Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Colt45_GTO

weapon fans of the UK

Recommended Posts

* he has an ileagel firearm.

its this part i'm confused at. who has an illegal firearm?

Criminals have then... mainly handguns...

yes the government banned such weapons from being legally owned. in the hope to stop gun crime in the UK, it didn't work! the gun crime was always down to illegally owned guns.

yes one or two went off the rails, one in hungerford and one in scotland (cant remember the place). this was down to the police not doing as they should. infact the scottish one had something over the police inspector there so he was left alone. then he went ape!

this made every other law abiding gun owner a potential threat. so they put a ban on easliy consealed weapons (pistols). which isn't so bad apart from the fact, pistols aint as cheap to buy here as they are anywhere els. i know 3 guys that had 8 grands worth of hand guns. each owned 3 hand guns. the government offered them £1000 for the collection. but they sold them legally abroad for a lot more.

its ok banning such things but its never questioned about how much someone may have paid for something. the government were going off U.S resale prices not UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i always thought that the weapons are for the guys who have nothing in their pants. In the civil society we don't need guns. and of course guns are not toys but lethal objects

no offense, this is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont read the papers bud. i'm going off a friends charge of agrivated assualt on a burglar, and i know my mate wouldn't beat the crap out of someone he just aint that sort. yeah a brawl started but the burglar came out better off. my mate went through 8 months of court and got 12 month suspended sentance with 80 hourse comunity service. for defending his own property. i know this because i was the one carting him to and from the courts.

the magestrate said and i quote ''we have a very good police system for this sort of thing, if you are being broke into, you should not take the law into your own hands. call the police and let them deal with it''

Apologies for the crack about the papers....

Aggravated assault? That's fairly serious. Section 47? (Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 being the lowest form. Then (Offences Against the Person Act 1861), Section 20 - GBH, Section 18 GBH with intent, and then Section 47 ABH - which is an aggravated assault) Sounds like your mate either went too far despite what he says or, and I'd go with this one, the little c*** who robbed him knew the law better and played the system. Probably had a shady leech of a solicitor.

On topic...how do you think you mate would have done if he had a firearm and felt forced to use it? Do you think he'd be out the nick by now?

(lol...I can't believe Section 39 is still there)

Regarding illegal firearms. The vast majority of fire arms obtained by criminals are either old decommissioned weapons that have been re activated. Or replica & blank firing weapons that have been bored through and modified to fire live rounds. It very rare anyone is caught with a "real" gun. If hand guns and rifles were legally obtainable the proliferation of such weapons in the black market would shoot through the roof, (pun intended).

I've got no problems with guns as such. I spent a lot of time as a kid shooting air guns, shotguns ,(hunting wabbits around Dyserth and Holywell in wales), Enfiled .303's converted to fire .22 rounds and on 2 occasions Browning handguns - its a pisser. No, the problems I have is with people. They just can't be trusted. I dare say there a few reading this that would say, "Well, I know I can", trouble is the dickheads would say the same.

Edited by Bascule42
I spelt "gun" wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i always thought that the weapons are for the guys who have nothing in their pants. In the civil society we don't need guns. and of course guns are not toys but lethal objects

no offense, this is just my opinion.

How is this not meant to cause offence? Maybe you haven't read half the posts in here. It's not like we walk around like john wayne with a six shooter hanging out of our pants. I suppose you object to be having a 130 year old vertelli rifle on my wall that can only be fired using hand loaded ammunition and has been carefully kept for over a century. The fact that i take extreme pride in being able to maintain and use this peice of history to shoot at nothing more than a paper target on a range some how causes me to have small man hood?

In a civil society we don't need classic cars either, they are lethal objects...why not ban meat cleavers from anyone who isn't a chef or butcher while we're at it? Nothing has lethality until is it misused by a human if i wanted to kill someone i could just as easily cave their head in with a branch, in fact in most peoples hands it would probably be more effective.

