NationStates Jolt Archive

this will probably sound pretty stupid but are guns completely outlawed in the UK?

I ask this because in many countries when people say its illegal to own a firearm they really mean its just really really hard to get a gun, but it's not illegal. like in America where when people say its illegal to own an automatic weapon they don't really mean it’s illegal, they just mean it’s just really really hard to get a license to own one

and I imagine there would be some pretty old firearms hanging over assorted fireplaces around the country, could you get away with owning an antique?

Guns used for work purposes (such as a gamekeeper or firearms trained police officer) and for sports (members of shooting clubs) are legal but you have to have a license and they must be kept in a secure gun cabinet in secure premises. This means not at home but at a gun club or at the place of work. Basically unless you have a good reason and no criminal record you have no right to have one and even then you are strictly controlled in their use.
You'd be suprised how few of us have antique firearms or fireplaces. :)

Guns used for work purposes (such as a gamekeeper) and for sports (members of shooting clubs) are legal but you have to have a license and they must be kept in a secure gun cabinet in secure premises. This means not at home but at a gun club or at the place of work. Basically unless you have a good reason and no criminal record you have no right to have one and even then you are strictly controlled in their use.

is it that guns arn't allowed to be kept in homes or only these work places can afford to keep up cabinets of those standards?

is it that guns arn't allowed to be kept in homes or only these work places can afford to keep up cabinets of those standards?
I believe it was changed to not at home at all, even if you had a secure cabinet after a gun(s) stolen from a licensed firearms owner's house was used in a murder. The guns were stolen from a cabinet that met all the standards so the law was changed to not at home at all. It is currently being debated whether to ban replicas as well as they are being imported and converted into working guns and used in crimes.

I believe it was changed to not at home at all, even if you had a secure cabinet after a gun(s) stolen from a licensed firearms owner's house was used in a murder. The guns were stolen from a cabinet that met all the standards so the law was changed to not at home at all. It is currently being debated whether to ban replicas as well as they are being imported and converted into working guns and used in crimes.

can you keep one if its a family hierloom? (old as all creation and not useable for crime)

can you keep one if its a family hierloom? (old as all creation and not useable for crime)
If it has been certified disabled and therefore a not a working firearm then at the moment it is still legal. As to antique firearms check this Metropolitan Police (London) link (http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/faq2.htm)

If it has been certified disabled and therefore a not a working firearm then at the moment it is still legal. As to antique firearms check this Metropolitan Police (London) link (http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/faq2.htm)

ok,thank you very much for the information

ok,thank you very much for the information
Welcome :D

this will probably sound pretty stupid but are guns completely outlawed in the UK?

No, shotguns are probably the main exception to the standard rules. Provided that one has a valid reason for owning one (such as vermin control in the country or for use in clay pigeon shoting) and it is kept in a secure place then it is possible to get a certificate allowing you to own one.

Here is a summary of some of the legislation:

http://www.parker-hale.com/law.htm

this will probably sound pretty stupid but are guns completely outlawed in the UK?

I ask this because in many countries when people say its illegal to own a firearm they really mean its just really really hard to get a gun, but it's not illegal. like in America where when people say its illegal to own an automatic weapon they don't really mean it’s illegal, they just mean it’s just really really hard to get a license to own one

and I imagine there would be some pretty old firearms hanging over assorted fireplaces around the country, could you get away with owning an antique?
You need a permit for a shotgun, you can own air pistols and air rifles, any old gun that isn't a shotgun has to have the firing pin filed down. I don't think much else is allowed. Then again, we don't have hundreds of deaths because of accidental shootings

You need a permit for a shotgun, you can own air pistols and air rifles, any old gun that isn't a shotgun has to have the firing pin filed down. I don't think much else is allowed. Then again, we don't have hundreds of deaths because of accidental shootings

I dont think you are correct about air rifles/pistols anymore, wasnt that changed?

I dont think you are correct about air rifles/pistols anymore, wasnt that changed?

No, air rifles/pistols are allowed provided they're under 12ft/lbs in power for rifles and 6ft/lbs in power for pistols. You also have to be 17 to buy one, and you can only use it where you have permission from the landowner.

No, air rifles/pistols are allowed provided they're under 12ft/lbs in power for rifles and 6ft/lbs in power for pistols. You also have to be 17 to buy one, and you can only use it where you have permission from the landowner.

k thanks.

I heard/read that the UK's olympic team has to train outside the country because of its gun laws, is this true?

k thanks.

I heard/read that the UK's olympic team has to train outside the country because of its gun laws, is this true?


I don't think so, gun clubs have licenses to keep their members guns locked up securly, they can only be kept at the club and not taken home so I imagine any Olympic team members would practice at their gun club.

k thanks.

I heard/read that the UK's olympic team has to train outside the country because of its gun laws, is this true?

