day he might look at a Glock 17,in a cops holster and say to himself&the officer:'That looks like alot of fun to shoot,at the range' shame I can't own one myself.Why can't I?Thats what I'd be asking myself,if I was a politition,in the House Of Commons.


If self defense is generally frowned upon, and firearms must be stored in ways that typically make them unavailable for self defense if being legally stored, why does anyone need a defensive caliber in a handgun?
What would be the primary difference you could argue to have a 9mm (like the glock 17) vs a .22 if handguns were allowed?
A different size circle in the paper target?
Do you have any handgun hunting? I would presume not.
Long arms in defensive calibers make sense, because there is legal non-defensive uses like hunting, or trap shooting (where a birdshot firing gun can use larger projectiles.)


Without the argument of self defense what do you have?
I don't think "freedom" is going to fly.


&finally Australia(Except for the fact they can at least own some ordinarily-sized handguns:-)Although Australia has an SLR ban,similar to the 1988 Ammendment Act but they can at least own ordinary handguns,but,they're restricted from a minimum size.On the other hand,they can't own a rifle,if it looks like 'a black rifle' as they tried to import a batch of UK-made straight-pull(Bolt-action,by means of the AR-15s cocking-handle,for those who don't know

I believe they also have some greater storage requirements, as well as a multi tiered licensing system that goes beyond the FAC.
Though most of it is for things practically never permitted to your average joe.
They have other more restrictive laws too, like an airgun is considered a firearm, requiring the same licensing, and resulting in the same punishments as a firearm.

Mr.Davis
June 9, 2010, 09:48 PM
Here's an excellent article from Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome) which was first published in 2002. It discusses the skyrocketing violence rates in England after the handgun ban went into effect.

This article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm) talks about the increase in firearm-related crime after the gun ban went into effect.

FourteenMiles
June 10, 2010, 02:50 AM
Just in case anyone thinks sensationalist media is a phenomenon unique to the USA:

Derrick Bird watched Steven Seagal film before massacre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7806942/Derrick-Bird-watched-Steven-Seagal-film-before-massacre.html

My favourite Part: Seagal’s films have been criticized before for encouraging violence. Professor Kevin Browne, an expert in forensic and child psychology from Nottingham University warned MPs last year that violent action films were fuelling crime.

He said: "If you live on a diet of hit first and ask questions later, then you are likely to copy what that violent hero does, for example Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal and to a certain extent Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

Are they serious? Didn't they see Arnold shoot those security guards in "Commando"!?

throdgrain
June 10, 2010, 06:44 AM
Without the argument of self defense what do you have?
I don't think "freedom" is going to fly.


It discusses the skyrocketing violence rates in England after the handgun ban went into effect.



This is I think the main thing that our American friends just cannot and do not understand.

Let me just emphasise this.



THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

There. I feel a bit better now :banghead:

The whole argument about sky-rocketing gun crime since the ban doesnt actually hold any water at all, because even prior to the ban handguns we didnt use them for self-defence anyway. They were purely used for "sporting" reasons.

The fact that gun crime has gone up does show that the handgun ban didnt stop crime, but the politicians can argue that it did stop crime with legally-owned handguns, becuase of course now there arnt any legally-owned handguns :( But those handguns were never used for self defence anyway.

I appreciate your input on such topics guys, really, but you need to look at it from our perspective.

We do have a lot less gun crime than in your country.

We have a lot less guns than in your country.

Most of the public couldnt care less about guns.

Shooters like me are in a tiny tiny minority.

Even as a shooter all my life, started shooting air rifles aged 11, shot my first shotgun aged 14, still shoot at least 500 round a month now, even with all that, I have only ever seen a handfull of handguns anyway. I have never, ever seen a handgun on a street, anywhere. And I am 46 years old.

Once you get that stuff into perspective, and perhaps start to look at things like that, you will understand better the problems we face.

EDIT

Before we get any more misunderstandings, let me get this straight too. I personally, am all in favour of owning handguns for self-defence. I think it would be a huge help, particularly in inner cities. Why should a small or physically weak person have less right to self-defence than a rugby player? It doesnt make sense.

Just so you know :D

Carl N. Brown
June 10, 2010, 10:50 AM
While more recently in Britain, self-defense was not a reason allowed for a handgun purchase and possession, in earlier years it was a reason allowed, and even later, when it was not allowed as a reason to buy a handgun, under the self-defense "what is at hand as a weapon" rule, it was not disallowed to defend oneself with a handgun bought for sporting purposes.

