Thread: Firearms: The Common Person & the Criminal

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

IIRC the UK did away with private ownership of firearms under Tony Blair when a wacko went to a school with a long gun and shot up a bunch of kids ? One way or the other, did they succeed in getting all of the guns ..... or just those in the possession of law abiding citizens ?

Not strictly accurate. The Dunblane school massacre was carried out with high capacity handguns. UK citizens can still be licensed to own rifles,shotguns and long barrel pistols for target and game shooting.
We did have another massacre, 10 yrs earlier where another nutcase shot up the town of Hungerford with an AK47.
Both the perpetrators were licensed gun owners, hence the public outcry for stricter firearms legislation.
I was against the ban on legally held handguns.
Interestingly the BBC ran a '15 yrs on' programme last week, interviewing one of the teachers that was shot ,some of the parents who lost kids that day. It was enough to make me think seriously of hanging up my firearms.
A shooter all my life, the attitude and mental stability of some firearms owners does give me serious cause for concern.
You could write a book on the for and against arguments.The UK has never had the same level of firearms ownership as the USA or even Europe.
Many of our firearms and drugs problems stem from the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and relaxing of our border restrictions.

I must admit, I didnt used to be pro-carry. I'd always been of the opinion that guns are for sporting use, thats it, and they should be kept in a locked safe the rest of the time.

That opinion stayed with me right up to the point where a couple of gun toting yobs held me up at the off-licence I worked at when I was a student. And you're right, the police didnt protect me, but they did turn up 15 minutes later (after my boss and my parents by the way, great response time there...), looking all important in their bullet proof vests and sub-machine guns.

And despite CCTV recordings and my willingness to testify in court, no charges have been brought and the crooks have never been caught. This happened in 2004, so I'm not holding my breath...

I've always thought the Swiss model was a very good one. Everyone gets trained, everyone knows about guns and they're not a taboo, and everyone can carry them. Result? Virtually no gun crime as all the criminals know everyone else is armed.

On the topic of the handgun ban, all its done is stop the sporting shooters. Its made absolutely no difference to gun crime, in fact I think gun crime has gotten WORSE since the ban.

Certainly for me, the incidence of gun crime has gone up 100% since the ban. Oh, and the guys who robbed me had a pistol, so the pistol ban worked well then...

I do agree with Welshwizard that a lot of the problems are due to our relaxed border controls, making it easier to get drugs and guns into the country. They're also due to the fact that most criminals know the justice system here is a joke and they're probably going to either get away with it, or get a light sentance.

And yes, not all firearms owners should be allowed to have guns. There have been some people I've met over the years who I have thought should have been allowed nothing more dangerous than a potato peeler.

That said, I dont see how banning guns is going to help anything. All it means is the law abiding members of society give up their guns, and the criminals (who are not known for their law abiding nature) keep theirs, safe in the knowledge that anyone they decide to rob is not going to be armed.

"When all guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns" is true.

Originally Posted by hardblues

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN.

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

The 2nd Amendment was drafted and ratified by our government in the interest of the people and in recognition of the limitations of government, isn’t it illogical that there are those in the government who would eliminate the ability for the people to protect themselves, their interests and loved ones from forces the government cannot stop?
[/COLOR][/FONT]

I am not against guns, or people owning them, or using them to protect themselves.
What I do care about is that the people owning them
a) know how to use them safely and accurately.
b) know the rules and laws surrounding gun ownership.
c) have no violent past or significant mental problems.
If either of those 3 does not hold, that person should not have a gun in my opinion because then they pose a significant risk towards other people.

Also the big problem I have with messages like the above (no offense to the poster) is that the arguments are extremely one sided and presented in the way best fitting with the opinions of the one posting it.

For example, take the Swiss example. The Swiss are also strict about storing guns and ammo the proper way, about who can not own guns, and what you are allowed to do with them. It is by no means a far west where people can do with their guns as they see fit. You need a permit to carry a gun and those are typically only granted to security related personnel. There are strict rules for how to transport guns and ammo. See here for more details. If you actually LOOK at the swiss situation, you'll see that they are almost the polar opposite to the US idea about the right to keep and bear arms.

I think there are good arguments for both pro and anti gun sentiments, and I have no respect for people who misrepresent their arguments to make them fit only their point of view. It means they either believe the pro / anti gun lobby propaganda, they are dishonest in the way they want to make a point, or they lack the intellectual capabilities for form a proper line of reasoning.

Mind you this is not a swing towards the pro-gun lobby. The anti-gun lobby can be just as bad.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

do yourself a favor and do some hard impartial research before you take a stand either way.

I mean this in all seriousness, ... can you recommend any?
I don't spend my time looking for it, but the few pieces of peer reviewed "research" I've seen were neither hard nor impartial.

Here in the USA they actually do have some pretty stringent gun laws. There are the federal statutes and each state has their own regulations as well. These regulations vary from state to state but are consistent in every state in certain things. In every state an individual who has been convicted of a felony or suffers from mental illness is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Most states have a waiting period of a few days from the time you pay for the firearm to the time you can take possession. They also have back round checks.

All this is if you are buying the weapon in a store or a gun show. Private sales between individuals are not regulated, at least not in the state that I live in. There are plenty enough laws on the books and in states such as NY, NJ and Mass. they are quite severe but apparently only effective in controlling people who respect and abide by the law. The problem isn't a shortage of laws, rather a shortage of enforcement.

