What Do British People Think About the U.K.’s Gun Restrictions?

[SecularMotion]

Firstly, British people do have the ability to purchase firearms, but they are strictly controlled. It is not all that difficult to get a shotgun license if you live in the countryside, and I know people who legally own .22 rifles for the purpose of killing rabbits and wood pigeons on farmland. However, handguns were outlawed in 1997, and only the police and military are permitted to carry automatic weapons.

I do not want it to be any easier than it is now to legally purchase a gun, and I know very few people who do. I don't want to buy a gun because I have no need for one. More importantly, there are plenty of other people around who can't be trusted with a gun, and I want it to be as difficult as possible for them to buy guns.

I would be uncomfortable if it were made easier to buy firearms. The U.K. has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and I like it that way. Our society does not have any problems that would be solved by introducing more guns.

Superficially, it might seem like a nice idea to have a pistol on hand in case someone ever breaks into my house in the middle of the night, but I'm not sure how much it would help. If the burglar knows I might have a gun, he's more likely to have one, too. He's also probably a lot more comfortable about pointing it at someone than I am. And for that, I would have to accept the responsibility of owning a gun and storing it safely where my children and visitors can't get at it. I've never had to deal with an intruder at my house, but there have been occasions when people have hurt themselves playing with my mountain bike or penknife after a few beers. Thank goodness that I don't have a gun.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/05/01/gun_laws_in_the_u_k_do_british_people_prefer_handgun_restrictions.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

[Duckhunter935]

1. and your thoughts on this?

Please respect the SOP of this group and comment on your Google cut and paste

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

You are a host, can you give us the courtesy of following the SOP?


The UK did not have to break away from the kings oppression with its armed citizenry to become a free nation and that is why that owning a firearm is part of the US and state constitutions.

The guns and grenades of gangland Britain

Down the years the 57-year-old made numerous trips to Germany, buying replica pistols for £40 a time before
smuggling them into the UK. On an anonymous industrial estate on the outskirts of Manchester the weapons were re-bored so that they were capable of firing live ammunition. On the street the guns fetched £700 each and he and his accomplices supplied almost 300.

http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/347592/The-guns-and-grenades-of-gangland-Britain

and yes criminals will get guns, even in the UK

[intaglio]

2. Have you checked the comparative figures for gun crime

and gun related death in the UK compared to the USA?

[Eleanors38]

4. Even before there were gun laws in GB, the crime rate was low.

I think fears of leftist uprisings and the strengthening labor movement played the biggest role in GB's relatively recent gun prohibition, not crime rates.

[intaglio]

5. Actually no

Before the restriction of guns to the wealthy and landed classes gun crime was only limited by the expense of purchasing a gun.

[Eleanors38]

10. Having trouble understanding this. I think you are saying

guns are now only in the hands if the wealthy & landed classes. I agree; same as it ever was.

But I'm not clear with rest. Wasn't GB's crime rate very low before these laws? Did the fear of the Left/labor play the major role in gun prohibition?

[intaglio]

30. No - start thinking about history

The gun laws in the UK were originally an attempt to to restrict the ownership of guns to those who the ruling class felt should have an entitlement to that weapon.

At the time of the legislation at its most restrictive a high proportion of millions of ex-servicemen from First Boer War, the Second Boer War, the First and Second World Wars had returned with trophy weapons. Prior to this time guns had been expensive and, generally, in the hands of the middle and upper classes. Gun deaths in the UK, prior to the WWI, were low because compared to the USA because the Civil War had been the event enabled many people to possess guns.

In the UK the First and Second Boer Wars had highlighted the inexperience the British volunteer had with guns; the British relied upon a small professional army supplemented with volunteer battalions. As indicated above a proportion of the returning volunteers kept trophies for an increase in gun ownership in the volunteering classes was seen as beneficial but the small increase in gun crime was seen as acceptable.

This started to change with the Irish rebellions and, after WWI, the greater increase in gun crime. The common idea was that the conscripted "lower classes" were more likely to be criminal and to sell any trophies to criminals hence the first restrictions on ownership. This attempted to keep firearms in the hands of those who were thought to have an entitlement; these included those persons with land (gentry, their servants and tenant farmers), the wealthy and the bourgeoisie. Licensing, for rifled weapons, was dependent upon the applicant getting the approval of other members of the bourgeoisie (JPs, a Doctors, a Bank Managers) that you were a fit and proper person to own such a.weapon.

