I remember when shootings in the news were rare in the UK. Infact, the first one I remember was Dunblane. For those who may not be aware:

The Dunblane massacre occurred at a primary school in the small town of Dunblane, Stirling region, Scotland, UK. On Wednesday, March 13, 1996, spree killer Thomas Hamilton (43), walked in to the school armed with two pistols, two revolvers and 743 cartridges and opened fire. He fired 105 rounds with one of his two 9 mm Browning semi-automatic pistols within about 3-4 minutes. Sixteen children of 5-6 years of age and one adult teacher died as a result. Hamilton then committed suicide.
Source (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dunblane-Massacre)

Since then, our already tight gun laws have been further tightened. You may still own a rifle if you own a firearms certificate. Shotguns require further certification. These certificates are, however, rather easy to acquire. One of my father's friends has both, despite the fact he has a criminal record and a history of violence. I know him, and don't think for a second he'd ever shoot anyone. However, rifle and shotgun crimes are not a big issue.

The ownership of hand guns is prohibited, and there have been recent amnesties offering people the opportunity to reliquish their guns to the police without fear of criminal charges. The authorities have reported these amnesties to be a roaring success, collecting hundreds of guns each time.

However, over the past two years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1064910,00.html) gun crime has escalated in the UK. Supprise, supprise, people are looking to blame something.

Some people blame gangster rap music (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,869434,00.html). This one makes me laugh. I'm not claiming that there aren't kids revelling in the glorification of gun ownership. My nephew is the biggest wigga ever, and I know what these kids are like. However, I don't recall a news story reporting a gun incident involving a do-rag wearing disillusioned teenager.

The gangster rappers blame escalating poverty in this country. However, there is no evidence to support a current rise in poverty. Infact, I remember figures showing a decrease last year. Some people reckon this is just another "cop-out" explanation for the problem.

Some people are blaming Derron Brown's "Russion Roulette" stunt. I'm not even going to write anything about them, they can all just fuck right off.

Is there any one thing to blame, or is there anything to blame at all? The guardian has been keeping an excellent journal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,2759,178412,00.html) of the gun crime issue since the gun amnesties, which is an interesting read.

What do you think has caused this recent rise in gun crime?

it is a little bit blown out of proportion i think
Gun crime accounts for just 0.4% of recorded crimes in England and Wales and just 0.3% in London. The majority involve acquaintances or members of the criminal fraternity. There are few random shootings and the number of incidents in London, where the problem is seen as being at its most acute, is down 15.6% compared with the same period last year.

The official figures show that there were 10,250 firearms offences in the 12 months to March 2003, a 3% rise over the year compared with a 35% increase the previous year.

We're still up over 38% from two years ago.

but there are new firearms offences now, having a gun wasn't neccesarily an offence then also police are more likely to charge someone with a toy gun or an air rifle etc than they were before

I think the majority of the problems stem from the aftermath of the Balkans wars especially Kosova and the links with Albanian mafia/terrorist groups (KLA). There were 500,000 small arms to be 'collected' after the wars by NATO/UN of which only 25,000 were ever declared/found. Its now extremely easy to buy illegal handguns in Greece now , they are all smuggled in over the border and then find there way all over Europe now. These guns are used by the new style gangsters (albanian / jamaican) in the UK who dont think twice of extreme violence (makes the traditional UK scene look like a tea party).I don't think that banning guns stops gun violence, criminals are taking greater risks, profits in illegal business are huge these days, and they feel they should have better protection. As long as the gun violence stays within the criminal groups either as hits or revenge attacks i dont care what the fuck happens to them, but what we are seeing now is a spill over to areas and innocents being killed. Its not a style issue (rap music etc yawn) because the only reason you hold an illegal handgun is simply to use it.

Maybe the increase in gun crime is to do with the availability of more guns?

Actually, there was a shooting yesterday in Liverpool, three people including a 6 year old girl and a 19 yr old lad and their mother. All (apparently/allegedly) because the mother's brother was acquitted of the murder of someone else three years ago.

So, it's innocent until revenge taken these days....

maybe banning guns doesnt stop all gun crime, but theres no reason for anyone to legally have a gun and banning them takes SOME guns out of circulation

Most definitely, it will keep them out of the hands of the Hamilton types but gangsters will always be able to get them to defend or enforce there business ethics/practices. We are seeing more and more innocents caught up in the crossfire because of this. Thankfully, for all the gun related crimes we hear about most are concentrated in specific areas and make up a tiny tiny percentage of crime, but thats great if you don't happen to live in the areas were the crime is centered.

One thing that has always confused me is the fact that horrendous shootings and punishments related to gangsters in Northern Ireland have been going on for years and nobody gave a fuck about guns until shootings started happening with more regularity on the mainland, why ? surely they should get the same attention ?

Well of course before Dunblane there was the Hungerford shootings at the time all Automatic Weapons were then banned as were handguns after Dunblane. As with anything if you ban something you drive it underground and it therefore becomes more desirable.

[expects to die of a gun shot in the next two years

not in your generation, give it 15 years or so.

don't even ask smee.

Hungerford were the first shootings I remember vividly and I didnt really understand what happened, all I knew was that a man had gone mad and shot lots of people. I remember that night being taken a walk by my dad across the fields and thinking he did it to keep us safe as the man couldnt find us there.

Correct me if I am wrong but both Dunblaine and Hungerford were commited by people who had firearms licences ( I am not sure on that, but it seems to stick in my mind for some reason)

However, these crimes were very different to the kind of shootings which we are getting around here at the moment. It seems to be all gang related here, not just some tosser loosing it and shooting up the house.

