PDA

View Full Version : Legal to keep guns in the UK???



Grundy
17 Feb 06,, 00:26
i have always had a intrest in guns etc, partly why i found these messageboards in the first place and ive been hoping to get one but im not entirely sure on whether it is legal to keep them here, in the UK, i mean something like a sig sauer or maybe a colt.45 any help would be much appreciated :cool:

leib10
17 Feb 06,, 00:33
I do believe firearms are illegal in the UK. Sorry.

Grundy
17 Feb 06,, 00:38
bit of a bummer :frown: , thanks anyway :)

gunnut
17 Feb 06,, 01:49
I think it's legal, but very strict in the UK. Mostly hunting arms. I don't think it's legal to keep pistols any more.

Bill
17 Feb 06,, 03:03
I think they can still have pistols at secured firig ranges or something, but you need some crazy permit that's real expensive and real hard to get, so you pretty much have to know someone and have money.

So pretty much, forget it.

KPR
17 Feb 06,, 03:52
In the U.K? A pistol? Forget it. :frown:

Confed999
17 Feb 06,, 05:53
Yet another government that would rather see you dead than see you defend yourself. :(

leolover
17 Feb 06,, 13:18
Yet another government that would rather see you dead than see you defend yourself. :(

well, i donīt want to start a new discussion if weapons should be banned or not......

in european countrys many people think that firearms are too dangerous to give everybody easy access to them.

there are pros and cons for both ideas, it should be considered that it is also harder for criminals to get weapons (exept the black market...)

Confed999
17 Feb 06,, 17:10
well, i donīt want to start a new discussion if weapons should be banned or not......

in european countrys many people think that firearms are too dangerous to give everybody easy access to them.

there are pros and cons for both ideas, it should be considered that it is also harder for criminals to get weapons (exept the black market...)
None of that changes a word I posted...

Maxor
17 Feb 06,, 22:47
I know you can own shotguns in the UK I'm not sure about pistols. In most instances a shot gun is better for personal defense than a pistol so I hesitate to say "yet another government that doesn't want you defend yourself."

Confed999
18 Feb 06,, 18:56
I know you can own shotguns in the UK I'm not sure about pistols.
No pistols, and to the best of my knowledge one may only keep a firearm in the home with an expensive, and very hard to get permit. Gun rights for the rich. Anyway, most attacks, rapes, murders, kidnappings, etc. do not occur in the home or hunt club.

I hesitate to say "yet another government that doesn't want you defend yourself."
I do not, and it's what I say about the US government too...

gunnut
19 Feb 06,, 04:51
Australia offers the latest and greatest example of what Confed just said.

Confed999
19 Feb 06,, 16:42
Australia offers the latest and greatest example of what Confed just said.
And much of Europe, the UK included, are rushing to catch up...

HistoricalDavid
19 Feb 06,, 16:56
i mean something like a sig sauer or maybe a colt.45 any help would be much appreciated

Unfortunately, your mindset thinks those are perfectly innocent guns, because you're not asking to own Kalashnikovs. Here, you'd be lynched or at least looked at very strangely if you wanted to own one.

The standard policeman is unarmed, let alone citizens! 80% of police don't want to carry guns.

Yet, I see that 40% of Britain's 2 million Muslims want to introduce Sharia Law into Muslim-dominated parts of the country, and I realise that there is no defence left when you have a politically correct government as weak as ours.

If I ever gain a modicum of political power for some reason, I will lobby for gun ownership. Until then, I can console myself that in my economics class, a whole 30%, including the teacher, support civilian firearm ownership.

Aryan
25 Feb 06,, 23:29
Handguns are totally banned, but shotguns and rifles are ok as long as you get a shotgun or firearms certificate. But very few people own one, even owning a BB gun (let alone an airrifle) is seen as "dangerous" and frowned upon. Of course, that doesn't stop criminals from own guns - the UK has one of the highest gun crime rates in Europe.

Wardogg1990
08 Jul 06,, 13:39
You can bearly get a Doctors appointment over here , never mind a firearm,
although I do think we should be able too.

