Repeal hand gun laws

 

Repeal the hand-gun laws

 

It is my civil rite to protect my property, protect my family, and myself.

 If this means some one gets killed every now and then that is too bad!

 I am frail and no mach for a thug let alone some teenager.

 

The facts:

There was a lower hand gun crime when it was legal.

States in the USA that have lax gun laws have the lowest gun, and general crime.

I have been in the uk ten years I have been assaulted twice and had my house robed once!! There is no time for police action in that time and as for CCTV it’s at total waste of money.

 

Back my bid to re-allow law abiding people the power to protect themselves.

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal the hand-gun laws

 

It is my civil rite to protect my property, protect my family, and myself.

 If this means some one gets killed every now and then that is too bad!

 I am frail and no mach for a thug let alone some teenager.

 

The facts:

There was a lower hand gun crime when it was legal.

States in the USA that have lax gun laws have the lowest gun, and general crime.

I have been in the uk ten years I have been assaulted twice and had my house robed once!! There is no time for police action in that time and as for CCTV it’s at total waste of money.

 

Back my bid to re-allow law abiding people the power to protect themselves.

Legalise all forms of weaponry.

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Why is this idea important?

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Allow Gun Ownership

Like many of us across Britain I was saddanded by the Dunblane tragedy and I mourned with the country however I was amazed by the knee jerk reaction to disallow the ownership of handguns.

The laws in place cannot legislate against the crimianal intent on using a firearm nor can they legislate against the use of a firearm by those with psychotic intentions.

The liberty of law abiding citizens was taken in one fould swoop by the new Labour Government, and yet the un crime in the UK has increased.

A firearm does not kill it is the person with intent who does. Thomas Hamilton had murder o his mind on that tragic day, it had been recomended that his firearms licence be taken away as he was no longer a member of a registered club, he had been ousted from the various clubs in his vicinity. The reccomendation was ignored by a higher ranking Police Officer. There are many If questions here but surely had the Police taken the reccomendation of the mid ranking officer who had discovered the discrepency in the licenseing laws then e tragedy would not have happend, certainly without firearms. If Hamilton had taken a jerry can of petrol into that school he would have done similar actions and yet Petrol would not have been illegal to use.

Law abiding citizens who had the enjoyment of using firearms in various disciplines had their liberty taken from them in a knee jerk reaction which has done nothing to stop the criminal and the psychopath. In fact recently we have a man who owns several pistols and has used them in a horrific crime of shooting. His upper floor in his house was littered with ammunition and he still owned handguns. And yet handdgun ownership has been banned. Why was his handguns not confiscated or indeed why didn't he hand them in when required? Because he was/is not a law abiding citizen. Those who have firearms certificates are responsible and folow the rules. Those who own handguns without the proper paperwork are usually criminals.

Handgun ownership in this country had always been stringent and can remain so in the fraternity of clubs. Give back our liberty for the sport many had enjoyed.

Why is this idea important?

Like many of us across Britain I was saddanded by the Dunblane tragedy and I mourned with the country however I was amazed by the knee jerk reaction to disallow the ownership of handguns.

The laws in place cannot legislate against the crimianal intent on using a firearm nor can they legislate against the use of a firearm by those with psychotic intentions.

The liberty of law abiding citizens was taken in one fould swoop by the new Labour Government, and yet the un crime in the UK has increased.

A firearm does not kill it is the person with intent who does. Thomas Hamilton had murder o his mind on that tragic day, it had been recomended that his firearms licence be taken away as he was no longer a member of a registered club, he had been ousted from the various clubs in his vicinity. The reccomendation was ignored by a higher ranking Police Officer. There are many If questions here but surely had the Police taken the reccomendation of the mid ranking officer who had discovered the discrepency in the licenseing laws then e tragedy would not have happend, certainly without firearms. If Hamilton had taken a jerry can of petrol into that school he would have done similar actions and yet Petrol would not have been illegal to use.