I could continue with the history lesson if you wish but I doubt you will learn anything.

[Eleanors38]

42. Beyond your snark, the relevant issue is whether or not

Britain's gun policies had an impact on that country's crime rate. You concede that they did not, since that rate was low to begin with. Wonder of wonders.

I contend that the gun bans had much to do with a rising labor movement, and the fear of leftist movements. You are content to say guns were kept from lower, potentially criminal classes by the bourgeoisie who were deemed "entitled." Don't be so coy. You built the whole car, but left off the final coat of paint.

[Starboard Tack]

20. "Leftist uprisings"? Really?

Do you anything to back that up?
I think the reasons are a little more complex. Handguns never really caught on in Britain, while they became the weapon of choice in the US.
The reasons had nothing to do with the "king's oppression" or "leftist uprisings". They had a lot to do with social values. Brits have lived together for a long time and don't resolve personal differences with guns. If things get to a physical level, then closer contact is preferred. Fists, feet, knives, bicycle chains, bats and bottles; thes are the weapons of choice for individuals and gangs. Not very civilized, I know, but less chance of killing each other. And, on the plus side, those who enjoy fighting get to do it again.
There is definitely a different mentality. Outside of war, there is little reason to kill other humans. Brits are very adept at ignoring the neighbors they don't like. They prefer growing hedges to building arsenals.
They are not afraid of their own police or military.
They live in a parliamentary democracy, where a government is subject to a vote of confidence at any time.
If the people wanted guns, restrictions would relax. Fact is, they don't want them. I wonder why.

[gejohnston]

21. Oh please

non LE Brits and other Europeans have concealed carried pistols unrestricted until the 1930s. There are documented cases of Bobbies borrowing pistols of passer bys when chasing an armed suspect.
It was the Red Scare in the 1920s.
Not knowing the difference between settling differences and unprovoked violent attacks might explain why UK is a pretty violent country. If it were so peaceful, why are most knives even banned?

[Starboard Tack]

23. You're right, UK bad, US perfect.

Fortunately, on the subject at hand, the numbers speak for themselves, very loudly. So, you can dig up obscure historical factoids all day long in an effort to spin the argument, but when it comes to UK vs US on guns, you are pissing in the wind.
You see the difference is, the PEOPLE don't want them. That's how it works in a democracy.

[gejohnston]

24. more like UK is stifling and perfection is impossible

Or at least I felt stifled. Actually, it isn't a factoid. A factoid is something commonly believed to be true, but isn't.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Funny, that's how I felt about the US - stifling

I can imagine how stifling the UK must seem to someone hoping to see guns everywhere. Uniformed cops in the US are generally avoided by most members of the public, as they are usually the bearers of bad news of one kind or another. Uniformed cops in the UK are far from perfect, but they are not intimidating. They are not members of a paramilitary organization, strutting around in jackboots, armed to the teeth. They are civilians.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "stifling". I found Florida's west coast rather stifling. I found LA in the '90's stifling, though also exciting. NYC in July and August can be extremely stifling.
If you are saying that the UK is politically stifling, as in government oppression, then I disagree. It is not the "land of opportunity" that the US is, that's for sure. Neither is it a place where you get ahead in life by fucking over other people. There is a sense of fair play, which extends throughout society, not bound by class distinction or the size of one's bank account. It is definitely not Wyoming, which I doubt anyone would describe as stifling.

[gejohnston]

34. Florida is stifling

even in the rural areas, which is why I spend only as much time there as I have to.

I can imagine how stifling the UK must seem to someone hoping to see guns everywhere.

Being a hayseed doesn't mean I didn't already know better. When I went to Okinawa, I knew the only guns I would see would be cops and the ones I would be using at the range. I didn't feel stifled there at all. I actually felt at home, it is one of my favorite places in the world.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "stifling". I found Florida's west coast rather stifling. I found LA in the '90's stifling, though also exciting. NYC in July and August can be extremely stifling.

More like a square peg in a round hole kind of stifling

If you are saying that the UK is politically stifling, as in government oppression, then I disagree.

Not GDR kind of oppressive, but the softer limited number of ideas kind of stifling.

