Direct from a Brit

[Coinneach]

One of my Livejournal friends, a very intelligent young British woman who goes by the nickname bites_the_sun, was assaulted by a bunch of young idiots. She was walking along the pavement (ObUS: sidewalk), minding her own business. As they were driving by (at an estimated 50 in a 30 zone), one of them threw a bottle full of water at her, striking her squarely in the back of the head.

When she recovered sufficiently to continue home, she called the police. They sent a constable round to take her statement. Afterwards, they chatted about his armor.

Then we talked about his allegedly bullet-proof vest which isn't, and how it's knife-proof but not needle-proof...

I replied: B-b-b-but, since guns are illegal there, and knives are being turned in during the amnesty, surely he doesn't need armor!

And she says:

Hahaaaa. Yeah, I know. We actually have an increasing amount of gun crime here in the cities, no matter that gun law is stricter than it has ever been. Manchester police now carry guns and all wear bullet-proof vests as a matter of course, as do ones in many other cities now. The age of the
unarmed British policeman is a thing of the past.

The knife amnesty is all very well, but the people who want to use their knives for nefarious activities aren't going to take part, are they?

It's a shame that the poncy bastards in Parliament will never understand this. But then, neither do our equivalents on this side of the pond.

 

[MidnightRambler]

It's interesting that when guns were legal and common in England, cops only carried clubs. Now that guns are illegal, cops have to carry guns. Go figure.

 

[webbee]

Guess we file that under, "When guns are illegal, only the criminals have guns."

 

[Omega blood]

I wonder what the correlation between socialism, taxation and banning firearms is? (If there is one)

 

[Benonymous]

The American government would ban guns tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it. It is much easier to rule a powerless/disarmed public with fear. The Brits already had strict firearms laws and banning handguns took them only out of the hands of people who obey the law. However, the gun ban would have been a safe votewinner (as it was in Australia) and at the end of the day why would any politician give a damn about the situation of the average citizen? The average person (statistically) would be anti-gun, maybe not strongly, but it wouldn't take much persuasion to make them think that a total ban would make their lives safer. Simplistically, less guns equal safer, it makes sense. Few people ever consider the criminal element, who flout the law and commit crimes. That's good because then you can allow gun crime to spread through your disarmed/impotent public and then dangle the hope of police protection in front of them. They're now dependent on the authorities for protection and the HOPE that police intervention will make them safe. Once again, few consider the fact that you won't have a police officer walking with you everywhere, or living in your house. No, the police are summoned AFTER a crime has been perpetrated The best way to win is to out think, out flank, or out gun your advesary. If a person wants to rob you, best he/she be armed to the teeth, this way they'lll encounter less resistance.
Don't forget, it's less about guns and more about control.

 

[Hulbert]

Clarification

There is only 1 fully armed Police force in Britain - the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who guard nuclear power stations.

Manchester Police are most certainly *not* fully armed.

All forces have Armed Response Vehicles patrolling - 2 officers per vehicle with pistols and carbines. Traditionally this was 9mm MP5s but increasingly they are adopting .223 carbines of various makes due to criminals using body armour.

They guys are sort of half way between regular American Police training and SWAT training when it comes to firearms.

Some of the larger forces also have dedicated SWAT type teams but most don't. As we're in the process of merging forces so they'll only be 26 in the country, I would expected every force will have a dedicated SWAT type team.

There is no Posse Comatose here, so if the Police came up against something they couldn't handle then the Army could get involved at the request of the Police chief in that area. Its a small country so the SAS are less than an hour's flight from all of it.

Finally, all guns are not illegal in the UK. I legally have 8 rifles/shotguns/pistols and around 2500 rounds in my house right now. All knives are also not illegal, I carry a nice SpyderCo knife daily and its perfectly legal (for the right type of knife !).

 

[Odd Job]

@ Hulbert

You should specify the limitations of those weapons...I am assuming by 'pistols' you mean black powder pistols or air pistols? And then there is the three cartridge limitation of the shotguns, assuming yours are semi-automatic...and the fact that your rifles cannot be semi-automatic unless they are rimfire .22s.
I belong to a rifle club here in London and it is very much a limited form of shooting. Okay we can't fire centrefire rifles here because we don't have the 2 mile downrange 'buffer' that Bisley has, but in other respects the story is the same: no handguns (other than black powder), no semi-automatic rifles (other than .22) and various limitations on ammunition (to do with hollow-points, the load in shotgun cartridges, even the type of tips I can use on my crossbow).
It is definitely not a rosy situation.

 

[FLJim]

Rather disingenuous of Hulbert. Can't imagine why one would wish to sugar-coat the situation.

(Oh, and it's "comitatus," Hulbert, not "comatose" .)

 

[Hulbert]

No its not rosy and overall things are a lot more restrictive than America, but for some minor shooting related things we have more freedom than America. For example easy access to sound moderators and rifle barrels can be 12 inches long.

People at my club do still shoot Colt 1911 .45s, lugers etc under section 7.1/7.3 - which basically means they can still have some normally banned guns if they are pre-1919 for historical significance, or post-1919 for special asthetic significance (a nice an vague definition - some areas allow first generation glocks, rare longslide 1911s etc). This is quite restrictive and only half a dozen clubs in the country can do it.

 

[Odd Job]

@ Hulbert

I was under the impression that antique arms were allowed to be owned but not fired. Surely every Tom, Dick and Harry would go for old guns if this was possible?
Are you in Northern Ireland by any chance, because I understand they have slightly different gun laws?