I think it was only the people who compete in Handgun sports had to train elsewhere as they are illegal for use in the UK unless they are muzzle loading

You need a permit for a shotgun, you can own air pistols and air rifles, any old gun that isn't a shotgun has to have the firing pin filed down. I don't think much else is allowed. Then again, we don't have hundreds of deaths because of accidental shootings

As an addendum to this - there are of course exceptions, certainly several Northern Ireland politicians used to have sepcial permission to hold firearms due to the extremely high likelihood of them being attacked. I last heard direct mention of this in the late 80s or early 90s, but I imagine that such extra-special circumstances still hold and are treated somewhat differently to the norm.

this will probably sound pretty stupid but are guns completely outlawed in the UK?

Shotguns and rifles are fine, if you have a license. Handguns of any kind are banned, even air pistols. Immediately after the law was passed gun crime figures dropped, but they have gone back up again to levels not significantly lower than before the ban.

Shotguns and rifles are fine, if you have a license. Handguns of any kind are banned, even air pistols. Immediately after the law was passed gun crime figures dropped, but they have gone back up again to levels not significantly lower than before the ban.
I'm sorry, did you just say....air pistols? banned? this must be why several friends and I own air pistols, one lad with 2 gas powered ones, one with an automatic gas powered bb-shooter (metal). Rifles? I assume you mean air rifles, as I doubt my grandad's old springfield would be legal without the firing pin filed down

I'm sorry, did you just say....air pistols? banned? this must be why several friends and I own air pistols, one lad with 2 gas powered ones, one with an automatic gas powered bb-shooter (metal).

http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/airguns1.htm

The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 require that certain air weapons can only be held legally on a firearm certificate. It is possible to measure the velocity of pellets, discharged from an air weapon, by the use of an electronic chronograph. From these measurements the kinetic energy of the pellet at the muzzle can be calculated. Air weapons deemed specially dangerous have a muzzle energy in excess of:

In the case of an air pistol: 6 ft/lbs
In the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol: 12 ft/lbs

Such weapons are classified as Section 1 firearms and are required to be held on a firearm certificate. These weapons are subject to all the controls and regulations pertaining to Section 1 firearms, although the "ammunition" (pellets) are not.

I'm sorry, did you just say....air pistols? banned? this must be why several friends and I own air pistols, one lad with 2 gas powered ones, one with an automatic gas powered bb-shooter (metal). Rifles? I assume you mean air rifles, as I doubt my grandad's old springfield would be legal without the firing pin filed down

Air pistols are just banned around me, as a friend of mine accidentally shot me arse the arse with one when I was 12.

As an addendum to this - there are of course exceptions, certainly several Northern Ireland politicians used to have sepcial permission to hold firearms due to the extremely high likelihood of them being attacked. I last heard direct mention of this in the late 80s or early 90s, but I imagine that such extra-special circumstances still hold and are treated somewhat differently to the norm.

Furthermore, Northern Ireland was specifically exempted from the 1998 Human Rights Act, so all sorts of vaguely scary things (locking people up without trials, fastracked secret millitary trials, a media blanket on SinnFein party leaders) have been used there before now. I think they've been relaxed there now, as there hasn't been anything huge since Omagh, which pales compared to the sort of thing that happened in the troubles.

As far as guns go, I only know that after the Dunblane massacre Tory legislation followed the The Cullen Inquiry recommendations and banned only handguns greater than .22 calibre, and then the new Labour government went further with the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 and banned all handguns.

You can only hold a gun in your home if you can keep it secure and prove that it is neccessary to your job. Shotguns have been taken away from farmers on those grounds.

Heirlooms can be kept I think if you disable them, otherwise they'll be destroyed.

Hope that helps.

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves. Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed. In the UK, I remember a friend of mine getting burgled while he slept, and while his 3 year old daughter slept upstairs. That would have less chance of happening here. Burglars have to carefully look over whether a house might have anyone in it, and take their chances.

I remember that farmer in the UK who was sued for shooting a burglar dead. Here, as long as you remember to fire that all-important shot into the ceiling, you're off on self-defense. That is the main difference. Americans are allowed to defend themselves, and their homes. In the UK, you can go to jail for defending yourself. That's a sad state of affairs, if you ask me. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves, their homes, their families, their means of making a living.

It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

I remember that farmer in the UK who was sued for shooting a burglar dead. Here, as long as you remember to fire that all-important shot into the ceiling, you're off on self-defense.


The chap who stayed up all night with his shotgun waiting and then shot one of the burglars in the back with no warning and killed him?

The chap who stayed up all night with his shotgun waiting and then shot one of the burglars in the back with no warning?

Without warning? Do you honestly think that after they'd done it six or seven times that they didn't consider that their chances of going on like this forever were rather slim? I think the farmer was being somewhat tolerant to let it go on that long. I can concede that a warning shot is deserved, but I don't think that he should have no right to defend what is his.

I believe it was changed to not at home at all, even if you had a secure cabinet after a gun(s) stolen from a licensed firearms owner's house was used in a murder. The guns were stolen from a cabinet that met all the standards so the law was changed to not at home at all. It is currently being debated whether to ban replicas as well as they are being imported and converted into working guns and used in crimes.