edit

@Bascule...while i agree with the majority of your post mate don't beleive the hype. I used to own a good collection of brocock air pistols before they got banned. Let me just tell the internal parts and barrel are not strong enough to be converted into a weapon able to fire proper ammunition as the government has claimed. On top of that weapons that have been decomminsioned in the UK and trust be i have first hand experience of this are usually cut with a torch from about half way down the barrel almost to the hammer....after that it's just a peice of scrap there is nothing you can do to save the weapon. I spent 3 years living in reading, berkshire where, if one were so inclined you could buy a perfect handgun, illegally imported from eastern europe for about a fiver. I know this because i almost lost a friend to one...it's a long story and not really for here. Anyway the point is the british government would have you believe that there are all these evil mechanical geniuses spending money and smelting, stamping or machining new parts for toy or decommisioned guns because if they blame it on us they can't say that their handgun ban hasn't worked....it hasn't taken guns away from criminals, it never would. As i said in an earlier post you will always find members of society who think guns are around to shoot at other people what we require world wide is more stringent regulation and testing for gun ownership...a complete ban and deamonisation of fire arms is not the way forward.

Edited by Aeneas2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies for the crack about the papers....

Aggravated assault? That's fairly serious. Section 47? (Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 being the lowest form. Then (Offences Against the Person Act 1861), Section 20 - GBH, Section 18 GBH with intent, and then Section 47 ABH - which is an aggravated assault) Sounds like your mate either went too far despite what he says or, and I'd go with this one, the little c*** who robbed him knew the law better and played the system. Probably had a shady leech of a solicitor.

On topic...how do you think you mate would have done if he had a firearm and felt forced to use it? Do you think he'd be out the nick by now?

(lol...I can't believe Section 39 is still there)

Regarding illegal firearms. The vast majority of fire arms obtained by criminals are either old decommissioned weapons that have been re activated. Or replica & blank firing weapons that have been bored through and modified to fire live rounds. It very rare anyone is caught with a "real" gun. If hand guns and rifles were legally obtainable the proliferation of such weapons in the black market would shoot through the roof, (pun intended).

I've got no problems with guns as such. I spent a lot of time as a kid shooting air guns, shotguns ,(hunting wabbits around Dyserth and Holywell in wales), Enfiled .303's converted to fire .22 rounds and on 2 occasions Browning handguns - its a pisser. No, the problems I have is with people. They just can't be trusted. I dare say there a few reading this that would say, "Well, I know I can", trouble is the dickheads would say the same.

good points, completely agree on all points.

and regarding my mate, you wouldn't know about the real story unless it was told. his sentence was light because it was his first offence ever.

How is this not meant to cause offence? Maybe you haven't read half the posts in here. It's not like we walk around like john wayne with a six shooter hanging out of our pants. I suppose you object to be having a 130 year old vertelli rifle on my wall that can only be fired using hand loaded ammunition and has been carefully kept for over a century. The fact that i take extreme pride in being able to maintain and use this peice of history to shoot at nothing more than a paper target on a range some how causes me to have small man hood?

In a civil society we don't need classic cars either, they are lethal objects...why not ban meat cleavers from anyone who isn't a chef or butcher while we're at it? Nothing has lethality until is it misused by a human if i wanted to kill someone i could just as easily cave their head in with a branch, in fact in most peoples hands it would probably be more effective.

edit

@Bascule...while i agree with the majority of your post mate don't beleive the hype. I used to own a good collection of brocock air pistols before they got banned. Let me just tell the internal parts and barrel are not strong enough to be converted into a weapon able to fire proper ammunition as the government has claimed. On top of that weapons that have been decomminsioned in the UK and trust be i have first hand experience of this are usually cut with a torch from about half way down the barrel almost to the hammer....after that it's just a peice of scrap there is nothing you can do to save the weapon. I spent 3 years living in reading, berkshire where, if one were so inclined you could buy a perfect handgun, illegally imported from eastern europe for about a fiver. I know this because i almost lost a friend to one...it's a long story and not really for here. Anyway the point is the british government would have you believe that there are all these evil mechanical geniuses spending money and smelting, stamping or machining new parts for toy or decommisioned guns because if they blame it on us they can't say that their handgun ban hasn't worked....it hasn't taken guns away from criminals, it never would. As i said in an earlier post you will always find members of society who think guns are around to shoot at other people what we require world wide is more stringent regulation and testing for gun ownership...a complete ban and deamonisation of fire arms is not the way forward.

