Offensive Weapons Bill 2.0

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, Cannon said:

You are assuming that every criminal is a hardcore nut job who will stop at nothing to acquire a firearm and will happily pay thousands for a modern pistol. That simply isn't the case. Licencing stops opportunists in their tracks. It also prevents petty criminals from quickly climbing the ranks.

Did you see the bit where I mentioned 14 year old kids carrying ?
Are they hardcore, or just climbing the ranks ?

Maybe its different in NI , but over here you stop gun crime by locking those up who carry or commit, my town had a problem with it, but it got dealt with by harsh sentencing for those that supplied or used, nothing to do with licencing .

17 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I have asked the question before and I'll ask it again. Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that all firearms were freely available to absolutely everyone?

You mean like in the States ?
No wonder they have to take sleeping pills all the time 

[Cannon]

23 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Did you see the bit where I mentioned 14 year old kids carrying ?
Are they hardcore, or just climbing the ranks ?

Maybe its different in NI , but over here you stop gun crime by locking those up who carry or commit, my town had a problem with it, but it got dealt with by harsh sentencing for those that supplied or used, nothing to do with licencing .

You mean like in the States ?
No wonder they have to take sleeping pills all the time 

There's no need to be pedantic. So you stop gun crime by punishing those responsible. Licencing stops gun crime before it happens. Are you saying that if licencing wasn't in place, gun crime would stay at the same level as it is now? Do you actually believe that? Serious question. Are you also saying that you believe the current resources are more than adequate to deal with gun crime? How many more 14 year olds would be running around with guns if they could just go out and buy them? The only thing stopping the police from being overwhelmed by gun crime is licencing. It's also a moot point to use America as an example in the context that you meant. Gun crime in the states is through the roof, and I could say with confidence that if we mirrored American gun laws, our gun crime would be proportionate to theirs taking into account population size. As a responsible shooter and licence holder, I'm happy to apply for a licence if it means suppressing the supply of guns to criminals. This is a subject that requires a logical approach rather than an emotional one.

[Scully]

59 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Licencing does stop criminals from acquiring guns. You really cannot dispute that. You are assuming that every criminal is a hardcore nut job who will stop at nothing to acquire a firearm and will happily pay thousands for a modern pistol. That simply isn't the case. Licencing stops opportunists in their tracks. It also prevents petty criminals from quickly climbing the ranks. The reason we don't have more gun crime is because licencing works. Imagine the criminals who are the lowest in the pecking order were able to freely obtain firearms, and not just the organised more sophisticated criminals. Would you be happy with that? I have asked the question before and I'll ask it again. Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that all firearms were freely available to absolutely everyone?

Are there any countries where firearms are freely available to all, outside of certain tribal countries? 
The simple fact is that if you’re a normal rational law abiding person you apply for a license, because that’s what those type of people do, like yourself. 
If you’re a criminal you don’t apply for a license, but acquire a gun illegally. It really isn’t that hard. 

The biggest shooting atrocities this country has ever seen, have all been committed by people with licensed guns! The licensing authorities, through ( debatedly ) no fault of their own, granted licenses to three blokes who at the time of grant, were law abiding people akin to you and me.  I really can’t explain it any better than that. It DOESN’T work, but it’s all we have! 
If all guns were banned in the UK tomorrow, do you believe shootings would stop? If not then why not? Bear in mind that shootings with handguns actually increased for a while after the CF ban. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Licencing stops gun crime before it happens.

If that were the case there wouldnt be any gun crime 😆

 

4 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Are you saying that if licencing wasn't in place, gun crime would stay at the same level as it is now? Do you actually believe that? Serious question.

Not what Im saying at all, heres a serious question for you, when handguns were removed from legal ownership, did that stop handgun crime ?
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jul/16/ukguns1#:~:text=A study commissioned by the,when 4%2C273 crimes involved handguns.

So what happened there ?

10 minutes ago, Cannon said:

How many more 14 year olds would be running around with guns if they could just go out and buy them?

A 14 YO cant have sex, gamble , buy cigarettes or alcohol,  but that doesnt stop them from doing it.
Ill ask you again, how does licencing stop a criminal from acquiring a gun , if he CHOOSES to do so ?
And its no good saying 'its difficult/expensive' if a 14 YO can do it , Im pretty sure anyone with a will could.

Im not sure what youre trying to say, and Im not being pedantic.
Do you mean without licencing the UK would turn into the wild west ?
In many US states , they have increased gun control, this has had the effect of INCREASING gun crime ?

