Nigel Farage on handguns

[hitmanNo2]

Nearly 2M legal guns in this country.  I wonder how many are used in crimes. A negligible amount I would say.

[ED-SKaR]

Nearly 2M legal guns in this country.  I wonder how many are used in crimes. A negligible amount I would say.

 

This.

 

Adding on that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are illegally imported. This includes the rifles and shotguns used by criminals, not just pistols.

Pistols *are* easier to conceal about ones person, and therefore are more used by criminals than the AK they have back home under the bed.

 

Having guns forced to be locked at a gun club rather than locked in a gunsafe at home is a nasty call, it's like owning a sports car that they keep at the racetrack so you only get to see the thing twice a year. And what about those who go to different shooting ranges, or attend competitions? The logistics involved in transporting things around without the owner being permitted to do so just leaves the back door open for criminals to steal them.

 

 

Unfortunately I don't see this happening, as much as I'd love to see the private ownership of pistols return, the general public have this guns-are-evil-and-have-no-use-but-to-murder-babies attitude that wont be shifted.

[Pistol_Dude]

We're still allowed pistols over here. The idea of only allowing them if they stay at the club would be severely limiting. What about those people who shoot at more than one club? Should they have pistols at each club that they shoot at? What about competitions? Apart from the most informal type, these can be anywhere in the country or even abroad. 

 

If pistols could only be issued to shooters at the range, I can see a thriving new business opportunity for secure firearms transportation to and from ranges/clubs/competitions.

 

Apart from those issues you would now have a very tempting target for thieves. At one of the larger clubs near Copenhagen a few years back, there were quite a few members who for some reason or another, stored their weapons at the club (all legal and above board). Despite the police approved security and alarm systems, a gang managed to steal 115 (IIRC?) pistols before getting away. It would take a lot of time, organisation, and intelligence for gangs to successfully burgle the homes of 115 shooters and take their guns. 

 

Remember that due to noise concerns many clubs are located in areas where they won't disturb people. As they are usually open two or perhaps three times a week and not 24/7, it's quite easy to get to them at times when there is no-one else around....

[shmook]

Yep, I would be off if I had to keep anything at a club. 6am start for a days shoot? Stick an extra hour on that if I first had to drive somewhere and pick my gun up. Add to that someone else would have to be up too, to let me in...

 

I've been proven safe by the police to keep one at home, so why should I not? Treating legal owners like children is not a good road to go down.

 

Firearms in this country are perfectly safe at home. The theft of legally held ones is so low that it's not even an issue.

 

As said, you can lose your ticket just for telling someone where the keys are. My wife isn't allowed to know, as she doesn't have a certificate...

 

There was a chap prosecuted recently because he left a gun on his dining table when he got home from a shoot. Put it there to clean it, and fell asleep on it. Police knocked, woke him up, and arrested him. Harsh, but he knew the law. They aren't allowed out unless for cleaning or using.

 

Firearms laws are well regulated here, possibly too much, but we don't need further red tape.

[PureSilver]

Quite simply in the UK, general firearms access is not needed, if people want to compete then have places set up that store their guns for them and allow them to compete. The cartridge firearm never leaves the club and thus is much less likely to be used incorrectly.

 

Substitute "handguns and other short-barrelled, concealable, and/or semi-automatic weapons" for "general firearms" and you have my thoughts exactly. Was it a nasty, knee-jerk reaction to implement such a strict legal regime after Dunblane? Certainly. But now that we've done it, should we undo it? Certainly not.

 

What about the couple of hundred thousand rifles and shotguns already held by the public. In their own homes? [...] Self defence has to be reasonable, and justified. As you said, if an attacker/s were armed, then you should be justified.

