[Closed] Private ownership of firearms

😯

the majority of gun deaths (discounting wars) are due to the misshandling of guns.

Look if you want to compare cars to guns then see the Iran example re guns and nukes it is clearly a poor argument though in true STW fashion we could argue it ad infinitium but it is still BS and comparing chalk and cheese for all the previously mentioned reasons.

Thanks for giving me an example of someon misusing a car [ it was actually someone elese car and he stole it from him/overpowered him and took it ]as a comparison to someone using a gun appropriately and killing stuff

oh tyes despite all this he failed to kill anyone imagine if he gone as ape with a gun

One of the men managed to jump out of the way and took cover behind a parked car, but the other man was knocked down.

Pinkney drove over him as he lay on the ground before speeding off.

The glass collector suffered nine broken ribs, a broken wrist and a fractured shoulder.

and lots of people still do it as they refuse to doth there caps to people like you!

You seem to think I made the laws or was alive when these laws were pased
You need to get better at trolling tbh its all just to earnest and obvious.

JUMP UP JUMP UP AND GET DOWN!

This truly is very impressive. Now where do you all stand on catapults?

Catapults have utility. They offer cheap flights to maggots that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to travel widely.

Trebuchets FTW!

Perhaps you are claiming all the hunters are accidently killing the things they are shooting at with the gun?

the fact that the armed forces/ police have guns and use them isn't relevant to a debate on private ownership unless you are proposing the complete disarming of the UK

Look if you want to compare cars to guns

my view as stated before is that appropriately licenced use for both activities is appropriate, the fact that neither licensing regime is perfect is relevant as you are not applying the same standards in wanting to ban the private use of one but not the other

How can you discount wars - you cannot remove the vast majority of gun deaths and then draw a conclusion form what is left over ...well not with any credibility

The majority of those with a gun in a war (or conflict or security operation) will not have a gun license. I thought this was about private gun ownership?

I tend not to stand on catapults as they have a tendency to fling things quite far at quite some force.

I would enjoy using one to fling my own poo at the funeral cortege of a certain UK PM when it dies.

I have one made of Legos:

[img] [/img]

I want a mint catapult

[img] [/img]

One common desire demonstrated by a lot of the shooters I met was to have the ability to remotely "switch the lights off" their quarry. The bigger the quarry and the longer the range, the better. Hence progression to bigger calibres and 6-24x mag telescopic sights. Not healthy IMO.

I believe the rights of people not to be killed by guns far outweighs the right to hold guns

there's no such thing as a right not to be killed by guns. 😆
that's your rules TJ, not mine. pedant.

Wow, this is still going?!

The argument re. roads deaths vs gun deaths always comes up and like others said, a car is designed as transport but sometimes has the ability to kill (usually accidentally) but the original inception of guns was to main and kill...in more civilised times some guns have evolved to become purely sporting kit that would be next to useless as a weapon but this is the minority, most home held shotguns will kill somebody quite easily.

Has anybody mentioned though that provided somebody takes their gun ownership seriously and safely then why should the rest of society poke their nose in and tell others what hobbies they can and cant have?
The risk of gun death in this country is tiny but the hysteria is massive....kind of like the nonsense that went with the anti-hunting campaign.

Live and let live, there are plenty of hobbies i think are crap but i wouldnt legislate them out of existence.

To use my own particular bug bear (in the same pointless vein as the car vs gun argument) walk into an A&E dept on a Sat or Sun afternoon and look at all the footballers and rugby players waiting to have their ankles, collarbones, wrists etc x-rayed....this undoubtedly costs the NHS more than the gun deaths we have in this country each year...should we ban contact sport?...of course not, others enjoy it so let them get on with it for Christ's sake.

Some of the statistics make interesting reading, despite the hysteria in the media you cannot buy a gun on every street conrner.
There are 1.8 million legally held guns in a population over 60 million, not as common as the Guardian would have you believe....and the UK seems to have between 50-100 deaths each year from firearms....again, not the thousands slayed by firearms that some newspapers would like you to believe....

