I agree ridiculous. You can't buy a knife in the UK by mail order. In shops there are 18 age restrictions (probably sensible this one). Carrying a knife outside of a trade or in your car tool kit is all but outlawed. Yet knife crime persists....Then again knives are easily obtainable by other means - people are now stealing them in burglaries - one of the reasons why the UK has such strict security laws on guns.
Again, I understand the argument in favor of keeping anything dangerous locked up to reduce the chances of whatever it is being stolen and used by criminals. And if it's completely illegal to use a weapon in self-defense, then my argument that keeping your guns and ammo locked up becomes moot, of course. I don't like the idea that ordinary citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with a weapon. Basically, that says that if you're physically small, or old, or disabled, you're fair game for anyone larger, stronger, etc. Guns are often referred to as "the great equalizer" in this context. It really is a shame that the British have allowed this to become the law of the land.
I don't disagree. I predicted the terror attacks privately using cars a good 5 yrs before they 1st happened, as it was the logical step where weapons couldn't be obtained.
Yeah, me too. It was only a matter of time until people started using cars, trucks, etc. as weapons. The odd thing is: I never hear the US media or liberal politicians calling for bans on cars, trucks, etc. They're only outraged when its a gun that's used in an attack. It really does appear that their agenda is NOT the safety of the citizens, but disarmament of the population. And that is a scary thing.
Actually EU guns laws are much weaker than the UK's. Plus having physical borders with other countries, many of which aren't checked due to EU free movement laws, as opposed to the UK which is an island, makes them easier to smuggle. The uk banned all semi-auto weapons a long time ago, except for .22 rimfire. All CF are bolt action only.
I can see how that works better for the UK in keeping guns out of the hands of many crooks and casual terrorists. But, of course, I'd say that the price paid for this little bit of extra security is too high. A judgement call, of course.
Here, semi-auto guns are, for the most part, legal to own. And I'm very glad that hasn't been taken away from us... yet.
I wouldn't know. There are a lot of videos on YouTube of persons with automatic weapons, but I understand, correctly or otherwise, it varies according to state.
See this:
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia
This does not vary from state to state.
Private ownership of machine guns made after 1986 is entirely banned by federal law. All pre-1986 automatic weapons must be registered with the ATF and require extensive background checks before private citizens may own them. And you can expect to pay upwards of $50,000 to purchase one of them!
Again, I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun. And I know a lot of gun owners. The US media is largely very liberal. They will say anything they want, true or not, to further their anti-gun agenda, it seems. So don't go by what you see. And as far as YouTube videos: I see some of those, and am jealous!
An annual "machine gun shoot" is held near here every summer. For some fee, you can fire one of the machine guns they bring in, but you also pay for the ammo, of course! They fly radio controlled airplanes and the like around downrange for everyone to shoot at, so it's supposed to be a fun event. I've never attended, but may well do so one of these times. I suspect a lot of the videos you see of folks firing fully-automatic guns are at shooting ranges that rent these guns, at special events, or are made by the people who are lucky enough and wealthy enough to afford one. But machine guns are extremely rare. And as far as I know, no crime has been committed with one in the US in the last 50 years or more.
That's pretty much what our security laws do, make it much harder to steal, plus it also keeps them out of the hands of bullied teenagers etc thus preventing the school tragedies you have.
This is a difficult thing to argue against on an emotional level. It always seems like "if it saves just one child" arguments are very persuasive. But again, the statistics show that the actual chances of anyone other than a gang member or other criminal being shot in the US is remote in the extreme. The media seizes upon any examples and airs coverage endlessly, of course, because it fits their ulterior motives and is sensational, so it sells advertising. They also cover airplane crashes extensively because they're sensational and keep people tuned in. It doesn't matter if they have nothing further to add to the story, the round-the-clock "breaking news" coverage of such disasters is unceasing. News channels are, of course, businesses. And they make their money selling advertising. "If it bleeds, it leads."