It is not the "land of opportunity" that the US is, that's for sure. Neither is it a place where you get ahead in life by fucking over other people. There is a sense of fair play, which extends throughout society, not bound by class distinction or the size of one's bank account. It is definitely not Wyoming, which I doubt anyone would describe as stifling.

I was always under the impression that class and peerage was still a BFD there.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Class and peerage a BFD?

Think about that for a moment. The queen pays taxes. Her grandkids serve in the military, as did her sons. They don't get a free ride. The PM's of the past several decades have all come out of the working class or middle class. The House of Lords is a bit of a throwback, but has undergone much change of late and there will be more to come.
There is a class system, just as there is in any society, including the US. Ironically, I think the class system in the US has far more influence on the political process. The political dynasties are on a par with medieval Europe. Of course, class in the US means power and wealth, while in the UK it is more about breeding and education. Money has very little, and often nothing, to do with it. Having attended the right school counts more than who your daddy is. But that applies, somewhat, to the US as well.

[Logical]

3. Where in the SOP does it say you have to comment on stories? Posting an article often....

creates discussions. And like I have said, you whine a lot about people posting stuff you don't like.

[Duckhunter935]

6. nice to see you this morning

I posted and asked what the OP thought about the story. I would like to engage in a discussion about the posted story. I see you have not commented on the story either but are just calling me a whiner. That is OK as I am above the name calling and will not respond back in kind. So what are your thoughts on the story?

Where did I not like the story? I just pointed out another point of view and I guess that should not be allowed right?

[Logical]

9. You said.....

"You are a host, can you give us the courtesy of following the SOP? "

I asked you were in the SOP it says you must comment on articles you post?

Just point me to that text or post it. That is all I asked.

[Duckhunter935]

12. Discuss

To consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, especially to explore solutions; debate: to discuss the proposed law on taxes.

Secular posted but did not write about, comment, debate

In the other group he is very quick to block, do you think I should have been blocked for this post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1458

[Logical]

14. So in other words the SOP does not say that.......

So until it says you cannot post a story without the OP making a comment then you need to quit complaining.

Look at it this way, the OP is the start if the discussion. Maybe that will help it stop annoying you.

[Duckhunter935]

15. we disagree but that is OK

And I will post whatever I want. At least we do not need a safe haven to go hide in and not allow differing points of view to be posted.

Number Blocked members
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Lurks Often
25 ileus
26 Recursion
27 SQUEE
28 MO_Moderate
29 S_B_Jackson
30 HALO141
31 Jgarrick
32 Valakut
33 arst1
34 Nuclear Unicorn
35 TupperHappy
36 pipoman

Would you like to comment or discuss the story the OP posted?

[Duckhunter935]

13. would you care to discuss the story?

or are you going to ignore that part of the post

[Logical]

17. I imagine you and I are not far off on the gun issue.....

Guns are beyond controlling at this point. Too many in circulation and legal to manufacturer, sell, purchase and possess. So at this point really nothing will stop anyone who wants to buy/steal/borrow a gun from going on a shooting spree.

50,000 handguns are stolen a year. That is 5 times the number of guns used to murder people every year (about 9000 firearm murders a year). So guns will always be available to criminals.

So I think the average citizen should be able to carry a gun for protection. I think it should require a CC license because I think some basic instruction about state laws and when to shoot and not shoot is a good thing. I hate open carry, think it is mostly just showing off and alarms people and hurts the gun cause.

I hate the NRA, just a right wing group interested in keeping people paranoid and selling guns. And they are a right wing nut haven. Ted Nugent mode. I would ban any member form the DU who supported the NRA. But I don't set the rules.

Dems should not fight guns as it will just cause us to lose voters and not reduce gun deaths.

I do think most gun owners overestimate the chances they will need a gun in their lifetime. Most cops never fire their weapon in the line of duty and should be in situations more often than the average citizen. Hell, NYC has 30,000 cops and only about 75 cops fire their guns a year.

So what happens in the UK is of no matter to me. It is a very different country with a different gun history.

[Duckhunter935]

18. We agree

Thanks

[Starboard Tack]

7. Is that what you truly believe? "The king's oppression" LOL

Is that what you were taught in school? Did you ask the teacher why those poor Brits didn't rise up against the "king's oppression"?
Do they not teach history in public school in the US ?