I think the change to a gun was a natural progression from the knife. Everyone has to take it one step further. I just hope it doesnt get anyworse.


EDIT

This is about Hungerford and it was in 1987, so I would have been 11. Awwwww a link if anyone is interested

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/hungerford.shtml

It does state on there that he legally held a shotgun licence.

Edit again!

I just did some more digging and Hamilton from the Dunblane killings also held 6 gun licences

''Hamilton had licences for six guns leading to criticism of the police for not questioning what he used them for. But the inquiry concluded his actions on that day could not have been predicted''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm

god and i feel that the gun problems have been horrible here in the US for as long as i can remember! there was one point in time where i vowed to home school my children when they were of that age!

the problem with the current situation is only the people that definatly shouldnt be allowed guns have them.

Personally i think someone needs to come up with a good non lethal, long range compact and legal alternative to guns. Most gun owners in countrys like the US and Germany and most people that carry flipknives and the like in the UK, have them simply for self defense against certain people that own guns, and would jump at an alternative that was gurenteed not to kill anyone.

heck you can't even be a lawyer outside of a courthouse and be safe from some psycho wanting to shoot you. (the current situation that happened in the US where a man shot another man at close range yet he survived). nobody is safe.

What we should also take into account is that Hamilton possessed illegal firearms, therefore it's perfectly plausible to suggest the massacre at Dunblane would have occurred anyway. The vast majority of licenced gun holders were sensible law abiding people not criminals-in-waiting. The proposed change in gun law came at a difficult time in politics. The Labour party, then in opposition, committed themselves to outlaw all hand guns in order to captilise on the tragedy, while the then Tory Government who were in a crisis and already losing popularity proposed certain hand guns remained legal which, unfairly I think, made them look 'unsympathetic' and 'out of touch' with the public. Once Labour were elected, they kept their word and introduced strict new gun laws the same year.

Have the laws made any difference and reduced gun crime? Of course not, and which was expected. It's an old cliche I know but it's not the gun that kills, but the one holding the trigger. If someone wants to maim or kill, they will find a means for their objective.

With rap bands glorifying gun culture, and with an estimated several million hand guns in circulation, the whole sordid business has moved underground. Whereas before those possessing a hand gun could at least be tracked down.

And figures for gun crime can never be truly accurate due to those crimes not reported.

no matter how many gun amnestys there are people will always carry and use guns. some carry them for their own paranoid protection, some carry them because they see them as a status symbol of them being hard and highly thought of.

Scares me that i know a bloke who lives round the corner from me has all manner of guns in his house. he helps run a gun club and goes shooting (i saw him with 2 dead ducks the other day). Although i know he is licenced (mr mob was chatting with him) and he's a sensible bloke it's still scary to know there are guns literally on my doorsetp.

Manta7 spouted:


And figures for gun crime can never be truly accurate due to those crimes not reported.

No crime statistics are fair as they always manipulate them to make them look better than they are.

do you think these wannabe gangsta rappers would've had legal hand guns but now they are forced to have illegal ones?
no, people who have illegal guns now would never have had legal ones anyway. removing these legal guns only stopped a few potential crimes but thats worth it in my book

I am completely against banning of guns and gun control. Guns don't kill people they are inanimate objects. A wlell armed and trained population is the best protection against, crime and government tryanny. I am glad to live in America where will have a second ammendment. The goverment shouldn't be the only people with the weapons. If things got really bad in our country, theoretically it would be easier for us to overthrow the goverment since guns are not illegal here.

Big Neutrino spouted...
"A wlell armed and trained population is the best protection against, crime and government tryanny."

Might I use a small smattering of Geordie rhyming slang slang and refer you to SID KNIGHT?! Your well armed and trained population use those guns and training to commit crime and do sod all against government tyranny, if anything, Government tyranny is more easily enforced as an armed population needs a better armed and more aggressive Government services such as the Police and other agencies, (ATF at Waco)

Big Neutrino continues...
"I am glad to live in America where will have a second ammendment."

Well, seeing as I'm un-American I'll be obviously wrong on this but I don't see how anyone has the Right to carry a point and click killing machine.

Big Neutrino carries on...
"If things got really bad in our country, theoretically it would be easier for us to overthrow the goverment since guns are not illegal here."

Things already look really bad in your country and no-one seems to be doing anything to overthrow the government, sadly despite Bush having his own Big Brother (the media and CCTV everywhere), Miniluv (Guantanamo Bay), Minipax (which is fighting the war against terrorism where the enemy can be anyone whose face doesn't fit, currentyl any and all Muslims and/or of Middle Eastern appearance), doublespeak (spin) and thought Police (an atmosphere where any criticism is met with cries of being 'un-Patriotic' endless rubbishings and character assassination, see Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks)

A PBS which had the freedoms of our BBC (or a commercially funded network founded in the spirit of our Channel 4) would have either have in the planning stage or already commisioned an adaptation of George Orwell's 1984, only set in 2004 USA, believe me, it would scare the pants off America (and I'm sure that style of 1984 adaptation based in today's UK would have us shaking too) and they wouldn't have to do that much changes!

the media changes things and just because they say that there are gun crimes doesn't mean it's the biggest crime there....and, I think it was manta that said it, not all crimes are reported

Big Neutrino spouted:
I am completely against banning of guns and gun control. Guns don't kill people they are inanimate objects.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. God damn I hate that phrase.