Not strictly true my friend, guns/shotguns can be kept at home in secure cabinets, the police just come round every 6 months (or so) and u have to show them where you keep them, who has access etc. My friend has them (shotguns that is) and he shows them too me occasionly :D

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves. Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed. In the UK, I remember a friend of mine getting burgled while he slept, and while his 3 year old daughter slept upstairs. That would have less chance of happening here. Burglars have to carefully look over whether a house might have anyone in it, and take their chances.

I remember that farmer in the UK who was sued for shooting a burglar dead. Here, as long as you remember to fire that all-important shot into the ceiling, you're off on self-defense. That is the main difference. Americans are allowed to defend themselves, and their homes. In the UK, you can go to jail for defending yourself. That's a sad state of affairs, if you ask me. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves, their homes, their families, their means of making a living.

It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Is it? And you know, there are actually other ways of defending yourself than just having a gun. I personally, would never want a gun even with the threat of been robbed. We have a thing over here in Britain called 'fists'... and most of us know how to use them. If guns are illegal, and the laws could be well implemented, why would anyone need a gun if no one else had one? Because they might have a knife? Yeah, so what use is a gun if he's two inches away from you with a knife to your throat? I am personally fucking glad that we don't have guns to harvest the bodies of thieves. Sadly, the only problem we have is that the laws aren't well implemented and people still can get guns to use them selfishly. I don't see what the point of having a gun is... even though you made a good point, I'll give you that. I just don't think it would work here and really... it's one aspect of American culture that I despise and I'm also getting pretty sick of Americans pointing out that we don't have guns and that's it's stupid not to.

I think the farmer was being somewhat tolerant to let it go on that long. I can concede that a warning shot is deserved, but I don't think that he should have no right to defend what is his.

On the subject of 'tolerance' here is an interesting side note to this particular case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/nnazi18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/18/ixhome.html

EDIT: the fact that this farmer possessed a legally held shotgun, as most farmers in the UK do, did not seem to dissuade the burglars, so the whole example seems somewhat irrelevant to your earlier comment:

Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed

Is it? And you know, there are actually other ways of defending yourself than just having a gun.

Bizarrely enough, it remains legal to set mantraps in your grounds in England & Wales, provided that they are only primed between dawn and dusk.

Is it? And you know, there are actually other ways of defending yourself than just having a gun. I personally, would never want a gun even with the threat of been robbed. We have a thing over here in Britain called 'fists'... and most of us know how to use them. If guns are illegal, and the laws could be well implemented, why would anyone need a gun if no one else had one? Because they might have a knife? Yeah, so what use is a gun if he's two inches away from you with a knife to your throat? I am personally fucking glad that we don't have guns to harvest the bodies of thieves. Sadly, the only problem we have is that the laws aren't well implemented and people still can get guns to use them selfishly. I don't see what the point of having a gun is... even though you made a good point, I'll give you that. I just don't think it would work here and really... it's one aspect of American culture that I despise and I'm also getting pretty sick of Americans pointing out that we don't have guns and that's it's stupid not to.

If you look, though, it's not just the guns you're not allowed to have or use. Look at the laws on knives. In fact, the law covers just about anything that could be used as a weapon, including a roll of coins in your pocket or an umbrella. They even took the handles off of pint glasses, so that they couldn't be used as a weapon. (Which isn't totally unreasonable, knowing what drunk people are like.) It's not the lack of guns that bothers me so much as the fact that you're not legally allowed to defend yourself. If you use your fists, you can be sent to jail for GBH, even if he was threatening or even assaulting you.

It's not the lack of guns that bothers me so much as the fact that you're not legally allowed to defend yourself. If you use your fists, you can be sent to jail for GBH, even if he was threatening or even assaulting you.

No, in the Uk we do have the right to self-defense. The problem arises when the issue of what actually constitutes 'reasonable force' and what 'excessive force' arises.

If you look, though, it's not just the guns you're not allowed to have or use. Look at the laws on knives. In fact, the law covers just about anything that could be used as a weapon, including a roll of coins in your pocket or an umbrella. They even took the handles off of pint glasses, so that they couldn't be used as a weapon. (Which isn't totally unreasonable, knowing what drunk people are like.) It's not the lack of guns that bothers me so much as the fact that you're not legally allowed to defend yourself. If you use your fists, you can be sent to jail for GBH, even if he was threatening or even assaulting you.

I don't see how that seems unreasonable. But in the heat of the moment, a British person will still defend himself, but not using such extremities (usually). Where an American with a gun can kill a man so easily with a single bullet, the chances the same would happen to a British person is much more unlikely (and thus, much more sane). And yeah, you probably could be sent to jail for GBH, but it's not so uncompromising as you make out. If you can be cleared for 'self defense' rather than anything else, it's likely you'll just get community service, which also seems reasonable. Someone may have tried to steal from you, but you if you damage their mortal body to such an extent that they can no longer function as usual, I think the person who did the damage deserves to be punished, even regarding the circumstances.

No, in the Uk we do have the right to self-defense. The problem arises when the issue of what actually constitutes 'reasonable force' and what 'excessive force' arises.

