Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[survivalistuk]

This topic has really been stirred up since the Sandy school shootings.

My view is that guns are merely a tool. It can be used responsibly and safely but it can also be used unsafely and for revenge and crime. So how do you ensure that the right people get access to guns and the wrong people do not? A difficult task as mental illness for examples can strike at anytime.

The current set up in the UK seems decent. You have to apply for a license and keep the weapon and ammo in extremely safe places. As far as I'm aware anyone with no criminal/violent record and no history of mental illness would be accepted for a licence. If Im wrong please do put me right as I'm no expert on this topic.

The weapons you can buy are very restricted as far as im aware so no handguns, no automatics etc.

This idea that more guns equal less crime is complete nonsense in my opinion. This is more wishful thinking that factual basis.

In the US according to figures, 40% of weapon sales do not get background checks. This 40% is claimed to be sold heavily via the supermarkets. It wouldn't surprise me as these companies would whore their mothers out for sales and profit.

[12mp82]

The current set up in the UK seems decent. You have to apply for a license and keep the weapon and ammo in extremely safe places. As far as I'm aware anyone with no criminal/violent record and no history of mental illness would be accepted for a licence. If Im wrong please do put me right as I'm no expert on this topic.

That is pretty much it, the system in the US is the same, just that the checks are done over the phone for buying a rifle, they take up to a couple of weks for a first time purchase of pistols.

No criminal/violent record and no mental illness and of age, same criteria in both countries to get firearm.

As you have also noted everyone of age and with no mental health issues, or criminal/violence record can get a certificate for owning a shotgun in the UK, that is everyone in the UK has the right to own a shotgun except if you are exempt due to health or crime.

When it comes to Section one firearms the tale is very different.

Semi-automatic .22 rifles are fine to own in the UK
Semi-automatic weapons above .22 calibre are not, though straight pull rifles (one pull one shot) are OK
Semi-automatic pistols without an extended barrel and pistol grip are not allowed under section one.
Black-powder revolvers are permitted
Pump action/semi automatic shotguns are permitted
Bolt action rifles upto and including .50 are permitted

Though for these you need to show you have good reason, membership of a shooting club is one such reason.

So in effect we can "Arm the nation" it is the Nation that doesn't want to arm itself.

[tom2tom]

The current set up in the UK seems decent. You have to apply for a license and keep the weapon and ammo in extremely safe places. As far as I'm aware anyone with no criminal/violent record and no history of mental illness would be accepted for a licence. If Im wrong please do put me right as I'm no expert on this topic.

That is pretty much it, the system in the US is the same, just that the checks are done over the phone for buying a rifle, they take up to a couple of weks for a first time purchase of pistols.

No criminal/violent record and no mental illness and of age, same criteria in both countries to get firearm.

As you have also noted everyone of age and with no mental health issues, or criminal/violence record can get a certificate for owning a shotgun in the UK, that is everyone in the UK has the right to own a shotgun except if you are exempt due to health or crime.

When it comes to Section one firearms the tale is very different.

Semi-automatic .22 rifles are fine to own in the UK
Semi-automatic weapons above .22 calibre are not, though straight pull rifles (one pull one shot) are OK
Semi-automatic pistols without an extended barrel and pistol grip are not allowed under section one.
Black-powder revolvers are permitted
Pump action/semi automatic shotguns are permitted
Bolt action rifles upto and including .50 are permitted

Though for these you need to show you have good reason, membership of a shooting club is one such reason.

So in effect we can "Arm the nation" it is the Nation that doesn't want to arm itself.

I agree with that if we wanted one we could get one.

[Attack Warning Red]

12mp82 - thanks for that common sense.

I do wonder, watching the news this morning with it all kicking off in Northern Ireland again. Imagine, alongside burning cars and rioting, that citizens are also carrying guns. Or the London riots - on top of the looting and burning, we have bullets flying around on London streets. Doesn't bear thinking about.

Let's keep the law as it is eh?

[12mp82]

When you look at the major incidents using registered firearms in the UK there have been only three in the UK in the last 25 years, two of which changed the rules and the third there was no change.

[highlandprepper]

I think for me a renewed look at gun law in Britain would be a welcome sight....

I don't know if going to the same lengths as America is a good idea, but owning a fully legal pistol of some sort for home/family defence makes sense to me.

I am a fac holder which is for a weapon used for legal stalking here in the highlands. But I can tell you, that having spent some time working in security, that I have watched a lot of assaults taking place, and that all manner of weapons are used, from bike chains through bottles e.t.c.