Admittedly, the human being behind the gun needs to make the decision to kill first... but the gun in his fist makes it a whole lot easier. Killing someone with a gun is infinately easier than having to do it with your own hands.

heard an auto's stero at wirk tonight
rap song had guy talkin bout shootings,actually had recordings of machine gun firing in lyrics,
named his weapon of choice to, I forget which one.

[QUOTE]Geoneil spouted:


Might I use a small smattering of Geordie rhyming slang slang and refer you to [b]SID KNIGHT?! Your well armed and trained population use those guns and training to commit crime and do sod all against government tyranny, if anything, Government tyranny is more easily enforced as an armed population needs a better armed and more aggressive Government services such as the Police and other agencies, (ATF at Waco)

I wish that I had the time to fully respond to you, being that I don't I will just say this, Waco was wrong. Bill Cinton killed innoncent men, women, and children merely for practicing their religion.


Well, seeing as I'm un-American I'll be obviously wrong on this but I don't see how anyone has the Right to carry a point and click killing machine.

You missed my point, everyone has the duty and obligation to carry fire arms for their own protection and those around them. Banning guns doesn"t stop people from owning them and commiting crimes with them

That's right Salsa, the Dumblaine guy had a licence. I think the argument goes "if you've got a licence, you CAN'T be mad" or something!

Finally, the Patriot Act, and the prisioners in Guantonamo Bay are a complete disagrace, but I don't know what that has to do with gun control or why I would want to overthrow the government for it. I'm not crazy about Bush because of the above and because he spends my tax payer dollars like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no difference between him and Clinton), but he is attempting to defend our country against the viscious attack on Septmeber 11. So in that sense (especially in Afaganistan) he is doing his job. I know that my grammer and spelling are atrocious and I didn't fully answer your post, but I have a happening life. I have a long drive to work and a whole lot of other things to do.

Bush doesn't do strange things with cigars too does he?

"Guns". Hmmm. Not sure if I should comment on this one.

Banning "guns" does not and will not stop the problem. Any one with an ounce of engineering skill can manufacture an automatic weapon. (IRA copied sub machine guns and home made them, the Sten gun of WW2 was designed to be made simply for ease of mass production and lack of materials).

If the criminals need a handgun then they will have a network to obtain one.

The only answer would be to have a total ban on all small arms unless there was a legitimate use for it (Farmers, Hunters, Sportsmen) and to store and issue the weapons from a Police Force armoury on a daily basis. This would prove costly and probably impossible to manage.

Since the gun laws have been tightened up have there been any cases of legitimatley owned weapons being used for murders/crime? or are they all illegal weapons. The process for issuing a licence should be reviewed with a full phsycological assesment though, and owners made to report to a Police Station every 3 to 6 month basis for re-evaluation.

Me, I just love my rifle, especially on full auto. Remember kids, killing with a "gun" is messy, so don't do it, as blood is right bugger to wash off.

So you're saying banning guns won't stop the problem, so the way to stop the problem is to ban guns? I'm confused!

If there's one thing I hate in our so-called 'great democracy' it's knee jerk politics, and that's exactly what happened when strict laws on hand guns was enforced.

I have discovered statistics which show that criminal use of handguns increased by 40% in the two years immediately after the 1997 ban on handguns. In the years 1997-1998, 2,648 crimes involving handguns were reported. In 1999-2000, that number had increased to 3,685. This is not far off the peak of seven years previous, which reported 4,273 such offences.

It's also interesting to note Anne Pearston who was then a leading figure in the Snowdrop Campaign (a movement setup by the Dunblane community) admit that she knew a complete ban on hand guns would not decrease gun crime. Using her exact words, "what we were campaigning for was to make sure that a civilian could not be legally trained to use a handgun. Our legacy is that there should never be another Thomas Hamilton, and that is what the legislation was designed to achieve".

Yet both Thomas Hamilton and Micheal Ryan possessed illegal firearms which was an issue never addressed. So to find a sacrificial lamb to take the blame for the Dunblane massacre she picked on licensed gun holders. Does Ms. Pearston seriously believe that anyone trained in the use of a hand gun automatically becomes a potential spree killer? Should we also replace our metal cutlery with plastic to prevent knife attacks?

And where is Mrs Pearston now? If she is passionate about her cause, I fully expect her to be out now campaigning against rap bands using offensive lyrics glorifying gun crime. Aren't they producing potential killers to?

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
do you think these wannabe gangsta rappers would've had legal hand guns but now they are forced to have illegal ones?
no, people who have illegal guns now would never have had legal ones anyway. removing these legal guns only stopped a few potential crimes but thats worth it in my book

The fact is it hasn't reduced gun crime at all, it's actually gone up. Gangsta rappers would always use illegal weapons I don't dispute that. Although the Snowdrop Campaign were honest and aimed to stop another spree killer, Blair suggested in speeches it would cut gun crime and anti-social behavior which it hasn't, and no one expected it would. This was nothing more than a cynical attempt to play on the heart strings of the public by gaining their votes at a forthcoming election.

Big Neutrino spouted:
I am completely against banning of guns and gun control. Guns don't kill people they are inanimate objects. A wlell armed and trained population is the best protection against, crime and government tryanny. I am glad to live in America where will have a second ammendment. The goverment shouldn't be the only people with the weapons. If things got really bad in our country, theoretically it would be easier for us to overthrow the goverment since guns are not illegal here.

Considering crime is escalating in our country as a result of liberal laws introduced and victims being punished more than criminals, perhaps it would be a good idea to allow everyone to legally own a firearm in order to protect themselves as they do in America, and where as I understand gun crimes there in proportion to population and area compared to our own is less.

