It's one of the inevitable weaknesses in any society that enjoys a level of freedom. There will undoubtedly be occasions where the suspicion of an individual is correct, but can't be substantiated. In this case you have to accept that you can't really do anything about it. The alternative is to allow the authorities to take action against people without any evidence, just on the basis that they don't like the look of them, or the people they associate with, or the ideas they have. I know which system I would rather live under.
Guns,guns, and more Guns
- Thread starter TRITON
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
And some haven't been in any watchlist. In any case it would be quite impossible to adequately monitor everyone on a watchlist, there are simply too many. What is the alternative, lock up everyone who makes into a watchlist, whether there is any hard evidence or not?
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
There is no easy answer as to how to handle those that the vast majority of society feel need a close eye being maintained on them. Personally I’d risk hurting their feelings by not letting them own a gun though.
Happy New Year!
And to you too, let's hope 2022 is an improvement on 2021 !
Nice that this thread has remained as a civilised, and very interesting, debate.
Nice that this thread has remained as a civilised, and very interesting, debate.
Who said without evidence. I'm assuming some system similar to our CPS or a court would need to enact the ban. It's easy to see the rights of the person being restricted not so easy to see the rights of potential victims if the suspicions are true. It appears we have some common ground on the access to firearms, why do you (as I do) accept limiting the rights of those of whom there is no suspicion.
There is evidence from opinion polling that if tightening American gun laws were put to a referendum there would be a majority in favor of some restrictions.
Incidentally I agree with you on the slipperiness of the slope, in this case the loss of liberty is minor and to my mind outweighed by the risk to the innocent who have a right to be protected but it would set a dangerous precedent.
Lons
Established Member
I wasn't there but going by my previous experience, the people you met there were most friendly, helpful and welcoming. Were any of them mean to you in any way?
Hell they were even willing to knock the price down so you would have the means to defend yourself.
Ammo isn't controlled in most places, A guy in new hampshire was amazed when I showed him my FAC with a 1000 rnd limit for this and that ammo.
He wanted to give me a .50 cal round as a souvenir. lol
So I said "If I wanted to buy 100 of those .50 cal, you would sell them to me?"
"Help you carry them to the car" he replied.
I'm just thinking Lots of guys here trying to apply Soccer rules to a Baseball match.
That well and truly confirms my points Artie, those being that virtually anyone it seems can buy a gun and ammunition in many states across the US so that means anywhere in the country as it's simple to cross border states without checks.
The fact the people are friendly which I did find to be the case is completely irrelevant and in any case who wouldn't be friendly if they were trying to sell me something.
Fact : guns everywhere on open sale so easy for most people to access.
Fact : being friendly today doesn't mean they will be tomorrow or if they fuel up with alcohol or drugs or someone gets into a heated argument with them.
People do things in the spur of the moment, you can run away from a knife unless the perpetrator is a practiced knife thrower but put a gun in his or her hand instead and you're much more likely to be hit, especially if it's a semi auto.
Lons
Established Member
How do you know they aren't? I disagree and perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant so read again what I said which was " Yebbut how many are private sales and how many of those are actually under the counter dealers posing as private? "
Some of those selling at the "boot sale" I attended were very definitely "dealers" and certainly not private individuals selling off a few items. Note that I didn't say legitimate or registered dealers but the fact they were posing as private sellers changes nothing in the same way that sellers on ebay pretend to be private individuals when they are in fact a business, legitimate or otherwise.
By saying "none" you're implying there is no black market in gun sales.
I'm saying registered dealers don't. There are collectors who are private and not selling for income, but to improve their collections. I don't know those rules that well. There are also rules for antiques referred to as curios and relics. I don't know those that well , either.
My point to you was that income generating individuals not registered as dealers will probably get in trouble and the idea that they're an appreciable source of gun violence is false. The vast majority of crimes are committed with stolen or unlawfully obtained guns.
My point to you was that income generating individuals not registered as dealers will probably get in trouble and the idea that they're an appreciable source of gun violence is false. The vast majority of crimes are committed with stolen or unlawfully obtained guns.
