A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :(
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You absolutely will not win here arguing for self-defence. That will not be tolerated.
 
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.
 
Mk VII said:
You absolutely will not win here arguing for self-defence. That will not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Because firearms are not regarded as an acceptable means of personal protection here. That applies even to security guards transporting large sums of money.
 
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.
 
Because firearms are not regarded as an acceptable means of personal protection here. That applies even to security guards transporting large sums of money.
Click to expand...

Even whilst being shot at by others?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thanks, that rings a bell. It's been a while since I had my FAC and currently my shotgun certificate is blank.
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.


t1larg.police.cumbria.gi.jpg
 
is she not carry a sidearm of any kind? Kind of odd to see a law enforcement officer without one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top