Just to correct a couple of obvious errors in the OP.
First off, call it the UK rather than England. Secondly, judging by the contents of my cabinet rifles and shotguns are legal here.
And as for what level of restriction I believe reasonable, I find a Franchi Spas 12 is more than enough protection for me, so put me down for level 3.
Gary: I’m surprised (I don’t doubt you, but I’m surprised). I was under the (apprarently mistaken) impression that rifles/shotguns in the U.K. required tremendous paperwork to own and they had to be stored at…aarghh… can’t remember the term… “Gun Clubs?” and couldn’t be kept in private homes. Not the case?
Fenris
…And the silliness rolls on…
At what level do I feel safest? Well, since I don’t choose to carry a gun, even though I’m allowed to, neither.
However, if you amend #2 to “only those who choose to do harm and the police can have a gun”, then that’s the level I choose. At least then guns are somewhat harder for criminals to get than they are now.
UK vs. England: done.
As for whether the UK is level 2 or 3, the OP says that the weapon can be obtained with “little paperwork”. Here in Colorado, if I buy (for example) an FN-FAL semi-automatic rifle from my neighbor, I don’t fill out any paperwork. None, nada, zip. Even if I buy it from a gun dealer, the paperwork and background check is done in half an hour.
That’s “little paperwork” at level 5.
Back to the UK…suppose I’m an ordinary citizen who doesn’t belong to a gun club. I walk into a gun shop and say, “That’s a nice shotgun, I’ll take it.” How long will it be before I take possesion? My understanding is that I’d have to join a gun club, and that it would take months before I’d actually have the shotgun in my grubby little hands (please correct me if I’m wrong). That’s not minimal paperwork. As defined in the OP, that’s level 2.
As for the SPAS 12, here in the USA it’s defined as an “assault weapon” (level 5) by the federal government. Is there no such distinction in the UK between a double-barreled shotgun and a high-capacity semi-automatic shotgun? Mind you, I’d approve of there being no such distinction…
Fenris, I fear you’ve been misled. Firearms and shotguns can be kept at home, although you must demonstrate that you have a suitable gun safe to keep them in, including a second safe for ammo (true for rifles, not necessary, I believe, for shotguns).
Oh, and the procedure for obtaining a license isn’t nearly as bad as people make out either. For firearms (the hardest one to obtain) you do need to have been a member of a gun club prior to your application, but as I’d joined one pretty much as soon as I moved here, it wasn’t a problem. They also require a decent reason to purchase a rifle or shotgun: self defence does not count but hunting/sportsmanship does.
Fenris, I fear you’ve been misled. Firearms and shotguns can be kept at home, although you must demonstrate that you have a suitable gun safe to keep them in, including a second safe for ammo (true for rifles, not necessary, I believe, for shotguns).
Oh, and the procedure for obtaining a license isn’t nearly as bad as people make out either. For firearms (the hardest one to obtain) you do need to have been a member of a gun club prior to your application, but as I’d joined one pretty much as soon as I moved here, it wasn’t a problem. They also require a decent reason to purchase a rifle or shotgun: self defence does not count but hunting/sportsmanship does.
Lightnin’ said:
I think you are being too simplistic in your approach, and counting on people’s good intentions. First you completely ignore the bigger long gun market, which is recreational shotgunning. Secondly you are counting on criminals to not modify their weapons to make them easier to conceal. What is a handgun? At it’s basic level it is a rifle with a short barrel and no stock. It wouldn’t be difficult for a criminal to saw off a small caliber rifle and remove the stock, leaving him with a concealable weapon not much larger than a large frame handgun. It’ll be just as deadly and nearly as accurate as the typical handgun. Need something with better coverage? Do the same thing to a small-bore shotgun. Compact, concealable, point and shoot.
Very, very true, Hibbins. I don’t see a solution- but I don’t think that using that logic to keep pistols legal follows.
Right now pistols are very easy to get- heck, one night after work I found one in the dumpster behind the arcade I worked in. My ex-wife has one, a friend of mine has at least five or so. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that any criminal who wants a pistol- a device designed exclusively to kill and/or threaten other human beings- can get one with a little bit of work.
Now. If recreational rifles- and by these I mean shotguns and hunting rifles, and not semi-autos- are the only legal firearms, then possession of a sawed-off would be illegal. After all, a sawed-off is another device designed strictly to kill other humans- hard to hunt with one, right? Yeah, the criminals could get one- but they would have to make it themselves, or find someone to do so for them. Currently, criminals can have not only sawed-off shotguns and the like, but also pistols and semi-automatics.