ChrisF202
08 Jul 06,, 16:40
And thats why over 200 British cops a year are killed compared like 50 a year here, at least thats what the History Channel said when they explored the issue.

Ever notice how the only unarmed police forces left in the world are the backwards bobbies, Irish Garda? The funny part is that the Garda detectives are armed yet the patrol officers are not, how is the SWAT team supposed to tell the difference between the IRA and their fellow officers lol?

Actually we did have several unarmed police forces until very recently.

- US Department of Veterans Affairs Police were unarmed until 2001 - not sure if all VA Hospitals have all been armed yet
- New York State University Campus Police were unarmed until 1999 - several of the 64 campuses are still unarmed (see below).
- Most National Park Service Rangers are unarmed, only about 1,800 out of 6,000 are armed and have arrest powers.
- When the FBI was created in 1913 its agents were unarmed and had no arrest powers (that changed in 1932).
- I think alot of college/university police and security forces are unarmed. I know Gorge Washington Unv, SUNY Suffolk, all City Unv of NY campuses, Hofstra and SUNY FIT are all unarmed and I think its the norm for all college/university campus "public safety" while college/univeristy campus police mostly seem armed.

jame$thegreat
08 Jul 06,, 16:59
well, i donīt want to start a new discussion if weapons should be banned or not......

in european countrys many people think that firearms are too dangerous to give everybody easy access to them.

there are pros and cons for both ideas, it should be considered that it is also harder for criminals to get weapons (exept the black market...)

i dont mean to sound agrumentative but the shear ignrorance of that comment warrents it....its harder for criminals to get weapons if they are illegal?? :confused: that makes sense....a criminal by definition is someone who parktakes in an illegal action! how would making a law banning people from owning an illegal weapon stop someone who is already committing an illegal act from doing so??? ever heard of the term gun runner??? :confused:

Triple C
08 Jul 06,, 17:31
i dont mean to sound agrumentative but the shear ignrorance of that comment warrents it....its harder for criminals to get weapons if they are illegal?? :confused: that makes sense....a criminal by definition is someone who parktakes in an illegal action! how would making a law banning people from owning an illegal weapon stop someone who is already committing an illegal act from doing so??? ever heard of the term gun runner??? :confused:

US is one of the very few country that allow civillian possession of firearms. Part of that story is probably the historic lack of fear from internal revolts due to the democratic constitution of the nation. There was a civil war, but the threat of revolution was neither pervasive nor constant for most of US history. Instead in Europe or pretty much most other developed world states there had been a long history of domestic unrest and regime unstability.

It is harder for criminals to get weapons if they are illegal, but it's a matter of degrees and depends on

ChrisF202
09 Jul 06,, 16:47
Exactly, its not like gun stores hand them out left and right. We have backround checks, anyone who has been convicted of a crime or is mentally challenged cannot purchase or ever be in pocession of a gun or ammo.

Most criminals get their guns off the black market.

leib10
09 Jul 06,, 16:54
I saw a woman denied the sale of a pistol because she was convicted once of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.

dave angel
09 Jul 06,, 17:09
And thats why over 200 British cops a year are killed compared like 50 a year here, at least thats what the History Channel said when they explored the issue.


the history channels figures are somewhat, err... off.

some 50 (fifty) police officers have been killed on duty in Great Britain since 1980. those figures include police officers killed in traffic accidents and a police helicopter crash off the west of Scotland.

a WPC was killed earlier this year in Bradford when she turned up to what appeared to be a domestic incident at a travel agent and walked into an armed robbery.

as a news item it lasted a full week or so on the national front pages. were 200 - or even 20 - police officers killed each year it would barely get a mention.

dalem
09 Jul 06,, 21:20
US is one of the very few country that allow civillian possession of firearms. Part of that story is probably the historic lack of fear from internal revolts due to the democratic constitution of the nation. There was a civil war, but the threat of revolution was neither pervasive nor constant for most of US history. Instead in Europe or pretty much most other developed world states there had been a long history of domestic unrest and regime unstability.