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Of course there will always be some idiot selling guns in the UK, but they are few and far between and pay a heavy price when caught.

[Duckhunter935]

8. so we should be still part of Britain?

[jimmy the one]

26. gunchester

duckhunter: The UK did not have to break away from the kings oppression with its armed citizenry to become a free nation and that is why that owning a firearm is part of the US and state constitutions.

Hate to break this to you duckhunter, but neither did the United States - because of it's armed citizenry - break away from an English king GeorgeIII to become a free nation. American militias did not win the rev-war, the Geo Washington led Continental Army did, with a bit of timely help from the French at Yorktown. Washington thought the militias were generally unreliable & pathetic, as did Nathaniel Greene, was a general perception.
.. The arms which the armed citizenry did have, were sometimes employed against other americans, tory vs rebel, in southern towns mainly.

duckhunter: The guns and grenades of gangland Britain ... On an anonymous industrial estate on the outskirts of Manchester the weapons were re-bored so that they were capable of firing live ammunition. On the street the guns fetched £700 each and he and his accomplices supplied almost 300.

Gee, Manchester air guns were rebored so they could fire live ammo - I think with these guns those American militias would've been worse off than with their muskets, since no bayonet... about half English guncrime is by air guns or bb guns or single shot modifications thereof.
Oh, btw: .. by the late 2000s levels of gang related gun crime had greatly reduced in the area as a whole .. you post old news.

[Eleanors38]

11. So, GB's crime rate WAS low before gun prohibition.

[gejohnston]

19. naw more like

political and economic elites using democratic institutions to slouch from the United Kingdom to Air Strip One. A major party actually talking about licensing journalists (if Labour is that bad, how fucked up are the Tories?) and the BBC writing about compelling people to give DNA samples certainly doesn't detract from that image.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/sep/27/ivan-lewis-leveson-inquiry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3088920.stm

QE as a tyrant? Seriously? She doesn't have that dead look in her eyes like Stalin or Hitler, or even James I. As a 17 year old princess she enlisted as a truck mechanic. That is a BFD and totally cool.

"Public safety" and "national security" are the default excuses for scoundrels to justify anything. The Romans used the "fight them there instead of fighting them here" mantra just like Bush and every other imperialist. I'm sure your ancestors heard the same about the Irish, India, half of Africa etc. The German people were told the Nurmberg laws were for "public safety" after being bombarded with propaganda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. A very wise quote

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority... the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Among politicians and government officials, I consider the ability to articulate rights as necessary for a leader of any sort.

[Starboard Tack]

37. 2 interesting links

Looked to me like one member of a major party blowing a lot of hot air. Never happens in the US of course. I won't bore you with links.
And a cop, one cop, who wants DNA records on everyone. Hardly policy.
Of course, the US would never do anything like that. Ask the NSA what they do. Ask Homeland Security what they do. You cannot enter the US, even in transit, without being fingerprinted and undergoing a retinal scan. Unless, of course, you have become a citizen and pledged your allegiance to a fucking flag. Rock on freedom.

[gejohnston]

38. You don't think MI-5 isn't?

NSA was doing it illegally.

Looked to me like one member of a major party blowing a lot of hot air. Never happens in the US of course.

I can think of a member of a US party in Congress who actually said it was a good idea. She might have introduced the bill.

Fingerprinting and retinal scan, I have noticed it, but I haven't traveled outside the US for a while. Someone I know mentioned that he heard about it from Alex Jones, so I kind of discounted it.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Every tourist gets printed and retina scanned

Even when they are in transit with a connecting flight. Didn't used to be like that, you could transit in the international section of the airport without a visa. Now you also need a visa just to touch the holy ground. The US has become one huge concentration camp since 9/11. I guess UBL won, if his aim was to destroy a way of life and America's image of freedom.
I can't count the number of good people I've met since moving to Mexico, who have been taken from their families and sent to a country many were unfamiliar with, just because they were born in the wrong place.

[gejohnston]

40. You, me, Thom Hartman, Alex Jones, Ron Paul,

and Bernie Sanders all agree on this:

I guess UBL won, if his aim was to destroy a way of life and America's image of freedom.

[Starboard Tack]

44. It's hard to imagine anyone disagreeing.

I'd love to hear that argument.

