"Offensive Weapons" in the UK

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you know me, I'd say that i'd just become a criminal, but whether or not I'm a "bad guy" meh....i think that I'd actually have to do something "bad"...you know? Deer and paper targets have a stronger case than any person would, in that regard. That's really the only thing I would even care to address in these sorts of conversations. The vast majority of people who own firearms are "good" people. There's no hidden agenda, no motive, nothing crazy about them. They just like to shoot...like you might like to build matchstick houses. They don't see anything wrong with pumping their gas with a pistol on their waist because the thought of holding up the attendant has never crossed their minds. It's a bit strange to see yourself demonized (however indirectly) for having a hobby, or owning a tool.

[Cyberman]

No, not "a" bad guy, "the" bad guy, as in the villain of the piece, as exemplified by conceding you'd have become a criminal.

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand, I really do, what I'm trying to address with that statement is the language and connotations of it. Don't you think something might be amiss if you can become a villain, without engaging in any "villainy"? That owning a specific firearm may be a crime where you're from isn't in question, same as owning that firearm here probably wouldn't be a crime. That I would be a criminal by owning such a firearm isn't in question, but in what ways would I be similar to the person who commits a crime with that firearm? Surely there's a dividing line between them and myself? What I'm questioning is whether or not it "should" be a crime..and why. To my mind, owning a rifle and committing a crime with a rifle are two very distinct things. Why should the stigma of one apply to the other?

Like I've mentioned in the thread, I cant see "defending myself" from a home invader as a decent reason to own a firearm. For me it doesn't need to go any further than "Why shouldn't I?....What have I done?...What is it, exactly, that you're expecting me to do?"
(as a semi related aside, I was just asking my wife about this...we live in an open carry state....but we don't actually see too many folks carrying firearms. So the scenario one might have in mind and the reality of the situation might be entirely different, eh?)

[Cyberman]

It's not as if these laws are unreasonable or difficult: "owning any of these weapons, not to mention carrying them in public, carries this penalty". Now, as to whether certain laws are right or wrong, that's a completely different topic. I have no complaints regarding the rights and wrongs of our offensive weapon laws, since I prefer living in a society where I can be reasonably certain I'm not going to catch a bullet, whether from someone who wants my wallet (and the best of luck to 'em), some copper with an itchy finger, or some random domestic argument. Yes, we have had our share of gun-related tragedies (in fact there was one right here in Walsall some twenty years ago), 100% of which have centred around some crazed loon with some grudge or other and possibly even voices in his head. I can't realistically see how arming everyone as a matter of course would have helped very much.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's something you take for granted, that the laws are reasonable. I would take issue with that. There's nothing less lethal about a brick in my hands than a rifle. I'll kill someone just as dead just as easily with either, but making bricks unlawful would seem -to some- to be "unreasonable" in exactly the same way as making firearms (or a class of firearms) unlwaful would seem to me. A reasonabvle law, to me, would be that robbery was illegal - regardless of whether or not one used a weapon (or what type of weapon). Making a firearm illegal on the reasoning that criminals use them, to me, is just as reasonable as making shoes illegal because criminals use them, or cars (and this one is really key..because I could run somebody over as easily as I could shoot them...and many more people die from vehicle related incidents than guns here anyway....lets not even talk about common table butter or cigarettes). No law that you have prevents a criminal from robbing you at gunpoint. If the law was compelling to them they wouldn't be criminals. The reason that you, in the UK, aren't likely to be held at gunpoint is economics. I checked the reported street price for a firearm (an ak specifically) relative to the UK, Australia, the US, and Afghanistan. As it turns out, I probably wouldn't buy an AK in the UK either, costs 5 times as much (which is 5 times over again what it costs relative to the US/Afghanistan). People looking to mug you for your pocket change aren't likely to have a couple grand laying around.

How much more likely do you think I am to "catch a bullet" than you Stimbo (and does it matter whether or not I get mugged by gunpoint or knifepoint...if I'm getting mugged...honestly)?

[Autumnlicious]

I guess the biggest impediment to crime is making it uneconomical.

