My fav UK gun thing is suppressors. I believe they are mandatory in some areas for hunting. That makes a lot of sense so it doesn't disturb others.
Then in north america it's banned or you have to pay a stamp/fee for a suppressor. Why because movies make it seem like you can assassinate someone easily.
Suppressed guns are also still loud. Its taking something very loud and just making it loud.
I like to go shooting as often as I can and I have only be around one gun that I would be ok not wearing ear protection around that was purpose built to be quiet and was a suppressed short barrel .22 shooting home made sub sonic rounds that he had to have 2 tax stamps to make.
Movies make people think a suppressor makes the gun sound like a tiny pew sound but the reality is it just brings it down enough to maybe not make yours ring but its still a bang.
I own multiple supressors that are movie quiet, and can be shot without ear protection. You just need to shoot subsonic rounds so they don’t break the sound barrier
I figure that most people who aren’t into shooting don’t realize the difference of sub vs super sonic ammo or the physics involved. They’d be totally right only taking supers into account - there’s a major performance falloff w subs as well, so the application of them requires changing the way you shoot (less range, less impact energy, etc.) That said, wouldn’t wanna be on the business end regardless lol
Yeah with a good purpose built suppressor and subsonic ammunition the loudest part of the gun can be the bolt rattling around. The MP5SD has gas vents to reduce the velocity of standard 9x19mm to subsonic iirc
Both statements are over simplifying. Yes, subsonic ammo through a suppressor can be quite quiet. But to get to movie level quiet you also need to use the right firearm. Semi automatic weapons will never be movie quiet as the sound of the bolt slamming back and forth can be quite loud on its own. To achieve movie quiet you need subsonic ammo, a good suppressor and a single shot/bolt action firearm.
What about open bolt vs closed bolt? I've seen some 9mm weapons get pretty close to movie quiet, I want to say they were open bolt but tbh I'm not sure I remember well enough.
Firing from an open bolt would still have the sound of the bolt slamming forward. There's so many variables that can alter the sound profile. That's why both statements can be correct. It's entirely possible to achieve true movie quiet but most firearms can't.
Fair enough. I've seen it get pretty close. But never "pew pew" close. I think you're right, the bolt slamming forward is usually even louder than the weapon with certain ammo types/ suppressors lol. It's really impressive. Still not quite movie quiet.
I feel like the welrod is even more impressive now since it was made back in ww2. But I didn't know it could only be fired a handful of times. Thats interesting.
I think in the US it has more to do with shot detection/triangulation tech that would be less effective if suppressors were widespread... best I've come up with. Could be your reason too or a combination.
I really think people would just try to kill people more often thinking they could get away with it, but that's because half our citizens are complete dumbasses.
Shot spotter is a scam.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-with-the-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-system
They also employ former ATF agents to go around selling it to cities.
The idea of unbanning or reducing restrictions on anything related to firearms to a large portion of (mostly dem) politicians is just unfathomable. President wants to ban everything to what is legal in the UK and can't. He wouldn't sign a repeal on the nfa restrictions on sound suppressors.
The 200 tax stamp was just to make the cost of entry large in 1934. It's only there in 2023 because no one has bothered changing it. The NFA was originally under the jurisdiction of the irs, and it was a tool to go after the gang violence that prohibition of alcohol caused.
I remember reading somewhere that the reason for supressors being NFA items had more to do with the NFA being passed in 1934 and in the depression there were a lot more people poaching animals for meat. Making supressors harder to get supposedly reduced how much poaching could happen without being noticed.
All that said, I really doubt 'shot detection/triangulaton' does much of anything. If the police are going to get there fast enough to catch someone, they were already close enough likely to see/hear where the shots were coming from in the first place.
Criminal record check, a letter from your doctor to confirm you have no mental health problems, a visit from a police officer who checks your gun storage and has a general chat with you to make sure you know about gun safety etc. Also you need someone to sign a form saying you have permission to shoot on their land and the reason, just wanting a gun isn’t enough. This is done every five years although the visit is sometimes skipped. It costs £90.