Law abiding citizens who had the enjoyment of using firearms in various disciplines had their liberty taken from them in a knee jerk reaction which has done nothing to stop the criminal and the psychopath. In fact recently we have a man who owns several pistols and has used them in a horrific crime of shooting. His upper floor in his house was littered with ammunition and he still owned handguns. And yet handdgun ownership has been banned. Why was his handguns not confiscated or indeed why didn't he hand them in when required? Because he was/is not a law abiding citizen. Those who have firearms certificates are responsible and folow the rules. Those who own handguns without the proper paperwork are usually criminals.

Handgun ownership in this country had always been stringent and can remain so in the fraternity of clubs. Give back our liberty for the sport many had enjoyed.

Right to concealed carry of firearms for self-defense

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.

Why is this idea important?

For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is:  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

Previously in an identical post, I forgot to add this particularly up-to-date study regarding firearms ownership. If anyone has an interest in objective research and analysis regarding the facts of firearms and their carry, please visit this website and download the .pdf and read thoroughly: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.

The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.

Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.

However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.

Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.

The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.

Repeal the Firearms Act 1968 and amendments

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Repeal the five year mandatory minimum sentence for firearms possession

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Amend Firearms Laws.

The current laws governing firearms ownership in the UK are overly restrictive. Both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Act 1997 were passed at times of significant outcry against firearms ownership. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that a ban on handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would be "panic legislation". A report by the Center of Defence Studies, (Imperial College, London), revealed that the Handgun bans had no effect on the criminal use of illegally held Firearms in Britain. The private ownership of handguns was effectively banned in Great Britain in 1997. All registered handguns were collected by the police and destroyed. Since then, there have been an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 recorded firearm offences involving handguns every year. Criminals who want to use handguns don't seem to have too much difficulty in obtaining them, but they aren't stealing them from licensed gun owners. Whoever forms the new Government after May's Election must face up to the fact the majority of firearms crime is carried out with illegally held firearms, and that restricting the rights of law-abiding people can have little impact on this.

Why is this idea important?

The current laws governing firearms ownership in the UK are overly restrictive. Both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Act 1997 were passed at times of significant outcry against firearms ownership. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that a ban on handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre would be "panic legislation". A report by the Center of Defence Studies, (Imperial College, London), revealed that the Handgun bans had no effect on the criminal use of illegally held Firearms in Britain. The private ownership of handguns was effectively banned in Great Britain in 1997. All registered handguns were collected by the police and destroyed. Since then, there have been an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 recorded firearm offences involving handguns every year. Criminals who want to use handguns don't seem to have too much difficulty in obtaining them, but they aren't stealing them from licensed gun owners. Whoever forms the new Government after May's Election must face up to the fact the majority of firearms crime is carried out with illegally held firearms, and that restricting the rights of law-abiding people can have little impact on this.

Repeal of the 1997 Firearms Act

The above legislation did nothing to increase public safety and served only to deprive law abiding citizens of a much-loved sporting activity. It did nothing to stop criminals obtaining and using pistols and was enacted merely to show that the government of the day were "doing something" as a result of the terrible Dunblane tragedy. We now have the ludicrous situation where persons wishing to compete in international competitions have to train abroad. Unless they live in the Isle of Man, of course. Please scrap this ineffective piece of legislation and give back to us law abiding citizens the right to participate in pistol shooting as a sporting activity.

Why is this idea important?

The above legislation did nothing to increase public safety and served only to deprive law abiding citizens of a much-loved sporting activity. It did nothing to stop criminals obtaining and using pistols and was enacted merely to show that the government of the day were "doing something" as a result of the terrible Dunblane tragedy. We now have the ludicrous situation where persons wishing to compete in international competitions have to train abroad. Unless they live in the Isle of Man, of course. Please scrap this ineffective piece of legislation and give back to us law abiding citizens the right to participate in pistol shooting as a sporting activity.