Fictional Shootings in England

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

camslam

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
741
Location
Chilling Out in the Valley of The Sun
Not to make light of these situations, but once again, just THIS WEEK, we have several shootings in that safe place called England. I don't know how these incidents keep happening given that guns are outlawed and illegal over there. Somebody help me understand. :banghead:

Here are the links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6617697.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/6618935.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/6614427.stm

I would love for our anti-gun friends to explain to us one more time how more gun laws are going to make us safer.
 
Yup, fiction.

Couldn't happen.

They don't have guns in England.

There's laws against them things over there.
 
There's no point arguing with Brits about this, though. They'll simply reply, "Oh yeah? Virginia Tech!" and demand even more gun control.

--Len.
 
Well, to be accurate, only handguns are outlawed in the UK. Long arms are legal (although severely limited to type, ammo capacity, etc.) and a license is generally required to own one. Of the 3 news stories listed above, only the first involves an outlawed handgun, that should not exist over there, according to the outlaw-guns-and-there-will-be-no-gun-violence theory.
 
LaEscopeta: I understand that only handguns are actually banned, but in regards to rifles and shotguns, they are only allowed for hunting purposes and must be registered and held at a hunting/shooting club. There are no guns period; allowed in a persons home, car, or on the street.

That is why even the other 2 articles are good examples of why gun control just doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
No sir, that is not 100% accurate.
If you have a firearms certificate and the police have established that you have a gun safe and that this gun safe is on premises that are reasonably secure, then you may keep those firearms at home. Otherwise you must store them in a safe at the gun club.
When you apply for a firearms certificate, the police come to your house and interview you. While they are there, they will come to a decision about whether you can keep the firearms there or not.

However, the bottom line is that it is NOT licensed owners doing all these shootings. An exception to that was the Dunblane massacre, but in that case the shooter was found to have exhibited certain signs and behaviour that should have meant that he got his guns taken away from him. It was similar to the Cho situation because there wasn't evidence at the time he applied for those firearms, to suggest he shouldn't have them. I don't know if the Hungerford massacre was done with licensed arms but today's shootings are gang or drug-related (mainly) and involve (mainly) young blacks who have illegally-owned handguns (either factory-made or improvised).
Not mentioned in any of your links are the three black teenagers shot in the space of 10 days, in south London. There is a special unit called Operation Trident, that looks into black on black crime here in London.
It isn't about guns, it's about people. And the quality of our citizens (in general) is a much worse threat to us than the availability of guns. For every gunshot fatality there are many more fatal stabbings and fatal assaults with a blunt instrument.
 
Well said Odd Job

Odd Job,

I couldn't agree with you more. Obviously I don't live in England, so I'll take your knowledge over mine regarding the gun storage.

However, I would still imagine the percentage of guns being held in a personal safe at home is very, very, very, very, very, very, small.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for our friends across the pond regarding their future ability to keep and bear arms. In general, the old adage an armed society is a polite society still rings true.
 
As Odd Job says, it is legal to keep guns at home. Storage requirements are decided by your local police force - most require a safe for multiple guns but a clamp or wire security lock is sufficient for a single gun. It is also legal to carry them in your car or on your person, provided you have a 'good reason' to do so e.g. taking them to the range, hunting etc. Hunting is not the only reason that firearms certificates are granted. Target shooting and collecting are the two primary others but there are more. Shotgun certificates are 'shall issue' and cannot be refused unless you're insane, a convicted serious criminal etc.

Only mettalic cartridge based handguns are illegal, muzzle loaders can still be owned, as can long-barreled mettalic cartridge pistols (12 inch barrel length minimum).

Thomas Hamilton, the shooter at Dunblane, owned at least two handguns illegally. It just so happened that the two he used in the attack were his other, legal, pistols.

As you say, several members of the public and his gun club had contacted police saying he was dangerous but they did nothing.

Hungerford massacre was done with legal rifles (an AK and M1 carbnie I think) but I believe the pistol he used to shoot himself with, and the grenade he threatened to use were both illegal.

Unlike the Dunblane shootings, I believe Michael Ryan 'just snapped' and went crazy one day with no real signs of him being dangerous before (odd perhaps, but not dangerous).
 
Thanks, Fosbery, I forgot about the black powder guns!

I must also add that the UK is never going to be an 'armed polite society' even if every citizen has a rifle or a shotgun.
That's because you can't use a firearm as a defensive weapon (in the eyes of the law). Your application for the firearm has its roots in hunting, sport or for collecting. These are the main reasons why Joe Public gets a firearms certificate. Mention any kind of defense or protection, and your chances of being granted a firearms certificate are reduced GREATLY.
However, I must say that the guy who came to interview me was a very reasonable fellow (within the limits the law imposes on him and on me). He came round here and asked me why I needed the guns listed on my certificate. I told him that I was asking for a 9mm rifle because he wouldn't give me a 9mm pistol...the necessity for the pistol being that I was interested in gunshot wounds :)
Now they've got me on computer already because I was a witness in a drive-by in 2004 and I protected some forensic evidence in that case. I told him I want to shoot some service ammo and I had some tests in the pipeline. He must have checked my background very carefully because a few days after the interview he asked for copies of my South African firearms licenses. I gave him those and he reported that to his seniors. They granted me the certificate without any delay after that. I waited two weeks only, from the time of posting the application.
There is another South African at the rifle club who has been waiting several months for his certificate. I guess it depends on the firearms authority involved (he is under a different firearms team) and also your job/references. A radiographer who works around the elderly and around children usually has a squeaky clean history. We aren't known for shooting up the place :neener:
Mind you, a health worker isn't a guaranteed angel...look how many people Dr Shipman killed (with drugs). He killed more than Cho, Hamilton, and Ryan put together. IIRC he killed about 213.
 
