Virginia Tech
I think that the main problem is that the laws of most countries are out of date.
The US gun laws, based on the second amendment to the US constitution, made in 1789, gave US citizens the right to possess firearms for the purpose of maintaining a citizen's militia in place of a regular standing army. This was at a time when the US faced possible British invasion from Canada, the militia being intended as a ''fast response'' force to counter such threat, the newly independent Americans disliked the European idea of standing armies as they were seen as a means of tyranny.
This worked for the 1812 war, but after that war a standing army was introduced, and used as the US expanded westward. But nobody ever thought that with the citizen's militia no longer as such to change the second amendment....
In the UK we have the typically British civil servant response - we licence gun holders, just as we licence people to have TV sets, the only thing is that a senior police officer has to certify that a gun holder is a fit and proper person to have a licence....
My personal view is that civilians shouldn't have guns, they shouldn't need them. The only exception to this I would make is where firearms are necessary for one's employment or occupation, such as farmers having shotguns, or professional sportsmen engaged in pistol shooting. And in such cases it should be a requirement that training is given in their proper use.
Another bizarre legal fact - did you know that in the UK the one place where you can walk around armed with a sword is in the House of Commons - provided you keep behind the sword line, otherwise Black Rod will clap you in irons!!!!
The US gun laws, based on the second amendment to the US constitution, made in 1789, gave US citizens the right to possess firearms for the purpose of maintaining a citizen's militia in place of a regular standing army. This was at a time when the US faced possible British invasion from Canada, the militia being intended as a ''fast response'' force to counter such threat, the newly independent Americans disliked the European idea of standing armies as they were seen as a means of tyranny.
This worked for the 1812 war, but after that war a standing army was introduced, and used as the US expanded westward. But nobody ever thought that with the citizen's militia no longer as such to change the second amendment....
In the UK we have the typically British civil servant response - we licence gun holders, just as we licence people to have TV sets, the only thing is that a senior police officer has to certify that a gun holder is a fit and proper person to have a licence....
My personal view is that civilians shouldn't have guns, they shouldn't need them. The only exception to this I would make is where firearms are necessary for one's employment or occupation, such as farmers having shotguns, or professional sportsmen engaged in pistol shooting. And in such cases it should be a requirement that training is given in their proper use.
Another bizarre legal fact - did you know that in the UK the one place where you can walk around armed with a sword is in the House of Commons - provided you keep behind the sword line, otherwise Black Rod will clap you in irons!!!!
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Criminals have illegal guns by definition but in the UK we don't have a general gun cultureKarl Heidenreich wrote:Marcelo:
Precisely!!! That´s the true!!!I think that citizens would be allowed to have guns for selfdefense. Criminals would get them anyway.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Strange for a country that gave the world so many cartridges (the book Cartridges of the World has an entire chapter devoted to them), had many famous guns makers (Holland & Holland for example) and was the born place of the Africa (very) big game hunting.in the UK we don't have a general gun culture
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Hi Marcelo.
I believe that in the trenches in WW1, German snipers often used a metal plate as a kind of shield.
The standard British .303 bullet could not penetrate the metal and so the sniper remained safe.
So some of the British officers who owned guns like the .600 nitro brought them from home.
The .600 round easliy penetrated the metal plate, killing the enemy sniper.
I believe that in the trenches in WW1, German snipers often used a metal plate as a kind of shield.
The standard British .303 bullet could not penetrate the metal and so the sniper remained safe.
So some of the British officers who owned guns like the .600 nitro brought them from home.
The .600 round easliy penetrated the metal plate, killing the enemy sniper.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Hello Marcelo.
My name is Robert.
As I say we don't have a gun culture as such in Britain, but there are some important qualifications in making that statement.
Did you know that British police officers are virtually unique in the world in that they do not routinely carry guns? Yes they are armed, they have a telescopic riot stick (based on the riot sticks used by US police) and either CS gas or pepper sprays but no firearm.
