What are the firearm laws like in your country? Do you agree with them? Why?

[Buckshot]

Very much in agreement with you here Lurch. But as it stands right now, anyone found with a fully auto firearm is in the legal sh*t - which is a-okay by me. Whereas if their usage was legalised/licensed, then surely some 'criminals' would be able to carry them around without hassles from the law, until such time as the gun is used in a criminal act (popping down the post office with a balaclava, for instance! joke ...). Hence, I'm not arguing against legalising fully auto firearms because I think it would necessary encourage 'criminal' gun ownership/use, but rather that it would allow guns to be carried much more easily for the wrong reasons.

But Ginja, if you take the reverse of that argument that means that people are walking around thier towns and cities with shotguns and bolt action rifles at the moment.
I haven't seen anyone doing that :?:

It is as you say a case of suitable situations. Walking around in a wood with a shotgun is not the same as walking round the town centre. As you say, same with knives.
But this is the law now as it stands. If you carry a gun in a car and are stopped by the police you need good reason to be carrying it that time, not just to posess the gun at all. Nipping down to the shops is not good reason, on your way to pigeon shooting is.
The ticket says it should be securley kept when not in use. A car, even a locked car, is not secure in the eyes of the law so you need a good excuse to get away with it.

The deer stalking thing is:
Handguns other than black powder are section 5 (the same as rocket propelled grenades, mortars and full auto machine guns) and therefore a prohibited weapon in this country so you need a very good excuse to hold one legally. Good reasons can be despatching livestock or wounded wild animals. however, you would need the gift of the gab to get anything other than a single shot .32 pistol as a back up deer stalking gun. Some have managed it but not many.
Self defence is not deemed good reason (except in Ireland)

I could go on but I wont - just yet...

 

[leon-1]

I am not against firearms in any way, infact I would prefer some of the licensing laws in this country slightly looser.

However, I would find it very difficult to justify automatic or semi-automatic weapons. The nature and developement of any form of automatic weaponry is pretty much military in nature and origin.

So the question is more how do you justify using a weapon that has been designed for suppresing the enemy in everyday life. "Officer I require the AK47 for a massive rodent infestation" doesn't really qualify.

Bolt action / single shot weapons in general are a more precise and accurate tool for hunting and for target shooting.

Handguns were mainly developed for close qaurter combat where you may be working in cramped or confined conditions, as a tool for the humane despatch of animals single shot is more than adeqaute, but as with so many things semi auto and multi-shot pistols became popular with the target shooting fraternity, with this there are also people who used to shoot long range pistol (I believe that they were type C shoots) where there were bolt action and break barrel versions (remington made a bolt action and there was a break barrel called the Thompson Center arms contender), these were used to shoot targets at ranges of 300 meters that were the size of a dinner plate.

I would like to have all pistols back as I liked shooting semi-auto's, but I doubt that this will happen, rifles for hunting and target shooting, well you are probably better off with the trusty bolt action

 

[TheViking]

Not completely sure. :roll: 16 to hunting license and therefore also shotgun/hunting gun. A rifle has the same rules, you just need to take a rifle test.
18 to BB gun or airgun.

I think so.

 

[Ginja]

so why stop them from owning it if they are not committing a criminal offence?

Because:

a) not all 'criminals' have a traceable criminal record - ie. those who have yet to be identified and caught.

b) a gun kept at home is a pot of gold for any potential burglar/intruder (or bored teenagers, for that matter). You may have bought that A47 with a squeaky clean record and the best will in the world, but that doesn't stop it from falling into the 'wrong' hands. This is major issue in the States (or so I'm led to believe), where a large proportion of guns used in violent crime have been traced back to 'sensible' home owners who had their firearm(s) stolen.

c) I think it's fair to say that we have all met/known plenty of 'non-criminals' who we would not want to own a fully automatic weapon. The bloke who recently smashed my mate's car windcreen with a jack handle after a road rage incident springs to mind. Sure his wife would describe him as 'sensible' - apart from on that one, small occasion ... which could have been far worse.

Just want to be clear that I'm talking about fully autos/military firearms here. I have no problem whatsoever with ownership of shotguns/hunting rifles/air rifles, etc - they serve a clear 'civilian' purpose and are nowhere near as 'glamorous' as, say, owning an M16 or .45 magnum. There's just no need for that kind of firepower in public life, in my opinion.