I have for sometime been fully supportive of police officers being armed and members of the public allowed to protect their premises against burglars using any means necessary. Britain is no longer a country which is safe to bring up kids anymore or old ladies walking the streets. Our prisons offer criminals are fed three times a day they have access to TV, computers, videos, use of a golf course (I kid you not) and other luxuries.

give me a legitimate reason for anyone to own a handgun. rap bands have done little to promote gun culture compared to every second hollywood film in the last 100 years.

also, do you believe gun crime would go down if legal ownership of handguns was brought back?

and yet another drive by shooting in Birmingham happened last night. I work very close to where those 2 girls got shot here last New Years Eve. I walk that way to work every day, there is a police station close by and yet it's rare I actually see any police presence in the area. The government can have all the talks and gun amnestys they want but the people who commit these crimes aren't the ones likely to hand in their weapons. It's been almost a year since those girls died at the hands of these people and no-one has been found connected with the shooting. The man that was shot last night was targeted for some reason but thay 'don't know why' I can't see a solution to the gun crime in Britain coming soon and it's bloody frustrating living in an area where so much of it seems to happen.

hang on gun crimes are LOWER in america proportional to population? sorry completely wrong

Manta7 spouted:


Considering crime is escalating in our country as a result of liberal laws introduced and victims being punished more than criminals, perhaps it would be a good idea to allow everyone to legally own a firearm in order to protect themselves as they do in America, and where as I understand gun crimes there in proportion to population and area compared to our own is less.

I have for sometime been fully supportive of police officers being armed and members of the public allowed to protect their premises against burglars using any means necessary. Britain is no longer a country which is safe to bring up kids anymore or old ladies walking the streets. Our prisons offer criminals are fed three times a day they have access to TV, computers, videos, use of a golf course (I kid you not) and other luxuries.

totally agree, it's disgusting.

This country will go to shit within 40 years unless we bring back the death penalty, and let people defend their homes with lethal force.

to me, that would be the country going to shit

at least 50 hours a week my life has panic alarms- I have 2 emergency aslarm buttons on the bus, I accidentlly hit one tonight,
i immediatley called them, and explained that at 25 minute layover-'shut off bus -- the radio monitor dimms out /goes into sleep mode, and the non-descript' alarm button id right on top of the brightness/contrast rocker switches, when i restart, i need to see the clock.
peeps on the bus see this/ see driver claiming 'mea-culpa/ or wirse coppers w/ guns drawn jumping on bus, they know GPS shows bus's location to 15 meters, ect

Manta

I do belive that America is (guns and all) is a safe place in relation to all the freedom we have (except for the Patriot Act of course). I do want to clarifly something I don't think anyone should be allowed to have one unless they are fully trained their use. And I know that I had said some where that I don't know anyone who ever owned a gun or who was shot by one. I that back, my one encournter was firearms was about twenty + years ago and believe or not I had unloaded (I didn't know it at the time) gun pointed at my head. Guess who was holding the gun? A semi "friend" of mine who was a US army Ranger, he was mad at me because I blew him off in a bar. All the more reason for not the the police and military to carry guns.

Big Neutrino spouted:
he was mad at me because I blew him off in a bar.

you did WHAT?

it caught my eye too hugo-mind you i'd do anything with a fucking gun pointed at my cranium

when you say you "blew him off in a bar"
are you referring to oral sex

hugo-a-gogo spouted:


you did WHAT?

uh no!! blew him off = ignored him. If I did what you I thought he did, he wouldn't have been mad at me.

unless you hadn't cleaned your teeth

maybe banning guns doesnt stop all gun crime, but... banning them takes SOME guns out of circulation

So we should ban guns so that hardcore criminals (or anyone who really, really wants a gun) can get them on the black market and massacre the rest of the law-abiding, gunless citizens?


theres no reason for anyone to legally have a gun and

Protection?

More guns in a country that is low on gun use is only likly to mean more gun crime. More guns make it easier to kill. Yes there are guns in the UK , but nothing at the levels of countries that allow individual handgun ownership.The UK statistics are misleading ; the rise in violent crime with firearms has distorted by accounting methods changing , plus statistics now include cimes where the firearm was a fake. The fact that any would-be criminal about to start out on a criminal career could pop into Asda and pick up a gun and having the streets with everybody packing doesn't exactly make me feel safer or more protected , even if I had a weapon personally. Legally allowing guns makes it easier for criminals to have guns and I can't see how that makes things better.Imagine all those who now carry knives upgrading their weapon for something that makes it easier to kill.
Gun crime in the UK has always existed but it starts from a low base as compared to the excesses of other countries that allow personal hanguns.Even if there is a significant increase , it's still minor compared because of this low base. Of course if you allow guns , then it is only logical to start to routinely arm all police . The ones with guns now seem trigger happy enough thank you.As it stands , the penalties for carrying guns , even imitations to be used in crime can be quite high and I would like it to stay that way.
Guns in the home also would not increase protection. The figures show that if you have a gun in the home there is a notable increase in the risk of death from murder and suicide. Where there are guns in the home , the victim is likly to have known the offender as opposed to some stranger.
And don't try trotting out Canada as an example. They have some form of gun control , but guns are still available , and in comparison to US figures there violent gun crime rates are nothing to shout about despite what you may have seen in a Michael Moore documentary.
Guns....no thank you.

Protection?

From other people with guns?

A simple fact remains; it's easier to kill someone with a gun. It's impersonal and in this day and age of violence on TV and in games, it's almost familiar. Plus, I hate to admit it, but guns are fun.