[Cannon]

I cannot explain it any clearer. If a criminal is determined to break the law, they will do so. It's the responsibility of the police to deal with that. The fact is that there isn't a perfect system in place, but the one we have has done a very good job of keeping easily accessible firearms out of the hands of opportunistic and casual criminals. If firearms were freely available and unregulated, the less responsible members of society would undoubtedly take advantage, much to our detriment. If you were to remove the licencing system, petty criminals, casual criminals and opportunistic criminals who would perhaps never have even considered using a firearm in a crime because of its relative inaccessibility, would all of a sudden have legal access to firearms. Suddenly they are in possession of a tool that could make the undertaking of their criminal activities a whole lot easier. There are illegal firearms out there, but not to the extent that our 'honest and unbiased' media platforms would have you believe.

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, Cannon said:

If a criminal is determined to break the law, they will do so.

 

11 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Suddenly they are in possession of a tool that could make the undertaking of their criminal activities a whole lot easier.

The crux of your argument is that criminals have such great difficulty obtaining firearms, due to the licencing system ?

Im saying that 'difficulty' is a myth, most CHOOSE to not go down that route , due to the consequences of A.Higher sentences.  B.Getting themselves shot by AR.
Plenty of crooks probably dont even understand the concept of licencing, of guns , cars ect.

[clangerman]

it certainly is a myth we have so many shootings now they struggle to make the news pretending otherwise is ridiculous 

[turbo33]

Intersting debate.

I have to agree with Cannon's views.

Of course crimes have been committed by license holders, absolutely tragic. But as the law stands at present, anyone over the age of 18, can lawfully and easily purchase a sub 12ftlb air rifle.  If a crime is committed with that rifle, it is rightly classified as an incident involving a legally help weapon. The pubic perception, through ignorance, and manipulated by the media, will be it was held by a licensed person. 

Of course, given the right funding, and contacts, firearms can be obtained on the black market, I don't think anyone would dispute that. I had a conversation some years ago with a chap that lived in a perfectly nice part of London. He caught a taxi back to his house daily, and the drivers were always asking if he wanted XYZ. He said he could get any sort of weapon, if he was that type of person, delivered faster than a Dominoes Pizza!. An air weapon that can easily and legally be obtained, that has more than enough power/accuracy at drive by ranges, to do what the un scrupulous want to do, its only a matter of time before the stats show that occurring.

I understand the sensitivity to changes and further restrictions/compliance, but the demographic of our country has changes, and sadly, people are out there prepared to behave in a primitive way. Anything that could restrict their access to weapons of any description can only be a good thing.

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by turbo33

[ClemFandango]

8 hours ago, lloydi73 said:

Pretty much like your arguments on here!!

 

Good one. Pot calling the kettle black. 

 

There has never been a time in history, nor a country past or present where murder or indeed crime did not occur In the presence, or absence of capital punishment. 

To suggest that Capital punishment is an effective deterrent is flawed from the start. 

If cutting off a thief's hands was a deterrent, they would have only done it once and never again.

If the death penalty was a deterrent they would have only hanged one person and never any more. 

It doesn't work. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by ClemFandango

[Cannon]

36 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

The crux of your argument is that criminals have such great difficulty obtaining firearms, due to the licencing system ?

Im saying that 'difficulty' is a myth, most CHOOSE to not go down that route , due to the consequences of A.Higher sentences.  B.Getting themselves shot by AR.
Plenty of crooks probably dont even understand the concept of licencing, of guns , cars ect.

The level of determination would need to be quite high to overcome the difficulties faced by criminals wanting to obtain illegal firearms and ammunition. I don't believe that obtaining illegal firearms and ammunition is as easy as you think. Perhaps the media and government would want to make it seem easier than it is to justify another kneejerk reaction if it suited their agenda. As for criminals choosing not to break the law for fear of being caught, why would they break any laws in the first place if that was the case? I think the reason why they don't carry illegal firearms is because of the difficulty of obtaining them, as well as the ammunition. Our licencing system plays a very big part in reducing the supply of firearms and ammunition to the criminal contingent in our society. Without it, it would just be a free for all. As for banning handguns, I believe it should never have happened. It was a case of enacting a political agenda when the opportunity arose. The only people affected by the ban were the ligitimate licenced shooters. I cannot defend the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of licencing in that particular case. It was a poor decision made by the government at the time. What I can say is that up until the point of the ban the licencing system was working well by restricting the ease by which firearms could be obtained by criminals. 

[stuartyboy]

Cannon is spot on with what he says. Illegal guns are available but they are hard to come by and ammunition harder to come by. If there was no licensing, guns would be freely available and gun crime would go through the roof simply due to the fact that guns would be freely available. It’s a no brainier.