....finally only 7% of murders involve a gun, thats the most startling statistic for me....if you took guns out of society you would barely dent the murder rates in this country. Knee jerk reaction from the antis?

there's no such thing as a right not to be killed by guns

Erm there is, actually:

Article 2: [b]Right to life[/b]

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.

That's our UK Laws. Not your Kansas Laws, Bob.

X

There are 1.8 million legally held guns in a population over 60 million, not as common as the Guardian would have you believe....and the UK seems to have between 50-100 deaths each year from firearms....again, not the thousands slayed by firearms that some newspapers would like you to believe....

....finally only 7% of murders involve a gun, thats the most startling statistic for me....if you took guns out of society you would barely dent the murder rates in this country. Knee jerk reaction from the antis?

3% of the population own guns (assuming the 1.8 million is 1 gun each) but they account for 7% of murders?

Hows that look now?

Lifer - most shooters will have [i]at least[/i] two guns

So 1.5% of the population own guns but they account for 7% of murders? Getting better and better!

Are there figures for murders comitted with legal and illegal guns or are they all lumped in together?

So 1.5% of the population own guns but they account for 7% of murders? Getting better and better!

It is not clear whether the 7% of murders are calculated from the 1.5% of the population with legally-held guns though.

I doubt it is - the 7% will include the illegally-held guns too surely?

I would enjoy using one to fling my own poo at the funeral cortege of a certain UK PM when it dies

I don't know what Tony did (apart from start and illegal war) to deserve this! Will be funny when you get Cherie though 😉

With a mouth that size, ittud be hard to miss, eh? 😆

Trivialising City 31: Petty United 31

Time for penalties or just accept a score draw. Either way, the final whistle must be close, surely?

My two cents; A gun is a tool, or a piece of sporting equipment. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the 'tool' guns (farmers, gamekeepers, deer cullers etc) should be banned so I'll move on from that. Whilst it is true that the sporting guns may not ever be used for killing things; (target shooting, clay pidgeon shooting) I think its fairly safe to say that these sports originally derive from skill sets aquired by hunters who aquired the skills to kill things.

So the case that guns are tools designed primarily for the use of killing is accepted.

However, there is a HUGE difference between guns designed for the killing of animals and for those designed for the killing of people. This is where the legistlation that we currently have tries (for the most part successfully imho) to draw the line. Guns for killing animals; legal to possess with good reason, guns for killing humans; illegal unless you are the police or the armed forces. Fair enough?

There seems to be a bit of a subtext going on as to the morality of killing wild animals for pleasure. I have to admit, I find it a little distasteful, but as been strongly pointed out by the 'lefty types' in many recent dog versus cyclist posts, animals have no legal rights under law, except not to be treated with deliberate cruelty, whereas humans do. So, like it or not, people are allowed to go out and shoot birds and it is considered a socially acceptable and respectable pastime by many. To ban the use of firearms in this context would have a massive negative impact on many people's lives, for what is, at best, a spurious justification. And we may as well ban other 'percieved as distasteful' sports, such as boxing, cage fighting, football...

Guns don't kill people. people (inc rappers) kill people, and we are very good at it. take away one tool, and we will find another.

v8ninety....i agree with the last part of your post and its reflected in the murder stats with 93% of murders occurring without the use of a firearm....those espousing the end to home held guns seem to think it will bring about some utopian murder free country, it wont because guns are only used in a small percentage of murder cases. This is conveniently ignored by those who think gun owners are 'violent fantasists'....

A gun properly used won't kill people the same as a car properly used

a car will get you from a to b and if used safely will not injure you if misused [ error omission deliberate whatever it may harm you but probably wontt kill you...the car and the gun are still chalk and cheese as a comparison unless of course you want to deprive Iran of cars and arm the shit out of them on safety grounds...as they cant misuse the guns or nukes and shoot stuff eh:roll:
I

my view as stated before is that appropriately licenced use for both activities is appropriate, the fact that neither licensing regime is perfect is relevant as you are not applying the same standards in wanting to ban the private use of one but not the other

which has some merit as a view but gus are still more dangerous than cars.

The majority of those with a gun in a war (or conflict or security operation) will not have a gun license. I thought this was about private gun ownership?

So 1.5% of the population own guns but they account for 7% of murders? Getting better and better!