Bravo! well said.

a rifle can sit for 60 years and cause no human life loss from the time it was made to the day it was discovered. the same with any weapon. even those that were made in the 90's! they can sit be cleaned shoot at paper targets to this very day and not cause one single injury to a human being.

its not the weapon thats at fault, its the dickhead controlling it!

see its much like a ship, a ship can sail for many years carting millions of passengers and never cause a problem....until it gets a drunk captain that can manage to turn the ship the wrong way in high sea's and kill everyone on board because it capsised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its this part i'm confused at. who has an illegal firearm?

yes the government banned such weapons from being legally owned. in the hope to stop gun crime in the UK, it didn't work! the gun crime was always down to illegally owned guns.

yes one or two went off the rails, one in hungerford and one in scotland (cant remember the place). this was down to the police not doing as they should. infact the scottish one had something over the police inspector there so he was left alone. then he went ape!

this made every other law abiding gun owner a potential threat. so they put a ban on easliy consealed weapons (pistols). which isn't so bad apart from the fact, pistols aint as cheap to buy here as they are anywhere els. i know 3 guys that had 8 grands worth of hand guns. each owned 3 hand guns. the government offered them £1000 for the collection. but they sold them legally abroad for a lot more.

its ok banning such things but its never questioned about how much someone may have paid for something. the government were going off U.S resale prices not UK.

The thing is that while criminals can still get guns, they get crap guns. Most weapons in criminal hands are really poor quality and expensive. Also criminals mostly use guns on other criminals. Gun crime involving a criminal shooting an ordinary member of the public in the UK is rare enough that it usually makes the national news.

Banning guns stops massacres, which is a sort of gun crime that is usually done by (up to that point) law abiding citizens. The loonies who pulled off the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres wouldn't have the contacts to get the firepower they used for those attacks, and even if they did they would not have been able to get hold of the sort of high quality and number of weapons they had. If memory serves both men were massively tooled up like it was cool, they would never have had access to anything like that now.

That said while the UK does better as a gun-free society this does not mean it's the best all round. The USA has a very different social structure to the UK and in much of that country it makes sense to take responsibility for your own security up to the level of lethal force. It's just a more dangerous country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i always thought that the weapons are for the guys who have nothing in their pants. In the civil society we don't need guns. and of course guns are not toys but lethal objects

no offense, this is just my opinion.

"No offense" yet you bold the civil society part to imply that the US is not a civil society.:rolleyes: That's cool though, think what you want. Thanks to a little revolution, we can have our laws and you can have yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is that while criminals can still get guns, they get crap guns. Most weapons in criminal hands are really poor quality and expensive. Also criminals mostly use guns on other criminals. Gun crime involving a criminal shooting an ordinary member of the public in the UK is rare enough that it usually makes the national news.

Banning guns stops massacres, which is a sort of gun crime that is usually done by (up to that point) law abiding citizens. The loonies who pulled off the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres wouldn't have the contacts to get the firepower they used for those attacks, and even if they did they would not have been able to get hold of the sort of high quality and number of weapons they had. If memory serves both men were massively tooled up like it was cool, they would never have had access to anything like that now.

That said while the UK does better as a gun-free society this does not mean it's the best all round. The USA has a very different social structure to the UK and in much of that country it makes sense to take responsibility for your own security up to the level of lethal force. It's just a more dangerous country.

one of the main problems now is that criminals will carry some sort of weapon, be it a knife, screwdriver, club or in some cases a gun. all of which are pretty leathal in the wrong hands.

any one of these idiots could enter a house and demand what they want. yet the home owner is reletively powerless against such thugs and have to rely on a response time of the police.

the old couple that were brutally murdered in thier own home over a few quid, this couple may have served at some point in WW2 to defend the country from nazi invasion, and are killed by some thugs that they insured a free life for.

if however the elderly man was able to bear arms then he may have be able to defend himself and wife from such a brutal and viscious death.

but then again its the point of where we draw the line? i believe people like the old couple should have this ability, especially being so frail that they can't physically fend of such thugs. so fending from a distance is not really an option.

the farmer who was tired of people breaking into his property took the law into his own hands. unfortunately the 2nd one he shot was runnig down the lane, even in the states that is a big no and constitutes as premeditated murder. but he was strong enough to fend people off by hand. so again this is a thin line between right and wrong.