[Cyberman]

That's exactly where the legal definitions of "offensive weapon" and "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" come in. If a person takes issue with these laws and the definitions therein, there are avenues for changing them or at the very least making their opinions known. Flouting them, either in protest or out of a sense of injustice, probably isn't the best way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, flouting isn't exactly the term I'd use. What I say to y'all I say as friends. You don't think I go to town hall meetings and advertise how "well armed" I am eh? My neighbor is a Sheriff, I'm willing to bet he has no idea what kind of firepower I keep (responsibly) within these walls...and his life is probably better for it. He doesn't need the hassle of arresting a neighbor, and I don;t need the hassle of being arrested by a neighbor, so I'm unlikely to mention this sort of thing to him. But, as I said, between friends, the kind of weaponry (and the amount) that I have here..let alone elsewhere (stored just as safely and responsibly) would probably make me something akin to a major arms dealer in your neighborhood. Still I manage not to shoot people. I'd go so far as to suggest that you wouldn't feel in the least bit unsafe in my presence with full knowledge of what firearms I owned. I'm just a nice guy like that. I don't think the law has any causal relationship in that.

Now, as far as owning firearms in protest of a law against firearms in this county....would you trust the US government if they showed up at your door, in the UK, and demanded that the UK relinquish all weapons? I don't trust them any more than you might. So long as I'm not shooting up store clerks it's difficult for me to imagine why a government agency would want to "disarm" me. Why whatever I have in my gun cabinet would even be an issue for them.

[Cyberman]

Actually, flouting would be the perfect word for the intention to behave in a way that goes against the law, for whatever purpose. I'm not entirely sure what your point regarding the US government demanding UK weapons means, given that such an action would be in keeping with current UK policy regarding weapons anyway. So, yes I would imagine not having a problem with that demand, even though I am not required to trust the motives. In fact, if you like I can send you every single offensive weapon as would come under the terms of the Act that I own, in return for, what, $100? Would that be a fair price?

But let's just say the law was changed tomorrow. In fact, I'm going to quote from a YouTube exchange I had about two years ago with a theist who was trying to defend the "if no God, then what makes you moral" party line.

"The laws that protect our societies don't so much control our actions as prohibit societally unacceptable ones. As an example, here in the UK it is currently illegal to own a firearm outside of certain very special circumstances. If the law was changed tomorrow, making firearm ownership legal, all that would mean is that I wouldn't get arrested for owning a weapon. It wouldn't mean that I'd immediately have to rush out and stock up on Uzis and the like."

Over here, we have no blasphemy laws, no death penalty (for any crime), and strict weapons laws. It's a wonder we're still here.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point (and I suppose I shouldn't have assumed anything in this regard) is that some, here in the US, are raised to be cynical of those who govern us. To question their motives, to resist their demands. To raise the spectre of doubt about what they propose is "in our best interests". I would have a serious issue with any governing body that aimed to entirely disarm it's citizens (or create a situation in which those few who might be armed were on a list). Again, what right do they have to limit my ownership of a firearm considering my complete and utter lack of a history of crime or violence (lets just lay aside my service...because at the very least I can claim to be extremely disciplined)? What reason? Will their taking my firearms (even if they compensate for them) reduce crime or make anyone safer? No...-because I am not committing crimes or making anyone unsafe-.

The gun ownership numbers in the US are hardly an issue of "uzis and the like". Where do these narratives (from either side...uzis and the like/defend myself) come from? These kneeejerk reactions to firearms, both for and against....I don;t think do either side of the issue any favors. Sure, we both have cultural leanings that might nudge us one way or another, but give me a solid reason that I should be on a list or prohibited from owning whatever firearm I care to Stimbo? Not some crack dealer in St. Louis, not a mugger in Central Park...not am "active" Klansman in Georgia, me Stimbo.... John Q. How far can we reasonably go in curtailing the autonomy, privacy, and freedom of the law abiding citizen "for the good of all of us"?

(no, a fair price for any one of my firearms at your market rate is in the thousands, thank you...maybe if Afghanistan was buying it would be in the hundreds...but no, here in the US, guns are slightly more expensive)