I'm not claiming that the judicial system here is perfect, but it seemed to me that in the UK, very often judgements were pronounced in favor of the initial aggressor. How do you know what is excessive or what is reasonable? I understand it if you're capable of restraining someone rather than beat them unconscious, but even then I seem to remember people being sent to jail for restraint of an agressor, which to me seems much more reasonable force than shooting them. It's not always possible to do that, though. If you're under attack, are you always able to guage exactly how much force will ensure your safety? Or do you want to make good and certain that you've taken care of it? Who is the burden of proof on? The victims or the attackers?

If you look, though, it's not just the guns you're not allowed to have or use. Look at the laws on knives. In fact, the law covers just about anything that could be used as a weapon, including a roll of coins in your pocket or an umbrella. They even took the handles off of pint glasses, so that they couldn't be used as a weapon. (Which isn't totally unreasonable, knowing what drunk people are like.) It's not the lack of guns that bothers me so much as the fact that you're not legally allowed to defend yourself. If you use your fists, you can be sent to jail for GBH, even if he was threatening or even assaulting you.
You're allowed to carry knives and what have you, just not with violent intent (which in practice means you are able to demonstrate that you carry them for non-violent purposes).

I've carried a pocket knife since I was about 10 years old, and never got into trouble over it. I even took it into 11 Downing Street one time. When the police saw it at the security check point, they raised an eyebrow, I pointed out that I'm a father, and they nodded it through. They did ask me not to use it on any senior politician, which seemed a reasonable enough request, so I agreed not to.

On a more serious note, I thought they took they took the handles off beer mugs in most pubs, because pint jugs fell out of fashion. Straight glasses are a much better way of drinking beer. (There are still a couple of pubs near me that serve bitter in jugs BTW.)

You're allowed to carry knives and what have you, just not with violent intent (which in practice means you are able to demonstrate that you carry them for non-violent purposes).

I've carried a pocket knife since I was about 10 years old, and never got into trouble over it. I even took it into 11 Downing Street one time. When the police saw it at the security check point, they raised an eyebrow, I pointed out that I'm a father, and they nodded it through. They did ask me not to use it on any senior politician, which seemed a reasonable enough request, so I agreed not to.

On a more serious note, I thought they took they took the handles off beer mugs in most pubs, because pint jugs fell out of fashion. Straight glasses are a much better way of drinking beer. (There are still a couple of pubs near me that serve bitter in jugs BTW.)

I saw the ones with handles now and again too. I was told that they were taken out of use to prevent people from getting "glassed".

I suppose my main point is that the criminals seem to have the upper hand both legally and in practice. I have my suspicions that this is because the honest people have been more or less hamstrung.

I must apologise to the brits of the forum. I was just cussing to myself about how they'd defend Brittania even in the face of reasonable criticism...then I realised that I'd do the same in defense of my country, if it were being criticised by someone from outside. It's a natural reaction. I just got confused, because when I lived in the UK, I'd hear a different point of view, simply because I was not considered to be an outsider anymore. This thread is definitely one which nearly forces the British to defend something. It was off on the wrong foot from the start.

Im Britsih and i live in northern ireland and i own one ak-22, bushmaster xms11e75, a mauser tarfet rifle, cz 22 rifle, 4 shotguns a 2 cz target pistols, bren gun mg :mp5:, m14 and m21 us marine rifles, a lee enfield rifle, desert eagle 50. cal pistol and a rpk-74 lmg.
so i really dont have a lack of guns

I must apologise to the brits of the forum. I was just cussing to myself about how they'd defend Brittania even in the face of reasonable criticism...then I realised that I'd do the same in defense of my country, if it were being criticised by someone from outside. It's a natural reaction. I just got confused, because when I lived in the UK, I'd hear a different point of view, simply because I was not considered to be an outsider anymore. This thread is definitely one which nearly forces the British to defend something. It was off on the wrong foot from the start.
Thanks for the empathic comment, Sheilanagig; I appreciate the sentiment. There may also be another agenda among the British posters on this thread, to do with resisting the agenda of fear put up by the popular press over here.

On the subject of 'tolerance' here is an interesting side note to this particular case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/nnazi18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/18/ixhome.html

EDIT: the fact that this farmer possessed a legally held shotgun, as most farmers in the UK do, did not seem to dissuade the burglars, so the whole example seems somewhat irrelevant to your earlier comment:


Good God. He's joined the National Front. That's lovely. I guess my belief in his cause was misplaced.

Im Britsih and i live in northern ireland and i own one ak-22, bushmaster xms11e75, a mauser tarfet rifle, cz 22 rifle, 4 shotguns a 2 cz target pistols, bren gun mg :mp5:, m14 and m21 us marine rifles, a lee enfield rifle, desert eagle 50. cal pistol and a rpk-74 lmg.
so i really dont have a lack of guns

As another resident in Northern Ireland I can state that the only thing I possess which I would label a weapon (rather than something which could be used as a weapon but has other uses) is a three foot long piece of wood which I keep handy when the neighbours get restless. Having said that I have never had call to use it: even when someone burst into my house can claimed to be from the 'RA and have a gun - I told them to either show me it or get the fuck out of my house: they chose the latter option.