But this disproportionate coverage of spectacular events gives the public a distorted perception of relative dangers. I don't avoid air travel even though I've seen countless fiery jet crashes covered endlessly over the years because I know that the statistics show air travel to be very safe. And knowing the true statistics on so-called "gun violence", I also don't shun guns or want to see them banned, etc. But the general public here, too, is fed endless propaganda about the dangers of guns. Never mind the actual statistics, this is all emotion-based and it's easy to whip the population up into a frenzy over these rare events, even though our kids are far more likely to die from medical malpractice, obesity, smoking, car crashes from texting and driving, etc., etc. Those things just aren't nearly as fun to watch on TV, and don't play into the agendas of those who want to see us all disarmed and pacified.
Again I agree. But the population here are brainwashed. Every US shooting gets big coverage with a huge media play on how stupid US laws are and how it's hard to comprehend the US's love of guns. eg.
US gun control will not psycho committing a massacre - but it will certainly save lives
Most parents in the UK won't even allow their children to have toy guns or watch cowboy or war films anymore. That's how anti-gun the UK has become. People who shoot daren't have anything in their car that indicates their hobby for fear of it being vandalised or them attacked. I agree with Uk checks and security. I believe the ideal position for security vs safety lies between the UK and US positions.
We see this here, too. There's an endless assault on basic freedoms and especially gun ownership. Many parents won't let their kids play "cops and robbers" or the like. And kids have been expelled from school for, as an example, biting their toaster pastry into the rough outline shape of a gun! It's ridiculous.
Pop-Tart gun suspension upheld by Maryland judge
That's what's already happened here. The least bit of a shooting and legal ownership laws are tightened ever more. But the UK population as a vast majority don't want anyone owning guns. Then again the UK has never been through a civil war for hundreds of years or suffered oppressive government so the UK population has no fear of it's government, so unlike the US, possessing guns to prevent oppression is a ridiculous idea to most UK citizens.
I can understand that. And it only takes a generation or so for most of the population to forget that people fought and died to preserve their basic freedoms. In the US, the education system is extremely liberal. So kids are force-fed an extremely lopsided world view and are bullied by students, parents, and teachers alike if they show any degree of conservatism. It's shameful.
I agree. Anyone determined enough will get one, or use alternative means such as a car. The answer to my mind lies between the US and UK positions.
That may be true, but again, it's a slippery slope, and believe me, there is a constant hard-fought struggle here to keep things from ending up being at least as restrictive as what exists in the UK, Australia, etc.
The possession of weapons in the UK isn't lawful for self defence. Although there is in theory a right of self defence with weapons held for other purposes, the UK does not look favourably on citizens taking the law into their own hands and will often jail people for excessive force:
This is a very famous case, although it was aggravated by the fact he held the weapon illegally:
Tony Martin (farmer) - Wikipedia
Worth noting that in an earlier case, he had his licence revoked for shooting the boot of the car of a thief.
Other self defence cases where the homeowner was persecuted:
Five years in prison for acting in self-defence
Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home'
This is somewhat true here, too. Even though you may posses a gun legally, in many places, using that gun in self defense will likely result in your being prosecuted. Some states have laws designed to protect the "defender" from prosecution and civil liability, but in general, you must be extremely careful using any force at all, and especially if it's just to defend property. In a concealed carry class recently, I was told that even drawing your gun would very likely cost you at least $50,000 to defend yourself in court regardless of the verdict.
It's all too easy to say: "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.", but you really do need to think very carefully before using any sort of force, much less a weapon, in self defense here, too.
It's like I was saying about the video at the top of this thread. It really is questionable whether you should give chase to someone you catch red-handed stealing from you. If someone gets hurt, you could very likely be held liable for the injuries even though you were chasing a thief.
A guy I know was held up by a gun-carrying robber as he left a convenience store in Colorado a number of years back. He's a big guy, and he whacked the would-be robber upside the head with a gallon of milk. Knocked him out cold, and the gallon jug exploded on impact. Nonetheless, the robber sued him for damages! Yep. A guy who was robbing my friend at gunpoint sued for damages after my friend smacked him with a gallon jug of milk! In this case, the judge dismissed the suit almost immediately, but who knows what would have happened if this had occurred today, not ten years ago. Colorado has turned very liberal these days. It's scary!