Is it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?

Question

If so, what's to stop those with guns from using them to commit crimes? Or those in power to use arms to take over?

Answer 1

yes it's true, although you can with a licence & some people do have them illegally, but most people don't want one

Answer 2

In the UK we are allowed to own guns, but under very strict conditions. Gun control in the UK is much MUCH stronger than in the US and most people don't own a gun and, at a guess, most would tell you they've never shot one.

To own any sort of firearm, you have to have a license which you apply to the local police for.

The statistics suggest that strict gun control results in a LOT less gun crime. The UK has gun crime rates that are a fraction of the levels in the US. In comparison with Europe in general, the US has levels of gun ownership and crime that are simply off the scale.

Those who do own guns will commit crimes, but they're not the people who own the guns legally anyway. The controls in place mean that there are fewer guns in circulations in general so it's pretty obvious who the criminal is.

You know, so far, those in power haven't attempted to use arms to take over for, oh... centuries at least, so I don't think it's considered a good enough reason to have the country over-run with firearms.

By way of perspective, it might be interesting to know that people in the UK are scared of visiting the US because of the proliferation of guns and gun-crime.

Answer 3

Guns are only legal when the person has a license.

Most guns are used for sport or pest control. However, yes, some do end up in criminal hands, but it is far more difficult for them to get hold of them here than in the US. We have far less gun crime than the US, simply because of the lack of availability of guns.

Answer 4

Gun ownership is restricted to sporting guns and you must be licensed by the police.
People in the UK are not generally obssessed by gun ownership except for a minority of criminals who use them mainly for killing each other.
As in the USA the people in power have much better weapons than anybody else so it is a fantasy to think that you can overthrow a democratically elected government by an armed uprising.

Answer 5

Hand guns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre (look it up on Wikipedia or Google if you want to know what happened). Shotguns and Rifles are still legal but must be registered/licenced. We don't have a gun culture here like the USA so it's not really an issue for most people.

Answer 6

yes its true, however some service men/women (army etc) maybe able own if they pass psychologically tests. Plus some antiques (but not sure how that works). No gun outside unless specially trained police (with orders to carry them).

Nothing stops anyone, anywhere from using a gun for killing, except the person who holds the gun. (US : if your old enough and responsible then yes you can buy gun, UK: No one (except few mentioned above may own a gun if responsible or not) because people who commit crimes will have less access to guns so more likely to use knife. cut wounds are easily treatable compared to gun crimes more likely dead on 1st shot.)

Take over? that doesn't happen often in most places. (because it never really achieves anything, even most terrorists normally just bomb things anyway and not sick around)

And if anything like that does happen there trier gas, cops with guns, electric zappers things(can't remember name), many military groups: army, airforce, navy, TA...etc..

Having gun or not... I don't know what ways better?
Not having guns kind of punishes the people who would be responsible with them.(I would like a gun; but I wouldn't trust my neighbor with one!) BUT gun crime is low in most (not all) places so not scared to be shot. Its a price we pay.

Answer 7

specific I agree that cops could desire to be armed as they don't be attentive to what difficulty they are going to stroll into. If Sharon Beshenivsky have been armed she could have nonetheless been right here at present and her 3 babies could have a mom.pc Blakelock, in the time of the Brixton riots replaced into hacked to dying with over 40 stab wounds,could he nonetheless be right here at present if he had a firearm to safeguard himself. on the the turn of 2007 Katie Johnson replaced into shot in the leg by utilising a shotgun, leaving 12 pellets as a reminder which you don't be attentive to what's waiting for you. I even have cops in my instantaneous family contributors and hardship that the scum in this international will go away their youthful babies orphans. I renowned the very shown fact that for the duration of London Juan Charles Demeneze replaced into an harmless sufferer of a blatant homicide by potential of the Metropolitan Police rigidity. There could desire to be harder regulations into firearm preparation, rather it may be 'shoot to disarm,' no longer 'shoot to kill', A shot in the limb will disarm, 7 photos in the torso is homicide.

Answer 8

the idea that you need firearms in case those in power 'decide to take over' seems like a very poor excuse for justifying gun ownership rather than a genuine concern, perhaps in a banana republic but not in a developed western country.

Answer 9

Generally in Britain people tend not to have guns. Though you can get a gun under a license which can be used for hunting.

Answer 10

british and australian citizen (as far as i know as an aussie) can own guns if they have a licence...
they can have a licence if they have a damn good reason...
and their weaponry must be locked in a case untill needed...
british and australian citizens have no "right to bare arms" because brittain and australia had no problem with having standing armies, while america wanted everyone to defend themselves and armies to disolve when not needed...
since america has standing armies, the right is redundant but hey who am I to tell you how to run your country lol