Quote:

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves. Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed. In the UK, I remember a friend of mine getting burgled while he slept, and while his 3 year old daughter slept upstairs. That would have less chance of happening here. Burglars have to carefully look over whether a house might have anyone in it, and take their chances.

-I dont think that is true. Most burglars in the US proberly got a gun. :rolleyes: Criminals are always the first to aquire guns. He would simply shoot the family or comit a robbery instead.

-Each year more than 11.000 people gets killed i the US by guns. That is about 10.000 people too many, compared to its size. Guns do olny promote death and suffering.

- I Think I remember this right: UK, Denmark and Germany got almost similar gun laws.

Denmark (5,5 mio. people) got about 70 murdes each year, less than half with guns, about 25. That is 1 murder with a gun/rifle per 5.500.000/35=220.000 citizen each year.

The US (300 mio. people) got about 11.000 murdes each year with guns/rifels. That is 1 murder with a gun/rifle per 300.000.000/11000=27272 citizen each year.

The US got about 10 times as many cops per citizen, than in DK. You got a very though prison system. And by the grace of god, you also got death penalty, to scare people. Please explain to me why you need a gun to protect your self?

-Maybe it is a question about fear and risk. In Denmark we got quite a high rate of home burglaries but a very low rate Murder/Violence/rape. So the risk to your life is very low if you are not a criminal. That is because we do not have access to wast amounts guns or weapons. So you do not fear for your life or health.

Low risk=almost no fear=people dnot buy weapon=low amount of weapons=low murder rate.

High risk=more fear=more weapons=high murder rate.

I dont know a single place in Denmark or germany, where i could not go in the middle of the night, If i wanted to. A girl could do the same. That is because we do not risk much and fear less. America is riddled with angst and fear. I dont think more weapons is not the ansewer!

English is not my native language :)

Harry Broe from DK

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves. Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed. In the UK, I remember a friend of mine getting burgled while he slept, and while his 3 year old daughter slept upstairs. That would have less chance of happening here.


US burglary rate 2003 (/1000 households):
30
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/d_burg.htm

England & Wales burglary rate 2004 (/1000 households) :
32 (3.2 %)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004chap4.xls

US homicide rate 2002 (/1m people):
56 (5.6 /100,000)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/d_totals.htm

England & Wales homicide rate 1991-2001 (most recent data I could find) (/1m people):
16.1
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00290-23.asp



It's a chance we'll take, ta muchly.

Yeah, I realise you were talking about burglaries where the occupants were at home. If you care to post the statistics, or the statistics on violent crime related to burglary, I'll conceed the point.

This is the best I could do in thirty seconds of searching. Give me more time and I'm sure I could prove via the internet that oranges are naturally blue.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/burglary/msg00000.html

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Asker/What...%20You%20want%20statistics,%20too.htm

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves.

The situation was pretty much the same before the UK outlawed guns.

is it that guns arn't allowed to be kept in homes or only these work places can afford to keep up cabinets of those standards?

My uncle does clay pigeon shooting. He owns a shotgun. He keeps it at his house. I was at my Grandma's, he came as well, fresh back from shooting. He had his gun. So as long as you make sure no one steals it, it's ok.

This is the best I could do in thirty seconds of searching. Give me more time and I'm sure I could prove via the internet that oranges are naturally blue.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/burglary/msg00000.html

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Asker/What...%20You%20want%20statistics,%20too.htm

First link was to an archived conversation from talk.politics.guns, ie an unofficial newsgroup where both sides are highly partisan, offering differing interpretations of a survey on criminal impressions. To my mind this does not constitute an authoratitive source to show that the US has lower rates of burglary with persons resident and/or violent crime related to bruglary.

Second link was a 404.

And, yeah, I know you can "prove" anything on the internet, that's why I'm careful to examine anything given as an authoritative source on these boards. It's also why I posted links to official statistics from the governments in question where possible, and in one case from a separate government.

Like I said, any statistics from authoritative sources that prove that the US has lower rates of burglary with persons resident and/or violent crime related to bruglary and I'll conceed the validity of your argument. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, TBH.

Guns used for work purposes (such as a gamekeeper or firearms trained police officer) and for sports (members of shooting clubs) are legal but you have to have a license and they must be kept in a secure gun cabinet in secure premises. This means not at home but at a gun club or at the place of work. Basically unless you have a good reason and no criminal record you have no right to have one and even then you are strictly controlled in their use.
You'd be suprised how few of us have antique firearms or fireplaces. :)

Lies! All lies! You can keep a gun in your home provided it is locked in a safe and the safe is fastened to a stone wall. I should, I have one :)

I believe anything above .22 caliber was banned after the shootings at the primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Its pretty damn near impossible to legally obtain guns here. As it should be.