Sorry to sound 'nannyish'!

As a metaphor, imagine if I were a biochemist who wanted to keep a phial of anthrax at home - under lock and key and with a proper license, of course - because I am interested in anthrax and I believe it my right to pursue this interest uninhibited. You may not be so keen to have me as a neighbour, even though I insist that I am a very sensible and law abiding person, would you?

Bad example perhaps, but we're talking about guns here - and though I fully respect the opinions posted on this forum (sincerely), I just can't get away from the fact that guns have massive potential to do serious harm to people other than your good, trustworthy selves. And yes, issues such as car crime, for example, have much more impact on our daily lives (as well as causing numerous fatalities), so it could be argued that we should ban car ownership as well! But the failing of this argument is that cars are built primarily for transport; whereas guns are built primarily for killing - they are purposefully designed as weapons, and I see no reason why anyone would need a fully automatic to keep the foxes/rabbits/deer, etc, in check.

Unless you're a particularly bad shot, of course ... !

G

 

[bambodoggy]

Hey Ginja, the last line of your post reminds me of a scean from "The Italian Job" where Michael Caine picks up his car out of storage having just come out of prison. He pays the garage owner the rather large bill in cash saying he's been away in India shooting tigers, the man remarks he must have shot a lot as he has all that money and as he drive off Caine calls back "Yes....I used a machine gun"! lol :rolmao:

Seriously, I too find it hard to justify automatics for civilians but banning out of hand doesn't work, according to offical figures handgun crime has actually doubled since the handgun ban came into effect in the UK.

What we need to remember (and this applies to knifes, baseball bats, cricket bats, ASP Battons, CS Gas, Pepper spray, nitting needles and any other type of potencial weapon) is that none of these items ever cause the damage and injuries on their own (ok, so there's an occational mis-fire but even that's usually human error somewhere - bad handling etc), it is people that cause injuries and damage to other people not the "tool" they use. If we follow the arguements a little further that there is no "need" for auto (which as I said I agree with so playing devils advocate a bit here) then in theory there is no need to own a car that travells faster than 70mph, however, in practice even the oldest banger is usually capable of doing that....but again, it's not the car that breaks the spead limit...it's the person with his foot on the peddle....or substitute that for "finger on the trigger".

I think the main problem is as stated below, only the law abinding will hand in/not buy illigal guns and the criminals will do as they wish, that's why they are criminals.

As with so much in life it's a small minority that spoils it for the rest of us. :?:

 

[tomtom]

Because:

Just want to be clear that I'm talking about fully autos/military firearms here. I have no problem whatsoever with ownership of shotguns/hunting rifles/air rifles, etc - they serve a clear 'civilian' purpose and are nowhere near as 'glamorous' as, say, owning an M16 or .45 magnum. There's just no need for that kind of firepower in public life, in my opinion.

Good words Ginja..

i can only speak from my point of view.. i have no (and dont think i ever will have) desire to own a gun other than shotguns/hunting rifles/air rifles.. and i cannot see good reason for anyone other then the military/police/vets etc who are already mentioned as being alowed them needing, wepons such as these as they are not designed for hunting/sports shooting.. and doing just about anything else with them is illegal anyway so why have them?

im no expert but why is a captive bolt pistol not a vialbe means of dispatching a wonded animal, as a pistol used for such is surly only going to be used at close quaters anyway??

 

[steven andrews]

I'm in Jersey.
Semi-auto rifles and handguns allowed here.

I have an M14, 7.62 Galil, Glock 17 + assorted .22's, but rarely get up to the range due to family commitments (and having one family car).

 

[Lurch]

im no expert but why is a captive bolt pistol not a vialbe means of dispatching a wonded animal, as a pistol used for such is surly only going to be used at close quaters anyway??

If you'd ever been close to an injured (fairly) large animal then you'd see why a captive bolt is no good!

A handgun is close range but allows the animal to be finished at a safe distance for the culler.

 

[Ginja]

the last line of your post reminds me of a scean from "The Italian Job"

Hah, yeah I remember that bit! :rolmao: Classic flick by the way ...