A gun makes murder a point-n-press activity, as opposed to a stabbing, which entails approaching a person and risking their defense, taking your blade and plunging it into their flesh, feeling it split & tear under the force of your thrust, with blood spilling liberally onto your hand as you withdraw your blade. Having to pull your victims hand away from you as they clutch at you trying to remain standing. Very few people could do that, many less than there are people capable of pulling the trigger.

I believe there should be a "householders gun licence" permitting possesion and discharge of a firearm only within the four walls of the house, obviously for protection (unless you invite friends over to shoot them). How can you expect most women, most of the elderly and even single blokes to defend themselves against 2 or 3 intruders? Why should they be denied the right to defend themselves?

If you look at Switzerland where guns are legal (without license) most gun deaths are from arguments between spouses. I think the UK would be more like the US unfortunately with gun crime increasing, as guns are easily obtainable without license.

Yes there are guns in the UK , but nothing at the levels of countries that allow individual handgun ownership.

The UK doesn't allow individual handgun ownership? Well, guess who's on this week's edition of "Ignorant Fool" magazine.

Erm....handguns were banned by the labour goverment in the 1997 Firearms (Amendment ) Act. There may be some exceptions for all I know , but yeah , handguns were banned.

http://www.gun_control_network.org/PRO3.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97005--a.htm

Now if I am wrong to such an extent , woo yay , I get on the cover of a mag....otherwise , no handguns were banned.

Fucksocks... try
htpp://www.gun-control-network.org/PR03.htm
if that don't work ,I'm not suprised cos ...snigger...I am an ignorent fool.Try googling for it , do your own donkeywork.

fuck fuck fuck
http://www.gun-control-network.org/PR03.htm
positively my last go....very tired , only excuse

<quoting myself>Well, guess who's on this week's edition of "Ignorant Fool" magazine.</quoting myself>

I was actually talking about myself when I made this comment.
Fuck it. It's 4:08 AM here. Off to bed.

Its no biggie.Sorry I read it the way I did , my mistake.Getting too used to jokey slaps , and I have an unhealthy (perhaps not ) paranoia. Anyway , if your not from the UK you hardly be expected to now to in and outs of legislation here. Even before the ammendment , guns were not that easily available legitimatly anyway , the tightening up of the law was a response to the Dunblane shootings in the 90's.

I found this site a few weeks ago and it has contributed to the state of my flat!!!

Its a very detailed and informative website about all kind of famous crimes world over, and if your like me and are interested in what drives seomeone to commit these hideous crimes youll be hooked.

http://www.crimelibrary.com

Some informative info on Dunblane, Hungerford , Mark Chapman etc... Its all there.

[QUOTE=Meandmymonkey2]interested in what drives seomeone to commit these hideous crimes youll be hooked.

http://www.crimelibrary.com
QUOTE]

I been hooked on that site for a coupla years now. Yep, hoyly recommended.

So we should ban guns so that hardcore criminals (or anyone who really, really wants a gun) can get them on the black market and massacre the rest of the law-abiding, gunless citizens?

you do really have to know some underworld people to get a gun at the mo, and generally speaking, hardcore crims, don't massacre anyone, they just shoot each other and the odd copper (ok, occasionally someone's watched too many gangsta movies and sprays a couple of bystanders)

kill-crazy gun rampages are usually perpetrated by outwardly respectable sexual inadequates who join gun clubs, buy gun magazines, dress up in camo gear and finally go nuts one day. sometimes they do it with a samurai sword and that's easier to deal with than when they reach into their gun cupboard for an AK

That's a good point hugo, but those kinds of 'obsessive' people are going to get hold of guns anyway (if they got the camo, they'll want some hardware to go with it). Wouldn't it be better to have them registered at a gun club, out in the open as it were, instead of having them simmer away shooting tin cans in deserted fields with thier illegal firearms?

nah, the likes of thomas hamilton would never have had the spuds to get a gun to shoot a school full of kids from some dodgy glasgow bad guy. he'd buy a replica, then maybe stalk about with that until he got shot by the armed response team

That's a good point hugo, but those kinds of 'obsessive' people are going to get hold of guns anyway

But surely with less gun control these people are able to get better guns and more effectively kill.

If I had the choice of being in a building with a rampaging gunman, I'd rather he had an unwieldy rifle than an Uzi or an Tek9.

I was thinking more in line with UK pistol clubs, who keep their member's firearms under lock and key on the premesis. Not sure they let members spray targets with Uzi's (although never been to one so who knows), so they'd still be out of bounds.

I was thinking more in line with UK pistol clubs, who keep their member's firearms under lock and key on the premesis.
They keep members' guns locked up at the clubs? Seems to me that would be the first place I'd rob if I were a bad guy.

Anyway, all this talk about banning guns is pretty interesting. I don't think it's any coincidence that the city with the strictest gun laws in America is the murder capitol of America, too. And there are also statistics available that show a degree of decrease in violent crime in jurisdictions that allow for concealed firearms carry. I know gun laws aren't the sole reason for all the crime, but I think it's been shown too many times that trying to legislate away guns merely gives the lawless one more law to break and the law abiding that much more easily victimized.

I also have a problem with the alternative to owning a gun for self protection: calling the police. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but here a person would be dead long before the police arrived. I greatly respect the police here, but the response time is not that fast. If you add up the time it takes for the victim to reach a phone and dial it, the time it takes for 911 to answer (usually only after 2-3 rings), the time it takes for the victim to tell them what's wrong (and, if you're on a cell phone, where you are), the time it takes the operator to relay the call (which may take several minutes), the time it takes the nearest police officer to respond (which may be a while during rush hour), and the time it takes them to find your residence (ever tried to find an unfamiliar apartment in an unfamiliar complex? At night?) ... either the bad guy's a really bad shot, or the victim's dead and the bad guy's miles from the place.