It is not clear whether the 7% of murders are calculated from the 1.5% of the population with legally-held guns though.

I doubt it is - the 7% will include the illegally-held guns too surely?

Hello. Have I missed anything?

Not really, no.

it wont because guns are only used in a small percentage of murder cases

How many gun owners kill someone in a rampage that does not involve their guns?

I also want a mint catapult....................just going off to make one!.

Unless someone decides that it may infringe on another parties civil liberties 😉

Can't believe this thread still going!!

ok so if I properly use a gun I wont be able to hurt you want to test this as my prey?? ...FFS have a think about this will you ...no matter how much you repeat this a gun is designed to kill people and if used correctly it will kill people and other stuff you point it at - what other purposes does it have

try this

However, there is a HUGE difference between guns designed for the killing of animals and for those designed for the killing of people. This is where the legistlation that we currently have tries (for the most part successfully imho) to draw the line. Guns for killing animals; legal to possess with good reason, guns for killing humans; illegal unless you are the police or the armed forces. Fair enough?

which has some merit as a view but gus are still more dangerous than cars.

Just to be clear JunkYard, are you advocating the complete banning of all legally held firearms in the UK? or a change to the current licencing regime? or something else?

On the numbers of gun owners and death. half a million or so shotgun lisences, 150 000 ish rifle or similar. About 25% of the deaths from guns are legally held guns but that includes suicides.

Its a dozen or two murders from legally held guns each year. Most of the deaths from legally held guns are suicides

all from memory.

Its a small number of deaths but its completely avoidable. The answer is to make the use and ownership of guns much tougher and to make the mental health assessment much tougher with a presumption against ownership. Why Atherton was given his guns back is unclear but what is clear is that was an opportunity to prevent this tragedy that was missed

Teej, walk away. This thread - I'm pleased to say - was dying a death. Please do not breathe life into the embers. Usually I enjoy the spectacle of these inane arguments, but no one has had anything interesting/amusing/thought provoking/[i]different[/i] to say for several pages. I keep checking, but am left disappointed each time.

🙂

Guns don't kill people. people (inc rappers) kill people, and we are very good at it. take away one tool, and we will find another.

Except, of course, this is facetious pish.

keep the thread open as it cleans up all the other threads for forum users to enjoy!

Guns don't kill people. people (inc rappers) kill people, and we are very good at it. take away one tool, and we will find another.

Except, of course, this is facetious pish.

Qualify, or 'pish' off.

[quote=TJ]....all from memory.

For 20 odd pages people have been asking you to post some actual proof rather than just your opinion.

Are you saying that you have researched this, found some actual proof....

And then just posted it "from Memory"

(or is it just your opinion still ?)

Sweet baby Jesus, is there anyway I can get the last hour of my life back?

I'm not really bothered either way but thought you may be interested in what I saw over Christmas.

My Father in Law has got a gun license (lives in outskirts of that there London, well built up area) and I knew he and his son have guns at home go shooting down at Bisley. Fair enough I thought why not.........until he showed me what he had in the cabinet whilst up there at Christmas.

From memory and as accurately as I can recall - (if anyone wants actual specs I can get them)

1. Some sort of American Assault Rifle, modified so that it is only single shot.

2 Heckler & Koch like the police use at Heathrow etc, modified so only single shot.

3 Magnum Revolver - bloody huge thing .45 I believe. You have to double cock it for each of 6 rounds (which are HUGE) so not quickfire as such.

4. Some old fashioned sniper rifle with telescope on top.

5. Some other pistol I can't remember Walther but not PPK!

6. A shed load of ammo, various sizes in separate safe.

7. Telescopic and red dot sites for 1 and 2

He is just applying for shotgun license as well.

His son has the same sort of stuff in his house as well (Eastern European types instead of Nato stuff)

I was gobsmacked that this small arsenal is actually allowed in a residential property. My FiL isn't a violent nutter or whatever TJ was saying but if he can get this stuff who's to say a nutter can't as well.

Shotguns and small bore stuff for pest control etc seems fine in the house, but surely this sort of stuff listed should be kept at the gun club or similar? After all it can only be used there.

Well those handguns at least are illegal if I understand the law correctly, which makes you wonder about the rest...