My point of view:

Guns Kill... stupid poeple think more guns give them more protection... More guns only bring more crime and death... Then stupid people want much more guns for safty... And they still only bring more death and violence.

Please prove to me that this is not the case? I dare you... prove me wrong!? Can you prove to me that more guns and less gun control brings more safty?? Can ANYBODY of you gun loving crazy IDIOTS prove to me that more guns=safty!!!? :sniper:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is still not my native language) :)

My point of view:

Guns Kill... stupid poeple think more guns give them more protection... More guns only bring more crime and death... Then stupid people want much more guns for safty... And they still only bring more death and violence.

Please prove to me that this is not the case? I dare you... prove me wrong!? Can you prove to me that more guns and less gun control brings more safty?? Can ANYBODY of you gun loving crazy IDIOTS prove to me that more guns=safty!!!? :sniper:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is still not my native language) :)

Idiots kill...guns don't. More people are killed by automobiles in America every year than guns. Should we outlaw cars?

*head hits keyboard*

This isn't so hard to remember...

Cars: Main Use = Transportation

Guns: Main Use = Inflicting Bodily Harm

Note the difference.

*head hits keyboard*

This isn't so hard to remember...

Cars: Main Use = Transportation

Guns: Main Use = Inflicting Bodily Harm

Note the difference.

*smacks your head off of your keyboard once more*

This isn't so hard to remember either. The main use of guns is for sport. A secondary use is to inflict harm on living things. A secondary use of cars could be to inflict bodily harm. Hell, a secondary use of a shoe could be to inflict bodily harm. The fact that the first thing you think of when you think of guns is inflicting harm on someone is in itself horrifying.

*grabs your head, smacks it against the keyboard, now we're both getting brain damage*

Why do I think a gun's primary use is pain / harm? Because it IS! They were developed to help people kill other people from farther away and with greater ease.

A gun propels solid matter at speeds that causes damage to the target. It cannot fulfil any other role, save for intimidation, and that is on the premise that it will be used for its primary purpose.
A car is capable of multiple speeds, and is designed primarily to offer conveyance to one or more people. It can be used to inflict damage to other things, but it is inefficient at this.

If you eliminated guns, there would be no real inconvenience to people who did not want to use them to inflict harm on others. Hunting? Switch to a bow and arrow. You just like noise? Go listen to music at loud volumes :P

If you eliminated cars, many thousands of people would be deprived of something integral to their life and livelyhood. You could comment on public transport, or bicycles, but these couldn't take the load well enough right now.

If you eliminated cars, many thousands of people would be deprived of something integral to their life and livelyhood.

Same thing with firearms.

See - Last Post By Me - Ref. "who did not want to use them to inflict harm on others"

Harm includes death, others is not exclusive to humans.

Everything in moderation...there are some extremist americans of you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands...there are americans who have the more english attitude of sport guns are alright and they should be licensed and locked up.

I am an american who grew up in a family of hunters in northern Idaho, we had guns in our living room in a locked cabinet, I remember making bullets with my father by the time I was 10. I was taught a healthy respect for guns and would never dream of having one under my pillow so I could rest easy. I don't believe they should be used to protect property...person perhaps but that would be extreme situations. But even with all the safety and protection my father instilled I still lost my brother to a hunting accident when he was 24.

I now live in the UK and I feel more comfortable knowing that my neighbors don't have pistols under their pillows. I rather like the way the british treat guns.

People use gun to kill eachother...OK...GUNS kill people...10.000 too many each year in the USA. It is much harder to kill people without firearms. OK... FUCKING 10.000 people each year! Did you get that?! Did you? ... or do i have to expalin it for you??? 10.000 fucking people which could be saved each year!? What did you not understand that!? Please eksplain to me why you do not understand that? Fucking 10.000 die in vain in the USA each year, because of the current gun laws. Please repeat the number 10.000... inside your head, if able to! (I am rearly sorry about the harsh and lame...argument/tone/language. Sorry) :rolleyes:

-Gun have no other than purpose than killing stuff. I think you could get along without gun. More guns=More killing/crimes=More fear=More guns=More killing/crimes... BAD IDEAR!

-Cars are usefull tools. Most of us use them for something usefull!? I dont think you can compare cars and guns, in this discussion.

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

I am rearly sorry. But I think 10.000 people kind of each deserve a reaction. Sorry!

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Eh. I would bet that a lot of anti-gun persons have never fired a gun. This I think ads to the sentiment that using a gun for sport is not the primary reason for most gun ownerships. I feel that the US has too few guns, distributed poorly. If everyone had a gun, specifically an easely concealed, medium power, semi-auto, low-recoil gun with a compensater, we would see a significant decrease in close-quarters violence. And there would be no noticible increase in gun violence, as we are not giving anyone guns who couldn't have gotten them before.

Fired a gun, big bang, hole in target, whoop de doo.

As for your idea about giving everyone in America ( I assume that's what you're implying) a gun, s'interesting. What would be more interesting would be seeing if people would fall back on their weapons more often since they were more commonplace, if gun use would decrease, or if the status quo would prevail.