Don’t get me wrong- I don’t think there’s any way the law can be changed. I do, however, think it’s a sad state of affairs that the only way some people in this society can feel safe is if they can carry around a device which allows them to kill their fellow citizens. That’s the sort of attitude which makes the rest of us feel unsafe.
So, if I read you right, then, the state is under no obligation to protect its citizens,and, indeed, is helpless to do so, since it cannot justify any actions it might deem necessary to do so.
Fair enough. That pretty much leaves it up to the citizens to protect themselves.
So, are the free state’s citizens entitled to ask for justification of the actions of fellow citizens? If you choose to purchase a gun, what assurance do I have as a fellow citizen that you won’t go rogue and become a menace to me and/or my other fellow citizens?
If I am entitled to question the intent of my fellow citizens, then, since we are a Republic, can I not entrust my duly appointed representatives to do so on my behalf?
If I am not entitled to question the intent of my fellow citizens, then where is this ‘free state’ you speak of?
It sounds as though you are saying that gun owners should not have to answer to anyone, period. Constitution or no, I do not agree with this.
I hope that I have merely misunderstood your point, and that this is not truly what you believe…
So if someone who intends to do harm is in your house with a gun, how fast do you imagine the police can get to you? And what makes you think that the person with the gun doesn’t corner you into an area without a phone?
Well, duh! Of course it isn’t. This issue has been adjudicated in the courts, which have unambiguously held that no state owes any citizen any particular guarantee of protection against any crime. I will provide cites if you wish.
Cripes, did you actually think you can sue the police for not protecting you if you get mugged?
Here you are obviously creating a strawman. I merely stated that the state must justify what actions it takes. I did not say that there are no justifications for anything the state does or might potentially do.
And what assurance do I have that you won’t “go rogue and become a menace to me and/or my other fellow citizens” with or without a gun? You can kill me with or without a gun, after all. I have no assurance that you will not. Am I then justified in restraining you, or delegating that power to the state, which would imprison you?
My position is, unless you make an actual threat, I do not have that power, and neither does the state. The state cannot imprison you, or otherwise infringe on your rights, for something you might do.
You can question me all you like, and so can your appointed representative. The issue here is whether or not you or your representative should be able to force me to answer.
Again, you are creating a strawman. I merely said that if the state wishes to force gun owners to “answer to it”, it (the state) must have a justification for doing so.
I most certainly do believe what I said, every word of it. Your erroneous interpretations of it are another matter.
In the post you quoted, I said that if only the police are legally allowed to have guns, then it would be harder for criminals to get them. Therefore the odds of someone breaking into my house with a gun decrease.
I know someone’s going to argue that point. Anyway.
I don’t own a gun. I don’t want to own one. I don’t like the fact that since everyone else has one, I have to get one just to feel the same level of safety as those with guns. Right now, if someone were to break into my house with a firearm, I wouldn’t have a gun with which to shoot back- how is that different from the situation described earlier, in which only bad guys and the police have guns?
The difference is that in one situation you have the freedom to be armed, and in the other you don’t. In the latter scenario, this would apply to me as well, which is why I care. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot if you’re armed or not, but please don’t try to prevent me from defending myself.
When I spoke in support of restrictions that would make it harder for idiots to get guns, you asked me who got to decide who the idiots were, with considerable doubt that the idiots in the government could make that judgment.
That’s a fair point. But consider driver’s licenses, for example. Much to my chagrin, it’s clear that my state hasn’t figured out a way to keep all idiots off the road. But they do impose some restrictions, designed to help increase the chances that the drivers on the road have some maturity, judgment, eyesight, and knowledge of basic traffic rules.
I’m not an idiot, or blind, or ignorant of traffic laws. But I accept having to complete driver’s ed, submit to an eye test, and take a quiz about the rules o’ the road. Why? Because I know they’re screening for idiots, idiots who could hamper my own safety on the road. It’s not a perfect system. But it’s something. Do I demand its repeal just because it’s a pain in the ass to go to the DMV? Do I grumble because I’m a good driver? Do I cry foul just because I know some idiots still manage to get behind the wheel? I suppose I could, but I believe the benefits outweight the costs and the flaws.
The sensible, intelligent gun owners I know (read: my dad, my nephew, all my uncles, my brother-in-law… this list goes on) go through some rigamarole to legally possess and use their guns. I don’t see why this is such an imposition. They don’t seem to. There is no use for which they need a firearm that paperwork, background checks, and waiting periods would really cramp their style. Anyone who needs a gun “RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, SCREW GUN SAFETY CERTIFICATION” is not someone I’m keen on living next door to…
While no state owes any guarantee of protection, they still have the responsibility to protect their citizens (this holds for both the U.S. as a whole and the individual states). There is a difference between an obligation to protect the public and a guarantee of safety. I never made any claims regarding the latter.