Well those handguns at least are illegal if I understand the law correctly, which makes you wonder about the rest...

Sure its all above board, had a quick google and found [url=

which is the Magnum (in the second part of video) aparantly all to do with length ... ooeer missus

As I said I'm not an expert and can only go on memory, but can get full details if intetrested.

[img] [/img]

Yep. You can have one of these on Section One. A long barrelled revolver. Whatever calibre you want - .357 mag, .44 mag etc..

.44 mag etc..

... the most powerful handgun in the world.

And from this range ...

Not my bag, but [i]seriously[/i] impressive shooting

8)

(ps - If I won the lottery, it could very easily become my bag, if I could shoot anything like that well... )

I thought that since the 1997 amendment of the firearms act (1/2) all private ownership of Handguns other than antiques/muzzle loaders ?

The act was created in response to the Snowdrop Petition following the Dunblane Massacre. The previous Conservative government had followed the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the massacre and introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that banned "high calibre" handguns, greater than .22 calibre (5.6 mm). This new (No. 2) act further banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre.

My Father in Law has got a gun license (lives in outskirts of that there London, well built up area) and I knew he and his son have guns at home go shooting down at Bisley. Fair enough I thought why not.........until he showed me what he had in the cabinet whilst up there at Christmas.

From memory and as accurately as I can recall - (if anyone wants actual specs I can get them)

1. Some sort of American Assault Rifle, modified so that it is only single shot.

2 Heckler & Koch like the police use at Heathrow etc, modified so only single shot.

3 Magnum Revolver - bloody huge thing .45 I believe. You have to double cock it for each of 6 rounds (which are HUGE) so not quickfire as such.

4. Some old fashioned sniper rifle with telescope on top.

5. Some other pistol I can't remember Walther but not PPK!

6. A shed load of ammo, various sizes in separate safe.

How TF can it be legal to have such an arsenal in a residential area? Do his neighbours know what he's got? 😯

His son has the same sort of stuff in his house as well (Eastern European types instead of Nato stuff)

All properly licensed and legally owned? Strikes me that if someone had a licence for one or two weapons, they might not think it necessary to have others licensed (does it cost extra per gun?).

I was gobsmacked that this small arsenal is actually allowed in a residential property. My FiL isn't a violent nutter or whatever TJ was saying but if he can get this stuff who's to say a nutter can't as well.

This. The potential for criminal types to try to rob him is a risk I'd not want anyone in a residential area to be taking. What about the danger to his family?

Sorry, but that's OTT. I mean, why would anyone want a personal defence weapon like a H+K sub-machine gun ffs? 😯

If I were you, I'd be having a word with the police. Seriously. Speshly if he's got handguns.

Are you sure he's [i]not[/i] a violent nutter?

Lets put it straight on one front, I am sure they are all legal and accounted for, I wouldn't put it up here if I wasn't, so please no insinuations on that front.

As far as I undersatnd they each have to have a license, dunno how much it costs , but considering the guns cost 4 figures each (some of them) its a small percentage to pay.

How TF can it be legal to have such an arsenal in a residential area? Do his neighbours know what he's got

Thats my point - by the way he may live next door to you...

Elfinsafety, he'll be able to legally hold those weapons because they have been modified to fire single shots.
Automatic weapons are not legal so his guns are fine....if he converts the H&K back to assault rifle spec then it becomes illegal.

I dont have a firearms certificate so i'm no expert on those rules but with my shotgun certificate i cant have multi-cartridge pump action style shotguns like we've all seen in the movies....UK rules restrict a pump action to no more than 3 cartridges.

Also the certificate covers me for several guns at no extra charge, dont actually know how many i could own but the licence is for the person not the gun.

(this thread has given me a semi, might have to whip out the credit card and treat myself to a new gun for 2012) 😆

That list of guns above is exactly the sort of thing that should be banned. Not sporting guns for targets or game even, not for vermin. There is no possible reason that stands up to have a collection of guns like that

Deviant, could you drop me a line per my profile?

