The slug-faced one is partially right, the vast majority of ordinary police officers do not carry firearms. However, that doesn’t mean that no police carry any firearms, those that do are known as Authorised Firearms Officers.
You can buy one provided you already hold a firearms certificate allowing you to do so, and you buy it for a collection or exhibition and it’s only kept in a specified place for this purpose (which might be your home).
No, you can’t keep it loaded and certainly not carry it with you. Some historic handguns are licensed to be fired in certain specified places, so presumably you can buy amunition.
Here’s a Link to a pdf guide to the law for the Police, issued by the Home Office.
Ordinary beat officers won’t be issued with guns. Specialist firearms officers only are allowed to use guns.
That is a misreading of the act.
You will get 12 months just for carrying a realistic replica weapon in public. You simply cannot legally own a handgun in the UK. The UK has successfully starved the criminal market of access to handguns by making sure none are in private hands to be stolen. That’s why reactivated replicas and converted starter pistols from eastern europe are so valuable they are rented out to criminals.
The UK never had a gun culture so even before the 1997 Act the country was not awash with guns therefore a ‘starve the beast’ approach worked. Obviously this is impractical in the USA, leaving constitutional issues aside. That horse has bolted long ago.
In the UK we are trying to keep guns off our streets by making it difficult to get them. If no one can legitimately own one then they can’t be stolen.
It is true that it is still way too easy to get a shotgun licence but the main weapon for gangs is knives. We’re amazingly tough on knife ownership also but obviously that’s had to control. The penalties for carrying almost any sort of knife are so draconian that just carrying anything more han a swiss army knife will land you in big trouble.
It makes sense that “gun crimes” increase once simply owning one becomes a crime.
As practically no-one owned handguns prior to the ban that doesn’t follow. of that 0.1% I’d hazard a guess that most of those would be gun club sports related and WW2 keep-sakes in the attic. Even before the ban you could not just walk into a shop and buy one.
Just like we have a hard time understanding the US obsession with guns the US has a hard time understanding guns just are not that important or interesting to us. We aren’t nursing a burning anger about not being able to own them. They just don’t have the mythological weight and significance they do for Americans.
We’re an urban society and the bits that aren’t urban are owned by big landowners or the National Trust. Neither of which allow us to just wander around ‘hunting’. I guess we value our frredom from guns more than we value our freedom to own guns. I’ve never encountered a gun ‘in the wild’ not in the hands of a police officer or a soldier, other than a .22 rifle and that was 45 years plus ago.
EDIT - I did go clay pigeon shooting once so handled one then.
I shot a bunch of them at public school, FWIW (small calibre rifles). This was prior to 1996, though.
I saw one for the first time in 1998 as a twenty four year old. At Heathrow Airport.
That’s how rare it is.
^ It’s funny, you still note the fact when you see a police officer with a gun - I was walking past an embassy in Mayfair a couple of months ago and there was one standing guard outside the entrance.
Maybe the time before that was at Heathrow, but that was quite some time ago.
I saw a lot of British police with guns on the street as a schoolboy - but then I did go to school in Belfast in the early 70s!
I’m thinking the whole " I need guns to protect myself from government" sounds scary, it’s not necessarily this administration, the next one, or the one after, a time may arise though, your only 237 years from the Declaration of Independence, that’s only 4 or 5 generations from it.
And if your being honest with yourself, freedom has slipped through the fingers of most countries, and any and all government will be more then happy to take whatever freedoms your willing to give up.
So today? No, don’t keep your guns today to fight whomever, but keep it for someone in the next 4 or 5 generations is my view.
Also they outlawed guns in England for awhile, then started feeding the guns back to police, they make it really hard to protect yourself in England, if you defend your home and family too vigorously, you may find yourself in jail.
I’m curious whether the rise in gun crime in the UK and Ireland is related to the cessation of violence in Northern Ireland. The various terror groups had piles of arms that they weren’t supposed to use again. Makes sense they might have made a quick few bob selling them on to other less ideologically minded criminals. This is a complete wag and IIRC increased trade/communication among criminal gangs internationally, especially across Europe is thought to account for at least some of the increased availability of firearms.
I’m not sure I get - gun control in the UK has got progressively tighter. The police had armed-response units in one form or another before and they have them still, that’s not changed.
The law as it is applied to someone defending their home during the same period has actually progressively further favoured the homeowner.
I think it’s worth saying as well many of the high-profile cases of home owners being convicted for injuring people attempting to burgle there are often details left out. for example the Munir Hussain case which was widely reported as a business man was convicted of committing grievous bodily harm against someone who forcibly invaded his home whereas the injured burglar was not prosecuted. Details that were not so widely reported is that Munir Hussain and members of his family had chased the burglar over quite a long distance and when they attacked him he was fleeing and it was something like a mile away from Hussain’s house. When they finally caught up to him they administered an incredibly savage beating using weapons which left the burglar in a persistent vegetative state.
“defend my home”? You mean from injuns, or something. No idea what you’re talking about; you might disturb a burglar but that’s about it.
If you do take on a burglar you are legally allowed to a ‘proportional’ response, itself based on your state of mind at the relevant time.
Well, quite. This was interesting, from the BBC.
[QUOTE=BBC]
How likely is prosecution?
There have been very few prosecutions in these circumstances. Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
[/QUOTE]
So it’s not as if people are being thrown in jail all over the place for “defending their homes.”
LOL. He was probably okay until he set the feller on fire.
Yep, if you look at the cases where there have been prosecutions and convictions, it’s been because the homeowner has not been able to argue with any reasonableness that they were involved in self-defence.
For example in the famous Tony Martin had an illegal firearm and his previous firearm licence had been revoked when he shot at someone scrumping (stealing fruit) from his orchard. It was also alleged that he had threatened to shoot any intruders who tried to enter his house and that when he shot and killed one of the burglars he was in fact lying in wait for them. Even then his murder conviction on appeal was changed to manslaughter because he was successfully able to argue with medical evidence that he was mentally ill.
“Lying in wait” in your own house for someone who can only enter it by committing a crime…what a concept.
You don’t have the right (at least in the UK) to shoot people for trespassing (which in itself isn’t a crime in the UK; though undoubtedly they trespassed with the intent to steal, which is a crime). He was convicted because there was evidence there were several lines of evidence that he intended to shoot anyone who tried to steal from him, which means his claim of self-defence wasn’t believed by the jury.
Ach, I don’t really think it’s a legal term or anything. It’s just a way of expressing the idea that someone reacted in a way that was far beyond the definition of self-defence.
I mean, if you hear someone breaking into your house and you grab your shotgun and take up a strategic position to defend yourself, it’s likely to be no problem. If, however, you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back shortly after you’ve expressed an intent to execute the next person who comes near your house, well, maybe that will be a problem. Beating someone senseless and then setting them on fire? Personally, I have to see that as excessive.
Eleven prosecutions in 15 years doesn’t suggest to me that the English and Welsh authorities are acting capriciously in this regard.