Nope. Never said I did.
I did exaggerate to make my point; I will grant you that. But then, I don’t recall anyone (at least not me!) mentioning that a state could/should place limitations on certain rights without justifying their actions.
I do not think I expressed the point I was trying to make here very well. What I seek is not a guarantee of safety; what I seek are measures which limit the legal possession of firearms (of any sort) to those individuals who can demonstrate that they can handle them responsibly. One must be tested and obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle; I feel that similar restrictions should be placed on gun ownership. I also feel that potential gun owners should be made well aware of the responsibility they have to handle firearms responsibly. Such is not the case presently.
However, I am well aware that any restrictions will likely be by-passed by those with criminal intent. But then, if a testing procedure where in place, it is far more likely that the responsible folks will be better able to handle such weapons than the criminals. This is the assurance I referred to.
Yes, these sorts of measures would place limitations on gun ownership, which some may argue violates the letter of the Second Amendment. I do not, however, feel that they would violate the spirit (or, perhaps more properly, my interpretation of the spirit) of that right.
Marc - please ignore my earlier statements about Columbine, Port Arthur etc… A particularly idiotic argument from my part.
I guess my main problem is that I live in a country that doesn’t have a huge gun culture historically. (And please note, gun culture means just that - a culture of gun ownership. I am passing no judgement here). Therefore, I don’t have a problem with restricting private gun ownership to level 3, and so far, it has not caused any problems.
That doesn’t mean that it will work elsewhere, especially a country that has given a constitutional right to gun ownership. Thought about it a bit, and even if I did live in the US, I still wouldn’t own a gun - don’t see it as necessary, nor particularly useful. However, I can’t ignore Marc’s argument (re:his camera equipment), or gorillaboy’s last post about not restricting his rights.
So… In an ideal world, I’d still prefer level 3. Recognising that we live in a real world, and not an ideal world, I can quite easily go to level 4, and can live with level 5, providing said firearms are registered, and a permit is required (background check incorporated). Might I suggest some rather heavy penalties for breaking such requirements?
Cannot go to level 6 - fully automatic firearms are not justifiable. Sorry, but my personal opinion is that you do need to justify owning that sort of a weapon. I can’t imagine changing from that stance, but then again, I didn’t think I’d back down from a maximum of level 3!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: in a free society, citizens are not required to justify themselves or their actions to the state. Rather, the state must justify it’s actions to it’s citizens.
**
[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you have just completely nullified the social contract.
In any ‘free society’ there is a tacit understanding between the citizens of that society that they are members of a greater union for their own sake, and hopefully for the sake of the common good. The fundamental flaw in your statement is that it completely divides the people from the state. Nonsense! No such division exists.
The most basic principle of representational, republican and democratic government is that it is of, by and for the people. The members of a society continuously take part in an organic process of the state growing and responding to the needs of the present historical context through judicial and legislative means. What most of you rampaging liberals and die-hard libertarians seem to forget is that in this process of evolution, societies can justly apply the interaction between the individual and the state to curtail individual applications of personal autonomy as well as expand them. The process of the evolution of individual rights does not only go one way.
The right to own slaves, the right to exact lethal retribution against each other and an entire host of ‘fundamental freedoms’ have been limited and done away with in the name of the heightened sense of the common good, and the protection of the rights of others.
The issue of gun control speaks to this directly, and it is in this light that the issue of gun control is best understood. The Constitutional argument for the ‘right to bear arms’ is somewhat anachronistic, for it demands a set of circumstances and geo-political truths that no longer exist. The framers of the Constitution could certainly not have envisioned a vastly urbanized society in which the proliferation of small arms had become one of the greatest threats to personal safety known to man. Their intent was to help the populace guard itself against the uprising of a similarly armed tyranny, in which a well-maintained militia would be an appropriate form of defense. Clearly, this is no longer the case, if it were the 2nd amendment would read ‘the right to bear Apache attack helicopters and nuclear submarines’.
What is at issue here is whether or not the level or free armament presently available in the US constitutes a facet of providence or a clear and present threat to the common good, and the reasonable expectation of safety of the common man. It is the common man after all, not the NRA that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect.
Given that the United States has exponentially greater gun-related deaths per year than the rest of the Western world, one needs to ponder if there’s much of a debate left to be had.
Greater restrictions on firearms (I think level 3 would apply) and the aggressive prosecution of the illegal gun trade are the solution, not pointless libertarian rhetoric.
I know this is probably illegal in 38 states, but (GASP!) I’m actually going to answer the OQ instead of getting into yet another amazingly pointless gun control flamewar! (Is that LEGAL??)