 

[croyance]

What constitutes the "right type of knife"?

 

[MeekAndMild]

I legally have 8 rifles/shotguns/pistols and around 2500 rounds in my house right now.

OK, so what is your title of nobility and how far are you from The Throne? If you have a marriagable daughter I have one child left who's not spoken for; our family was Lancastrian so we've been away for a while. Though he's technically a commoner I'm sure you could buy him a title with the dowry.

 

[Hulbert]

I'm in England and I'm a normal working man. No blue blood or special connections.

Antique arms in obsolete calibres can be kept without a licence but you can't shoot them (e.g. Winchester model 94 in 32-40, or a Smith & Wesson 44 Russian revolver).

Antique arms can be added to a normal licence (firearms certficate) and can be shot if they are of a type that a normal licence allows - so you could shoot the winchester model 94 as lever action rifles are allowed.

If you wanted to shoot the Smith & Wession 44 Russian revolver then as the barrel is under 12 inches long and the overall length is under 24 inches you'd need to get a section 7 licence. Mere mortals do get this, 9/10 people at my club who shoot these are blue-collar workers.

This is the confusing and awkward part - as the 44 Russian is an obsolete calibre you could keep the gun at home but you couldn't keep any ammunition. You need to reload the rounds you want to shoot in a locked room at the club and then shoot them all.

If you had a section 7 pistol in a calibre where the ammunition is available (e.g. Colt 1911, Luger etc) then you cannot keep the gun at home but you can keep the ammunition. These pistols need special secure facilities at the range which you don't have direct access to ! So that means an amourer so theres only a handfull of clubs that can do this as 99% of clubs aren't commerically run.

All of the licencing for this is done by your normal local police force.

There is also section 5 licences which are granted by central government and could be for literally anything (e.g. concealled carry of an M60 machine gun for protection against sheep) but mere mortals don't get these. Quite who gets these is a secret but I do know of 2 commerical companies who have these and own/shoot machine guns to train security contractors to go to Iraq.

The 'right type of knife' that can be carried without needing a reason (e.g. going fishing/camping) is one with a folding blade under 3 inches without a manual lock. So something like the Spyderco UK Pen Knife,

 

[epr105]

The situation stinks in the UK!!! Oh I have this and that But I cant use any of it. I can have a antique firearm and no ammo or I can ave ammo and no gun.
I can only hope that things get better for you and not worse for us.
Ed
EPR105

 

[roscoe]

What about, say a .357 or .22 mag lever action? How complicated is that, and what are the fees/yearly requirements?

 

[Hulbert]

If you wanted a 357 magnum lever action then you'd need to join a government approved (not government run) shooting club of which theres around 1000. By law you'd need to spend a minimum of 3 months as a probationary member of the club (though some clubs extend this to 6 months).

All clubs would teach gun safety and the basics of how to shoot. Others like mine go into a lot more detail and you can learn about reloading you own ammo, blackpowder shooting, firearms law etc.

At the end of this period if you have demonstrated you can consistently safely handle a firearm then the club will vote you in as a full member.

Club membership fees are much like America - run from a token amount like $50 to LOTS with fairly large range fees. I pay around $190 a year but that also gets me a key to the range so I don't pay anything else and can shoot when I like.

So when you are a full member of a club you can then apply for a licence which costs around $80 and lasts 5 years. Depending on the efficiency of your Police force this will take 6 week to a couple of months on average (with 1 specific police force taking a year !!). The licence would have 357 magnum lever action rifle listed on it as one of the guns you want.

So when it comes back in the post you just go to a gun shop and buy the gun and then you can take it home immediatly.

So the total time is anything from 4.5 months to a 1.5 years depending on which club and which police force combination.

While the delay can be frustrating it does actually have some positive effects as well - Range safety and gun handling are typically very good here.

 

[stratus]

It's interesting that when guns were legal and common in England, cops only carried clubs.

I think all LEOs anywhere ought to carry guns; otherwise they'd just be LOs, without the "enforcement"

Backed with sensible laws that don't infringe on the citizens, of course.

Super delicate razor's edge balance.

 

[Hulbert]

Personally I'd like to see the Police armed in the UK but its a decision that would take a change in public opinion to push the government to it.

The latest survey of serving officer for arming of all UK Police officers is here and makes very interesting reading,

http://www.polfed.org/we_stand_firearms.asp

One number which is higher that I expected was,

"When asked if a decision was made to train and arm all police officers whilst on duty, 70% of officers would be prepared to do so"

 

[FLJim]

Wrote stratus:
I think all LEOs anywhere ought to carry guns; otherwise they'd just be LOs, without the "enforcement"

Ironically, it used to work just fine in the U.K. Everybody from nobility, down to the most dirt-poor commoner, was allowed to be, and many frequently were, armed. In fact: The one segment of U.K. society that was not armed was the organized police force. This was by design, as, when it was first formed, it was feared the organized police force might be used in place of a standing army (which was also regarded with suspicion) for tyrannical control by the Crown. Criminals may well have been armed, but, if so, they apparently rarely used their arms in the commission of their crimes. (Naturally, that comment excludes those crimes which were purely crimes consisting of the misuse of arms.) Since the U.K. began restricting the possession and bearing of arms by its law-abiding subjects, crime in most categories, incl. the abuse of arms, has increased. This has been the pattern ever since the U.K.'s program to disarm its subjects began in the early 19th century.

For more on this, read Joyce Lee Malcolm's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."

 

[roscoe]

Is it different for rimfire rifles? Even in Australia this is fairly easy to get.