Charlton Heston Dies, Age 84

[nichomach]

First assertion is incorrect, JPreston, since the massive influx of guns into the UK has been fuelled by illegal imports, largely from former Eastern Bloc countries, or by *ahem* souvenirs from government-funded foreign travel, for instance. Not by guns ever legally held in the UK. Unless you have figures to prove otherwise, I wouldn't expect much disparity in pricing between a black market Makarov or AK in the UK or the US. Oh, I certainly don't advocate a general right to carry, by the way; the liberty to own a target pistol for sporting use doesn't equate to a general right to go out tooled up with a couple of .357s and an M16 .

[Bazzlad]

Banning legal firearms restricts the supply of potential illegal guns.

Hasn't worked here has it? Our Country has more guns in it since the banning of handguns.

Does anyone believe that it's easier or cheaper to obtain a black-market gun in this country than the US? Or that it's more commonplace for UK criminals to carry guns, than US criminals?

Nope but we're arguing that handguns should be allowed how they used to be, licensed and primarily for athletes.

Now Preston, I don't have the time to go into one of our usual arguments so I'll keep it on track.

1) I agree that if no guns existed in the first place, gun crime would be lower.
"All illegal firearms, started out as legal firearms"

2) However, that world doesn't exist, and the creation of guns isn't that hard for decent engineers - they may not be anywhere near the standard of a "proper" gun, but they would still kill people, and with no legal guns existing the money in these weapons would be high. My point being here is basically the people who want to use them for bad reasons will always be able to get their hands on them.

3) Remove guns altogether from the equation and the problem starts with the next weapon down.
EG In the UK Knife crime is much higher than gun crime.

So the problem isn't the specific weapon - it's the people, and those who would use guns, would just as quickly use a knife, sword, bricks, fists if said original weapon wasn't available.

So, to round up, banning handguns how they used to be allowed hasn't really helped. At all.

No one has said they want everyone to be allowed hand guns, however there is a direct correlation in banning hand guns and gun crime rising. Which I put down to feel of reprisal.

And bazzlad, I hope you've registered your fists as deadly weapons.

And I hope you registered that wit. It's RAZOR sharp.

[TheAnimus]

I'd be intrested to know figures regarding gun crime that involved legally owned hand guns, and to be all Gardian, Children. Because as soon as you do something with children, people are intrested.

Then, lets look at the figures for road deaths involving children.

Now, how come we don't ban cars, which cause so many more deaths of sweet inccoent children? Won't someone please think of the children!

The reason, regardless of how reprehensible you might find it, is because we take a balanced risk, look at the pro's (ie been able to get to work) vrs the con's (death of what is really a very few children).

So, if it was the death of 16 childrens that took hand guns to be banned, why haven't we banned airplaines, trains, and automobiles?

Guns are not designed to kill anyless than the bi product of a car's roll is. Most guns are designed to incapacite anyway, killing isn't the objective, making sure the other person can't you is the goal. Killing is mearly an obvious by product.

[JPreston]

First assertion is incorrect, JPreston, since the massive influx of guns into the UK has been fuelled by illegal imports

sure, so my point is correct. You just are thinking parochially. There are no 'illegal gun' factories anywhere. The guns used in crime in the UK were all legally made, legally bought, illegally smuggled, illegally sold. That it is possible to buy a gun in Romania for twenty quid and drive back to the UK is not an indication that our laws are too strict, it indicates that Romania's are too lax. Following suit in the UK would not improve anything other than our balance of trade deficit.

why are we even talking about drug-related gun crime anyway? The rise in that can be no more attributed to the handgun ban, than it can the ban on fox hunting. The handgun ban came about as a result of the Dunblane massacre IIRC. We have not had a single crazed gunman on shooting spree since (Hungerford was earlier I think? but anyway was a rifle). In the US they remain remarkably committed to the shooting spree concept, and - no links, I'm afraid i'm posting from my phone - more than 80% of those are carried out with legally licensed guns. Ergo, the ban on handguns has been entirely successful.

[nichomach]

We didn't have one for about 20 years before that, either, JPreston; see my recommendation for mandatory finger-snapping above . That said we have had multiple shootings since, like those of Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare - which were, of course, carried out with a class of weapon that's been illegal since 1948... So much for gun control.