After all, without being made to carry it, many would forget / choose not to. And what's so different between not having one, and not having the opportunity to use it?

Quote:
Eh. I would bet that a lot of anti-gun persons have never fired a gun. This I think ads to the sentiment that using a gun for sport is not the primary reason for most gun ownerships. I feel that the US has too few guns, distributed poorly. If everyone had a gun, specifically an easely concealed, medium power, semi-auto, low-recoil gun with a compensater, we would see a significant decrease in close-quarters violence. And there would be no noticible increase in gun violence, as we are not giving anyone guns who couldn't have gotten them before.

- Ha ha ha :D Shit... you are good :p This is the best reply ever *gg* :cool:

- I did fire a gun seval times. I have been hunting too. I ever once won a target shooting contest. But i still dont like guns.

Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not english)

Mayby all Americans should have a gun. Less talk more action. And you would almost aviod murdes commited with knifes. That would rearly be great...

I say: "More guns for the people" Hurra Hurra Hurra! :fluffle:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Mayby all Americans should have a gun. Less talk more action. And you would almost aviod murdes commited with knifes. That would rearly be great...

I say: "More guns for the people" Hurra Hurra Hurra! :fluffle:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Wow, sarcasm....

When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns.

Think about Switzerland... every male over the age of 18 is a part of the Armed Forces and is REQUIRED to keep a fully automatic firearm in their house. There is practically NO gun crime in that nation.

If you were a criminal in Switzerland, would you really do anything knowing that every mature male around you was armed? HELL NO!! YOU WOULDNT DO SHIT!! By the time you fired your gun, you would be dead!!

Think about Switzerland... every male over the age of 18 is a part of the Armed Forces and is REQUIRED to keep a fully automatic firearm in their house. There is practically NO gun crime in that nation.

If you were a criminal in Switzerland, would you really do anything knowing that every mature male around you was armed? HELL NO!! YOU WOULDNT DO SHIT!! By the time you fired your gun, you would be dead!!
Yeah but in Switzerland it is also a crime to leave your rubbish bin outside your house too long or your window open too long in winter - and they will fine you for it. I don't think its a good example - Switzerland is not your average place. Also Canada has lots of guns and low gun crime. It seems to be attitude to guns that counts. Both Canadians and Swiss have guns for reasons other than self defence and so don't tend to shoot people with them. We Brits don't have guns so we tend not to shoot people either. I don't see why we should have to prove this is a good idea. It works for us. We don't want guns in our society.

Quote:

Wow, sarcasm....

-No it is not sarcasm... How dare you!?

I rearly think all Americans should have a gun. Enforced by law if nessisary. No one would dare to be a criminal in public. I think it would provide the means for the perfect society. I suggest you also support that gun policy with much thougher punishments on any kind of crime.

-Guns and ammunition should ofcause be handed out to those who cannot afford it. That way you protect the rights of the poor.

-The criminals should ofcause not have guns. But most of them will end up in prison anyway. 3 strikes and you are out.

-The problem with people form Europe and the anti-gun lobby is that they are too scared to confront any real problems with a effective and easy sollution. I might be a matter of basic education. Its pure and simple logic. :D

Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not english)

The problem with people form Europe and the anti-gun lobby is that they are too scared to confront any real problems with a effective and easy sollution. I might be a matter of basic education. Its pure and simple logic. :D
I think you'll find that the problem with us is we don't want to carry guns. Nasty heavy things, spoiling the line of our smart clothes...:D

My point of view:

Guns Kill... stupid poeple think more guns give them more protection... More guns only bring more crime and death... Then stupid people want much more guns for safty... And they still only bring more death and violence.

Please prove to me that this is not the case? I dare you... prove me wrong!?

OK:

Gun ownership %

USA 48
Norway 32
Switzerland 27.2
Finland 25.2
Canada 24.2
France 22.6
New Zealand 22.3
Belgium 16.5
Italy 16
Australia 15.1
Sweden 15.1
Spain 13.1
Germany 8.9
N. Ireland 8.4
CSSR 5.2
Scotland 4.7
England & Wales 4.4
Netherlands 1.9

Homicides per 1m

USA 75.9
N. Ireland 43.3
Finland 29.6
Canada 26
New Zealand 20.2
Australia 19.5
Belgium 18.5
Italy 17.4
Scotland 16.3
Spain 13.7
CSSR 13.5
Sweden 13.3
France 12.5
Germany 12.1
Norway 12.1
Netherlands 11.8
Switzerland 11.7
England & Wales 6.7

Source (http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf)

So, yes there's some similarities between the two lists, many, even. However, some countries have high gun ownership but low homicide rates (Switzerland, Norway, France) while others have low gun ownership but high homicide rates (Northern Ireland and Scotland). Note also that this data is from 1989 and 1992, it's since been revealed that Russia (CSSR)'s homicide rate is much higher than was reported so it would also be one of the low gun ownership, high homicide countries.