The media portrays the streets as being awash with illegal firearms but that’s simply not true. They can be got but it’s not easy. Ask any copper. Although I will say in some areas consisting of certain population groups, they can be got easier. 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, Cannon said:

The level of determination would need to be quite high to overcome the difficulties faced by criminals wanting to obtain illegal firearms and ammunition. I don't believe that obtaining illegal firearms and ammunition is as easy as you think.

 

3 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

Cannon is spot on with what he says. Illegal guns are available but they are hard to come by and ammunition harder to come by. If there was no licensing, guns would be freely available and gun crime would go through the roof simply due to the fact that guns would be freely available. It’s a no brainier.

Its a case of supply and demand, if the demand was higher , there would be more illicit guns made/imported/stolen .
The simple fact is , demand is not what you think it is.

You both say yourselves that in 'certain places' illegal guns are more prolific, why ?
Because there is higher demand in these places.

The unusual thing I find in this conversation is that Cannon is from Belfast, where there didnt appear to be a shortage of firearms a couple of decades ago, and licencing had literally nothing to do with that, but DEMAND did.

[stuartyboy]

There is a demand though for illegal firearms. That’s why the same gun is often re used throughout the country, proven by ballistic testing of recovered casings and bullets. And the supply isn’t there, that’s why the same gun is often used. If the demand was met by the supply, every gun would only be used once then disposed of. That generally doesn’t happen as they are hard to come by. And if guns were freely available, every gang member/bank robber/wannabe gangster/weirdo loner would be carrying.

N.Ireland was a difficult and unique situation. There was a war going on with both sides funded and supplied by recognised countries ie Libya, amongst others, supplying weapons for the IRA and it’s different splinter groups against the British government. It was a completely different scenario compared to gun crime in this country. 

[bluesj]

Licensing doesn't and never will stop criminals getting or using firearms but it does make it harder for them to get a gun!

Would anyone rather there was no licensing system at all?

I would love to have a colt 1911 and a Ruger old army  just for a bit of plinking but I can't without jumping through some more hoops that i haven't got time for at the moment.

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by bluesj

[Scully]

Ok, so if the licensing of airguns will work, then all we need to stop stabbings is to license knives. Sorted. 👍

 

[Cannon]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Ok, so if the licensing of airguns will work, then all we need to stop stabbings is to license knives. Sorted. 👍

 

It's not as simple as that. Knives are used by everybody on a daily basis and are essential tools. Airguns are only essential for those who have good reason to possess them. With that logic you may as well call for the introduction of licencing on pens. As mentioned earlier airguns allow you to reach out and touch your target. If you search the internet for Swans, Geese and Ducks that have been shot with airguns, it's clearly a problem across the Irish sea. We don't have anywhere near the same level of wildlife crime over here involving airguns for the simple reason that airguns are licenced.

[turbo33]

1 minute ago, Cannon said:

It's not as simple as that. Knives are used by everybody on a daily basis and are essential tools. Airguns are only essential for those who have good reason to possess them. With that logic you may as well call for the introduction of licencing on pens. As mentioned earlier airguns allow you to reach out and touch your target. If you search the internet for Swans, Geese and Ducks that have been shot with airguns, it's clearly a problem across the Irish sea. We don't have anywhere near the same level of wildlife crime over here involving airguns for the simple reason that airguns are licenced.

Completely agree with this Cannon. I’m not entirely sure what law would be broken by shooting various animal domestic and otherwise, with at present a legally held air rifle. Animal cruelty etc. But once it becomes a licensed firearm and subject to licensing compliance, it’s a different ball game. Bona fide people of good character stand every chance of being granted a licence, so no problem there. Those tgat clearly are of the type that would choose to shoot at domestic animals and possibly other people would hopefully to a very reasonable degree, be denied. Thereafter, caught doing the same and in possession of an un licensed weapon in someone else’s property becomes custodial. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, turbo33 said:

Those tgat clearly are of the type that would choose to shoot at domestic animals and possibly other people would hopefully to a very reasonable degree, be denied.

Could you explain to me how you would screen this 'type' , thus preventing them from getting licenced ?
 

[lloydi73]

19 hours ago, ClemFandango said:

Good one. Pot calling the kettle black

Not really, you're the one trawling for a fight with flawed conjecture and irrelevant drivel.....

Just because the threat of capitol punishment doesn't work for some, it will for a lot of others...as I have sad before, you will always get the hardcore criminals who either think 1) They won't ever get caught or 2) don't really don't care if they're caught or not as they have nothing truly to live for anyway. However, those who do enjoy life with a modicum of judgement, will think twice before undertaking capital crime as the punishment is too severe to comprehend!

 

[stuartyboy]

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Could you explain to me how you would screen this 'type' , thus preventing them from getting licenced ?
 

