uk gun certificate

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed, it is also about the probable unfair restrictions that such a certificate might impose on an entire class of people based only on their neurological differences, not their qualifications. As such, this kind of restriction is something about which the United States has some recent experience. In fact, given the rapidity with which the United States has returned to a public policy which upholds its supreme laws (the Constitution for the United States of America), there is hope for the OP and others, however distant, who wish to avoid the persecution and prosecution that comes with such arbitrary restriction of their natural rights to self defense. Besides, comparing and contrasting is a conversational tool to help find the truth in statements. But, in keeping with your expectation that this topic remain solidly about U.K. citizens achieving gun certificates, I offer a history http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html of U.K. firearm-restriction laws. It is the facts within the commentary that I hope are read and discussed, not the writer's opinions.

In the UK, the only reason you will ever need a gun is if you are a farmer or a hunter. The average person living anywhere in the UK does need a gun, it is the UK after all.

I think this guy might have needed a gun...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ns-4584305



Funny, I'm pretty sure beating someone that badly was illegal in the UK, someone should have let the mugger know, since criminals are well known for their respect for the law...

If a gun had been involved chances are multiple people would have been shot.

Just because someone gets beaten up doesn't mean people need guns.

If the guy who got jumped had a gun then the guy who jumped him would have had a gun and that enables him to kill/injure more people.

And as criminals don't have much respect for the law, what do you think would happen if they had guns, that would disastrous (like america).

Actually, the chances are that no one would have been shot and that man would have been spared that brutal beating, as the vast majority of defensive gun use merely involves producing the weapon, as crime is all about low effort high reward, and getting shot is definitely not a low effort proposition.



Violent crime exists, therefore people need to be able to defend themselves, and there is exactly one tool out there that levels the playing field for everyone, regardless of who's won the genetic lottery in terms of physical prowess.



Why would that follow? More importantly, the attacker knew that he could attack with impunity, given that he was attacking a law abiding person left legally defenseless by moronic laws, where as not having that certainty, he might have chosen a different course of action.



Have you ever been to America? Spent any time here? How about guns? Actually know anything about them, or just the propaganda that the state puts out about them? Violent crime stats? Maybe you should take a look at violent crime in the UK before and after they put their gun bans in, and in America under various gun control regimes, and get back to me when you actually know what you're talking about.

I have been to America multiple times. The Americans attitude towards guns is unbelievably irresponsible and ridiculous. I have used guns legally in this country multiple times. I have nothing against guns, it's the idiots that use them irresponsibly which is why they should be restricted. I have studied gun control in the US and the UK in school. Obviously there will still be violent crime, however next to none of it is because of guns. The U.S. Gun death rate is around 40 times that of the UK per 100000 people. The UK banned handguns because many children were killed, the U.S. Has multiple children killed by guns in schools on an almost weekly basis yet they don't do anything about that, that is so unbelievably wrong. Judging by the fact you clearly think it is acceptable to have little control over guns proves I know more about it than you. Have you ever spent any time in the UK? Know anything about gun control in this country? The U.S. Still has uncontrolled guns because the people think that they deserve guns just because 300 years ago they were necessary, if the government had any sense your country would be a much safer place. And don't say because everyone has guns it's a safe place, because that ain't true.

Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime

Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are ?hot burglaries? [157] which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a ?hot burglary? rate of only 13%. [158]

Gun Facts v6.2 (2013); pages 29-30
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts ... screen.pdf
Footnotes are in the original.

Myth: Britain has strict gun control and a low crime rate

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime -- especially violent crime -- has risen.

Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. [326]

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). [327]

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that ?As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.? [328]

Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. [329]

Fact: This trend continued in the U.K. in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: In 1919, before they had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U.S. rate. By 1986, and after enacting significant gun control, the rate was 9% -- practically unchanged. [330]

Fact: ?... [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.? [331]

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. [332] To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. [333]

Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation -- double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago -- and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. [334]

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. [335]

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. [336] It is interesting to note:

? Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of ?gun crime.?
? Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years -- nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms -- in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership. [337]

Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. [338] In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4. [339] This implies that the homicide rate did not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.

Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. To date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland. [340]

Fact: ?... the scale of gun crime in the capital [London] has forced senior officers to set up a specialist unit to deal with ... shootings.? [341]

Gun Facts v6.2 (2013); pages 57-60
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts ... screen.pdf
Footnotes are in the original.

There is published in the United States an oft-cited, frequently updated statistical survey of firearm research studies. Gun Facts v6.2 (2013) is freely available online.

Two parts of its recent version appear to be applicable to this topic:

Living in the UK I certainly feel more free knowing that gun ownership is controlled.

You have completely missed my point. Here you do not need a gun to protect yourself, in America that's why people them, here it's only twits I'm gangs that have guns to defend themselves.

On that note, the OP has a history of violence (albeit under duress and I believe with no criminal record). This would make it very difficult for him to get a license. It has nothing to do with his autism.

No record would mean exactly that. So it shouldn't affect any application, as no one would know about it -- whatever the institute in the UK enforces weapon licensing, will rely on records that have been logged. Say, court appearances in the most minor of cases (and it was thrown out).

If violence was due to an autistic meltdown, then that is a part of autism. They can go hand in hand. Though it's out of defense in most cases (autistic people rarely attack others offensively).

Is reference having someone you know but unrelated signing off on it?

That shouldn't matter.

Though I can see how autism could come into play with that; what if you don't know 2 other people that are unrelated to you (including teachers and employers)? That seems like bias there. Normal people have a large network of contacts, and from all I know about autism, it's possible that a good number don't know people outside of the family well enough.

Here in Oz, it's hard enough for me to find one person to sign off on my firearm license that I know (luckily, a neighbor knows me well enough that I'm not a potential violent criminal; though that should probably be assumed of me, but that's beside the point).