Took so long composing my last email that I didn't notice a number of new posts joining the thread - just want to say that I've read and do appreciate the other opinions posted here. For the record, I'm a born and bred Herefordian who grew up alongside gun ownership in the community (both farming and military in this case!); so my opinion isn't basd on some blinkered, 'urban' perspective! I just don't like the idea of fully auto's around the house.

"From my cold dead hands ... " well, if that's the way you want it!

G

 

[Ginja]

I have an M14, 7.62 Galil, Glock 17 + assorted .22's ...

Wow! When the revolution comes, I know who's side I'm on - YOURS!!!

G

 

[tomtom]

If you'd ever been close to an injured (fairly) large animal then you'd see why a captive bolt is no good!

A handgun is close range but allows the animal to be finished at a safe distance for the culler.

i see thanks!

 

[Lurch]

Just want to be clear that I'm talking about fully autos/military firearms here. I have no problem whatsoever with ownership of shotguns/hunting rifles/air rifles, etc - they serve a clear 'civilian' purpose and are nowhere near as 'glamorous' as, say, owning an M16 or .45 magnum. There's just no need for that kind of firepower in public life, in my opinion.

The pistol referred to for the stalker was a .45 BTW!

Students of our Bill of Rights will know that there is a clause which allows "arms suitable for their defence". Since this term "defence" can include personal and national defence this would include weapons of war. The Swiss recognize the benefit of arming their citizenry and do so, the famous American 2nd amendment derives from our own Bill of Rights as above.
We are fortunate enough to have not been subject to invasion for many years and haven't been under the threat of invasion for some sixty years.
Does this mean that it will never happen in the future? Only the most optimistic would make such an assumption. You might say that should times change then things will change, however I can assure you that this will not happen - the government of the day will not wish to 'send out the wrong message' and by the time that it is clear that a threat is real and imminent it will be too late. Witness the Home Guard begging for weapons from the US.
In the future might the government itself be the threat? It could happen. Dictatorships are the norm for government not democracy. Worrying aspects such as the Civil Contingencies Bill could well be abused by future governments.
See what has happened in Sudan and many other African countries, a disarmed populous is easy prey for the armed thugs of government. Couldn't happen here? Maybe, maybe not.

These are the uses for the weapons of war, as with any weapon we hope we shall not need them but we do ourselves no favours by inviting trouble by being disarmed.

 

[george]

Yup - anyone could commit any number of offences and if they're not caught or IDd then they could apply for a license. They could do that now with a shotgun or rifle - anyone know how many crimes are comitted with legally held firearms?

So what about the "going postal" type shootings? Yes there is the arguement that says if people are going to take it into their heads and "go postal" then at least make sure the worst thing they can do it with is a kitchen knife cos everything else is banned. Fine - it's a point of view and it might work. The large capacity shotgun and semi auto bans came about after Hungerford - the ban on them didn't stop the next one - I dont believe you can legislate for madness.

Ok I can just about go with the burglars pot of gold bit as an arguement for not allowing full autos, even one extra in criminal hands is one too many - except that the outright ban doesn't seem to have stopped the flow of Mac10 and Uzi style weapons that assorted criminals are reputed to be using these days. If they didn't come from ripped off legal guns where did they come from?

Like Ginja I can think of a number of people I certainly wouldn't like to see owning any kind of firearm - but as the law stands they could legally apply for a shotgun certificate now, and in the situation Ginja described with the guy who smashed his mates car windscreen - he could have pulled out a legally held shotgun if he had one - but he didn't so who's to say that if full auto's were legal people like him would have them either?

I'm not quite sure what I'm argueing for 'cos I dont disagree with most of what Is being said except I think that we always try to take the easy way out with our legislation and crime prevention strategies. I don't think that tougher and tougher firearms laws are the answer. I think it goes a lot deeper than that. Have a look at the gun ownership stats in Switzerland and compare it to the gun crimes that are committed there. Why are we so different?

George

 

[Lurch]

Have a look at the gun ownership stats in Switzerland and compare it to the gun crimes that are committed there. Why are we so different?

George

In part because guns are part of their culture. You might see there head of state partaking in a shoot comp for example. There is no kudos to owning a military weapon - we've all got one mate.