[IronGate]

16. I would like for you to explain to me

why I should care about GB's gun laws?

The US isn't GB, so, if you will, what bearing does GB's gun laws have on the US gun laws?

GB also has restrictions against free speech. Are you also in favor of those type of laws being instituted in the US?

Be honest about your reply, if given, without the usual insults/snark/inane comments.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Why should you care? No reason, unless you are curious

You think being able to carry a gun in public is about freedom. The Brits don't see it that way. They see it as a huge public health and safety issue.
The result of these diverse points of view is a gun death rate in the US, hundreds of times greater than that of the UK. Are you happy with that? Are you happy that 30,000 die each year in the US from guns, plus hundreds of thousands are maimedmand injured. The overall cost to your society is in the billions of dollars. These are dollars which could be better used to provide socialized healthcare to millions.
If you don't care how others fix common problems, then you don't care about fixing them.

[IronGate]

25. I wasn't addressing you, but I know this is an open board, so, here goes.

I don't care what other countries laws are, their country, their laws, what I do care about is US law as it pertains to US citizens.

The RKBA is the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not, and, as I read your posts, you agree with it, just not the CCW aspect of it unless there is a pressing need.
I respect that, you seem to be a reasonable person when it comes to debating.

(Disclaimer) This whole pro/con gun debate doesn't really get my juices flowing, I do own several handguns/rifles, but I have alot better things to worry about.
What I do object to is those that would erode our Rights through uninformed emotionalism and downright false info, from both sides of the issue.

What the UK's laws are shouldn't have an impact on what US law is, 2 totally different cultures.
The UK has restrictions on free speech, should we enact the same laws to comport with the UK?

No, we shouldn't, as I have stated, the US isn't the UK and I hope we never become like them.
We have our warts and ugliness, but, they're ours, not anyone else's.

And, as an addendum, SecMo seems to post these articles as flamebait, but refuses to discuss them except to accuse members here of stalking/following, disrupting, (that's a good one ), or accusing one of being a RW gun troll.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I tend to agree with most of what you said there.

Regarding SM, I wish he would comment more and engage in debate. However, some of his posts are interesting, including this one. I guess it's up to him and if he cares about his credibility here. In a forum (group) such as the gungeon, credibility must be earned by engaging others in civilized debate. Not always an easy accomplishment, when so many are inflexible.BTW, RW trolls do occasionally take up residence here. I have seen many come and go over the years.

You seem like a reasonable person, though somewhat rigid in your position on 2A. The fact is that all laws and rights come with restrictions. So, we can call them rights, even universal rights, but they are not universal and they all have restrictions.
You refer to restrictions on free speech. What, precisely, do you object to regarding restrictions in the UK? And are you OK with the restrictions imposed in the US?

[Jenoch]

41. Don't forget, the U.S. has the 2nd Amendment

guaranteeing RKBA in the U.S. Constitution because of Great Britain.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Baloney! nt

[Jenoch]

46. Is that all you have to say?

Maybe it's because you were not required to study U.S. history in your primary and secondary schooling.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Actually, I majored in both English and US history. That's why I say baloney.

NRA propaganda is not US history. RKBA did not start with your precious Constitution. Neither did the BoR. Study your history and get back to me if you want a discussion. I'm sure our good friend GE will be happy to set you straight on your history.

[Jenoch]

48. The last of the 13 colonies ratified the constitution in 1790.

The BOR was ratified in 1791 and it included the 2nd Amendment. The NRA was not around at that time. The initialism RKBA is from the 2nd Amendment.

[Starboard Tack]

49. I guess you think Washington invented the wheel and the alphabet too.

The right to keep and bear arms came from England. Sorry to burst your bubble, old sport.

I know they don't teach history before 1492 in the US, but the world is actually older than that.

Hint! Google "history of the second amendment" You'll find a wealth of information there.

Otherwise check this www.constitution.org/211/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

[Jenoch]

50. I appreciate iate your agreement with my point.

I have posted to you twice the the reason the U.S. has the RKBA in the constitution is because of England, although I may have posted G.B.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Very good. Because it got the idea from England, same as it got the language.