Your statement is diametrically opposed to the reality. You imply above that American citizens are somehow "permitted" to have firearms because the government doesn't perceive us as a threat, when the reality is that the government is permitted to exist because an armed citizenry can always remove it if it becomes tyrannical.

Today that's an idealized version of the system as envisioned by the founding fathers - the federal and state governments have grown in size and influence (in some ways appallingly-so) - but the basic logic is still sound, and an armed citizenry is, and always has been, an essential element in the American vision.

-dale

ChrisF202
10 Jul 06,, 14:59
the history channels figures are somewhat, err... off.

some 50 (fifty) police officers have been killed on duty in Great Britain since 1980. those figures include police officers killed in traffic accidents and a police helicopter crash off the west of Scotland.

a WPC was killed earlier this year in Bradford when she turned up to what appeared to be a domestic incident at a travel agent and walked into an armed robbery.

as a news item it lasted a full week or so on the national front pages. were 200 - or even 20 - police officers killed each year it would barely get a mention.
Yes but the majority of US cops killed in the line of duty are in car accidents, motorcycle crashes, and on duty heart attacks/medical conditions. The average here I think is like 60 a year with something like 12,000 since 1776, also remember that in the early days most of our forces were unarmed as well and were (and still are in some places) very small organizations. One village near me only has 2 full time officers and 30 part time officers who work in the summer months only.

JBodnar39
13 Jul 06,, 00:20
One of the biggest problems here in the US when it comes to guns getting into the wrong hands are straw purchases. All states have some sort of backgroudn check on gun purchasers, however there is no limit to how many guns they can buy. So a guy that is not yet a convicted felon can walk into a store and buy ten pistols if he wants - then go to the gunshop down the street and buy another dozen; then he sells them on the street and makes a nice profit. And yes that is done - quite a bit. When I was a cop we locked up one guy in New York who had bought something like 90 pistols from more than a dozen gun stores in Georgia (he wasn't arrested for buying them - but for possessing them - which is illegal in NY).

leib10
13 Jul 06,, 03:50
Another problem are purchases from private individuals. To the best of my knowledge, the guns are not registered to the new owner, and sometimes the previous owner doesn't keep record of or even remember the person he sold it to, making it more difficult to track the perp down if the weapon is used in a crime and then found.

Horrido
13 Jul 06,, 04:41
It's illegal to sell to a felon, so the whole argument over mass gun purchasses and private sales is down the tube. What you need is an easily accessible instant background check that lists those who may not legally posess a firearm, so you know who not to sell to, and thereby still protects the law-abiding and their confidentiality.

dalem
13 Jul 06,, 06:30
What we "need" is for criminals to be caught and incarcerated. Assault, theft, murder, etc., are already illegal, whether they're committed with crowbars or Glocks.

-dale

Horrido
13 Jul 06,, 06:56
I'd rather see criminals caught an incinerated. Any violent act committed while in posession of a firearm should pretty much be an instant capitol offence, death penalty required.

pdf27
13 Jul 06,, 21:56
Was monkeying around with a set of Browning 9mm pistols on tuesday night. NONE of the girls there was physically able to **** the weapon without assistance - they even stopped the lesson as they were waving the end that goes bang all over the shop :eek:

ChrisF202
16 Jul 06,, 18:46
Yet another reason why females should be banned from the military and law enforcement.

pdf27
16 Jul 06,, 20:35
Yet another reason why females should be banned from the military and law enforcement.
They vary. Some of the girls on the weekend I've just done are excellent, and will happily run me into the ground/tab for longer/etc. than I am capable of. It all depends what they need to do - Infantry is a very different matter from say being a postie or a chef.
The girls in question who couldn't even **** a pistol are driver/radio operators in a Battalion HQ for a rear area unit. Should they ever need to use a pistol (which are incidentally issued at about 4 per Battalion - and they were fine with rifles) then we would have far greater things to worry about than how good they were with them.

SnowLeopard
21 Jul 06,, 11:08
I'd rather see criminals caught an incinerated. Any violent act committed while in posession of a firearm should pretty much be an instant capitol offence, death penalty required.