There is no possible reason that stands up to have a collection of guns like that

MF - I understand why someone would want them. I don't think it is reasonable to have them. What reason other than a love of having guns? I think it is wrong as its a known and proven danger to society to have guns like that - hence the ban on handguns that he has circumvented

mastiles_fanylion - Member
Just because YOU don't understand why someone would want them, it doesn't make it wrong to want them.

Not wrong to "want" them maybe...but what is the point in owning them?

But I think that sort of collection (as wrong as it might seem - it does to me, I am just trying to see it from the other point of view) actually proves that he simply likes guns - he appears to have made them all meet current legislation (firing single shots etc).

A comparison I can think of is Lemmy's absurd obsession with Nazis - why on earth would he want this massive collection of Nazi Memorabilia is anyone's guess, but he just likes it - much like the above gun example seems to show someone who likes guns. Yes he *could* flip and shoot everyone dead within 100 metres one day but it shouldn't be an assumption that he will just because he likes guns.

Lemmy sometime earlier...
[img] [/img]

but what is the point in owning them?

Some people just like to do this stuff - I don't see the fascination in guns in the slightest bit but I can understand why people like to collect things that interest them and that Armoury is an example of someone who collects.

Elfinsafety, he'll be able to legally hold those weapons

What, including the handguns? 😕

Having an interest in firearms?

What's the difference between that and someone having an interest in knives?

(Loving the attempts at justification here. Getting weaker and weaker and weaker..)

by the way he may live next door to you...

One of my neighbours is on about shooting squirrels with an airgun, cos they keep messing up his plants (they don't really, just a couple were dug up cos they were burying nuts). I've told him he can't, as he'd be shooting out into a public area, he's within 50m of a public highway, and he's got shaky haynds coon't hit a barn door anyway. It's not about the squirrels, it's about his urge to prove himself a mayn all the time. Quite pathetic. If I even get a sniff of him firing a gun into a public area, I'll grass him. I've told him this. He thinks I'm out of order cos he's 'only killing vermin'. Is he bollocks. He wants to act out his fantasies.

Is it five years minimum for illegal firearm possession?

[img] [/img]

How about this? A Walther G22 bullpup in .22 rimfire. 10 shot magazine and semi-auto mechanism. You telling me this isn't for fantasists?

Gorgeous sofa 😮

An airgun is not a firearm unless its been massively modified...there are rules regarding the pounds-per-square-inch they fire at and the police have equipment to test this.

Deviant. Why are you being all shouty about something you know sod all about?

Pounds per square inch is a unit of pressure not muzzle energy.

How about this? A Walther G22 bullpup in .22 rimfire. 10 shot magazine and semi-auto mechanism. You telling me this isn't for fantasists?

Airguns in the UK are subject to the firearms acts, under the Firearms (Dangerous air weapons) rules 1969 they are classified as low powered Air Weapons and as such they are restricted to a maximum power of 12 foot pounds force for a rifle and 6 foot pounds force for a pistol. Above 12ftlb a rifle is classified as a Section 1 Firearm and requires a licence called a firearms certificate, and a pistol above 6ftlb is again a Section 1 Firearm requiring a firearms certificate in the UK.

Anything that is capable of killing a squirrel from 20-30 yards will have a tad more power than 12ftlb.

And knowing him, anything he gets will be significantly more powerful than that.

[quote=TJ]...There is no possible reason that stands up to have a collection like that

[IMG] [/IMG]

I quite agree.

Some people are a bit weird and they like to collect weird stuff.

Other people don't actually need to understand why.

They just need to realise that unless there are any laws being broken, it's none of there business.

mf - no! If you have a slot on your FAC for a .22 semi auto then you are free to buy this rifle.

mastiles_fanylion - Member
What is the point of collecting stamps? Or Delft Pottery? Or Heinz Beans cans?
Some people just like to do this stuff - I don't see the fascination in guns in the slightest bit but I can understand why people like to collect things that interest them and that Armoury is an example of someone who collects.

So someone gets pleasure from it...I don't see that as justifying ownership of firearms.

Oh and this one needs to turn that maglight the other way round, he'll blind himself.

[img] [/img]<

Derek the pedant, sorry i got the exact terminology wrong.

I was explaining that the point at which an airgun becomes a firearm is dependent on the force with which it shoots....and i was correct was i not?