in these cases, once the attacker is in the house then its a potential deadly threat. where as off the house threshold the danger has passed so the police should take over from there on in.

there is part of the law that says you can use whatever force possible if an intruder enters your sleepin area (bedroom) at night. but this rarely happens. it should be if an intruder breaks the threshold period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one of the main problems now is that criminals will carry some sort of weapon, be it a knife, screwdriver, club or in some cases a gun. all of which are pretty leathal in the wrong hands.

any one of these idiots could enter a house and demand what they want. yet the home owner is reletively powerless against such thugs and have to rely on a response time of the police.

the old couple that were brutally murdered in thier own home over a few quid, this couple may have served at some point in WW2 to defend the country from nazi invasion, and are killed by some thugs that they insured a free life for.

if however the elderly man was able to bear arms then he may have be able to defend himself and wife from such a brutal and viscious death.

but then again its the point of where we draw the line? i believe people like the old couple should have this ability, especially being so frail that they can't physically fend of such thugs. so fending from a distance is not really an option.

the farmer who was tired of people breaking into his property took the law into his own hands. unfortunately the 2nd one he shot was runnig down the lane, even in the states that is a big no and constitutes as premeditated murder. but he was strong enough to fend people off by hand. so again this is a thin line between right and wrong.

in these cases, once the attacker is in the house then its a potential deadly threat. where as off the house threshold the danger has passed so the police should take over from there on in.

there is part of the law that says you can use whatever force possible if an intruder enters your sleepin area (bedroom) at night. but this rarely happens. it should be if an intruder breaks the threshold period.

Where I live in the US we have a castle law that basically gives us the right to defend our homes with any means necessary.

I also live in a right to carry state. Meaning I can go down to the local gun store, do some concealed carry classes and get a license to carry a firearm on me all the time. There are lots of places where you can't take your gun obviously, but overall it's a good system and deters alot of crime since you never know who is packing heat and who isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was a guy who tried to hold up a bank in Texas some years ago, apparently he got violent with a teller and the cops ended up taking about 40 rounds of out of him from various customers who were all carrying. That is slightly off topic but it should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks armed robbery is a good idea...especially in states that allowed concealed weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
used to compete against the trigger happy posse (armed police) in police pistol contests at the local gun club many years ago. some cant shoot for toffee and tbh the way some of those guys regard guns i personally wouldn't trust them with a spud gun!

Mate things havent changed that much, when i was cleared for my section 5 last year. There were two officers from the local firearms unit on the course with me.... Honestly i would rather let an ape have a firearm than one of those two. But on the flip side, i work very closely with firearms and cp officers on a daily basis. Most ARE very good at what they do, responsible and are definatly the guys you want doing the job.

Edited by Shadow.D. ^BOB^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how low gun crime is here it really isn't an issue for the vast majority of people here.

If you want to shoot a gun so you can pretend your a soldier you should play airsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snafs...you're abosolutely right people who want to play at being a soldier should join up for play airsoft...however for people like myself who own a legit collection of older rifles that simply isn't my aim. I have for many years been heavily into target shooting and I like to maintain the rifles i own as peices of heritage. I have never charged around my garden with them or dressed up in any uniforms with them. To be honest people who do that with them shouldn't be allowed to have them in the 1st place (the charging round the garden with them thing that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to another poster but if people want for target shooting and stuff that's fine. One of my mates got a shotgun a few weeks ago for Clay Pigeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love clay shooting, wish i had a place around me to do it, unfortunately i don't own a single shotgun anymore :(. Really should get one, although i have to admit i'm fine with the ones flying through the air but the rabbit clays are abosolute bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lmao....imagine the town centers on a Friday/Saturday night if people could have firearms in this country? F*** that!

Thats already going on though, when I did my recruit selection the other week I had to share a barrack room with a few paras, and one of them, a huge black lad, had shotgun pellet scars speckled all over him, and what had happened was he was working as a doorman in Bradford & had thrown this asian guy out of the club for fighting, and the asian guy came back later with a sawn off shotgun & fired it at the two guys on the door! :eek: luckily because it was sawn off & because he fired it from a distance the two doormen only got mild flesh wounds, but even so its pretty horrific!