 

The major advantage of having such strict regulation of firearms in the UK is that you are much less likely to be attacked with one - not because criminals use legal weapons, but because they know the intended victim is likely to be unarmed and therefore the muggers/burglars don't need a gun to subdue them. That means you are much less likely to be shot (likely a fatal injury) than stabbed or beaten (much less likely to be a fatal injury). Is being robbed, stabbed or beaten absolutely awful? Yes. But is it better than being shot to death? I should think the answer to that is obvious. People that shoot intruders seem invariably to do so in disputed circumstances (for example, Tony Martin, Frederick Hemstock & Malcolm White) where their need to open fire is controversial. My personal belief is that if gun ownership was more widespread we would see more, not fewer, shootings and deaths where previously we would have seen simple robbery or beatings at worst.

 

I just personally don't see the need for firearms that can inflict lethal injury in a civilised country. I would be happy if they were locked away at clubs though as then it is a case of safe enviroment and not within somewhat easy reach of house breakers and such.

 

People that need guns as tools - vets and pest-controllers, in the main - are the key reason why some firearms remain relatively easily available. A farmer hunting rats, crows, foxes or badgers doesn't do so at his shooting club, he does so on his farm at extremely asocial hours. Long guns are much less commonly used in crimes, especially long guns of single-action, limited capacity nature.

 

We have ridiculously low rates of gun violence & accidents. [...] I guess what I'm trying to say is that gun and firearm ownership in the UK is already heavily regulated and well enforced. There is not a disportionate amount of gun violence.

 

And I think it would be nice if it stayed that way! So fiddling around reintroducing handguns - whilst it would be a pleasant civil liberty - is almost certainly not worth the seemingly inevitable injury.

 

Adding on that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are illegally imported. This includes the rifles and shotguns used by criminals, not just pistols. [...] Pistols *are* easier to conceal about ones person, and therefore are more used by criminals than the AK they have back home under the bed.

 

Having guns forced to be locked at a gun club rather than locked in a gunsafe at home is a nasty call [...] And what about those who go to different shooting ranges, or attend competitions?

 

So you agree that pistols are more attractive to criminals, we both know that it's not legal to carry them on your person for self-defence purposes, and therefore that legalising their ownership has no practical benefit but instead carries a potential risk. So reintroducing them would be a mistake, evidently?

 

Having guns locked up at a gun club is an unpleasant infringement of your instinctive rights of ownership, but owning a gun is a matter of privilege, not right, and with its responsibility comes a good deal of obligation. Firearms are probably the most inherently dangerous objects licensed to individual, private civilians by the Government, and it's not surprising that in the interests of the rest of the populace their movement be strictly controlled. If your hypothetical gun is for sport - not a tool - which evidently it is, if it must be a kept at a range, then you have no real 'need' to have it in your home.

[hitmanNo2]

OK.  If we're not happy about owning guns kept at gun clubs, what about pure rental clubs? There are numerous places in Europe that rent guns.

[shmook]

Substitute "handguns and other short-barrelled, concealable, and/or semi-automatic weapons" for "general firearms" and you have my thoughts exactly. Was it a nasty, knee-jerk reaction to implement such a strict legal regime after Dunblane? Certainly. But now that we've done it, should we undo it? Certainly not.

Why not? You admit it was knee jerk.

 

People that shoot intruders seem invariably to do so in disputed circumstances (for example, Tony Martin, Frederick Hemstock & Malcolm White) where their need to open fire is controversial.

tony Martin shot a boy in the back while running away. He used an illegally held shotgun, and had a history of mental health issues, and suffered from repeated break ins I believe. His reaction was not justified.

 

Hemstock used an illegally held shotgun, although he had others which were legal.

 

White was growing drugs. Not justified.

 

While Martin served time, the others didn't, but should have in my opinion. White was sentenced separately for the drugs, but the judge should have connected the two events.

 

Andy ferrie was initially arrested for shooting intruders, but later released. He used a legally held shotgun, and the judge found it was justified. He even told the burglars that was the chance they took when housebreaking. No disputed circumstances.

 

Firearms are probably the most inherently dangerous objects licensed to individual, private civilians by the Government

You mean to say cars there didn't you?

