Derailing for a second: I have used pepper spray to get away from an attacker. This has always made me go "??? what the fuck" because that is the STUPIDEST one to ban. As for everything else: what uh. what's your point. I don't see anyone using those specific weapons, honestly. Like ever. In cartoons? Yeah, you see bugs bunny in a Mobster pinstripe suit with an AK-47 going RATTATTATA but even at my local gun store I don't see those weapons freely handed out as easily as guns used for hunting or self defense.
Look, I'm going to bow out here because, yes, I don't know enough about firearms legislation or American culture to author an effective legal gun control ordinance for your country. But I'm still a little confused here by how I got dragged into this argument in the first place, one which has fast become awfully specific, when I was initially making some very broad generalizations for the purpose of making a point by way of metaphor, and even after that was basically just saying "guns are very dangerous, access to them should be restricted because some people want to use guns in order to hurt other people". And then it feels like everyone just sort of... jumped on me. Okay, I accept that there are a lot of exceptions and cultural factors, but I was not trying to make a moral statement about any particular group of people (aside from maybe thinking pretty reasonably that the US should implement some additional gun controls). I'm sorry if I can off that way or made any other assumptions, or generalizations that weren't warranted. I live in an entirely different part of the world after all. I really don't want to be dragged into anything more here.
Why is that one singled out? I was under the impression that was the kind of gun I was advocating for in terms of "handgun"
Better comparison to the US would be Australia re: size and frontierness, tbh. Though from what I've been able to gather, Australia has similar(ish) laws to the UK re: "genuine reason" required to own certain types of rifles (i.e. "approved reason" like Ducks was talking about) anyway. I'm not sure genuine reason is required for handguns (though from what reading it may be), but I do know that if you're getting a handgun for shooting you need to be on probation with a shooting club for 6 months, then go through the regular bullshit of buying a gun, waiting a month to get it and various safety bullshit being included. That said, despite Australia's gun laws being hella restrictive, I've always been under the impression the issue with gun violence in the US has more to do with cultural attitudes re: violence rather than, you know, people having a relatively easier time getting a hold of guns. While there's a lot of contradictory studies, I think most of the data tends to show that more restrictive/"safe" gun control doesn't change much besides the types of suicides being undertaken. Aren't background checks not required for private sales of firearms in the US? That seems pretty messed, though for all I know that's also not a requirement in Australia, in which case it's messed up here too. Background checks for all, imo.
Well, yes, you asked if they are allowed or not, I was pointing out where it specified that they apparently are not.
And my question is why. It's a handgun. It's often used for hunting in the US. You're back to arguing against it for reasons that it could possibly help (see: my point about kick back, the family who prefers handguns because rifles are harder to aim for them). It's the same with pepperspray. Why single out these specific types of weapons? (In the terms of pepper spray: it's not even as damaging as a gun. It causes temporary blindness. It offered me a temporary window of escape when I was assaulted)
okay, my very brief stance on guns and gun control: I don't trust the police to be impartial about anything ever and giving them reason to stop people and demand "what are you doing with that gun??? ARE YOU GOING TO KILL SOMEONE?????" seems like a bad idea to me I already don't like that the police have guns, so yeah, let's not give them more reason to use them I am not a fan of military-grade weapons or automatic weapons being sold to the general public and think that needs to stop. no, not restrict buying of that type of weapon, stop. beyond that, I see no problem with hunting weapons and weapons for personal self-defense being sold to people, as long as we have extensive background checks and they can prove they know how to USE IT SAFELY and have somewhere to store it that's safe. a brief aside: where I live, tasers, pepper spray, and pretty much any other kind of basic, not-super-harmful self defense weapon is against the law to carry.
Pulled it out and checked the serial number. It was made in 1928, so it precedes the National Firearms Act of 1934. This means there was never any official record of it being sold in the first place, let alone of its later transfers.
I wasn't arguing anything, you asked about whether they were banned under the uk ordinance - I actually didn't know the answer to that until you asked. I don't know why it's banned here, you'd have to talk to whoever set those limitations. I don't have a point to argue there and I already said I no longer want to argue on this anyway, sorry
I asked why you singled it out when I was advocating for it in the first place. Edit: that said, stay safe, don't stress out too hard over this. /solidarity fistbumpt
I didn't single it out? Sorry, I thought the first time handguns were mentioned and I answered was when you asked if they were banned in the uk? Unless my memory has got very bad suddenly? Ahh sorry I'm confused now
To what degree are handguns used for hunting anyway? They seem like they'd be shithouse for large game, and probably not all that great for small game either.
This part, when you singled out the handgun. I was focusing on the Very Obvious Military-grade weapons you hardly ever see outside of specific instances. Unless you're referencing a different part of the convo?
I was answering you here: You seemed to be asking, "are people only allowed to use hunting rifles, and not handguns?" Because you also seemed to be saying "what if you can't handle the kickback of a rifle and want to use a handgun instead?" Did I read that wrong?
I'm talking about handguns. This only tells me that, yes they're banned in the UK. The argument is for US banning (or not). General consensus is "don't do it, it has practical uses that aren't shooting people out of malice."