I think it's a given that criminals will always be able to get guns. The genie's out of the bottle as far as that's concerned. This being the case, I really don't see the problem with responsible gun ownership. We'll always have nutcases, and if they can't use a gun they'll use a bomb or something else they think will kill the number of people their addled brains think need to be killed. But taking guns away from responsible people just to spite criminals and nutcases doesn't seem like that great an idea.

I believe there should be a "householders gun licence" permitting possesion and discharge of a firearm only within the four walls of the house, obviously for protection (unless you invite friends over to shoot them). How can you expect most women, most of the elderly and even single blokes to defend themselves against 2 or 3 intruders? Why should they be denied the right to defend themselves?
Surely the result of this would simply be more dead elderly people - shot by intruders with superior firepower? If they (the intruders) know we've legalised "shoot first ask later" murder a la *Tony Martin, they'll adopt the exact same policy surely? That means people like me who aren't interested in having a gun would have to get one and train to use it - knowing that any burglar is likely to be armed - thanks for nothing!

*reduced to manslaughter on appeal

They keep members' guns locked up at the clubs? Seems to me that would be the first place I'd rob if I were a bad guy.

Anyway, all this talk about banning guns is pretty interesting. I don't think it's any coincidence that the city with the strictest gun laws in America is the murder capitol of America, too. .

Not really a statistic of relevance outside the USA - the USA as a whole must be pretty much murder capital of the world. Areas around the gun control states/cities have ready availability.

The USA has a history of gun ownership by ordinary citizens and I don't think gun control has much serious hope of success there for that and other reasons - nor should it really.

But we live in a totally different cultural environment.

For those in favour of gun ownership - what would be the point at which a weapon wasn't suitable for my personal use - UZI? M16? how about one of those small tactical nukes? - I mean as long as I've had the training and promise to only discharge it in emergency........

Not really a statistic of relevance outside the USA - the USA as a whole must be pretty much murder capital of the world. Areas around the gun control states/cities have ready availability.

Not really, according to these numbers (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap). Columbia holds that distinction.

But the rest of your post is well taken.

I think it's a given that criminals will always be able to get guns. The genie's out of the bottle as far as that's concerned. This being the case, I really don't see the problem with responsible gun ownership.

Then the criminals need bigger, better guns to outdo the ones the people they're robbing have. It's a dangerous pissing competition.

The real solution to any violent crime is not how to deal with the guns, but how to deal with the problems that cause people to turn to crime.

Its an interest fact that gun ownership is quite popular in Canada too, but gun crime is a fraction of that in the US.

Its an interest fact that gun ownership is quite popular in Canada too, but gun crime is a fraction of that in the US.

Well.. it seems you've seen 'Bowling for Columbine'. I remember reading a lot of critiques of that movie and remember vaguely your point being debunked in a few ways. I just googled to find the debunking facts and found this anti-Michael Moore site: www.bowlingfortruth.com .

A key Canadian comparison argument of Moore's is that Canada is a country dripping with guns guns guns, and still don't have anywhere near our rate of gun murder. While it's true that Canada does have a lot of guns compared to England or Japan, Canada's per-capita gun ownership rate is about a third of the American level. An impression few would gather from Moore's constant depiction of Canada being such a 'nation of hunters' and his interviews with gun owners where he does not point out that they are not as abundant as the impression he's conveying.

Comparing U.S. gun-death totals with Canada's, Moore offers a U.S. total that includes death by legal intervention (i.e., a violent felon being shot by a police officer) which is totally dishonest to the argument he's making. But what is more important to this distortion is that he omits this same category from the Canadian total to further stack the deck in his favor. -Not very honest.

If you look at that section (beyond what I quoted), the author seems excessively anti-Canada, and so, I ask for staysinvegas' forgiveness in advance. At the same time, I think Michael Moore is excessively pro-Canada.

And, for the record, I don't really have a passion for the gun control debate. I have never owned a gun.. and probably never will. I also have never been directly affected by guns.. and probably never will be. For me, gun control advocates and gun rights people are at stalemate.

Surely the result of this would simply be more dead elderly people - shot by intruders with superior firepower? If they (the intruders) know we've legalised "shoot first ask later" murder a la *Tony Martin, they'll adopt the exact same policy surely? That means people like me who aren't interested in having a gun would have to get one and train to use it - knowing that any burglar is likely to be armed - thanks for nothing!

*reduced to manslaughter on appeal

Would the average intruder after a few quid take a say 50/50 risk that it was them who would be shot first? ... or might they just think twice about it?

Then the criminals need bigger, better guns to outdo the ones the people they're robbing have. It's a dangerous pissing competition.
A "bigger, better" gun (however one measures such things) doesn't necessarily make one more dangerous. The type of gun being used by the parties is but one in a multitude of variables in any armed encounter. I'd have to say that the marksmanship skills of the participants would have a greater effect on the outcome of a shootout than, say, the caliber of firearm. Common sense tells you a hit in the center body mass with a .38 is a lot more effective than a miss with a .45.

FWIW, as calibers go, bigger isn't necessarily better. The recoil on a large caliber firearm may take away a second shot one would get with a smaller caliber.

Would the average intruder after a few quid take a say 50/50 risk that it was them who would be shot first? ... or might they just think twice about it?

Any "average intruder" would probably "think twice" and go and buy a gun - presumably of the same sort as legally held by the householders (or maybe a slightly more powerful model?).