 

 

 

Edit, can't get the first quote formatted... Edit 178, nope, still not working... Edit 98712, got it!

[FireKnife]

OK.  If we're not happy about owning guns kept at gun clubs, what about pure rental clubs? There are numerous places in Europe that rent guns.

 

I would quite happily go for that. If you turned up at a club, picked from a selection, got to shoot it on the range and then returned it upon leaving I would happily agree to that.

 

 

People that need guns as tools - vets and pest-controllers, in the main - are the key reason why some firearms remain relatively easily available. A farmer hunting rats, crows, foxes or badgers doesn't do so at his shooting club, he does so on his farm at extremely asocial hours. Long guns are much less commonly used in crimes, especially long guns of single-action, limited capacity nature.

 

I would say that vets, fine they might need to be made as an exception but pest control? There are reliable chemical options and such things as air rifles can be used for small creatures which are not as lethal or as easy to use incorrectly as firearms. As for land owners I never quite got that 'must have my gun' attitude. There are such things as traps, fences and lights. Most foxes, badgers and crows would be detered by the lights and fences and the few that don't could be trapped and then disposed of. I am quite sure if things like blank firing traps where used a creature would run a mile and is less likely to return.

 

I know that in the case of large animal pest control such as deer it is easier to shoot them than other means due to how they roam and often this is done by legal groups which are heavily supervised if it is a proper cull but solutions exist to the other issues that are not as potentially life threatening to others. However it just seems that many view firearms as the easy option and thus try to make excuses for them.

 

Again as said we need an improvement of general attitude first and education on both sides of the fence. Guns are not all evil and death machines but they should not be the first reaction to an issue either, that goes for defence, farming and pest control.

 

However this always makes me laugh when I think of the gun debate given how it runs from both sides :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Fc9ONu8yU

 

'FireKnife'

[Pistol_Dude]

There are lots of things that aren't 'needed' in today's society. Just think if all cars were limited to max. 70 mph, there'd be no need for speed traps on the motorway. If no stereo could play over 80 db, there'd be no more ASBOs for noise pollution. Golf balls can be very dangerous, perhaps they should only use those lightweight practice balls. Better yet, ban it totally as golf clubs cold be used as weapons, there's no need for anyone to play golf anyway....

[FireKnife]

Better yet, ban it totally as golf clubs cold be used as weapons, there's no need for anyone to play golf anyway....

 

No, no there isn't, ever .

 

But that debate has been done to death, the old 'if I can kill someone with it, can we ban it?' Given that you can kill a person with any man-made item in the right quantity should we not ban everything?

 

It is always down to two things, application and potential. Sadly there are some people out there that are stupid enough to use many a thing to kill or maim and if we banned it all we would have nothing but you also can't make it so unrestricted as to allow those people as much freedom as they want. It is a very thin line and a very tight rope but it just seems that based on general opinion from countries all over the world we will all never agree.

 

'FireKnife'

[shmook]

I would say that vets, fine they might need to be made as an exception but pest control? There are reliable chemical options and such things as air rifles can be used for small creatures which are not as lethal or as easy to use incorrectly as firearms. As for land owners I never quite got that 'must have my gun' attitude. There are such things as traps, fences and lights. Most foxes, badgers and crows would be detered by the lights and fences and the few that don't could be trapped and then disposed of. I am quite sure if things like blank firing traps where used a creature would run a mile and is less likely to return.

Lights and fences won't keep 300 pigeons of a crop field. Blanks will just move the problem on to someone else. Also, pigeons are really tasty.

 

However it just seems that many view firearms as the easy option and thus try to make excuses for them.

it's not making excuses to make your job easier. If a gamekeeper can spend a couple of hours shooting pests, instead of spending several hours laying traps, and then several more constantly checking them in case anything gets caught (you need to check to prevent suffering), is that not utilising his time better?

 

A firearm is a tool to make a job easier.