To Elfinsatey, your neighbour is legally entitled to use an airgun in his garden provided no pellets leave the boundaries.

Use in a public area has always been a no go area as far as i'm aware....the distance ruling you speak of relates to proximity to public highways....the distance is 50ft not 50m and your neighbour would have to be 'causing upset or inconvenience to anybody using that highway' for the Police to be interested.

As kids we all used to own airguns and shoot in our gardens, never had any complaints from neighbours or interest from the Police...this forum really is full of grey killjoys.

Oh and this one needs to turn that maglight the other way round, he'll blind himself.

It is a sight, not a Maglight.

mf - no! If you have a slot on your FAC for a .22 semi auto then you are free to buy this rifle.

So someone gets pleasure from it...I don't see that as justifying ownership of firearms.

I honestly don't have an opinion on this other than that people should be allowed to carry on whatever legal activities they want to without there being an assumption that they are potential murderers simply because they have an interest in the subject - see my above post regarding Lemmy - to me, his obsession with Nazi stuff is much more disturbing than someone owning a few guns. I wonder if Lemmy could get a UK firearms licence? 🙂

it doesn't make it wrong to want them.

Or does it?

That's the point really. Personally I think that most of the $hit that people "want" these days is stuff that we would all be better off without.

Just because lots of things are legal (or the law is unenforceable) doesn't mean that it's a good idea for society.

It is a sight, not a Maglight.

Where's that gif where that bloke is about to say something, then thinks about it, then can't actually be bothered cos it's pointless?

Some people are a bit weird and they like to collect weird stuff.

It might just be me, but I can't actually see anything here designed with the specific purpose of killing.

[img] [/img]\

[img] [/img]

This is the optional integral laser sight available for the Walther G22 I posted above.
There is a silencer available too for £70. Quite a weapon. Point and shoot in silence.

DP

Where's that gif where that bloke is about to say something, then thinks about it, then can't actually be bothered cos it's pointless?

That would apply to over 20 pages of this thread, especially to some of the guff you have come out with. 🙂

To Elfinsatey, your neighbour is legally entitled to use an airgun in his garden provided no pellets leave the boundaries.

He's on about firing it out of a window of his flat, at a tree which is in a public area. Beyond the tree are more flats. Given that he has bad haynd shakes (and likes a drink), I don't feel that this is a fit and suitable person to own any weapon of this kind, and will report him if he tries to.

As kids we all used to own airguns and shoot in our gardens, never had any complaints from neighbours or interest from the Police...this forum really is full of grey killjoys.

This is a grown mayn with anger issues and a drink problem, not a child in a private garden...

That would apply to over 20 pages of this thread, especially to some of the guff you have come out with.

No you are wrong read what I've posted then you will learn stuffs.

Cynic Al will be along shortly. Expect a pwning.

Some people are a bit weird and they like to collect weird stuff.
It might just be me, but I can't actually see anything here designed with the specific purpose of killing.

Given that he has bad haynd shakes

Like what you've done there, subtle 🙂

Anyway, should people be allowed to own one of these?

[img] [/img]

Yes!....

😆

Elfinsafety - Member

Airguns in the UK are subject to the firearms acts, under the Firearms (Dangerous air weapons) rules 1969 they are classified as low powered Air Weapons and as such they are restricted to a maximum power of 12 foot pounds force for a rifle and 6 foot pounds force for a pistol. Above 12ftlb a rifle is classified as a Section 1 Firearm and requires a licence called a firearms certificate, and a pistol above 6ftlb is again a Section 1 Firearm requiring a firearms certificate in the UK.

Anything that is capable of killing a squirrel from 20-30 yards will have a tad more power than 12ftlb.

And knowing him, anything he gets will be significantly more powerful than that.

Wrong Elf, a 12ft/lbs air rifle has the ability to take small animals (rabbits, squirrel etc) easily out to 35-40yards.
This doesn't change that really, firing it unsafly in a in a built up area, it ought to be jammed up his arse backwards.

No you are wrong read what I've posted then you will learn stuffs.

Elf, you are right, I've learnt an awful lot of 'stuffs' from your posts.............