But first, I have some nits to pick with the categories:
Categories 4 and 5 should probably be swapped. My reasoning for this is that handguns are much more easily concealable and so used a lot more often in crime than any form of long arm, semi-auto or no. So in terms of ease of abuse, the handguns are easier to abuse (and/or misuse) than
semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
I think there needs to be some clarification of categories 3 and 5. Specifically, I would say that any gun that requires manual intervention on the part of the user to load the next cartridge would go into category 3. This means bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, single-shot pistols that you have to open up and pull the spent casing out and put a new one in, etc… are all level 3. On the other hand, any gun where you can pull the trigger twice in a row without doing anything else and it will fire both times is a semi-auto and should be in category 5. (Or category 4, by my way of looking at things.) My point here is that the “military style” qualifier in category 5 is really irrelevant to the gun’s true lethality. A semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine has the same capacity for harm when it’s painted all black and has a plastic stock as when it has a walnut stock and a stainless steel finish. The amount of effort and speed with which the chamber reloads is the important thing, not the color of the gun.
Just as a nitpick, I think “selective fire” weapons that are capable of being in either semi-auto or full-auto (and maybe multi-shot “burst,” too) should be lumped in with the full-autos. If it can fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger, it’s a full-auto and belongs in category 6.
Honestly, I’d rather have people owning crew-served weapons like fighter jets and tanks than have them with hand grenades and missle launchers. If you can afford a tank or jet, you’re usually a pretty responsible person and won’t abuse it. (If only because you have to make enough money to afford the crew that maintains it!) On the other hand, I can easily see some street-gang punk buying grenades and throwing one into a sidewalk cafe full of people just for the hell of it. In terms of danger to society, I think the infantry weapons generally rank above the crew serviced weapons. (With the possible exception of artillery.) So swap categories 7 and 8.
So, my categories looks like this:
1 - No legal weapons of any kind (clubs and hand-moved stones)
2 - Edged weaponry (knives, swords)
3 - Manually loaded guns of all types (single-shot pistols, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns)
4 - Semi-auto long arms (including both “hunting-style” and “military-style” semi-auto rifles and shotguns)
5 - Semi-auto handguns (hopefully self-explanatory)
6 - Fully automatic guns of all types (everything from auto-pistols to .50-cal tripod mounted machineguns)
7 - Crew serviced weapons, with the exception of artillery (tanks, planes)
8 - Anti-infantry weapons (missle launchers, flame-throwers, grenades, artillery)
9 - NBC weaponry (hopefully self-explanatory)
I draw the line just after level 7. However, I am still in favor of some regulation previous to that.
Essentially, my philosophy is that the more powerful a toy you want to play with, the more training you need. I know it’s a cliche, but I do believe that it’s the person using the weapon that causes things to happen, not the weapon. So I’m in favor of training very heavily.
Now, I think anyone can train themselves to own a sword competently. A couple evenings with a good book on sword care and common sense will probably do it. Though I would highly recommend a good kendo or fencing course, I do not think such is required to bring the risk level to other people of owning a sword down to reasonable levels.
Guns of all types have a much higher risk factor because of many stupid people who think it’s okay to randomly handle a gun without unloading it first (or not checking to see if it’s loaded - amounts to the same thing) is an acceptable practice. Hence, I would say the need for more intensive training begins at category 3, and the training could easily be structured such that it covers categories 3-6. Though all of cat 3-6 is an awful lot of material, it would be a long course. Maybe break it up into one course for 3-5 (which require mostly the same safety practices) and then a special
one for 6.
Concealed carry is a tough one. Maybe the category 6 course would include training on concealed carry. That would make the category 6 training class be about as long as the 3-5 class, since it seems like they’d both have similiar amounts of material to cover.
Now, before we go on, I would like to emphasize one point here: I am talking about TRAINING. Safety training, in specific. You’ll notice that nowhere do I mention registration or licensing. That’s quite intentional. I don’t believe registration of guns is useful, and the only purpose I can see for licensing is that it proves you had an adequate level of safety training.
Here’s how I envision the training process working:
If you want to own a gun, you have to take a safety course. The course would be given by a private “school” (for lack of a better word) that is run by a private individual. When you register for the class, one of the requirements for entrance is to pass a criminal background check. Upon completion of the course, a wall certificate and a wallet-sized copy of the certificate are given to the student. (Presuming they didn’t flunk out for being a total moron.) This certificate entitles the bearer to buy and keep as many guns as they want, subject to the restraints of the category of class they took. (I.e., you can’t own machine guns until you take a category 6 class.)