[scorch]

I would say that vets, fine they might need to be made as an exception but pest control? There are reliable chemical options and such things as air rifles can be used for small creatures which are not as lethal or as easy to use incorrectly as firearms. As for land owners I never quite got that 'must have my gun' attitude. There are such things as traps, fences and lights. Most foxes, badgers and crows would be detered by the lights and fences and the few that don't could be trapped and then disposed of. I am quite sure if things like blank firing traps where used a creature would run a mile and is less likely to return.

 

 

 

Clearly showing your urban credentials there FK...

 

If you've ever lived in the country for any length of time you'd know that foxes and crows couldn't give a *fruitcage* about automated security lights or blanks going off.

 

 

 

 Also, pigeons are really tasty.

 

 

This.

[AceOfSkulls]

There should be a dispensation for pistols for older/disabled farmers. As they are easier to carry.

[shmook]

There should be a dispensation for pistols for older/disabled farmers. As they are easier to carry.

Tough one, that. While I'm 'pro gun', if they are infirm enough to not use a long, maybe they shouldn't be tramping across fields at all? Also may be the wrong tool for the job. I'd struggle to hit a pheasant at 40 yards with a pistol!

 

Perhaps I can't see what you mean though

[FireKnife]

Clearly showing your urban credentials there FK...

 

If you've ever lived in the country for any length of time you'd know that foxes and crows couldn't give a *fruitcage* about automated security lights or blanks going off.

 

Oddly enough I have spent about 4-5 years of my life in rural or near rural areas and our local animals were scared by lights and sound methods. But then that is personally experience .

 

 

Lights and fences won't keep 300 pigeons of a crop field. Blanks will just move the problem on to someone else. Also, pigeons are really tasty.

 

it's not making excuses to make your job easier. If a gamekeeper can spend a couple of hours shooting pests, instead of spending several hours laying traps, and then several more constantly checking them in case anything gets caught (you need to check to prevent suffering), is that not utilising his time better?

 

A firearm is a tool to make a job easier.

 

For the first sentence see above, but again that is possibly location etc.

 

For the second point it was not so much about me saying that it is just a farmer that would but others such as light pest control etc. To my mind a trap reduces the issues and potential for personal user injury or injury of others. It is a lot easier to sign post a trap but we all know the issues caused when a farmer accidentally shoots someone on their own land or it causes a fatality in other ways. Sure so could traps but that can be mitigated a lot easier.

 

Though by the logic of making a job easier does that apply to other things? I know that if at work we cut down on the safety timing checks which would increase production that would make it easier and quicker, until someone dies and it all hits the fan. That is not me trying to sound hostile (even I can see how that would) but sometimes we do need to take time do deal with things to reduce injury and not always to the worker but third parties. It is just risk reduction, something that I think firearms used for work changes. I am not some Health and Safety nut, far from it, but I must admit some elements of risk reduction do make sense.

 

As with all things it is just going to boil down to opinion given that we are not exactly in such a terrible position at the moment but my issue is with loosening what we have at the moment. Tightening isn't necessary but making changes and exceptions feels wrong to me.

 

'FireKnife'

[Cannonfodder80]

Re trapping: a trap doesn't know the difference between the intended quarry and some random animal, eg someone's cat, whereas a farmer with a firearm has control over what they fire at

[Skarclaw]

Just look at this pigeon sandwich:

 

 

Just look at it.

 

 

If you want to add poison to that then you are sick

[FireKnife]

Re trapping: a trap doesn't know the difference between the intended quarry and some random animal, eg someone's cat, whereas a farmer with a firearm has control over what they fire at

 

Good point, didn't think of that. But I am sure a system could be set up to counter for this.

 

I didn't necessarily mean killing based trap for some cases though, but again this is from personal experience and as with all things your milage may vary.

 

Just look at this pigeon sandwich:

 

No but I might learn which end of a spoon is used to apply to mustard .

 

'FireKnife'

[scorch]

Damn.

 

 

Really want to go out and bag a couple pigeons now.