The same way as they are currently screened in Scotland. The very involvement of the police with licensing is going to deter the vast majority of undesirable idiots from applying. And if they do apply, likely will fail in their application. But if you’re a half decent person with a reason to acquire, you won’t have any issues.

6 hours ago, Scully said:

Ok, so if the licensing of airguns will work, then all we need to stop stabbings is to license knives. Sorted. 👍

 

Completely different scenarios and not really relevant for obvious reasons 

[Rewulf]

28 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

The same way as they are currently screened in Scotland. The very involvement of the police with licensing is going to deter the vast majority of undesirable idiots from applying. And if they do apply, likely will fail in their application. But if you’re a half decent person with a reason to acquire, you won’t have any issues.

Thats not really what I asked.

How do they screen out those who would use an air gun for mischief , against those who want it for legitimate reasons, if neither 'types' have any record ?
Are you less likely to get granted if you come from the rougher end of town, tattoos , a staffy called 'killer' ?
If licencing puts off those undesirable types , then surely in a few years , airgun crime will be eradicated ?

[turbo33]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

The same way as they are currently screened in Scotland. The very involvement of the police with licensing is going to deter the vast majority of undesirable idiots from applying. And if they do apply, likely will fail in their application. But if you’re a half decent person with a reason to acquire, you won’t have any issues.

Completely different scenarios and not really relevant for obvious reasons 

All of this. 👍

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

It's not as simple as that. Knives are used by everybody on a daily basis and are essential tools. Airguns are only essential for those who have good reason to possess them. With that logic you may as well call for the introduction of licencing on pens. As mentioned earlier airguns allow you to reach out and touch your target. If you search the internet for Swans, Geese and Ducks that have been shot with airguns, it's clearly a problem across the Irish sea. We don't have anywhere near the same level of wildlife crime over here involving airguns for the simple reason that airguns are licenced.

You claim licensing works, I claim it doesnt. If it works then licensing knives is obviously the logical step to curb stabbings. 
We are now in the position where the sale of certain knives are banned, and only certain types are legal to carry on a daily basis, and none of it is working, so surely the next logical step in your argument is to license them. 
 

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

The same way as they are currently screened in Scotland. The very involvement of the police with licensing is going to deter the vast majority of undesirable idiots from applying. And if they do apply, likely will fail in their application. But if you’re a half decent person with a reason to acquire, you won’t have any issues.

Completely different scenarios and not really relevant for obvious reasons 

The rather large flaw with this scenario though,  is that there’s nothing in place to prevent anyone from say Annan, driving to say Penrith or Carlisle, buying an air rifle, then going home. 👍

Id be interested to learn why it’s a ‘completely different scenario’ , and ‘not relevant for obvious reasons’ ? People are being killed on a daily basis. 

[stuartyboy]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

You claim licensing works, I claim it doesnt. If it works then licensing knives is obviously the logical step to curb stabbings. 
We are now in the position where the sale of certain knives are banned, and only certain types are legal to carry on a daily basis, and none of it is working, so surely the next logical step in your argument is to license them. 
 

The rather large flaw with this scenario though,  is that there’s nothing in place to prevent anyone from say Annan, driving to say Penrith or Carlisle, buying an air rifle, then going home. 👍

Id be interested to learn why it’s a ‘completely different scenario’ , and ‘not relevant for obvious reasons’ ? People are being killed on a daily basis. 

It’s a different scenario and irrelevant to firearms licensing as every single household in this country has dozens of knives. Every single person over the age of , I don’t know 16?, has a use for a knife. Knives are required by the public and are everywhere. They are a necessity. Firearms aren’t to 99% of the population. You could never license knives and I know you know that. It’s infeasible. 

But put it another way, if guns of all sorts were freely available as knives are. There would be very little knife crime as all the neds would be shooting each other instead of knifing.

[McSpredder]

There must be records showing how many of crimes were committed guns and knives over the past decades.   Where can they be found?

If licensing has been successful, one might expect a very obvious reduction in the number of murders and robberies committed using firearms following each revision of the legislation.

Was there much more gun crime prior to the 1920 Firearms Act that we see nowadays?

Did criminals use guns much more frequently in the years when purchase of shotguns was unrestricted, prior to the 1968 Act?

Were there many more stabbings in the period when large numbers of young people, including Scouts and Guides, regularly and openly carried sheath knives?

Has the 1997 Act succeeded in eliminating nearly all crime involving use of pistols?

Many people have suggested that homicides by shooting are less common in UK than in USA because we have stricter gun laws.   In the decades prior to the Pistols Act 1903, UK citizens could acquire firearms just as easily as residents of USA.    Was murder by shooting in the 1890s just as common in UK as in USA?   If not, perhaps the difference between the two countries had very little to do with the licencing regime.