It wasn't something new. Now that's cleared up, we can look at what happened since that results today in such a disparity, between the two countries, in terms of gun violence.
I've always found it useful in life to look outside myself when I had trouble figuring something out, or if I was continually fucking something up. It's really quite amazing what we can learn from others, especially in terms of problem solving.

[gejohnston]

51. So you agree with the

National Firearms Association in Canada and their counter parts in the other Commonwealth countries? So, will you be speaking at the next NFA convention? It will be in Richmond, BC, on May 23-24.Will you be running for Parliament as the Shooters and Fishers party in Australia?

Since you are in Mexico, do you support or oppose the Autodefensa? what is your take on the Autodefensa being declared "domestic" terrorists after they took up arms against the cartels? The government backtracked and will allow them to continue as Rural Guards aka Rurales?
some links when you get the chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurales
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25924386
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/

[Starboard Tack]

53. You certainly are the master of the non sequitur GE. LOL

But you always bring up some interesting stuff.
The situation in Michoacan has settled down of late. We were in Morelia for the big quake, which lasted about 30 seconds. Biggest I've felt in 20 years. We spent a few days in Michoacan over Easter, and we drove through the areas where the local vigilantes have been standing up to the Knights Templar. It's a classic wild west power struggle.
That said, we drove a lot of back roads through small towns, encountered no problems. The military and federales have a strong presence throughout Michoacan and the rest of Mexico. And for good reason. The cartels are a scourge funded by the US. Legalize drugs and they'll disappear overnight.

[gejohnston]

54. I'm Bruce Leroy to Bloomberg's Sho'nuff

Of course I'm the master, but not of Non sequitur, he is certainly the master of that. In case you didn't get it,, here is a link when you get the chance.
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/referenceinformation.html
The west's "range wars" and power struggles were never on the level of what is going on there. They are not even remotely the same. The few that existed were economic. In Mexico, it has more to do with the the government doing nothing or military and police being in bed with the cartels. The government puts up with Autodefensa as long as they don't stand up to the Sinola Cartel, which is supported by the government.

[ileus]

28. Good for the UK....glad the US isn't as regressive when it comes to basic human rights.

[Starboard Tack]

35. Ah yes, the basic human right to shoot other humans

We wouldn't want to mess with that kind of "family fun", would we now. You see, most people in the "free world" don't consider walking around with a firearm a "basic human right". In fact , they think walking around in peace to be a basic human right, not being surrounded by untold numbers of armed individuals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. I'm a bit more interested...

...in what they think of chips recipes.

[rrneck]

43. 37,342,964.

That's the number of fucks I don't give about what they think.

[jimmy the one]

55. go to the horse's mouth

Secular Motion asked: What Do British People Think About the U.K.’s Gun Restrictions?

English are predominantly opposed to loose firearm availability; Here's an English based message board based out of London, 'metrogees - my fast forum', which has UK members ops on American firearm laws as well as their own, on occasion;
(I used to post on it for about 5 years but stopped couple yrs back, jimmy the one might still be listed as a 'member' - remember, jimmy the one is an English naval term, a first lieutenant on every RMS ship of size);

Belgian contributor fata: Still who are Europeans to criticise Americans? It's their choice to live in a country that makes it super easy for anyone to flip and go on an orgy of gun-fueled carnage.
It's every American's god-given right to be able to grab an arsenal of weaponry and go and blow away a dozen of their fellow citizens. It's in the 2nd Amendment.

this mass shooting in Washington...something that will repeat itself over and over until Americans decide they have had enough and do something about it. My own sense is that this last slaughter has been met with a great deal of ho hum another shooting indifference. Likely we'll be having this same discussion again in the near future.
http://metrogees.myfastforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3138&start=20

1 It is the inalienable right of every American nutter to own a gun.

2 It's deeply ingrained in the cultural psyche. You'd be amazed at perfectly amiable people in conversation suddenly go on the defense if you question gun ownership.

3 Re: More Gun Madness in Texas Such gun "incidents" are hardly worth a mention since they are almost commonplace and nothing is going to change any time soon. They appear to be an accepta ble part of the right to own a gun in American society. The one thing they have in common appears to be an inordinate fear of being confronted by someone with a gun. They never see themselves as part of the problem....since so often it is people just like themselves who flip out and start shooting.
http://metrogees.myfastforum.org/More_Gun_Madness_in_Texas_about3714.html