I like what people said about trustworthy people having the right to weapons, but also agree that it would be incredibly difficult to determine WHO is trustworthy!

However I do not like the idea that a pistol e.t.c would not be necessary to protect yourself from a less lethal weapon, or that if we all had a weapon for protection, then the bad guys do too so it cancels itself out.
The reasons I do not agree are the following....

1. I taught self defence to the public for a short time, and I know for certain that the vast majority of people are woefully incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed attacker, let alone one armed with ANY type of weapon. If a person was deemed to be trustworthy and owned a small pistol, the odds are changed if they are trained how to properly use it.

2. If the attacker DOES have a similar weapon, you have merely closed the gap in relation to your ability to use MINIMUM force. I know I am reasonably adept at defending me and mine, but if somebody has come prepared, I am automatically at a disadvantage am I not?

I completely understand people's hesitancy when it comes to firearms, but believe that if we had better control and vetting, this could be done on a more moderated level than has been done in America??

[12mp82]

If a person was deemed to be trustworthy and owned a small pistol, the odds are changed if they are trained how to properly use it.

How are they going to be trained? There is a BIG difference between a paper target and a human being, and what about if they missed, how many innocents are hurt or killed?

From a US Site I was reading

Funny, my husband and I were just speaking an hour ago about an O D Female officer who emptied her 2in snubnosed Smith standing four feet from her aggressor (armed with a knife), she emptied her gun... and missed every single shot

And apparently she was a trained police officer, so what would the chances be for a 20year old woman in the UK?

A useful video showing a gun is likely to be useless in a knife fight.

[KalPrep]

I don't think anyone should be carrying any form of offensive weapon in public. If you are accosted in public, give em what they want and get to a police station. Cases of violence (especially against women) are a hard area to cover but I have heard that self defense courses are effective.

What I am more concerned about is the incidence of home invasion, particularly having been the victim of burglary whilst I was in the premises. Weapons for home defense seem more sensible, can be controlled, audited and people requesting for those purposes could be mandated to attend periodic training and accreditation in their use.

I don't agree with the way the US does things but I think that re-assessment of our laws should be undertaken in consultation with bodies responsible for their enactment. I also agree with something modplod said earlier about a dedicated organisation responsible not only for enforcement and controls but also for the encouragement of the sports and associated businesses which go along with responsible firearm ownership.

[12mp82]

What I am more concerned about is the incidence of home invasion, particularly having been the victim of burglary whilst I was in the premises. Weapons for home defense seem more sensible, can be controlled, audited and people requesting for those purposes could be mandated to attend periodic training and accreditation in their use.

So maybe have the defensive item on a long wire so it can't be removed from the house where it is registered too?

You can have a lot of defensive items in your house, doesn't have to be a gun, doesn't need to be licenced, a base ball bat, pick axe handle, walking stick, axe, knife and lots more besides.

Most burglaries and home break-ins/invasions in the UK are not done with the perpetrator carrying a gun, so using one against them is possibly going to be seen as excessive, and I don't think that acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner falls within the remit of being a home owner. The rules do change though if the person entering goes up stairs whilst it is occupied.

But if you feel that it is justified to shoot someone and possibly kill them for taking a TV or lap top then go for it, in most cases they won't be wanting to do anything apart from raise some money for their next fix or whatever.

There seems to be a lot of clutching at straws to have something we don't really need, but are entitled to have anyway.

[KalPrep]

Playing devils advocate.... Cos it's fun...

As a sensible person, which of the following would you consider the least dangerous? ( I acknowledge it is over simplistic however going into all the details would bore us all to death!!)

A) a vetted home owner with a controlled handgun for home protection who has been on mandated training courses, has to periodically re-accredit and has to be a member of a registered club who vouch for them. Also, their training specifically covers home defense and how to react, act and warn someone coming into the their home in simulated environments.

B) a person who keeps knives, baseball bats or golf clubs around the house with zero training, zero experience and having watched too many movies and believed them.

Personally, I believe a) is the better approach. There have been some incidents on this forum with people talking about things in the b) realm and quite rightly the mods have stamped on it. However, we must acknowledge that b) is out there and is dangerous for both victim and perpetrator.

The last thing I would ever want is irresponsible, untrained and uncontrolled people with firearms of any kind, or being in a position where they are forced to make bad judgements with improvised weapons. I am a better the devil you know kind of guy.i know bad things can happen and I know there are bad things out there, but if we take steps to control and properly educate we can manage the risk a lot better than thinking the problems magically don't exist.