I cannot have any comment on the right to carry gun there in the U.S.A as we have little different culture and attitude towards hand guns and ownership of such.
In Finland there are somewhat more guns than in any average European country but they are usually guns that are used for hunting: Rifles and shotguns etc. Pistols and revolvers are in small minority. Getting a license for 9mm is difficult. Still it is relative easy to get a license for at least smaller calibers.
There is no such right as a general right to carry a gun. Nobody is allowed to carry a gun 'just in case' or for self defence. Police and small group within civil security personnel are carrying guns, but only when on duty. The same goes with military. Carrying a gun when off duty without a proper reason (hunting, on a way to the shooting range etc) is illegal.

Typical Finnish crime with serious violence involved is usually (and sadly) made between people who already know each other, say family members, friends etc. Almost always in these cases people are seriously drunk. I do not know the exact numbers but almost all of these crimes are made with knife or some other sharp or heavy object. Not with a handgun. And i think it is because people have not so much handguns. I also think it is a fact that if there were more handguns there would be much more bodies as well. And not for self defence.
A good friend of my wife, and a godmother of my daughter died like this about 10 years ago. One night as she was sleeping, his husband drunk himself mad, and shot her in the back of her head. Then he shot himself. Their 3 kids were sleeping in the next room. The man was a hunter. All his guns were legal.
Our two school shootings were made with legal guns by their legal owners.
A quick search from the world of internet told that the last time when police was actually shot dead when on duty was 1997. Even then the shooter was Danish. After that murder there has been only one death of a police on duty. 2007 police officer died when drunken soldier hit him with a car.

Of course even here it is always a small change to get robbed or assaulted, but i do not remember when it was the last time somebody was robbed with a handgun. Foreign criminal gangs and drug gangs are an exception. They sometimes use guns in their own wars but it happens in somewhere distant areas, forests etc, away from witnesses.

That is one reason i think we are doing ok here although we could always do better. As long there is no real and realistic risk to find oneself looking at the gunpoint, there is no reason to get a gun for self defence. I have to repeat that this is how it is here. Our system probably wouldn't work somewhere else, or we cannot even be sure how long does it work even here.

There are surely many reasons for and against the right to own/carry a gun. Some a very true; say in Jimmys story i can easily understand that people are carrying guns for self defence. There are other examples that speak against such right. Yet the question is not so black and white. It is related on where and what kind of culture we are living, what are our traditions and attitudes about using violence as a primary way to deal with the problems. And understanding that sometimes violence is maybe the only way to survive against those who use even greater violence.

I can't say if i have any real opinion on right to carry a gun. I have about 20 years of service in a military. All this time i've handled weapons, big and small, explosives etc. more than i can remember.I have a gun of my own, but i never have brought it home. I do not lock my doors.
I've never been threatened with a gun in Finland or when off service. Few times i've faced a knife as well as few times i've been assaulted. Decent speaking/wrestling/running has always helped. But this is here and not in a big world.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

I mean this in all seriousness, ... can you recommend any?
I don't spend my time looking for it, but the few pieces of peer reviewed "research" I've seen were neither hard nor impartial.

You need to look at Police and FBI statistics involving use of firearms. Stay away from hype by any organizations pro one way or the other.

To the LEO and his last shooting case how many cases have you or others been to where the defense weapon was stolen in a robbery or where a child got a gun with tragic consequences or some hot head used a gun against a family member without even thinking.

Its all a matter of balance.

Thanks for the interesting post. I'm glad to see that for the most part the discussion has remained civilized. Although I do not currently own any hand guns, I do maintain a concealed carry permit and am all for responsible gun ownership.

Having started this thread, I appreciate and agree with many if not all of the points made by each person, (the other LEO too), I think without exception, no one here has stated anything that is invalid or an unfair stretch of the truth in favor for or against. I gree whole-heartedly with the comments about hype on both sides of this topic as ointed out by Bruno. I have equal distaint for both those who absent facts/experience parrot stretched half-truths in opposition to firearm use/ownership and the idiot gun fanatics who want to "pack" in public and collect video of voluptuous women shooting fully automatic weapons in slow motion and litter their vehicle with slogans about prying guns from their cold dead hands. Spare me the B.S.!

So, there are no misunderstandings, I posted this for people to consider and voice their view on the topic...I do not propose that in the case example referred to that ownership would have changed the horrible outcome of that double homicide, but, thought is was a particuarly good example of the same crime and in this case the same perpetrator/M.O. with the varying results based on the facts as stated. I will note more for the reader's interest that the perpetrator was linked to other unsolved homicides as far back as the seventies, when he was a teenager and was the probable, though unconfirmed perp. with others as well.

The other LEO is very correct in his statement that legally owned firearms can be stolen in home burglaries and there are annual events within the home that maim and cause death each year.

All of this is an individual consideration...some would choose not to own and that is perfectly acceptable/understandable.

I do believe that any crimes associated to firearms and other weapons should carry added mandatory sentences that the court cannot tamper with and I would be in support of individuals owning firearms being required to take and ownership/use course.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and information!

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

this topic has too much hype and emotion and there is too much misinformation and outright falsehoods spoken to support many views.

I tend to agree. I am kinda on the fence when it comes to firearms. I can completely understand why people want to own them, but I really feel a lot of the arguments for guns as a personal defense item rather than a hunting item are fairly weak and depend largely on the fear factor.

I wonder, is it time for a gun amnesty in the US? Has the magnitude of the situation become the situation?