It would only be a 50/50 risk if intruder and householder are both armed. If it was legal to shoot people, we'd all be pretty much obliged to buy a gun on the basis that those without would be easy targets.

I don't want to have to buy a gun just because other people fancy their chances in the OK corral.

Elderly people generally have slower reactions, and poorer eyesight and hearing so they would stand a good chance of being shot first.

I for one don't want to live in a society where it is perfectly legal to murder an intruder who may be "after a few quid" just because, however despicable a crime it may be, they have entered my house to look for it.

Not really, according to these numbers (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap). Columbia holds that distinction.

But the rest of your post is well taken.


That site has some interesting statistics - the one for murders with firearms caught my eye - quite a surprise considering some people seem to think we're overtaking the US in this area since we banned handguns (we aren't). As usual, I think the case is being somewhat overstated (although I don't deny we have a problem with gun crime).

Thanks for the link - an interesting site.

I for one don't want to live in a society where it is perfectly legal to murder an intruder who may be "after a few quid" just because, however despicable a crime it may be, they have entered my house to look for it.But they're not always after a few quid (http://board.dogbomb.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34565) are they?

It's easy to be a pacifist when you're not the one being the victim. In theory, in a society that provides police protection no one should have to defend themselves, but the fact is that's not the case, and it never will be.

I for one don't want to live in a society where it is perfectly legal to murder an intruder who may be "after a few quid" just because, however despicable a crime it may be, they have entered my house to look for it.I'd prefer to not live in a society in which criminals feel safe to commit violent crimes. I want it to cross the mind of the thug intent on breaking into my home the possibility that I am ready to respond to his intrusion with deadly force. Criminals don't want to die any more than anyone else does, and if they think I am ready to make life difficult for them perhaps they will then choose not to victimize me.

The idea that people ought to be passive in the face of crime baffles me. One apartment complex in which I lived was in an area with more than it's fair share of vagrants and winos. People who kept cars in the garage downstairs rolled down their windows, ostensibly to allow thieves access to their car without having to break the window. It seems to be this Neville Chamberlain attitude towards criminals, that if we satiate them they will leave us alone, that is, in some form, incorporated within the anti-gun position. It didn't work on Hitler, and it won't work on criminals. While living at the aforementioned complex I purchased a couple handguns and kept them ready for use. I chose not to be a victim. I think if more people chose not to be victims, maybe we'd have less victims (and less criminals, too).

BTW, killing in self defense is, by definition, not murder.

My comments are being misunderstood. I have no objection to anyone acting in self defence and responding with appropriate force. UK law already allows for this and allows the use of firearms in defence if appropriate to the threat. Yes you read that right - despite what the hysterical media would have you believe, it is legal to own firearms here and it is legal to use them in self defence - dependent upon the level of threat.

My objection was to not to self defence but to the automatic right desired by some to act as a judge, jury and executioner and impose the death penalty instantly upon anyone they find on their property. I know that view isn't popular with many (and I particularly understand how for a variety of mainly historical and cultural reasons it doesn't play well for the USA). I don't, however, live in the USA, nor do I want to, and with the greatest respect to those who do, I don't want my country to become more like the USA.

I am not in any way advocating a change to US laws or practises ( I wouldn't presume to tell people there how to run their country any more than I expect them to tell me how to run mine) - but that's a different country and this thread's about the UK.

I simply don't accept that insisting everyone is armed is the way to stop gun crimes and burglary here.

But they're not always after a few quid (http://board.dogbomb.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34565) are they?

It's easy to be a pacifist when you're not the one being the victim. In theory, in a society that provides police protection no one should have to defend themselves, but the fact is that's not the case, and it never will be.

No they aren't always after a few quid - I was responding to a previous post that used that term. I just don't accept that all cases have the same level of severity and that any intrusion onto my property should be expected to automatically result in a gunfight in which someone will die.

I am not a pacifist - nor do I advocate that as a response but there's a question of proportion, and despite all the stuff you may read, gun crime is exceptionally rare in the UK - I don't believe the way to keep it rare or reduce it is to arm everyone.

My objection was to not to self defence but to the automatic right desired by some to act as a judge, jury and executioner and impose the death penalty instantly upon anyone they find on their property. I know that view isn't popular with many (and I particularly understand how for a variety of mainly historical and cultural reasons it doesn't play well for the USA). I don't, however, live in the USA, nor do I want to, and with the greatest respect to those who do, I don't want my country to become more like the USA.

I am not in any way advocating a change to US laws or practises ( I wouldn't presume to tell people there how to run their country any more than I expect them to tell me how to run mine) - but that's a different country and this thread's about the UK.As this seems to be aimed at me, I'll respond. I'm not here to tell anyone what British law should be, nor should such an intent be read into my comments. I'm of the opinion that on some subjects we are able to learn from each other. I'm sorry you're not.

I'm of the opinion that on some subjects we are able to learn from each other. I'm sorry you're not.
On the contrary, I agree we can learn from each other - I just retain the right to have a different opinion and interpret the facts in a different way. I just don't feel that the experience of other countries (not just the USA) teaches us that arming all our citizens would cut gun crime and burglary.

I have already sincerely thanked you for a previous link which I found very informative and from which I did learn. What I've learned hasn't changed my opinion - sometimes it does, sometimes not - just depends on the issue and how I read the facts. I'm not trying to be personal or cause trouble - just expressing a view.

I just don't feel that the experience of other countries (not just the USA) teaches us that arming all our citizens would cut gun crime and burglary.

Gun crime might go up... but burglary would probably go down; that, if you are making judgements only by the numbers (much higher gun crime per capita in America, but much lower burglary per capita).