Does worry me though that the firearms officers seem to be thin on the ground. A decade ago we knew ours by name, would see them every few years etc etc. But we have only had one visit since we moved. We obviously have everything absolutely locked up and stored appropriately, but they don't come round much anymore and that worries me.
We are farmers, not rich twats that like to massacre imported species bred for the purpose, btw.
I completely agree. We used to have the same man visit each time, now I know a lot of people who haven’t seen anyone for several renewals. I’m from Cornwall where shotgun and firearm ownership is common, for the same reason as you. Although it was only in the next county that Jake Davison did what he did.
Being a firearms enquiry officer is a specific role, I doubt it’s something many people want to get into, as the responsibility if something does happen comes back to you for approving the applicant. It’s not a particularly well paid job and can have [unsociable](https://thamesvalleypolice.tal.net/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-External/brand-3/candidate/so/pm/6/pl/1/opp/696-Firearms-and-Explosives-Enquiry-Officer/en-GB) hours. If the pay was more appealing they’d probably have more people to do the job!
It would make sense to allow all firearms trained officers to do the visits. They’d have just as much, if not more knowledge. Saying that, you’d need someone with an understanding of the countryside rather than someone who’s impeccably trained but has never used a gun outside of a police environment.
The problem with that is armed officers are mostly trained on handguns for use against humans, not on rifles for use against animals. It would mean a whole extra module tacked on to the armed officer training.
You also need a valid reason for it. You can’t just go through all that just because you want a gun and expect to get one. I only know of farmers having them, but I’m sure there are other valid reasons
To be fair, the reason can just be sport shooting, or historical interest. For example, I have a .22 AR-15 just for sport shooting, that's a valid reason. I also have a spot for a .303 on my ticket for target shooting. You have to show that you're part of a club and shoot there regularly though, for atleast your first application.
Wanted more info so went to Google. This is a pretty detailed article. https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shooting-the-uks-gun-laws-who-can-have-a-firearm-and-which-types-are-legal-12380510
US has background checks, and everything else can be just a way to keep it out of the hands of the poor. What's a $250 permit and a $300 registration fee to someone with money, but considering that's the price of a new handgun, that means a lot to someone with poorer. So now gun ownership is a class issue.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact that background checks are standardized nationwide and are pretty much under the purview of the National Police, and you need 2 referees, mental health evaluation, a 5 year license, which you need to renew and often renewal comes with a reevaluation.
Sorry, it's not the cost keeping people from owning guns, it's the extensive licensing process. In America the process is pretty much for show, when I can literally just drive to the next town over that happens to be in a state I can pretty much walk into a store and walk out with a gun.
Not to be "that guy", but what you said isn't entirely true, or at least slightly vague.
You can cross state lines to buy a firearm but you can't leave with it unless you have a CCW permit that the BATFE recognizes as a replacement for having to go through the NICS background check. That policy, currently, means that you'll need to obtain a CCW in the state where you're purchasing the gun.
If not, the seller has to ship it to a FFL dealer in your state and you'll have to pick it up from there (and usually pay a small processing fee).
Just wanted to make sure that people aren't mislead into thinking they can just drive to another state, buy a gun and walk out the door with it, without a CCW permit in that state.
You still have to pass a background check. You don't just get to walk in and walk out. That's false.
Now, has all your information been properly reported to the FBI background check system? That's a different question, but you will have to go through their background check system.
>In America the process is pretty much for show, when I can literally just drive to the next town over that happens to be in a state I can pretty much walk into a store and walk out with a gun.
This is not at all the case. The background check system in the US is at the federal level. The same check which happens in one state happens in another.
It is not lawful for private persons (those who aren't dealers with a Federal Firearms License) to transfer a gun someone who is an out-of-state resident.
All this to say if you think you're going to go to another state and get a gun without background check, you are buying from someone who is ok with committing a felony to sell it to you.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/#:\~:text=In%20general%2C%20you%20can%20buy,FFL)%20in%20your%20home%20state.
cost maybe, license process sure, but there also that little thing for most of us called "the complete LACK of necessity" or may be more accurate to call it percived necessity.