I think the original proposition was that by virtue of your name being on a watchlist, you would be prohibited from buying a firearm, without any evidence as to why your name was on the list in the first place. If the process were subject to some process whereby the authorities had to justify this to an independent body, that is a very different matter.
As to firearms, I have no objection to them in principle. If people want to own pistols for target shooting, as I used to, I see no problem with that. Equally those who hunt, whether it be with a rifle or shotgun. In all cases it seems only sensible that suitable measures are taken to ensure that these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, either by way of completely unsuitable people being licenced to own them, or through lax security. I for example never took my pistol home, it was stored at the club. Most of not all mass shootings in the UK, Dunblane, Hungerford etc, have been committed by licenced holders using licenced weapons. The outcome of subsequent enquiries has tended to be that there were clear signs before the event that these individuals were unstable, and there would have been ample justification to rescind their licences. So any form.of licensing needs to be much more robust, and the considerable cost should fall on those seeking a licence.
My objection is to the general public being allowed to own military type weapons, or full automatics. I can see no justification for this, and in my view it should not be allowed. I think the government are perfectly justified in imposing such a restriction for the greater good, just as we say people should not drive their car whilst drunk, and deprive them of their licence if they do so.
In the UK the government has decided to impose what amounts to a ban on pistol ownership, and restrictions on many other types of weapons. The argument seemed to be that removing weapons from circulation would improve matters, and if some leisure shooters were inconvenienced then so be it. I don't object to the sentiment, but believe the logic was flawed, particularly in relation to pistols. Historically very few crimes were committed using handguns stolen from legitimate owners. This is still the case. The vast majority of gun crime involves handguns, pretty much all of which have been brought into the country by criminals. Gun crime is higher now than ever before in our history, although still at very low levels compared to.many other countries..
Lons
Established Member
I accept that DW but the point you made was specifically to my post which never mentioned registered dealers in fact the opposite entirely so why make the point at all and quote my sentence?
You said "none" in a direct response so as I said you misunderstood what I said. That's fine, we all do that sometimes.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
The hardcore anti-government crazies probably only number a few thousand though. Plus, if the US military is good at one thing it's blowing s**t up. Lots of it. Sometimes fairly indiscriminately.I'm wondering what building would hold Americas 120 million or so gun owners?
And I hope you're not in charge of tactics should insurrection come around.
So I'm pretty sure that Uncle Sam would have few problems with a group of automatic toting nut jobs.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I actually agree with that.
I still think the proliferation.of guns is a bad thing.
Any joe can bang off a dozen rounds on a range a go home all Ramboed up, but crucial core skills such as acquiring sight picture in a busy environment, reloading, dealing with a type 1 or 2 stoppage, one handed use and reloads, etc. are only developed and maintained by many many hours of deliberate practice.
I accept that DW but the point you made was specifically to my post which never mentioned registered dealers in fact the opposite entirely so why make the point at all and quote my sentence?
You said "none" in a direct response so as I said you misunderstood what I said. That's fine, we all do that sometimes.
Yes, I read your original point as supposing registered dealers who went to gun shows and selling as individuals.
That got us on photographic negative points. I've only been to one show in the northeast. Computer show on one side and gun show on the other. That's not a large sample, but it looked like 90% registered dealers trying to dump junk (like tables with 200 of one type of magazine, cheap ammo). I spent my time on the computer side (which wasn't much better).
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I'd just like to point out my postings are about gun owners. If you want to discuss anti government crazies and nut jobs that's a totally different kettle of fish.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
It's the bit of the Venn Diagram that overlaps that was the context. The point was simply that those who claim to own guns to protect themselves from their government might as well be armed in order to protect themselves from incoming asteroids; it'd have about as much use.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I'd say so.
My point was there's a idea among some people that gun owners are different, you only have to look at some of the comments on this thread.
Admittedly I have found this attitude most prevalent amongst those who have never fired or seen a gun fired and base their beliefs on what they've seen in the movies.
My impression of the gun owners and competitive shooters I've met in the UK. Ireland, USA and various European countries is that they are almost to a man/woman law abiding, fair minded individuals with a well tuned moral compass.
Not me, with you all the way.
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's not them we get to hear about.
Similar threads
