Luna1945 24 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Hi guys, I was hoping to get a few more signatures to this partition to legalise .22lr pistols in the United Kingdom for sporting purposes. As people know, the UK has some of the stupidest gun laws in the world and they have banned all pistols even for sport, despite the fact that this has not lowered the number of handgun deaths. It actually increased them! As any English historian will tell you, we British had The right to bear arms for self defence almost 100 years before the Americans (the English Bill of Rights 1689 allows for this) So please sign this partition if you are a citizen of any country in the UK. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62588 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddG 554 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 I will not be signing it. Why? Because England is fine without guns and by the way we so allow shotguns and air rifles for hunting which are a lot more effective than a pistol. Also IMHO America is too loose on gun laws, I mean you guys have a higher murder/gun crime rate than us. Us Brits like to punch each other in the face :3. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcyHaze 593 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Well, I can see the point in legalizing it for sporting reasons, once it was well regulated and monitored. But I won't be signing the petition, due to being Irish. It's not my call. If you wanna go making one for the Irish government to entirely ignore, much like any government likes ot ignore petitions, be my guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeleton Kin 385 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 We have Air Rifles for sport already though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. 1,843 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I wish I could sign it for you but I'm American. Good luck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearbox10mm 794 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I feel for you bud. We are still having to fight to keep ours on this side of the pond. Keep fighting the fight and maybe one day you will get your rights restored, although I must say it does not look good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) I will not be signing it. Why? Because England is fine without guns and by the way we so allow shotguns and air rifles for hunting which are a lot more effective than a pistol. Also IMHO America is too loose on gun laws, I mean you guys have a higher murder/gun crime rate than us. Us Brits like to punch each other in the face :3. I never intend to own a gun and practice the martial arts, I would still rather live in a nation with loose gun laws than strict ones. You know the amount of deaths also could just be there's simply more of us to die. Given the severe different ratio in our populations. Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloodle 1,621 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I’m English, and I won’t be signing this without more information first. After the guns have been used for sports purposes, where do the guns go? Are people allowed to take them home for next weeks shooting session? Or are they put away somewhere safe? I’m fine with blank guns or BB guns but I'm not so sure real hand guns are such a good idea, Americas gun laws are far too loose and if it works for them fine but over in the UK I like that we can't all run round with a firearm personally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 Americas gun laws are far too loose and if it works for them fine but over in the UK I like that we can't all run round with a firearm personally. Well thank you for at least admitting "it works for us." I would also gently inform you that not everyone who's in support of loose gun laws actually carries or even owns one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarity1 461 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 This is for sporting purposes, why would it be banned. If someone wanted to kill, they'd find a way, gun or not. I wish I could sign it but I'm not British. Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitalSpark 1,830 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) despite the fact that this has not lowered the number of handgun deaths That the number of handgun deaths is higher since the ban is a complete red herring. What is important is whether the number of handgun deaths would be higher if it had never been put in place. Sounds like the same thing, but it's not. Let's say we've got a swimming pool. It's empty. Someone turns on a hose pipe and starts filling it up. The hose is filling the pool at a rate of 5 litres per second. Once the pool is half-way full, I start bailing water out of it with a bucket. I can bail out water at 4 litres per second. Now, after I've been bailing water out for a couple of minutes, you can rightly say that since I started bailing water out of the pool, the water level has gone up. That is true, yes. But my bailing water out hasn't caused the water level to go up. My bailing water out has prevented it from going up as much as it otherwise would have. As any English historian will tell you, we British had The right to bear arms for self defence almost 100 years before the Americans (the English Bill of Rights 1689 allows for this) The Bill of Rights says that people have the right to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". It doesn't specify what type of weaponry people have the right to bear. It's unlikely that pistols were at the forefront of the minds of the people drafting the law. At the time it was drafted, the most advanced firearm was the flintlock rifle, but swords and bows and arrows were far more common, and seem likely to be the kind of arms that the legislation intended. A .22 calibre pistol is a far cry from a flintlock rifle. Also, that "as allowed by law" part quite clearly shows the intention that the right to bear arms is a limited one — limited by which arms are allowed by law. If you were arguing that we should all be allowed to have flintlock rifles, then I might be persuaded to agree with you. They are kind of cool looking. Plus I like the word "flintlock". Do I need to remind you why these weapons were banned? Because a man walked into a Scottish primary school, carrying four pistols he legally owned, and shot and killed 16 five-year-old children and a teacher before killing himself. (You can't do that with a flintlock pistol. They only fire one shot and then you need to spend ages reloading them.) The UK has mostly managed to avoid similar crimes since then, until the Cumbria shootings a few years ago. Edited February 20, 2015 by VitalTwilightSparkle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) The Bill of Rights says that people have the right to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". It doesn't specify what type of weaponry people have the right to bear. It's unlikely that pistols were at the forefront of the minds of the people drafting the law. At the time it was drafted, the most advanced firearm was the flintlock rifle, but swords and bows and arrows were far more common, and seem likely to be the kind of arms that the legislation intended. A .22 calibre pistol is a far cry from a flintlock rifle. Hell I'm a Philly born Yank and I still would prefer a dao and my own body to a handgun anyway. I'm a terrible shot. That being said, it's "the right to bear arms" meaning "weapons." It's vague for a reason. I don't want to have to give up my swords anymore than I would theoretically like to have a gun taken from me. Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitalSpark 1,830 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 That being said, it's "the right to bear arms" meaning "weapons." It's vague for a reason. I don't want to have to give up my swords anymore than I would theoretically like to have a gun taken from me. Should ordinary citizens have the right to thermonuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Should ordinary citizens have the right to thermonuclear weapons? The right? We already have our rights, as just born human beings. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. They they are endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The government (supposedly) protects those rights, it doesn't grant them. I think we have the right to own such. Good luck getting the resources for them though. Even bearing that, the most paranoid nut on the planet isn't going to rely on a weapon that requires an air drop for his own protection. Let me ask you this though, are you honestly comparing hand held weapons to nukes? (I feel like though, this is tangential to the the thread's point.) Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitalSpark 1,830 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Let me ask you this though, are you honestly comparing hand held weapons to nukes? I am saying that anybody vaguely sane draws a line somewhere between weapons that they think it's safe to allow the general public to own, and weapons they'd rather stayed out of private hands. Unless you're in the "nukes for everybody" crowd, really the only debate is where the line should be drawn. What should be on the "frying pan" side, and what should be on the "nukes" side. For me, anything that allows you to kill people rapidly at great distance and/or little danger to yourself falls on the "nukes" side of the line. The wording of the 1689 Bill of Rights clearly limits the right to arms to those arms which are "suitable to their conditions and [...] allowed by law". This wording implies that such a line exists, and that the law should define what arms sit at either side of the line. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 are part of that law, and ought not be repealed. Edited February 20, 2015 by VitalTwilightSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) I am saying that anybody vaguely sane draws a line somewhere between weapons that they think it's safe to allow the general public to own, and weapons they'd rather stayed out of private hands. the-line.jpeg Unless you're in the "nukes for everybody" crowd, really the only debate is where the line should be drawn. What should be on the "frying pan" side, and what should be on the "nukes" side. For me, anything that allows you to kill people rapidly at great distance and/or little danger to yourself falls on the "nukes" side of the line. Yes. Any sane person would. Since you're required to get cleared to own any kind of firearm up in the first place, an insane person would not be among those that could legally access a firearm, whether a handheld or a rifle. A hunting rifle would fall under that category though. Again isn't this kind of getting off topic? Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitalSpark 1,830 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Yes. Any sane person would. Since you're required to get cleared to own any kind of firearm up in the first place, an insane person would not be among those that could access a firearm, whether a handheld or a rifle. Of course insane people can access a firearm. Technique: Be sane. Get a firearm. Become insane. ??? Profit! A hunting rifle would fall under that category though. Indeed it would. It's a good way of categorizing stuff, isn't it? Again isn't this kind of getting off topic? The topic is apparently the legalization of .22 calibre pistols in the UK. A discussion of why I think said legalization would be a bad idea seems perfectly on-topic. Edited February 20, 2015 by VitalTwilightSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Of course insane people can access a firearm. Technique: Be sane. Get a firearm. Become insane. ??? Profit! Okay, that's not an argument. People don't choose to become insane for criminal purposes. And why would someone who intends to do harm, acquire the weapon legally? It's a trace back to him! The topic is apparently the legalization of .22 calibre pistols in the UK. A discussion of why I think said legalization would be a bad idea seems perfectly on-topic. Again though, you escalate handguns to nukes. That's like comparing a (single) piranha to a pod of killer whales. Indeed it would. It's a good way of categorizing stuff, isn't it? No! People in the states keep hunting rifles and they're the weapon least involved with violent crimes. Hell the firearm involved with violent crimes most often leans toward the frying pan not the nuke! Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Coffee Pony 1,390 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I'm a Canadian so I don't really have a say in the petition, but on the topic of legalization of handguns, I'm alright with handgun ownership but only if there was a system like our PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) and RPAL system in place (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License) in place. That way most of the incidents that are seen in the US are avoided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence#Obtaining.2FApplying_for_a_PAL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Accord 6,658 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Sweet Celestia, everypony gang up on the Americans why don't you! Edited February 20, 2015 by Steel Accord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. 1,843 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 Because a man walked into a Scottish primary school, carrying four pistols he legally owned, and shot and killed 16 five-year-old children and a teacher before killing himself. So you punish everyone for the actions of one man? That doesn't sound fair. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitalSpark 1,830 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) So you punish everyone for the actions of one man? That doesn't sound fair. Isn't a punishment supposed to be something you don't want to happen to you? I do want to be disallowed from owning dangerous killing machines. I'm not feeling very punished. Edited February 20, 2015 by VitalTwilightSparkle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa 5,552 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 (edited) Can't wait for this to get moved to the Debate Pit. Just look at this thread. I personally disagree with the legalisation of .22lr pistols, but I'm not British so this doesn't really affect me so I'm not gonna really bother with arguing with anyone. Edited February 20, 2015 by Flitter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna1945 24 February 20, 2015 Author Share February 20, 2015 Do I need to remind you why these weapons were banned? Because a man walked into a Scottish primary school, carrying four pistols he legally owned, and shot and killed 16 five-year-old children and a teacher before killing himself. (You can't do that with a flintlock pistol. They only fire one shot and then you need to spend ages reloading them.) The UK has mostly managed to avoid similar crimes since then, until the Cumbria shootings a few years ago. The man who committed the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland did legally own the firearms however if the police had done their job it never would have happened. Thomas Hamilton was known to be violent and a pedophile yet despite all of this the police never confiscated his firearms or arrested him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearbox10mm 794 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 Isn't a punishment supposed to be something you don't want to happen to you? I do want to be disallowed from owning dangerous killing machines. I'm not feeling very punished. No one is forcing you to own a weapen if you don't want to. Why do you feel you have the right to make that decision for other people? To be frank, the Britts are not getting their handguns back any time soon so the point is largely moot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Join the herd!Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now