Okay, I'll start here. Two things to this. First of all, remember that along with the 2nd amendment, there is the 8th amendment. No cruel and unusual punishment, punishment proportional to the crime. Unless they kill someone, you can't execute them. Start monkeying around with the amendments, such as saying that you should execute violent act with firearm criminals, 8th amendment be damned ................... and how long do you think the other amendments including the 2nd will stand up?

Secondly, look at it from the point of view of the victim and the crook. If they are going to execute the crook for any violent crime with a gun, not just murder, then why take a risk on keeping the witnesses around, someone who can identify them? If the punishment is the same, might as well kill them up front and be safe about it.

On unarmed police forces: I was incharge of one. Day to day affairs, there were no guns. We could pull them from the armory if the balloon went up and we were trained extensively on their use. So among other things, what did this mean ...............

....................... that I trained and had my troops trained to be very dirty in HtH and to put people in the hospital. Professionally, that probably would have been the ER, but personally, looking at my skills these days, I've come to the conclusion that it will be up to the Fates of whether it is the ER or the Morgue for the person.

Rather gave my police troops a lot of leeway on such an issue. "Do what is necessary so you are safe, so the base is safe. If we lose in court, that's a risk I am willing to take." Gave them a lot of leeway and of course, I was taking a large risk if one of my troops did such to someone without a decent reason, went too far. I would be the one on the carpet for such.

Probably a lot of the skills taught, used are illegal these days. I miss sleeper chokes. But that's one of the misconceptions I think people have about HtH. That it is "nice", "safer" than firearms. It is true if one is using a gun, it is deadly force .............. but it doesn't take too much for HtH to become deadly force as well. Any hits to the head are that in an instant and if he is bigger than you and the head is all that is available ............ you're going to take what you can get.

About women in the military and on police forces and banning them from such. Bad notion. Sure, there are a lot of weak women, unsuitable for such. Such can also be said about men. Think I fired 3 women, 5 men from a 75 mbr security force but none of them were fired because of strength issues and we were using M-16's, M1911's. Further, in certain operations, women are better than men.

Ie, one is dealing with a civilian population to one degree or another. One can find it difficult interviewing some women, some children, even some men if the interviewer is man and not a woman. If one has a bomb threat in a building, it is better to have a woman check out the woman's bathroom. Why? Because odds are she will notice if something is out of place better than a man will. If one is running dive operations such as for surveillance, the smaller lungs of a woman might be a consideration to the endurance of a team given the same size of tanks. And so forth (those are the three that immediately come to mind).

As far as to the topic line: glad I'm in the US and not the UK; I like having my USP .45 with me whereever I go!
-----------------------------------------
(Concerning the rumor that a BM1 was going to get into a fight at the bar with a diver: "Well, when I was with him (the BM1), I would say 'Let's go get some coffee and that would calm him right down."--my woman dispatcher
"Coffee ....... that's not a bad idea!"--Me
"Well, it won't work for you, Lieutenant!"
"I don't intend to drink it with him; I'm going to hit him with it! (because most bars have a pot going)", (w,stte), personal history)

Doug97
31 Jul 06,, 01:36
Handguns and all fully automatic weapons are classified Section 5 Firearms, and to get one you must (among other things) be a member of the military or police.

Rifles that are single-shot or bolt-action magazine-fed are Section 1 Firearms, and you can apply for a licence for these weapons. This costs money and you must demonstrate a "legitimate need". Semiautomatic .22 rimfire rifles also come under Section 1, as do air rifles that have a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft-lbs.

Shotguns require a Shotgun License, which is the easiest license to get. Semiautomatic shotguns come under this classification, unless the magazine can hold more than 3 rounds, in which case it is a Section 1 Firearm.

Air rifles with a muzzle energy less than 12 ft-lbs do not require any license, although there is a currently a strong movement looking to have these restricted or banned, particularly in Scotland. 12 ft-lbs is enough power to easily kill small animals such as rabbits or pigeons.