The main problem with the UK's tight gun laws is that responsible people can no longer own guns (barring shotguns, air guns & the odd .22 rifle like me & my dad have with me being from a farm), but the criminals & wrong types can still get hold of whatever they like including sub machine guns etc quite easily, a lot of which have probably come from the IRA's old stock piles or have been converted over from BB guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got mine, so that's the most important part covered.

Actually I don't want alot of other people in England to have guns.

I'm happy that it's just the very few of us.

Having looser gun laws wouldn't make less criminals with guns, it would make more.

About a year ago my friend blew her husbands balls off with his shotgun, killing him.

The thing about guns is that everyone is responsable until they aren't. And then it's too late.

It's not just Mafia style crime and gangland crime that guns are involved in. In fact mostly, it's domestic crime.

(I am pleased to report that my mate got off in court. I expect the jury concured that he had deserved it).

I am however uncomfortable with the level of paranoia amongst the general public and the authorities. (My inspection is due next month).

When I am out shooting and I see other people, I am always acutely aware that even though I am on private land, they could make a lot of trouble for me.

Policemen shoot people holding water pistols and basic weapon saftey is not taught at most schools.

Thats sadly the way the world is going. Unsafe handling by the few makes usual safe objects banned to "improve safety".

Things to consider, Airsoft. You'll meet several others with a interest for guns and its a active, fun and social activity.

As long as you accept that a BB gun is only that, a BB gun.

I'm not sure whether Airsoft is still legal here.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whether Airsoft is still legal here.

It is, I think they fall under the same rules as other air weapons, but anybody pratting about with anything realistic looking in the street or whatever is asking to be ventilated by SO19, plus airsofting is for uber walts :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its this part i'm confused at. who has an illegal firearm?

yes the government banned such weapons from being legally owned. in the hope to stop gun crime in the UK, it didn't work! the gun crime was always down to illegally owned guns.

yes one or two went off the rails, one in hungerford and one in scotland (cant remember the place). this was down to the police not doing as they should. infact the scottish one had something over the police inspector there so he was left alone. then he went ape!

this made every other law abiding gun owner a potential threat. so they put a ban on easliy consealed weapons (pistols). which isn't so bad apart from the fact, pistols aint as cheap to buy here as they are anywhere els. i know 3 guys that had 8 grands worth of hand guns. each owned 3 hand guns. the government offered them £1000 for the collection. but they sold them legally abroad for a lot more.

its ok banning such things but its never questioned about how much someone may have paid for something. the government were going off U.S resale prices not UK.

The banning of firearms has never really been about cutting gun crime, its been in reaction to massacres. Automatic & most Semi-Automatic firearms were banned outright in 1988 becuase some nut in Hungerford murdered 17 people and wounded 15 more. To top that handguns were banned after Dunblane in 1996, A man goes into a school and promptly shoots and murders 16 children and a teacher. And this wasn't Columbine or Virginia Tech where the victims were teenagers, these children were as young as 5 years old.. I'm willing to bet in America there would be tighter control on firearms if a loon went into a Kindergarden and shot the place up with an AK.

Do not underestimate the power of outraged mothers..

That is why we cannot have guns here. I'm not too keen on making them legal again either. Too many people in this country cannot be trusted with firearms period, and you don't need one to protect yourselves from a burgler anyway as your average chav and pikey does not have access to a gun.

Edited by MontyVCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why we cannot have guns here. I'm not too keen on making them legal again either. Too many people in this country cannot be trusted with firearms period, and you don't need one to protect yourselves from a burgler anyway as your average chav and pikey does not have access to a gun.

Seconded! Especially with the mentality of a lot of people around guns,teenage lads in particular. As I said above I grew up on a farm so always had access to guns,starting with air rifles & then shotguns in my late teens, and I was always safe with them as taught by my dad. When mates from school used to come round though, sometimes I would get the air rifles out, but these town lads just used to point them at me or other people "messing about" or would shoot at things without even considering what was behind whatever they were shooting at, and back then I was too weedy to really do much to stop them! (different story now im a grown man!)Ive no problem with people like my dad having licensed access to .22 rifles & shotguns for pest control, but they certainly shouldnt be in the hands of any random idiot off the street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with your assesment of firearms eduction and familiarity. I've had friends from the city do the same.

Policemen strike me as being almost as bad.