On the contrary, I agree we can learn from each other - I just retain the right to have a different opinion and interpret the facts in a different way. I just don't feel that the experience of other countries (not just the USA) teaches us that arming all our citizens would cut gun crime and burglary.

I have already sincerely thanked you for a previous link which I found very informative and from which I did learn. What I've learned hasn't changed my opinion - sometimes it does, sometimes not - just depends on the issue and how I read the facts. I'm not trying to be personal or cause trouble - just expressing a view.I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. You seem generally open to other opinions from what I have seen, so I guess I was a little confused by that one post. My mistake. :)

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. You seem generally open to other opinions from what I have seen, so I guess I was a little confused by that one post. My mistake. :)
No probs and please accept this as my matching apology for misunderstanding your post too. :-)

My comments are being misunderstood. I have no objection to anyone acting in self defence and responding with appropriate force.


But how can you respond with appropriate force, in circumstances where a gun is appropriate, if you aren't allowed to have one in the first place? This is my point.

Would Tony Martin be dead now if he wasn't lucky enough to have been in posession of a gun when three burglars broke into his house? I'd rather do five years than be pushing up daisies.

But how can you respond with appropriate force, in circumstances where a gun is appropriate, if you aren't allowed to have one in the first place? This is my point.

Would Tony Martin be dead now if he wasn't lucky enough to have been in posession of a gun when three burglars broke into his house? I'd rather do five years than be pushing up daisies.

Er....you've sort of answered your own question. Tony Martin had a gun, and it would've been legally held as well if he hadn't had his licence revoked.

Get a gun if you want one. As long as you have no adverse history you should have no problems.

Tony Martin might be injured or dead - hard for me (or anyone else) to know - since he apparently shot Barras in the back it's hard to see how that was self defence which is why he got sent down. Tony Martin certainly wouldn't have been shot dead as the intruders were unarmed.

Where do we draw the line with this? People get carjacked and mugged sometimes - so presumably we'll all need to be armed every time we go out?

Anyone entering someone else’s home without permission is violating their personal space in a way that is akin to sexual assault (ask anyone who's ever been burgled if you don't believe me). Asking people to tolerate this kind of thing and curbing their legal ability to defend themselves under those circumstances is incredibly arrogant (considering the people doing the asking are rich judges who aren't at any risk). Yes yes I've heard all the appropriate force bollocks, but it's very easy in hindsight to know what the appropriate amount of force is. When the shit is going down (sorry), you don't know what an aggressor/intruder is going to do and you have to make split second decisions.

Anyone entering someone else’s home without permission is violating their personal space in a way that is akin to sexual assault (ask anyone who's ever been burgled if you don't believe me). Asking people to tolerate this kind of thing and curbing their legal ability to defend themselves under those circumstances is incredibly arrogant (considering the people doing the asking are rich judges who aren't at any risk). Yes yes I've heard all the appropriate force bollocks, but it's very easy in hindsight to know what the appropriate amount of force is. When the shit is going down (sorry), you don't know what an aggressor/intruder is going to do and you have to make split second decisions.
I think this sums up the nature of the disagreement. I do accept that entering a home without permission constitutes a kind of assault. I don't accept that we should change the law so that a homeowner is allowed to administer an immediate death sentence without any further consideration. I have not (and never would) say that people should have to "tolerate" burglary or any other crime. I don't accept that the only way not to "tolerate" crime is to buy a gun.

I'm in no way a friend of rich judges, by the way - I have contempt for most of the lawyers and judges I've encountered (and it's quite a few) - but that's for another thread.

Can't see that I ever refered to you urko, or that I ever mentioned giving homeowners the absolute right to gun down intruders.

Just pointing out that what seems to be 'appropriate force' at the time of the incident and what is deemed 'appropriate force' in hindsight are often two very different things. Someone comes into my family's home in the middle of the night, I'll gladly go to prison for what I'll do to them, because there's a good chance the alternative could be much much worse.

Can't see that I ever refered to you urko, or that I ever mentioned giving homeowners the absolute right to gun down intruders.

Fair enough.


Just pointing out that what seems to be 'appropriate force' at the time of the incident and what is deemed 'appropriate force' in hindsight are often two very different things.
Totally agree.

Get a gun if you want one. As long as you have no adverse history you should have no problems.



Is that right? If I say I want a gun for self defence, would I get a licence? I always thought you needed to say you were going to shoot rabbits or pheasants or something (other than burglars). I really would like to know the answer. I would like to move to an isolated property, for the peace and quiet, but the threat of intruders is a major factor which is preventing me from making the move, but if I had a shotgun I would market my house tomorrow.

i suggest you look at rates for burglary/home invasion for cities and rural areas, you'd need that shotty in town if you're that paranoid

Anyone entering someone else’s home without permission is violating their personal space in a way that is akin to sexual assault (ask anyone who's ever been burgled if you don't believe me)
It is disturbing , but to say it is akin to sexual assult is foolishness on a grand scale. Ask someone who has been raped.Ask someone sexually assulted.Try being at the wrong end yourself and see how you feel.It ain't like being burgeled.

I remember an episode of Growing Pains where thee Seavers got burglarize (yeah, i said it). Maggie blamed the Canadian for not being a tough guy cop like her dad. It was one of my favorite shows as a youngin'. It was the reason I wanted to be called Mike instead of Michael as a youngin'. But the burgler episode left a lasting mark on my soul.. but not quite as much as the episode that gave the world its first look at Leo D.

Victims, all of us, always.

I remember .....some tv show

wtf?