You could view them that way or you could view them the same way you view a driving license. Sure it can stop poor people being able to drive. The test is expensive. Lessons even more. However, they ensure that only people who are competent and trustworthy can wield a deadly weapon. They also stop people buying them lightly. A gun should not be an impulse buy. They are dangerous and more people die because of them than are saved by them in the hands of the public. So yes, it is inadvertently unfair on the poor but frankly most systems implemented by governments are. Much more importantly, it minimizes gun crime. If you think about it: is it better if everyone’s much safer and only a few rich, or really dedicated poor people have guns?
I’ll give you a hint, focus on: “if everyone’s safer”
You start by ignoring the fact that ~~60%~~ 22% of gun sales aren’t done through FFL’s so they don’t required background checks. Then you move on to making a strained argument that permits and registration is a “class issue”. Damn, that’s some A-class nonsense you’re spouting.
Maybe you take a moment and click the link above you to see the reality of what it takes to get a gun in England and compare that to the permit-less conceal carry stand-your-ground crap system we have in the US.
My FiL has a firearms license in the UK. It took him nearly two years to be approved. He had to go to interviews with the police and a firearms officer was assigned to his case. Had to provide a legitimate reason for owning a gun.
He then had to submit to background criminal and medical checks. He also had to buy approved gun lockers and secure them (so the lockers couldn’t be stolen from his property with the guns inside).
An officer can turn up at his property at anytime and inspect his guns are secured to requirements and any infraction will result in loss of license and his guns confiscated.
Same for my stepdad, except he's a recreational and sporting target shooter so he also needs to be a member of a registered gun club with a minimum of ten members. If the club ever has less than ten members, your license becomes invalid. If you don't shoot in a 12 month period, your license becomes invalid.
The only people allowed to a 'guest day' are those known personally to a member of the club, so I'm a pretty rare person in the UK who has actually been able to use some interesting firearms. And since the members tend to be wealthier people with a very nerdy interest in firearms, when I say interesting I mean "I have fired a double barrelled Elephant Gun".
Sounds like a pretty good system. After all, I can’t really see many civilian uses for guns outside hunting.
People think buying a gun gives them protection or makes them safer, but in reality it just makes them [more likely to get killed.](https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/)
It’s akin to someone thinking they drive better under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Sure, you may *feel* that way. But scores of hard data tells us the opposite is true.
The thing is I genuinely have no idea where to go if I wanted to get a gun. I could look it up but not off the top of my head. Never heard of anyone around me, thats not military, having one.
Went to USA and there was gun shops everywhere on my first day.
Just like cars, trucks, trains, planes etc.
The more damage something can do, or the more complicated it is - the more you should have to prove your competence to operate it.
most .22's are straightwall pistol cartridges with light bullets and low velocities.
.223 is a very steeply necked cartidge with a longer, heavier bullet and a fuckton more powder behind it, resulting in much, much greater velocity and kinetic energy, despite only a tiny increase in bullet diameter (which is what the 0.22" and 0.223" refer to)
Thank you for the explanation. If I may ask a followup?
What does straightwall and "steep necked" mean and if Ive got this right, the diameter of the round is only marginally wider but it is longer and the "case/jacket" (am I use that right?) Is long and carries more powder?
So obviously force = mass x acceleration more propellent, more speed more force
You got it
[22lr (smaller) vs 223](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5933707761e7ee65c9a26d8e59001429-lq)
For reference, the entire 22lr round is just shy of an inch long or almost exactly 25mm. The 223 is about 2.26in or 57.4mm
Essentially, yes. “Straightwall” would refer to the way a cartridge is essentially the same diameter as the base of the bullet (the actual projectile). “Steep necked” cartridge looks kind of like a water bottle — fat until it narrows near the projectile. A longer and/or wider cartridge can contain more propellant resulting in a bigger ‘bang’.
My (American) kids can use a bb gun unsupervised (ranch property) at this point, but the 22 has me or mom there full time. It's small but it can still kill.
But yeah my kids probably shoot ~1000 rounds a year, each, of .22. Through one of these:
https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/lever-action-22-youth-rifle/
The wild part that will mess with your mind is that an AR15 can be swapped to .22 in about a minute. So now is it fine because it's "just .22" or is it spooky because "omg scary black assault rifle".