I don't think the UK can 'never' be an armed polite society. It was before 1968, it can be so again. But with current laws, no, it can't be. But the only party committed to reducing gun control is UKIP, who don't even have a single member of parliament and only 6 local councillors I believe. The BNP might also want to reduce gun control, in fact it seems almost certain, but I'd rather Tony 'Gun Grabbing' Blair be in power than that bunch! Well, maybe. For those in the US, the BNP is a bit like a...eh...a more mainstream version of the Nazi party. That might be a bit harsh but I think it's true, certainly of the leadership.

You can use a firearm for self defence, but you can't own it FOR that purpose. If someone attacks you and you fear for life or limb, you are totally within your rights to shoot that person dead. No duty of retreat or anything like that. The famous case that is talked of much is that of Tony Martin who shot two burglars. The key fact in this case was that they were running away at the time. They had not attacked him, were not going to attack him, and were unarmed. I have no sympathy for the pricks who got shot but a law against shooting to save..what was it they stole? A video player I think. Anyway, that and a law against self-defence proper are not the same thing. I think a lot of Americans think we have no right to self-defence.

My police firearms officer is great. He's a shooter himself (as most are I believe) and is very pro-gun. He has to do his job of course so if I were ever to ask for a gun for self-defence he would have to deny me, but I know he's support me if I ever had to use one of my firearms in self-defence.
 
I really worry about you guys over there and it's good to hear that about shotguns and muzzleloaders. I am inordinately fond of my IAC 1887 clone and I would not feel the least bit disadvantaged with a coupla quality 1858 Remington clones and a coupla spare cylinders. Our great-grandfathers did ok with black powder for quite a while.
 
It's Ruger Old Armies that are most popular here, though more period repros are popular for cowboy action shooting (as are repros of period revolvers, rifles and shotguns).

A friend of mine has one - well, several do actually, but this particular friend has devised a most interesting setup. He uses standard military targets on rails. I forget the range they start at, 10 yards perhaps. They then advance towards the shooter with barely enough time to expend all 6 rounds (last shot is fired virtually point blank). With all that smoke and sparks you can imagine it's quite hectic :evil:
 
You can use a firearm for self defence, but you can't own it FOR that purpose.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem, my friend, because you are essentially limited to acts of defense by means of a firearm that 'just so happened to be at hand because I was cleaning it.'
I wouldn't put it past them, to say that any other use of a firearm is pre-meditated. That is the 'flavour' of it, if you take my meaning.
 
Well the Queen isn't over there to keep an eye on everyone right now so...
__________________
Click to expand...

Blair and Labour rules us and not the Queen.She has no say,in how the country is run,at all,only Blair and that greedy sod Brown do.If the SNP(Scottish National Party.) take control of Scotland,then they will disarm the Scots completely.Labour is a Scottish party too and so is its leader and soon-to-be new leader.

They don't have guns in England.
Click to expand...

Ignorance seems to be in some peoples minds.If that was the case then Fosbery,myself and Oddjob would have no guns whatsoever.

I
don't know if the Hungerford massacre was done with licensed arms
Click to expand...

They all were licensed,except for some illegal smgs ,that were found in his garden shed.One included a Thompson smg,that was fully-automatic.The lunatic also had pipe bombs and detonators inside of the shed too.He had a few repeating shotguns,on his shotgun license too and a CZ pistol and a S&W .38 revolver,in addition to his Beretta.The CZ was being repaired in a gunshop,prior to the massacre.

but I believe the pistol he used to shoot himself with, and the grenade he threatened to use were both illegal.
Click to expand...

No,actually Ryan bought the 9mm Beretta M92F,in September 1986,from a gunshop in Oxford,for £300,which was borrowed from a loan company.He also mail ordered his AK47,from a gun shop in Cheshire,in early 1987.The grenade was illegal and his other bombs were pipe bombs,called "Ryans Specials",that he tried to sell to some work colleagues.These,he made himself.
 
Last edited:
And therein lies the problem, my friend, because you are essentially limited to acts of defense by means of a firearm that 'just so happened to be at hand because I was cleaning it.'
I wouldn't put it past them, to say that any other use of a firearm is pre-meditated. That is the 'flavour' of it, if you take my meaning.
Click to expand...

Hmm, plenty of people since 1968 have used firearms in self-defence and got off scott free. I know a man who went to investigate noises on his land with a shotgun i.e. took it with him for the purpose of defence. He found two thieves who proceeded to try to run him over with their car. He shot them both and was never charged with any offence. Another took his gun from its cabinet and shot a burglar who was coming through his window. I believe he went to court but was aquited of any wrong doing.

Also, there is no law that says you must keep guns locked up and/or unloaded. You can legally keep a loaded rifle by your bed or carry it with you around your home, but the police can revoke your certificate if they deem such activity to be putting the security of the weapon at risk or the public in danger. Of course, they would never know until after you've used the gun and even then you could say "I just took it out of the safe really quickly" or "I was cleaning it" and they'd have trouble proving that this was not the case.

What I said wasn't quite right either. You can't own section 1 firearms for self-defence. You CAN own shotguns for self-defence as you don't need to tell the police why you want them. Of course, you can own section 1 for self-defence and just tell them you're a target shooting (obviously you'll go to the range once in a while to practice).

They all were licensed,except for some illegal smgs ,that were found in his garden shed.One included a Thompson smg,that was fully-automatic.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's right. I knew there was an illegal gun somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top