<post edited by moderators request>

 

[bambodoggy]

Going slightly off thread a tad but to further show what I think Lurch is saying (Hope I'm right here Lurch! )

It's the same as our "Binge Drink" culture...they don't have anything like the number of licencing laws we have over here and yet their teenagers aren't all getting hammered and making a nusance of themselves....I know that's a bit of a generalisation but I think it shows the cultural differences.
It's not big and hard to show how much you can drink for them because it's never been an issue to have a little drink if they want it.

Think that makes sence.....

 

[Ridge Runner]

The UK has some of if not the most restrictive firearms laws in the world.
Disregarding use by the military and by the law enforcement agencies (who are rapidly changing from an unarmed to an armed force) civilian ownership of pistols has been banned after a high profile incident a few years ago. There are very limited exceptions to this for antiques owned by collectors, for black powder weapons (1800's technology) and for pistols used for slaughtering or "putting down" livestock.
In all cases, firearms ownership is subject to licencing under control of the "home office" department of the government and operated by the police. Shotgun certificates are somewhat easier to obtain than the "Fire Arms Certificate" for rifles and pistols and high power air rifles which are all classed as "section1" weapons.

Fully automatic weapons are classed as section 5 and in practice are never approved for civilian ownership. The same for any self loading rifle in larger than .22rimfire calibre (Ruger 10.22's are ok)

Section 1 Licences are issued for 5 years and require the person to show a good reason for needing EACH individual gun. e.g. Membership of an approved shooting club or stalking, wildfowling, pest control etc. It is uncommon for people to be allowed to own more than (say) 3 to 5 guns, which would be sufficient to cover a range of types and calibres for different uses. Two guns of the same type would typically only be allowed for competitive shooters who need a spare in case a gun fails part way through a competition.

Proof of membership, permission to shoot over the specified ground etc is needed, as are two references and a secure gun cabinet for storage which will be inspected by the police before the licence is issued.
Buying and selling of guns (and ammunition) can only be done within the specific permission of each individual license, and all transactions must be notified to the police so that each gun can be tracked by serial number throughout it's life.

Despite dramatically tightening firearms legislation over the last few years, gun related crime in the UK is climbing dramatically. One might argue that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the government in compensation and admin costs when they confiscated all pistols in licenced civilian ownership has been a complete waste of time and money, but then we can all recognise a government pre-election gimmick and shocked outrage helps sell papers. What minority group can stand against that ?

So how are things in your part of the USA ?

Cheers

In Maine we are a very rural. Most of the poplulation in in the southern part of the state. We have just about 1.2 million people total. Hunting and fishing are a strong part of our tradions here.

Maine is very liberal in terms of what firearms you can own.

Maine is a "shall issue" state for concealed firearms permits. If you are a law abiding citizen with no criminal record or mental health record and have completed a basic handgun safety course you WILL obtain a permit in less than 45 days. My permit arrived in 30 days. Nothing is left to the local police for their opinion. You do not have to state a reason. You can carry just about anywhere except schools and some city buildings.

By the way, violent crime here in Maine is VERY rare.

You are not restricted on how many firearms you can own either. I own about 15. I collect firearms from WWII. I own about 6 handguns. The rest are rifles and shotguns.

In Maine you are rarely restricted in terms of what caliber you can own. I was looking a semi-automatic 10 gauge shotgun the other day in a gun store for $500.

Machine guns are heavily regulated, buy can still be owned by a law abiding civilian. There are no longer any newly produced machine guns in this country for the civilian market, but existing ones are grandfathered. They cost a lot more now to own. The cheapest I have ever seen is $3000. The most expensive was $21,000.

I really want to learn more about your country and what it is like to live there. I find it really interesting.

Anyone else have any questions?

 

[Ridge Runner]

I am not against firearms in any way, infact I would prefer some of the licensing laws in this country slightly looser.

However, I would find it very difficult to justify automatic or semi-automatic weapons. The nature and developement of any form of automatic weaponry is pretty much military in nature and origin.

So the question is more how do you justify using a weapon that has been designed for suppresing the enemy in everyday life. "Officer I require the AK47 for a massive rodent infestation" doesn't really qualify.

Bolt action / single shot weapons in general are a more precise and accurate tool for hunting and for target shooting.

