A Disarmed British Public The Sole Option?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by IndianaDel, Aug 24, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. With this recent shooting of a boy, near Liverpool, I think valid questions arise about ownership of firearms. Hopefully without repeating too much of the obvious.

    Britain is famous for the "fact" that neither the police and Public have firearms. We pride ourselves that "others" have them and are plagued by the results.
    In the case of the Police this is obviously debatable, not that I am questioning the very real need they have for firearms.
    It is also, following Hungerford and Dumblain [sic?] now almost impossible for a member of the Public to LEGALLY own most kinds of firearms. yet the criminal elements too ARE armed.
    The resulting crimes are there for all to see, while the very rarity (no bad thing) of them makes them national news. It is my personal impression that violent crime is as rampant in the UK, as in the USA, only the means vary.

    When I emigrated from the UK, to the USA, I was pretty much opposed to private firearms ownership. Since then my views have altered. I hold a Concealed Firearms Permit (possible here in Indiana) and I own several firearms.
    Within my home, I take care to keep weapons and ammunition apart (no sleeping with a loaded pistol under the pillow for me). My rifles are all locked AND in a gun safe. This I feel is a suitable level of care on my part for the storage of what is a potentially lethal tool, but a tool non the less. This level of ownership is in no way unique in America (they have the right to bear arms, or indeed some would say Arm Bears). Nor have felt a desire to go on some rampage.

    Given that The English Bill of Rights (1689?) specifically allowed private ownership of firearms, as well as the fact that total prohibition has COMPLETELY FAILED TO HALT THE CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS, is there any other reason they have been banned?
    Surely if a citizen has no criminal intent, and is professionally tested for mental competence ownership of firearms for sporting interest is not something that should be denied?

    Could it not be that various governments have decided that a completely disarmed populace is the true aim of banning legal ownership of firearms? Perhaps the true end game was prevent armed resistance to some, hypothetical government that was completely unpalatable to a otherwise potentially armed Populace?
    Alternatively, is the ANY reason at all to revisit the issue of Legal firearms ownership, by members of the General public, in the United Kingdom?
     
  2. Theres no real and legitimate reason they were banned.

    The ban was absolutely a kneejerk reaction by the government of the time the served to do nothing more than disarm those who do obey the law and should have the right to defend themselves from those who would not.
     
  3. Seconded. The UK handguns ban came after an outrage committed by one who should never have been allowed them in the first place. Yet those who authorised him to own the weapons - the police - were never truly taken to task, while the legitimate handgun owners were penalised instead.

    Two points:

    1. Legitimate firearms owners have, by definition, to be proven the most law abiding members of society before they are allowed a Firearms Certificate.
    2. Handgun crime has risen dramatically since Dunblane and the ban.

    Kneejerk, popularist legislation? I think so.
    Good government? Never.
     
  4. I agree the firearms ban was purely politically motivated and there was no need for it. There was a good system in place for those that legally wanted to own firearms for hunting and recreational use. And, I for one, don't have a problem with that. However, even pre-ban it was still illegal to use a firearm for personal defence and a FAC would not be issued for that reason and rightly so in my opinion.

    Now I'm in the US, I do own a handgun but purely for leisure purposes. The gun is locked up and there is no ammo in the house. I don't agree that using a firearm for personal protection is a good idea. I could have obtained a concealed carry permit when I was in Florida and nearly did obtain one. Not so much because I wanted to carry a weapon for personal defence reasons but because it made life a little easier in general when transporting the weapon from the range and back.

    Concealed carry is reducing shootings in Florida and does seem to work when the number of shootings is out of control and when you have such large numbers of weapons in circulation. One of the favourite sayings of the gun lobby in the US is "An armed society is a polite society". Personally I found in Florida that an armed society is a scared society.

    On balance I'd prefer that a small number of weapons are available to the public with strict laws governing their use rather than the present situation in the US. It would be nice to see the British Government reinstate the pre-1997 or even pre-1985 gun laws but there's no way it's going to happen.

    But the real issue in Britain is stopping the illegal importation of arms which is the cause of the recent increase of shootings.
     
  5. Have to get a grip on the illegal importation of people first. If we can't even stop that, what hope do we have if those people are coming in with weapons stuffed in their belts?
     
  6. I was going to make a long constructive reply. But I would only be repeating what is already known about where the majority of the weapons came from and who brought them in.

    Suffice to say the stuff is coming in, illegally - it's probably still coming in, or being re-activated from scrap that was piss poor de-activated in the first instance.

    Enough said.
     
  7. Your theory is correct. In fact, the Bill of Rights still stands but is conveniently ignored.
     
  8. And that's it, illegal entry times 2 - persons and weapons to boot..!
     
  9. Every time I hear a politician spouting that scanctamonious sh1te about Britian having the strictest gun laws in the world, I want to set about them with a baseball bat. :x

    FFS! If a criminal is willing to commit MURDER, do you stupid cnuts really think he'll be worried about having an illegal firearm?!

    As the old saying goes, if you outlaw guns - then only the Outlaws will have guns. :evil:
     

  10. Absolutely. The point is its not the gun that kills someone it is a tool as rightly said. It depends on how you use that tool that counts.
     
  11. Governments are not afraid of armed criminals, rather their biggest fear is an armed citizenry.
     
  12. I guess the point is, the government SHOULD be afraid of the people. They work for us, not the other way around. (although its dfefinately heading in the wrong direction at the moment.)
     
  13. So what is the score with imports these days?
     
  14. too true gun crime has gone up since the change in the law post Dunblane infact in the three years following Dunblane gun crime went up over 55%
     
  15. Hungerford & Dunblaine gave the 'ban-its' their chance to strike yet they were remarkably silent when Princess Di died as a result of a drunk driver. My point being that everyone needs a driving licence/car so the suggestion of a blanket ban to prevent a recurrance received guffaws BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID TO THE SHOOTING COMMUNITY!

    There are more guns in UK now than there were prior to 06 June 1944 when we exported most of 'em to France!