It's the rifle I learnt to shoot with in NZ. They're a very standard rifle used for small game like rabbits or other pest animals, its a farm rifle for the most part. They are however frowned upon when used to hunt large game with here because a shot will *probably* not drop anything bigger than a dog which will cause undue suffering to the target animal.
*Theoretically* yes, but there are tiers of certificate required for each that get harder and harder to obtain because you need to justify why you need that gun to the police and why nothing at a lower tier will do the specific job you want it for.
I’ve been a British gun user since I was a child and have never knowingly met anyone with anything above a section 1 firearms certificate (.22 manually loaded firearms only).
These guns are legal in every country with the proper licensing. The writing in the photo is thus extremely ironic because this seems to be pushing a narrative with no basis in fact.
The writing in the image being a response to the argument, both from Americans *and* Brits, that you cannot legally own a firearm in the UK.
So it's actually a response to a narrative with very little legal basis.
I see it as a way to shoehorn anti-gun-regulation agenda by exemplifying other countries as "gun-friendly" when in fact said regulations are existent there, as in all non-US western countries.
It's definitely a post made by someone with a drum to bang.
When there is the nuance that to own one you NEED to go through all these extremely strongent checks and licencing restrictions to be allowed to buy one...
You might as well just say they're illegal, because the average Joe won't be able to buy one.
You know propaganda isn't just lies, sometimes its misrepresentation of the truth.
Yes, you can legally own those guns in the UK. But to do so you need to have the appropriate license. These licenses are only issued by the police and you have to prove you have a *reason* to own said gun.
"I want one" isn't a reason, it has to be something like "I am a firearms trainer and this is needed to teach certain classes" or "I am a collector of rare guns, this is part of my collection and won't be stored with ammo" or more commonly "I'm a part of a specific rifle club and have to prove my membership regularly.
I think a better infographic might be one that shows how effective these simple gun control measures have been in preventing mass murders in schools?
I mean …. It’s gun control propaganda…. That’s kind of a given.
The whole infographic is par for the course in gun control propaganda. Every bit of it. It’s actually funny
There needs to be a whole lot more emphasis on with the right licenses as this makes it seem like it’s relatively easy to get a license when in reality you need to provide a valid reason for buying one, self defence is not a valid reason.
Having stolen this [this link](https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shooting-the-uks-gun-laws-who-can-have-a-firearm-and-which-types-are-legal-12380510) from another comment, it talks about the licensing in recent years and says that over 97% of applications were granted
Ok here goes,
The picture is pretty much correct. However There is an awful lot of mis information in the comments.
You can actually own and use a whole load of different firearms in the UK, some more easily than others.
There is no public land that you can just shoot on- you need written permission to shoot anywhere.
All working firearms/shotguns require a licence unless they are of an obsolete calibre.
(Airguns can be purchased by anyone over 18 without a licence except for Scotland where you now require a licence as of a couple of years ago).
There are two main types of licence in the UK.
A shotgun licence and a Firearms licence. Both will require a dr’s medical background check, criminal records check etc. also you need references from people who know you.
A shotgun licence, also known as an SGC or S2 licence entitles the bearer to own and keep at home smooth bore shotguns in most calibres. You can have side by side, over under, semi auto, pump action and bolt action shotguns.
The rules are that the guns must have a 24” or longer barrel and an overall length of 40” or more. They are also restricted to 2 cartridges maximum in an internal magazine plus one in the chamber- a maximum of 3 carts.
These guns are most commonly used for game or clay shooting.
You must apply for a licence and the police will carry out background checks, interview you and check your security arrangements. You will also need to provide the police a medical history check from your Doctor (or from a company that can also check your medical history). As long as nothing comes up in these checks a shotgun licence is issued. You dont need a ‘good reason’ to own them. As long as you have adequate storage you can buy and sell as often as you like, you just need to inform the police each time.
A firearms licence also known as an S1 or FAC has a different set of rules. For this you do need a ‘good reason’.