As far as supply goes, given that we agree that the source is illegal imports, and indeed that has always been the prime source for illegal; weapons in this country, the ban's made no substantive difference to the supply of illegally held guns either. That leaves aside your assumption that all firearms manufacture in other countries is well-regulated (it isn't) that all the guns produced are legally held initially (they aren't) manufactured legally (not hardly). Your point is incorrect.

[MadduckUK]

i blame rappers myself...

[Salazaar]

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference anyway... there's no pressure on the government to repeal the current gun laws and it's unlikely that there will be any time soon.

[Flibb]

Both Hungerford and Dunblane were carried out by people that were known to the Police, and held firearms licenses. In both cases if the laws of the day had been implemented by the Police, neither would have held a license or a gun. For an interesting read on Dunblane
THE DUNBLANE SHOOTINGS AND GUN LAW

As to the question of gun ownership I hold both shotgun and firearms certificates, and use them mainly for hunting but also for target shooting. Somebody made a comment that nobody needs to own guns, well its an Olympic sport, and taking the same attitude just about anything could be banned. Alcohol kills far more people in the UK than legally held guns, I take it booze should be banned as well, along with cars, etc?

Also semi auto rifles in .22 rimifire are legal (LR and .22WMR), along with semi auto shotguns with large mags, as long as they are on an sec 1 FAC. Muzzle loading revolvers are also permitted, along with historic items held on sec7. My knowledge of the Dunblane enquiry stems for working on processing submissions for it for one of the organisation that gave evidence., although this was at a regional offcie rather than at the enquiry its self.

[Flibb]

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference anyway... there's no pressure on the government to repeal the current gun laws and it's unlikely that there will be any time soon.

Actually there is quiet a bit of pressure, mainly as pistol shooting is an olympic event.

[Flibb]

Actually there are many ilegal gun factorys, you can make a working pistol in under an hour on a lathe.

[TheAnimus]

Its also worth noting that you can legally own an arsanal of firearms if you have a valid reason, for instance to protect your fishing vessil from the Spanish (no joke). A friend of mine has glock's for this purpose.

[pauldarkside]

Shame you can't do the same "protecting" your sanity from chavs

[Flibb]

Its also worth noting that you can legally own an arsanal of firearms if you have a valid reason, for instance to protect your fishing vessil from the Spanish (no joke). A friend of mine has glock's for this purpose.

Havent go the proper figures but there were several thousand permits issued for self defence carry in the UK, mainly MPs, ex police, etc. We also have some of the best military wepons makers around, this operate on different laws and make anything from single shot sniper rifles to tanks. One that just makes rifles is

RPA International - Target Rifles, Sporting Rifles, Hunting Rifles, Tactical Rifles, Custom Rifles


Personally if I felt I had to carry to be safe I would leave, I just want to carry on doing my hobbie, and provide food for the table.

[JPreston]

Somebody made a comment that nobody needs to own guns, well its an Olympic sport

So's pole vaulting, but I don't feel the need to buy one of those either

Interesting info there, and range of opinions. But I take it the concensus is that concealed carry/home defence weapons are plain stupid ideas? Those arguing in favour of handguns seem to be arguing on the basis that they quite fancy doing target shooting, fair enough, but if the Dunblane laws were repealed does anyone think it would have a deterrent effect on crime? That the armed criminals would stop carrying guns in case they should stumble across a member of the British pistol shooting olympic squad?

The whole debate seems to have gone a bit OT. Charlton Heston was a muppet, who used his $millions and endless leisure time to lobby against every form of gun control they have even in the US....that ban on automatic rifles was allowed to lapse (forget which state), waiting periods were cut, and blah blah blah. Tens of thousands of people were killed in this time. And still the NRAs answer is to arm everyone else....they even used the Virginia Tech massacre as an argument for more armed students

[Flibb]

You may not want to own one, but it shouldnt be banned just because its not your sport. I dont want to own a motorbike, but I wouldnt want them banned because they dont interest me.

In the US many states allowed concealed carry solely for defence, not for target shooting. In the UK its ilegal to carry any item for defence, if you carry an umbrella to keep the rain off you thats OK, tell the police you carry it for defence and you have commited a criminal act, the same goes for a news paper, carrot, or any item of fruit or veg.

Changing the laws that came in after Dunblane would have no effect on gun crime, then again bringing them in had none either, guncrime has actually gone up since the ban. But if the general public was allowed some for of defence carry some would go for it, dont forget tazer is classed as Sec 5 firearms.