In the long view on the effect of the law on crime, I repeat this earlier quote:
Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972):
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the
conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal
or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm withoutout restriction. Half
a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a
far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
British firearms expert Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police.

The gun laws have not prevented increased criminal use. Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.

But is more of an effect of the 1920 and 1968 Firearms Acts, not necessarily an immediate effect of the 1996 Amendment.

throdgrain
June 10, 2010, 11:56 AM
Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.


Wher did you get that information? Pardon me but it sounds rediculous.

As far as the defence thing goes, you are quite right, were my house to be invaded by armed men I imagine I would be within my rights to shoot them back down the stairs with my 870 :) Something about "sufficient force".

Law or no law, if that happened to me then that would be the response.

Officers'Wife
June 10, 2010, 12:03 PM
I'm always saddened by news that innocents are harmed from the violence of others. Since my knowledge of firearm availability and laws in the UK is at best second hand and possibly incomplete I'll pass on comment on that aspect of my British brethrens' society. Only that I hope the powers that be do not use this horrific event as an instrument of oppression.

Manco
June 10, 2010, 12:14 PM
This is I think the main thing that our American friends just cannot and do not understand.

Let me just emphasise this.



THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

There. I feel a bit better now :banghead:

It's easy for Americans to overlook this and/or find it a completely alien concept, but even from an outside perspective, what you say is quite evident from the common knowledge that British police are rarely armed with anything more than a baton. It stands to reason that if firearms were viewed as tools for self-defense for citizens, then the police force would be similarly and universally equipped without question, but obviously this is not the case in Great Britain. The only way that there is ever going to be a major paradigm shift in this regard is if criminals continue to increase their use of guns, eventually forcing British police to arm themselves for self-defense. Only then will guns begin to be viewed more like they are in the US, as equalizers. Unfortunately it may take such a negative turn of events in order to bring gun rights back to the citizens, but if it's a natural process, then so be it. I still think that the chances of this happening are slim, however, because I believe that one of the main goals of outlawing firearms is to keep citizens as helpless and dependent on the government as possible. :fire:

By the way, despite our culture-specific view of guns, curiously (or is it conveniently?) many Americans forget that they can be used to counter violent attacks of all types, not just from other guns. Some people actually think that if guns can be taken out of the hands of criminals (sure thing :rolleyes: ), then nobody would need guns for self-defense. Well, I guess that means we're all equally strong physically and that nobody would ever think to use a knife or other deadly weapon to attack an unarmed victim. :rolleyes: This only goes to show that if one is looking for an excuse to take away people's rights, then any relevant facts to the contrary can be summarily dismissed.

The whole argument about sky-rocketing gun crime since the ban doesnt actually hold any water at all, because even prior to the ban handguns we didnt use them for self-defence anyway. They were purely used for "sporting" reasons.

The only way that argument would ever hold water is if the magnitude of gun crime is sufficient to naturally force a major paradigm shift, which would take a lot of anguish--more than I would expect to actually happen or anyone should ever wish for.

We do have a lot less gun crime than in your country.

True, but the level of knife crime seems to go a long way in compensating for that (a useful argument against gun control on this side of the pond). Also keep in mind that "gun crime" statistics in the US typically include justified homicide in self-defense shootings as well as frequent gang-on-gang assassinations (criminals killing other criminals). Overall, the average American citizen probably has less to worry about regarding violent crime these days than the average British citizen (the opposite would have been true a couple of decades ago), and many of us are armed, of course, which is a deterrent. I'm not trying to compare the countries, but rather put certain things into perspective.

We have a lot less guns than in your country.

Most of the public couldnt care less about guns.

Shooters like me are in a tiny tiny minority.

Yes, the lack of a numerically significant "gun culture" that has its own existence outside of specific applications such as hunting or self-defense certainly makes protecting one's rights (RKBA and ultimately all others) more difficult (it's hard enough as it is here).

Before we get any more misunderstandings, let me get this straight too. I personally, am all in favour of owning handguns for self-defence. I think it would be a huge help, particularly in inner cities. Why should a small or physically weak person have less right to self-defence than a rugby player? It doesnt make sense.

Just so you know :D

Yeah, I realize that I've been "preaching to the choir" in this post, but I felt that some things had to be said.

Tommygunn
June 10, 2010, 12:20 PM
Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.