[shmook]

Oddly enough I have spent about 4-5 years of my life in rural or near rural areas and our local animals were scared by lights and sound methods. But then that is personally experience .

 

For the first sentence see above, but again that is possibly location etc.

honestly, nothing is quicker or more efficient than removing 50 crows or a couple of hundred pigeon than a couple of blokes with shotguns. As I said, crow scarers just move the problem somewhere else.

 

For the second point it was not so much about me saying that it is just a farmer that would but others such as light pest control etc. To my mind a trap reduces the issues and potential for personal user injury or injury of others. It is a lot easier to sign post a trap but we all know the issues caused when a farmer accidentally shoots someone on their own land or it causes a fatality in other ways. Sure so could traps but that can be mitigated a lot easier.

Completely different. The people above shot by farmers were shot for trespassing. Not accidentally while aiming at a pest or game. You just can't compete home protection with pest control like that

 

Though by the logic of making a job easier does that apply to other things? I know that if at work we cut down on the safety timing checks which would increase production that would make it easier and quicker, until someone dies and it all hits the fan. That is not me trying to sound hostile (even I can see how that would) but sometimes we do need to take time do deal with things to reduce injury and not always to the worker but third parties.

You can't use that either. A firearm is a tool for a job. No more, no less. You pick the easiest, most appropriate tool for the job you need to do. It's human nature, and it gets the job done quicker. Nothing to do with reducing safety checks or whatever to hurry it up. Third party injuries with a firearm are almost none existent. Shooter aims at animal x, hits passer-by y? Nope. You're aware of the distance a projectile will travel, and be constantly aware of backstops and dead ground etc. you're mixing arguments as in the first part of your post I quoted.

 

As with all things it is just going to boil down to opinion given that we are not exactly in such a terrible position at the moment but my issue is with loosening what we have at the moment. Tightening isn't necessary but making changes and exceptions feels wrong to me.

 

'FireKnife'

It's not a terrible position. The 'pistol' ban was un-necessary though. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. Also, changes to laws are always ongoing, it's good and necessary for society.

 

For example, we no longer have prima noctis, the right of a lord to spend the wedding night with a chaps bride! Laws sometimes need change! Unfortunately, in this matter at least, you will never get 100% agreement

[shmook]

Good point, didn't think of that. But I am sure a system could be set up to counter for this.

 

I didn't necessarily mean killing based trap for some cases though, but again this is from personal experience and as with all things your milage may vary.

 

'FireKnife'

If it's a humane trap, and has actually caught what you intended (as cannonfodder said), what do you do with now contained, angry, distressed pest? Drown it? Put it under your boot? Poison it? Shoot it?

 

My last 2 posts have quoted you, but it's not a personal attack, promise!

[Cannonfodder80]

Even non lethal traps can cause whatever is caught to be distressed by the very nature of the animal not being able to escape. Also the trapped animal will probably make noise (distress calls etc) which can attract predators who will cause more stress, if not kill it

[Skarclaw]

i killed a mouse with a broom but last week

[FireKnife]

To be honest given backgrounds, interests and other things I don't see us reaching an agreement on this in any way .

 

But at the end of the day it is first unlikely this will change due to it being a UKIP idea and thankfully so far the UK is not that stupid on the whole and second we are not exactly in a position where a change has to come in or not, we don't have the instability that other countries do regarding this.

 

My points are not to argue unnecessarily but to present my case, I just don't see the need for a lethal level firearm, end of. I know some people would argue that without accepting the other side and while you have valid points I am just not going to share them really.

 

At least this isn't like Youtube comments, at least points are being levied in English that can be understood without random vulgar comments .

 

As for the point about traps, having worked with and seen methods employed by the Cat Protection League, it can stem certain things but as with many methods, takes time, effort and money that many people just don't have. But again that is my, limited, experience.

 

'FireKnife'

[shmook]

i killed a mouse with a broom but last week

Lies.

 

 

 

 

 

As if a mouse can hold a broom...