BTW, I support gun control. However, I also accept that "more guns only bring more crime and death" is a silly statement, no matter what colour it is written in. More guns can, and IMHO probably do, bring more death at least, but there's a whole range of other economic, cultural and legal factors involved too. I remained unaware, though, of any such factors that explain the huge discrepancy between the UK and US figures.

Quote:

Gun ownership %

USA 48
Norway 32
Switzerland 27.2
Finland 25.2
Canada 24.2
France 22.6
New Zealand 22.3
Belgium 16.5
Italy 16
Australia 15.1
Sweden 15.1
Spain 13.1
Germany 8.9
N. Ireland 8.4
CSSR 5.2
Scotland 4.7
England & Wales 4.4
Netherlands 1.9

Homicides per 1m

USA 75.9
N. Ireland 43.3
Finland 29.6
Canada 26
New Zealand 20.2
Australia 19.5
Belgium 18.5
Italy 17.4
Scotland 16.3
Spain 13.7
CSSR 13.5
Sweden 13.3
France 12.5
Germany 12.1
Norway 12.1
Netherlands 11.8
Switzerland 11.7
England & Wales 6.7

Source

So, yes there's some similarities between the two lists, many, even. However, some countries have high gun ownership but low homicide rates (Switzerland, Norway, France) while others have low gun ownership but high homicide rates (Northern Ireland and Scotland). Note also that this data is from 1989 and 1992, it's since been revealed that Russia (CSSR)'s homicide rate is much higher than was reported so it would also be one of the low gun ownership, high homicide countries.

BTW, I support gun control. However, I also accept that "more guns only bring more crime and death" is a silly statement, no matter what colour it is written in. More guns can, and IMHO probably do, bring more death at least, but there's a whole range of other economic, cultural and legal factors involved too. I remained unaware, though, of any such factors that explain the huge discrepancy between the UK and US figures.

I think you need more proof. It means nothing. This is a very complex matter. You need much more data. I do not disagree with all your statements, but basicly: More guns=More killings. But you have to take into account, the culturem, the people, Wealth, Education + alot more. Give me some more prof!?

And to all of the idiots that think more guns give you more protection: 10$ says you cant shoot better than me...... 50$ if youre in the military.... im tryna make money....

Quote:

You know, it's funny. Since the UK outlawed guns, the only people who have them are police and thieves. Here in the US, burglars are more careful about breaking into occupied houses, for instance, because there's a pretty good chance that the occupants will be armed. In the UK, I remember a friend of mine getting burgled while he slept, and while his 3 year old daughter slept upstairs. That would have less chance of happening here. Burglars have to carefully look over whether a house might have anyone in it, and take their chances.

-I dont think that is true. Most burglars in the US proberly got a gun. :rolleyes: Criminals are always the first to aquire guns. He would simply shoot the family or comit a robbery instead.

-Each year more than 11.000 people gets killed i the US by guns. That is about 10.000 people too many, compared to its size. Guns do olny promote death and suffering.

- I Think I remember this right: UK, Denmark and Germany got almost similar gun laws.

Denmark (5,5 mio. people) got about 70 murdes each year, less than half with guns, about 25. That is 1 murder with a gun/rifle per 5.500.000/35=220.000 citizen each year.

The US (300 mio. people) got about 11.000 murdes each year with guns/rifels. That is 1 murder with a gun/rifle per 300.000.000/11000=27272 citizen each year.

The US got about 10 times as many cops per citizen, than in DK. You got a very though prison system. And by the grace of god, you also got death penalty, to scare people. Please explain to me why you need a gun to protect your self?

-Maybe it is a question about fear and risk. In Denmark we got quite a high rate of home burglaries but a very low rate Murder/Violence/rape. So the risk to your life is very low if you are not a criminal. That is because we do not have access to wast amounts guns or weapons. So you do not fear for your life or health.

Low risk=almost no fear=people dnot buy weapon=low amount of weapons=low murder rate.

High risk=more fear=more weapons=high murder rate.

I dont know a single place in Denmark or germany, where i could not go in the middle of the night, If i wanted to. A girl could do the same. That is because we do not risk much and fear less. America is riddled with angst and fear. I dont think more weapons is not the ansewer!
*sighs* Comparing the US and Denmark is like comparing apples and plantains. If you wanted to make a comparison that is more realistic when comparing two countries you would compare the total US murder rate to the total UK murder rate. You would find that they are quite similar.Even though the firearm murder rate is much lower in the UK. That and if you didn't have a small part of the populace that pretty much kills people at a rate of 29 per 100,000 in the US the murder rate would drop to be comparable with Canada's. And I suspect that if you took out the population and murder rate of every city that had strict gun control laws on the books it would drop BELOW Canada's. Besides which, does Denmark even approach the cultural diversity that can be found in America proportionally?

Idiots kill...guns don't. More people are killed by automobiles in America every year than guns. Should we outlaw cars?
Bathtubs kill more children under the age of 5 than guns, perhaps we should outlaw them too.

And to all of the idiots that think more guns give you more protection: 10$ says you cant shoot better than me...... 50$ if youre in the military.... im tryna make money....
With what gun? And what do you mean by "better"?