Wher did you get that information? Pardon me but it sounds rediculous.

As far as the defence thing goes, you are quite right, were my house to be invaded by armed men I imagine I would be within my rights to shoot them back down the stairs with my 870 Something about "sufficient force".

Law or no law, if that happened to me then that would be the response.
__________________


I don't understand where the 50%/13% stats come from myself, but a few years back, a report by none other than Dan Rather indicated violent crime (except for murder) in the UK was greater than in America. The % figures ... I mean, per cent of "what" exactly? Those 50/13 figures are out of context and don't mean anything to me. IF the poster had tried to compare the US violent crime rate to the UK's and said we only have 87% of what the UK has, and it was XX.XX per 100,000 population, maybe that would help put it in context.
I might find trends in specific crime more interesting. About a decade ago I read one stat saying that the murder rate in England had gone up 150% in the 20th century, despite the gun control laws enacted at the time. That to me would seem to argue gun control has not worked.
But, I admit I don't know what has happened from roughly the year 2000 to the present.


THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

IIRC, wasn't a law passed in about 1957 that removed self defense as a reason to use a gun? Or perhaps it simply prevented "self defense" as a justifiable defense for shooting a criminal who was trying to kill you?
I'm not sure I am characterizing this correctly ... but something close happened in the mid 1950s in that regard, IIRC.

throdgrain
June 10, 2010, 01:12 PM
Manco - superb post mate, thank you for that.

Tommygunn - IIRC, wasn't a law passed in about 1957 that removed self defense as a reason to use a gun? Or perhaps it simply prevented "self defense" as a justifiable defense for shooting a criminal who was trying to kill you?
I'm not sure I am characterizing this correctly ... but something close happened in the mid 1950s in that regard, IIRC.

I was born in 1964 ;)

Anyway, that whole post was really just to try and make people understand that we live in different countries, and things are percieved differently.

The last two posts have been great, real discussion. No doubt I will have to say it all over again another time, but I dont blame that on anything other than the Internet :D

duns
June 11, 2010, 03:14 AM
Some pre-gun ban statistics versus some post-gun ban statistics concerning violent crime rates might do the trick. Concerning arming police, how many died in the line of duty because they did not have an effective means to fight back, meaning a gun? How many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms (public massacres)?Your suggestions were made in response to my question "How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety?" Your suggestions are thought provoking, thank you for them. Let's look at your suggestions.

(1) Compare violent crime rates pre-handgun-ban and post-hand-gun ban: Problem here is to show that increased gun control leads to a rising violent crime rate. Correlation is not necessarily cause and effect. In any case, violent crime rates have been steadily falling since 1995 according to Home Office statistics,see page 4 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109summ.pdf. The handgun ban was introduced in 1997. So the use of statistics in the way you propose would be supportive of handgun control.

(2) Evaluate how many police died in the line of duty due to lack of a gun? I don't have comprehensive statistics but I did read that there were 38 murders of police officers 1985-2005, which is an average of less than two per year. In 2009, just two police officers were murdered which is in line with the 20-year average (http://www.policememorial.org.uk/NationalRoll/2009/NPORH_2009.htm).
Does an average of about two police officer murders per year justify arming every police officer? Would it not be more likely that more than two people per year would be killed by accidental discharges or mistaken identity if every police offer were armed? I don't think your second line of argument would prove very persuasive.

(3) Evaluate how many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms: From the Home Office survey, there are about 2,000,000 violent crimes a year. I have no information on how many could have been prevented by arming the police. Even though the violent crime rate is falling, it is plausible that one might be able to make a case for arming the police or at least increasing the number in the specialist Firearms Units. It would be much harder to make a case for allowing civiians to own handguns since civilians in the UK have not owned handguns in significant numbers in living memory so there are no good UK statistical data on the relationship between civilian gun ownership and violent crime rate. Logically, one might expect widespread gun ownership by law-abiding citizens to deter criminals but I don't think the data are there to show that the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership would outweigh the possible downsides.


As far as political candidates that will support gun rights, if the popular support is strong enough they will. That's how they get elected in the first place, supporting (or at least acting as if they support) the will of the people.

Agreed, but is the popular support for keeping and bearing arms there in the UK? I doubt it.


Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics.I suppose it would be true that only a small fraction of British people are political activists. Of those, my impression is that the number lobbying for reduction in gun control is insignificant.

throdgrain
June 11, 2010, 04:55 AM
I'm not sure if you got my point Duns. Because, even before the ban, handguns wernt owned for personal protection anyway, so to say violent crime has gone up since the ban is because we no longer have handguns is wrong, because

a) hardly anyone had one in the first place and

b) they were expressly not used for self defence.

Violent crime has gone up because of large-scale immigration to inner cities, and because of a breakdown in respect for each other in inner cities.

Now even more than ever, we need hand guns for self-defence, even if we didnt 20 years ago.

wideym
June 11, 2010, 05:08 AM
What specific event or chain of events lead the British goverment to criminalize or at the very lest dis-allow self defence of it's citizens? Also was there any outrage or even grumbling from the citizens when it happened?

Logiclly, I can see how a goverment can restrict firearm ownership for "self defence" if they outlaw self defence as a right altogether, but how did it get that way. England's loss of liberty could enlighten America on what to on the look out for.

throdgrain
June 11, 2010, 05:25 AM
Like I said about 3 posts up, there has never in my lifetime been any argument for the use of handguns for self-defence, and my lifetime currently is 46 years :)

I think the first changes in gun ownership came just after the first world war, when a lot of people were still armed, but there was a huge communist revolutionist movement in Europe, not so much in Great Britain but could easily have spread I suppose. The government restricted gun ownership at that time in case of revolution I beleive. I havent referenced this though, it's just something I recall.

duns
June 11, 2010, 05:46 AM
I'm not sure if you got my point Duns. Because, even before the ban, handguns wernt owned for personal protection anyway, so to say violent crime has gone up since the ban is because we no longer have handguns is wrong, because

a) hardly anyone had one in the first place and

b) they were expressly not used for self defence.

Violent crime has gone up because of large-scale immigration to inner cities, and because of a breakdown in respect for each other in inner cities.

Now even more than ever, we need hand guns for self-defence, even if we didnt 20 years ago.
I agree with you that the ban did not cause an increase in violent crime. However, according to the Home Office, violent crime is not increasing but has been steadily decreasing since 1995. Thus, the need for handguns for self-defense appears to be less now than it was in 1995.

throdgrain
June 11, 2010, 05:55 AM
I think that would depend how you categorise violent crime. There may be slightly less gun crime, I havent checked, but I didnt think there was, but there is certainly more knife crime, and phyiscal attacks of all sorts. I would say guns should certainly be allowed for self-defence.

BHP FAN
June 11, 2010, 06:09 AM
Any pro gun Brits should move to the States as soon as possible.Especially here in California,as we can use all the pro gun folk we can muster.

throdgrain
June 11, 2010, 06:18 AM
Older I get, the more I agree with you. It's not as easy as you think though :(

duns
June 11, 2010, 06:24 AM
What specific event or chain of events lead the British goverment to criminalize or at the very lest dis-allow self defence of it's citizens? Also was there any outrage or even grumbling from the citizens when it happened?
The first seriously restrictive gun control law in the UK was the 1920 Firearms Act. It was introduced because of government fears of revolution. There was then a series of further Firearms Acts, the last in 1997. Each new Act further increased controls. The 1997 Firearms Act effectively banned handguns for civilians.

Between 1920 and 1997, I believe a handgun permit was possible if the applicant could show "good reason". However, Home Office directions to the police periodically narrowed the definition of "good reason". I understand that the Home Office directions to the police were classified as government secrets until 1989 so could not be published or discussed. At some point, self-defense was withdrawn as a good reason.

The controls appears to have been introduced partly due to government desire to disarm the populace and partly as a response to public concerns following certain high profile crimes, most notably those at Hungerford and Dunblane. I am not aware that there was much opposition.

duns
June 11, 2010, 06:32 AM
Any pro gun Brits should move to the States as soon as possible. I moved from Britain to Texas for the warmer climate and the wide open spaces. After arriving here, I came to appreciate the Second Amendment and bought my first gun in January of this year. I now have four handguns and a Concealed Handgun License. I do believe that owning defensive weapons is a fundamental human right because there are so many situations where we can't rely on others to protect us.

lykoris
June 11, 2010, 06:41 AM
comparing crime statistics between the UK and the US is a complete waste of time given the fact that the numbers in the UK are constanting massaged/fudged to tell the 'required' story, serious crimes are 'reclassified' into less serious crimes, figures are omitted by accident, reports aren't filed etc. etc. etc.

the political establishment squeezes the police to give them, 'statistically' the numbers they desire to tell the story - 'crime is falling'.