If you look at a culture like America, all the kids are marksmen before they are teens. The police bollard off 50 feet of a lane of the motorway in rush hour for a gun fight while in England they close all three lanes of the motorway for 20 miles in both directions for a water pistol.

Too many people in this country cannot be trusted with firearms period, and you don't need one to protect yourselves from a burgler anyway as your average chav and pikey does not have access to a gun.

You might not need one to take on a pikey in your house, but an elderly person does.

And what if there is a gang of pikeys!

I get robbed at least once a year. Yesterday I happened to have my gun on me as two pikeys (and their pikeyvan) entered onto my property.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that if I am going to have to be dealing with pikeys at all, armed is the way I prefer it.

I've heard the whole macho routine of "you don't need a gun to defend yourself" before. But the idea isn't to give your aggressor a fair chance. It is to shift the odds in your favour.

Not everyone is built like John Rambo and can win in a karate duel. Not everyone feels secure enough about their pugilistic skills to attempt it. Not everyone is looking to give an intruder in their homes a reasonable chance to beat them up. Tie them up. Rape them or all the other horrors that bad people are capable of.

It should not be lost on your that have a go heroes get stabbed to death by kids from time to time. While their wives and kids watch on screaming. They all thought they didn't need to be armed either.

So if you personally consider yourself to be a bit of a fighter, a hard man, then it would perhaps be true for you to say that you personally don't need a gun to defend yourself against a chav or a pikey.

But my 85 year old father....he does.

My seventy year old mother....she does.

And do you know what, this 40 year old isn't too ashamed to say that he might also. That's not a prospect I'll be volunteering to test out however.

Should I ever shoot someone in self-defence or the defence of my family or property, I expect to go to prison for a very a long time.

but then should a disturbed pikey or chav robbing my house do nothing more than push my father over, he can expect to die or be crippled for life.

I took him to the gun shop the otherday. I've been looking into buying a sexy air rifle for rabbiting.

I was surprised when he started stroking the Kalashnikov. Never really had him down as a gun nut until then.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself a hard man at all, but I still stand by my statement that too many people here cannot be trusted. Anyway if firearms were legal and your father had one, the odds are the would be robber would have one too. So in the end your father doesn't have that advantage at all. There is no ideal solution to this but I don't think the answer is to arm the masses either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MontyVCB:

Well not living in the UK, but if a robber came to your property and he have a gun, you have a chance to self-defense if you have your own. Because, these criminels would think "hey, guns are legal, the owner could kill me" but if it is illegal he think "Gun are illegal, so the owner can do s**t againt my illegaly bought weapon (pistol, knife whatever)."

In my country you can buy guns (semi, pistol, even full-auto assualts rifles or machineguns on exeption). But every time you go to by legaly a weapon you must go to the police and buy a ticket wich indicate the type of weapon you are buying. Then you go register the rifle (mostly the barrels). There are many weapons in the hands of normal people, but if you take the number of criminality. It's is less then 1% of crime commited with a leggaly owned weapon. Criminels can always find a way to obtain a weapon. And any normal criminal would never use his legally owned gun to commit a crime, because these are registered, and if he do something, he could be easily tracked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyVCB:

Well not living in the UK, but if a robber came to your property and he have a gun, you have a chance to self-defense if you have your own. Because, these criminels would think "hey, guns are legal, the owner could kill me" but if it is illegal he think "Gun are illegal, so the owner can do s**t againt my illegaly bought weapon (pistol, knife whatever)."

In my country you can buy guns (semi, pistol, even full-auto assualts rifles or machineguns on exeption). But every time you go to by legaly a weapon you must go to the police and buy a ticket wich indicate the type of weapon you are buying. Then you go register the rifle (mostly the barrels). There are many weapons in the hands of normal people, but if you take the number of criminality. It's is less then 1% of crime commited with a leggaly owned weapon. Criminels can always find a way to obtain a weapon. And any normal criminal would never use his legally owned gun to commit a crime, because these are registered, and if he do something, he could be easily tracked.

If people really want to have a firearm in this country they can apply for a shotgun licence, presuming if said person has a clean record. If not then tough shit. Thats more than enough if they wish to defend themselves.

As I said before the chances of a common thieves actually having a gun is rare. If people don't want to take that chance then do the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×