Handguns were mainly developed for close qaurter combat where you may be working in cramped or confined conditions, as a tool for the humane despatch of animals single shot is more than adeqaute, but as with so many things semi auto and multi-shot pistols became popular with the target shooting fraternity, with this there are also people who used to shoot long range pistol (I believe that they were type C shoots) where there were bolt action and break barrel versions (remington made a bolt action and there was a break barrel called the Thompson Center arms contender), these were used to shoot targets at ranges of 300 meters that were the size of a dinner plate.

I would like to have all pistols back as I liked shooting semi-auto's, but I doubt that this will happen, rifles for hunting and target shooting, well you are probably better off with the trusty bolt action

Sir, I respect your opinions. My boss made a similar case in a public discussion about machine gun or "assault weapon" ownership.

He is a deer hunter and loves his bolt action rifle.

He was surprised when a vegetarian in the group made the same argument about ownership of hunting rifles. She stated that "there is no reason for a civilized human being to own one. There is no "need" to hunt anymore. They should all be banned as far as I am concerned." She then referred to hunting rifles as "sniper" rifles.

He was amazed.........

Despite what is portrayed in the media here. Most crimes are committed with, bolt action rifles, shotguns and small pistols. So called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, despite their availablility.

 

[tomtom]

yeh i have a question.. what percentage of people in maine do carry a gun on their belt/on their person all the time, or when going about their lives in public places etc..?

 

[bambodoggy]

Guys,

Found this link which may be of interest to some of you, it roughly details the gun laws in the US state by state....I don't know how accurate or up to date it is but I'm sure our US members can update us more if needed.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

I got married this June just gone (as previously mentioned to the Prada type rather than the Bushcraft type) and my wife wanted to spend our three week honeymoon lying on a beach in barbados....great you may think but I knew I'd be bored after about 4 days! (Bear with me, this is on tread still...honest) Anyway, I managed to get her to agree to doing half what she wanted and half what I wanted...so we had two weeks in Barbados and a weeks ranching in Arizona (not quite half and half but I thought I'd done well to get her to agree to that!).
Anyway, one day both our bums were a bit sore to ride so we did a half day and then went to Tombstone to be tourists, saw the gunfight at the OK Corral and all that but what freaked me most as a Brit was that EVERYONE had a sidearm on their belt! I thought they might be blank firers or replicas seeing as it was 2004 and not 1884 but when I asked the Wrangler that drove us there he casually said "Oh no...them's is all the real deal"! I then saw a sign on the entrace to most bars that you'd never ever see over here "Polite Notice, please leave all firearms at the door when you enter, thanks"....WOW!

The Wrangler also told us that they don't have a lot of trouble round those parts with few fights and altercations happening as everyone knows that everyone else is armed and so nobody wants to get into it as they know it will end in a gun fight....interesting idea....suppose it's like the cold war arms race in miniture!

right...enough from me!

 

[leon-1]

Sir, I respect your opinions. My boss made a similar case in a public discussion about machine gun or "assault weapon" ownership.

He is a deer hunter and loves his bolt action rifle.

He was surprised when a vegetarian in the group made the same argument about ownership of hunting rifles. She stated that "there is no reason for a civilized human being to own one. There is no "need" to hunt anymore. They should all be banned as far as I am concerned." She then referred to hunting rifles as "sniper" rifles.

He was amazed.........

Despite what is portrayed in the media here. Most crimes are committed with, bolt action rifles, shotguns and small pistols. So called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, despite their availablility.

Ridge Runner, I didn't know about the 1% involvement of assault type weapons in crime over there, it may well be a common misconception over here.

I would disagree about hunting rifles being sniper rifles, it may seem that the job that they do is very much the same, but there are differences between them and of course there is also a difference between the ammunition used as well.

In the end you could say that any firearm could be used to "snipe" with, but sniping is a skill and it does not just involve shooting.

Now we should really get back onto the subject of firearms laws and whether people agree with them or not and try to stay away from discussion of the pro's and cons of military weapon licensing.

I agree that there should be legislation on firearms, but do not agree that legislation should be as tight as it is in this country. I also agree that carriage and transportation of firearms should be justifiable. Above all I agree that where any firearm is kept should be exceptionally secure for reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread :biggthump.