The school does not tell anyone who it issues certificates to. Only the police may find out, and to do so they must appear before a judge and present probable cause, the same way one would for a search warrant. However, any police officer, official at a shooting range, etc… may request to see a individual’s course certificate at any time said individual is in posession of a gun. Posessing a gun (on public or private property) and not being able to prove that you have a course certificate will get you jail time.
The schools themselves will be policed by the state or local government. Minimum standards must be established by the government to determine what acceptable minimum safety training is. These standards will be published once a year and subject to a vote of the people’s representatives, or even the people themselves. Several (passing) students a year at random will be tested from each school, and made to pass a written and skills test in gun safety that covers the material in the “minimum standards”. If more than a few students flunk this test, the school’s ability to issue certificates will be revoked - i.e., the school will be shut down. If all schools in a jurisdiction are shut down, the government of that jurisdiction will be obligated to open one themselves, and provide classes for a specified fee
not to exceed some reasonable amount, say $100. The government school must not fail more than a certain percentage (probably 50%) of students than a comparable private school, or the people or their representatives may vote to abolish the minimum standards, which would allow any dumbass who can pass a background check and slip money to an unscrupulous “instructor” to own a gun.
This system is designed to fulfil two objectives:
People who are obviously dumbass fuckheads should not be allowed guns. The private schools may wash out as many retard crackhead gang-bangers as they feel like. As long as the people they pass can successfully do the written and skills test, they are educating people in gun safety properly and should be allowed to continue. But if they fuck up, they lose. The ability of the private schools to flunk anyone for any reason, and the surety of knowing that your students will be audited, will hopefully prevent irresponsible people from obtaining guns.
People who are obviously rational adults and who pass a well-designed gun safety class should not be denied the right to bear arms. This system prevents the government from arbitrarily denying the 2nd amendment rights of people who have proven their responsibility and willingness to be safe
gun owners, as has happened in New York and other places by various slimy political ploys like claiming (for the last 15 years running) that they’re all out of permit application forms or such. The mandate to establish their own schools if they shut down all the private ones and the ability of the people to override the government if it tries to muscle away
people’s rights prevents most major abuses. The price cap on government run courses prevents class discrimination and the free market would hopefully prevent private schools from charging insane amounts.
I’m sure this system wouldn’t be foolproof. There are tweaks that even I can see it needs right now from my armchair here. It’s just an outline for my ideal world, where anyone who wants to own a gun MUST undergo a safety training class, and if they pass the class and prove themselves capable of owing a gun responsibly, they cannot be arbitrarily denied by a government that’s supposed to be protecting their rights.
Lastly, as far as category 7 weapons go, I’m pretty much fine with any kind of regulation you want to impose there. The people who are rich enough to afford fighter jets and tanks are not the ones you need to worry about anyway, and will have enough money to jump through whatever hoops you require. Having to register your recycled F-16 on a government list would be seen as a prestige symbol by the ultra-rich who can afford such things.
So that’s my two cents. Thanks for reading through this entire long-winded post…
-BenDid you know how many crimes have been committed in the last 60 years with legally owned machineguns in the US?
Answer: One (and he was a policeman!). They don’t seem to be much of a problem. Mind you, the owners have to go through a lot of paperwork, so this wouldn’t qualify as level 6. Still, Switzerland & Israel have common ownership of machineguns, and their crime rates are lower than that of the US.
What’s the big deal about full auto weapons, anyway? I remember watching the video “Deadly Weapons” in which the host showed the difference between full-auto fire and accurate semi-auto fire. He set up 20 human-shaped targets at a range of 50 yards, and fired an FN-FAL on full auto at them, hitting 2 or 3. He then fired 20 shots on semi-auto…
And hit every one in the chest.
I’m not saying that full auto fire is useless, mind you, just that most people’s understanding of it is faulty.
Great argument for restricting semi auto weapons as well! We come back to the same problem - I still maintain that a responsible, law abiding citizen should show cause as to why he feels it necessary to own a device that is purely designed to deal death in large numbers. Modern society recognises that it is sometimes necessary to curtail individual freedoms for the good of society as a whole. I can’t see how semi/full automatic firearms enrich society, but I can sure as hell see how they don’t.
Now I know you’re going to have problems with my position on the whole justification thing, but just humour me. I don’t get regularly involved in gun debates, as it’s not an issue where I live. I’ve already changed my opinion on the acceptable level (from 3 to waivering between 4 & 5), and I’m interested to see whether I could accept anything further. But the problem is that to do that, I need justification for ownership. Can you give me any?
(Or tell me to get lost, stop hijacking your thread and start one with that topic instead!)