Anybody who has ever studied statistics knows you can get numbers to tell you whatever story you want.

UK gun control originated from pre/post 1917 Russian/broader proletariat revolutions and a fear the working class would rise up against the ruling class in Britain. Gun control in my opinion is solely about control of the state over the population, the political establishment will spin out whatever story is suitable to enact gun control legislation.

These days I believe it is solely, as Manco pointed out, to keep subjects under the control/thumb of state/government - keep them dependent and helpless without the means to defend themselves....all part of the 'welfare state' ideology.

Without wishing to cause offense, the mentality in the UK and indeed Ireland as well is to 'moan/bitch' about things but never get actively involved, that and the shooting community has been whittled away through generations of increased legislation(progressively less people participate/own firearms) & decades of social conditioning of society through media....something at which the British tabloids excel. The latter part being the most important aspect so those with an interest are poorly perceived by the general public.

lykoris
June 11, 2010, 06:42 AM
I do believe that owning defensive weapons is a fundamental human right because there are so many situations where we can't rely on others to protect us.

100% agree.

Oyeboten
June 11, 2010, 06:55 AM
If memory serve, the Suppression by England of the Irish, was one of the tacit 'reasons' and enablers for pretext, for gradually dis-arming everyone with respect to Hand Guns, but, even in the latter 19th and earliest 20th Century, Speeches or Letters of influential Politicians in England, it was reconized by the genuinely Liberal ( as a positive term ) component of the respective 'Gun' factions, that depriving the Public of Firearms under pretext of wishing to forbid Criminals or Political dissidents of having them, would only enable Criminals or violently disposed Political dissidents to enjoy the continued or even greater posession of Arms by being no more outside of or contemptuous of the Law than they already were.

lykoris
June 11, 2010, 06:58 AM
The articles below and indeed the comments of the British public accompanying the articles show why the public has little confidence in the numbers. There is a ridiculous amount of articles/coverage on UK crime stats that cover traditionally both left and right side of the political circus.

I'm putting them in to illustrate my point that comparing UK & US crime stats is really meaningless.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036722/The-British-Crime-Survey-Its-lies-damned-lies-crime-figures.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8320000.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/20/crime-figures
(traditionally labour newspaper)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4177738/Fiddling-statistics-is-no-way-to-restore-public-confidence.html
(traditionally conservative newspaper)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7550002/New-row-over-crime-statistics.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/conservative_estimates_on_viol_1.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/4642307/Can_anyone_believe_crime_figures_any_more/

throdgrain
June 11, 2010, 07:03 AM
You are correct of course. Statistics are a lot of bollocks.

Or, as someone once said 91.8% of statistics are made up on the spot

sidibear
June 11, 2010, 07:05 AM
@Throdgrain, I believe that was Groucho Marx who said that.

lykoris
June 11, 2010, 07:06 AM
England was being infilterated by proto-Bolshevic and crypto-Bolshevic activists and intellectuals and influence brokers

I don't agree.

disarming the indigenous population of colonies was standard operating procedure for the British empire in order to control them...it wasn't the policy of proto-Bolshevic and crypto-Bolshevic activists that somehow 'infiltrated' the ruling class of Britain.

jamesbeat
August 18, 2010, 02:04 AM
I feel I have to post on this topic, as I am from the UK and moved here to NY just over a year ago.
My reason for moving was to marry my wonderful wife, but my willingness to leave my life in the UK behind was certainly influenced to an extent by the stupid gun laws there.
I don't think I need to repeat any of the opinions expressed in this thread about how Britain's gun laws probably made the death toll higher in this case.
Anybody but the most zealous hoplophobe should be able to see that the strict gun laws in the UK cost a great number of lives each year.
I'm just glad to be off that miserable little island.

I was telling my wife about this massacre today (I only just found out about it) and she was utterly astonished that the regular police in the UK don't carry guns.

From the persective of an outside observer, the UK looks pretty silly, and for good reason...

Oyeboten
August 18, 2010, 02:21 AM
I wonder, if as usual, the accused had been a patient of a Psychiatrist who has long term ties to intel, or, who is a subcontractor to intel or continuous however so with the intel community?


So far, just about every instance of this sort of thing, where investigators bother looking, such a 'connection' is found.

If you enjoyed reading about "A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!