Looks like the U.K. will never be able to have freedom of gun ownership now

In a thread about gun control in the UK a Brit is irrelevant? It is the opinions of Americans which is irrelevant in this thread. You just don't understand that we don't want to make our country more dangerous by enabling criminals and people with mental illnesses to buy deadly weapons. What you do in the US is up to you but we have learned from your mistakes and are happy that we don't copy them. Now bugger off and talk about how great guns are somewhere else.

 

As much as I disagree with you on the gun rights/gun control issue, this is true.

Although I don't think the US approach to guns is a mistake, it does have its drawbacks, mainly relating to suicides (but then again, suicide is really not a gun issue). Mass shootings aren't a huge problem anywhere. And gangs get guns anyway, they're not that complicated, and anyone with access to a machine shop can make them, and gangs will have access to the black market. Gun control does help a little, but the gun itself not the core of the problem, as it's portrayed as by most media.

The sad thing about the whole gun control debate is how it devolves into either "criminals have guns, we need to have guns to gain parity", or "criminals have guns, we need to regulate guns further". None of these approaches really goes at the issue of violence in general.

Every country has some silly gun laws. The US with their ridiculous suppressor regulations, UK with their handgun ban, Norway with our limit of 6 guns for hunters. But all of these have advantages over the other in certain areas. Norway with suppressors being fully unregulated and less restrictions on non-violent criminals that have served their time, Britain has more accessible suppressors than the US, and looser restrictions on double barreled shotguns than Norway, and the US are generally way better than all the rest of us when it comes to the right of a law abiding citizen to both own guns, and to defend himself with guns.

 

The Cumbria shooter had complete governmental approval to own the two firearms the he used to kill 12 and wound 11 victims. While it may be true that the laws aren't intended to enable ownership of guns by criminals and mentally ill, they certainly can't prevent ownership by either.

You country has elected to reduce legal gun ownership in order to reduce illegal ownership. Our country decided that the rights of the law-abiding cannot be restricted in such a manner.

 

Years ago, 1986, a mentally ill homeless man in N.Y.C. attacked several people on the Staten Island ferry with a sword, who stopped him ?

A retired armed police officer !

Many more people could have been injured or killed, had not someone been able to stop him !

You can't stop mentally ill people from hurting others if they so desire, sometimes, lethal force is needed.

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/08/n...-and-wounds-9-on-si-ferry.html?pagewanted=all

" A homeless Cuban refugee, chanting and apparently deranged, went on a rampage with a sword aboard a Staten Island ferryboat yesterday and killed two people and wounded nine others before being subdued by a retired police officer at gunpoint."

 

Correct. But also the wrong approach to solving the "dangerously mentally ill people"-problem.

I think the better approach would be focusing on proper treatment, and availability of that treatment to the public, rather than taking away/granting weapons to the public.

Of course there will always be some people going through the gaps in the system, and will still be dangerous. If those people get through the gaps, there will also not be possible to disarm them, without also disarming the massive majority of harmless gun owners. Lethal force may be necessary in those cases. But if there's a system in place where the number of dangerously mentally ill people not receiving treatment is reduced, the number of situations where lethal force is necessary is also reduced.

But this costs a LOT of money. Pro-gunners don't want to pay for it. Anti-gunners don't want to pay for it. That's the sad thing about any type of infrastructure, everyone benefits from it, but no one really wants to pay for it, since each individual think the "other" people will benefit more.

 

Funny thing, in New York City, there are excellent and abundant Mental Health resourses, Belvue Hospital, Harlem Hospital, SUNY hospital to name a few, there is no shortage of mental health care, if anyone needs it.

How do I know ?
By working in Healthcare, in New York City.

 

How accessible is it for everyone?

Let's say someone doesn't have health care insurance, and no money to speak off. Will that person receive proper care early on, or do the problems have to be somewhat severe before getting treatment?

 

My main argument in favour of our strict laws is the end result of limiting the amount of available guns in our society. If guns were readily available ''for self protection'' then the recent terrorists in London would have had access to them. Also violent criminals and the mentally ill would find it easier to obtain them. Simple as that for me.
Different argument obviously in a country already awash with firearms .

 

The only firearms being limited under such an approach, are legally available firearms. The laws of the united kingdom are doing nothing with regard to the black market.

The terrorists responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack managed to procure machine guns in the nation of France. Such would suggest the laws in place are not having the desired effect.

 

This is a thread about the UK, your opinion is not needed or wanted.

 

Whatever you say, Bubba.

The pic I'm using as my avatar got picked because I find the art imaginative and it made me laugh... and yes, it illustrates "'Murica!" very eloquently to me!

The use of the term "6gunner" is a personal nickname, of a sort. Working in a law-enforcement agency using semi-automatic firearms as issue equipment, I made the mistake of speaking of my fondness for revolvers in front of my fellows during a tactical training class. I was ribbed mercilessly for it, until I soundly defeated the senior instructor in a shoot-off where he used the issue semi-auto sidearm while I ran one of my favorite revolvers. After that my fellow agents called me "Sixgunner" until it got shortened with repetition to "Sixgun" and then ultimately to "Six." I admit it: I like the nickname. So sue me.

 

Medicaid or other insurance, and all sorts of sliding scale.
State hospitals give excellent care.
However, the patient will often not seek mental health care.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we are talking averages. that shouldn't be too hard to understand. And being a firearms instructor does not impress, sorry.

 

It is a joke. God you people are humorless.

 

Sonwhen did Florida become part of the U.K. If you are a representative of the brilliance of the average we are in trouble.

 

Only plain and simple in the mind of the simple.

 

Feel free to post data that shows private citizens usually miss less than cops. Of course the use of the word " usually" make the statement rather moronic but go ahead and try and post the data to support what you think you said anyway.

 

Hey, you can be just as snide as you want; it doesn't change the fact that thinking you're deserving of armed self-defense while you advocate for that right being taken from others makes you a hypocrite.

 

Its been posted here dozens of times. I don't humor people who engage in willful ignorance or pretend that proof hasn't been posted when it has been

 

you mean like the minds of those who think passing laws that only restrict the rights of honest people will somehow disarm those who already are banned from possessing firearms? Yeah that sounds like something a person with a simple mind would say

 

Pray tell how exactly is your opinion on the matter any more valid, than the opinion of anyone else? My location of residence has never been made subject to public record, as it is irrelevant to the discussion. For all that is known by yourself and others, you are engaging in argument with someone from West Crumbia. It is being witnessed how the policies of the united kingdom are failing, and how more police officers are being issued firearms in the aftermath, in hopes of preventing another similar terrorist-related incident from occurring.

The united kingdom may be claiming the moral high ground, but it ultimately amounts to little good when the latest weapon of terrorists are motor vehicles, which modern society apparently cannot function without. Now you and countless millions of others are living in the world of every single motor vehicle on the road being a potential threat to contend with, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

 

Yet common sense uses the KISS principle often and it seems to work. Go figure?

 

When Gun Control advocates fail at providing facts to support their claims, they often resort to cheap insults and low blows.

 

As a Range safety officer a certified firearms Instructor teaching classes to LE and civilians, the civilians were better shooters in most cases.

 

Well watching the news it seems like the UK better start now with truck and knife control, that way they'll get ahead of the curve, eh?