Although some police would like to be armed at all times, we don't have armed policemen because in doing so it would encourage more criminals (both casual, opportunistic criminals as well as organised crime) to carry guns with the result that more people, especially innocent civilians, being shot by accident. Also an unarmed policeman is seen as more approachable/trustworthy than one sporting a holster and automatic weapon.
There are however specialist armed police units, sometimes called ''armed response units'' to deal with incidents of armed crime, terrorist/bomb threats and to deal with hostage situations. But their mode of operation is to defuse situations and avoid having to fire their weapons - legally they can only fire after having identified themselves as armed officers (by shouting ''armed police'') and then only if they are in a life threatening position regarding their own lives, a restriction that almost means that the criminal/terrorist has to fire first.
Last year there was the incident in London where a Brazilian was shot in a London Underground station. I don't know whether this was reported in your country but it caused major controversy in this country over whether the police behaved correctly, firstly in identifying themselves as armed police, then in shooting when their order to stop was not obeyed by the shot man. The apparent fact that this man didn't understand English and therefore didn't understand he was being pursued by police has posed a major problem.
With a police force (its actually now called a police service!) that isn't generally armed, and with a resonably open, efficient and uncorrupt judicial process people shouldn't need to have guns or any other weapons for their protection.
I realise that other countries such as Argentina and Costa Rica will be different, especially the former where you have recently had military rule, where gun protection can be a matter of life and death. In Britain we have had problems too in recent years with organised crime, armed drugs gangs, and in Northern Ireland terrorist bombings, sectarian murders and racketering to fund such activities. But our armed police units do contain the problem and political change in Northern Ireland has improved the situation there.
My name is Robert.
As I say we don't have a gun culture as such in Britain, but there are some important qualifications in making that statement.
Did you know that British police officers are virtually unique in the world in that they do not routinely carry guns? Yes they are armed, they have a telescopic riot stick (based on the riot sticks used by US police) and either CS gas or pepper sprays but no firearm.
Although some police would like to be armed at all times, we don't have armed policemen because in doing so it would encourage more criminals (both casual, opportunistic criminals as well as organised crime) to carry guns with the result that more people, especially innocent civilians, being shot by accident. Also an unarmed policeman is seen as more approachable/trustworthy than one sporting a holster and automatic weapon.
There are however specialist armed police units, sometimes called ''armed response units'' to deal with incidents of armed crime, terrorist/bomb threats and to deal with hostage situations. But their mode of operation is to defuse situations and avoid having to fire their weapons - legally they can only fire after having identified themselves as armed officers (by shouting ''armed police'') and then only if they are in a life threatening position regarding their own lives, a restriction that almost means that the criminal/terrorist has to fire first.
Last year there was the incident in London where a Brazilian was shot in a London Underground station. I don't know whether this was reported in your country but it caused major controversy in this country over whether the police behaved correctly, firstly in identifying themselves as armed police, then in shooting when their order to stop was not obeyed by the shot man. The apparent fact that this man didn't understand English and therefore didn't understand he was being pursued by police has posed a major problem.
With a police force (its actually now called a police service!) that isn't generally armed, and with a resonably open, efficient and uncorrupt judicial process people shouldn't need to have guns or any other weapons for their protection.
I realise that other countries such as Argentina and Costa Rica will be different, especially the former where you have recently had military rule, where gun protection can be a matter of life and death. In Britain we have had problems too in recent years with organised crime, armed drugs gangs, and in Northern Ireland terrorist bombings, sectarian murders and racketering to fund such activities. But our armed police units do contain the problem and political change in Northern Ireland has improved the situation there.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
This is something that relates to the British Empire and not Britain itself.marcelo_malara wrote:Strange for a country that gave the world so many cartridges (the book Cartridges of the World has an entire chapter devoted to them), had many famous guns makers (Holland & Holland for example) and was the born place of the Africa (very) big game hunting.in the UK we don't have a general gun culture
The weapons were used by colonialists and for sale to ''Johnny Foreigner.''
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.