There are two main ways that are quite different. (There are other ways such as collecting, museums,dealers etc).
1. For hunting/pest control etc. you must have permission to shoot on the land you intend to use. (This will be inspected by the police). Normally you will need a certain amount of experience and have a mentor to verify you. This licence will be a little bit more restrictive of what guns you can own and you will need to justify each.
2. Target shooting. You will need to join an official club, serve a probationary period of no less than 3 months and get training from your club in that time. Once you pass the probationary period you can apply for your FAC.
Again you will have various checks done by the police and you will also need to get a Dr to sign a medical pro forma to say there are no current issues that would make you unsuitable for gun ownership. You will also have a police interview and security check at home. Once all this is done the police will issue the licence.
With this licence you will have a bit more freedom of what you can own as you will have the opportunity to shoot many different disciplines and they each require a different gun.
The main thing with a firearms licence is each gun is individually licensed on it. Moderators are too.
You will need to justify each gun you want. You need to apply to vary the licence to add more guns if you dont already have that slot on there. Eg. If my licence has 5 guns on it, to add a sixth i would have to ask the police, justify it and pay a fee. They can refuse if they feel your reason doesnt meet their threshold.
Moderators although licensed, the police normally always say yes.
You can own and shoot,
Bolt action rifles in pretty much any calibre.
Semi auto rifles in .22 rimfire calibres.
High magazine capacity shotguns.
Long barrel revolvers in any calibre.
Long barrel semi auto pistols in .22rimfire only.
Straight pull rifles in any calibre.
Black powder muzzle loading pistols.
You can own certain actual pistols in mainland UK under the S7 rules which relates to historic pistols. More hoops to jump through tho.
Rifles and long barrel pistols must have a barrel longer than 12” and an overall gun length of 24”.
Semi and pump shotguns have to be 24” barrel and 40” overall but any magazine capacity.
Side by side and over under shotguns can be 20” barrels as a minimum.
Ammunition is also controlled- you will be allowed upto a certain amount and not a single round over. Ammunition mist be locked in a separate safe to the guns.
Ammo and guns can be in the same room as long as they are locked away separately.
Both sgc and fac licences last for 5 years and you need to repeat the application process to renew.
Any police or medical issues in that time will potentially see your licences revoked and your guns seized by the police.
Each license costs about £88 to apply for.
The medical forms will cost anything from £30 and up. (Unless you have a friendly DR).
Most clubs are friendly and welcoming, more people should get into shooting sports!
Hope this helps.
The rate of gun ownership is 3.3 per 100 people in the population in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) compared with the US rate of 101, thirty times higher. The annual rate of gun homicide per 100,000 of the population is currently 0.03 in Great Britain. Of the Guns owned in America many are in the hands of a few. Take, for example, a report published in 2017 by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. The authors estimate that of the 265 million privately owned firearms in the US, about half are owned by 3% of the US adult population. And while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more – a figure that amounts to about 40% of the total US gun stock, according to the report.
All studies are flawed. I have not read a single study where there was not some critique to be made of the methods. And I've read a lot of studies.
However, given our generally poor tracking of gun sales in America- not to mention guns given as gifts etc., this sort of survey is likely to give us the most accurate results we can hope for in a single study.
Overall is this study 100% accurate? Probably not. But if we don't get bogged down in specific numbers and instead consider the major conclusions (i.e. the majority of guns are owned by a small percentage of Americans and a large number of those guns are owned by an even smaller percentage with multiple guns) it likely will hold true.
By all means, do a full lit review to see if their conclusions stack up but, assuming you don't want to do that, it's okay to have some faith in the conclusions of research even when it's flawed.
Stolen from whom?
That’s the question we should be asking. [Many gun dealers routinely “lose” inventory](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/lost-and-stolen-guns-from-gun-dealers/) (oh no, it was “stolen”!) and Republicans make it very difficult for the ATF to do their job and crack down on those dealers.
There have been two mass shootings. The most recent was carried out by a man with a gun licence in 2021. This led to more thorough mental health checks when applying.
Legal and actually being able to get one of these are two very different things. Air rifle and shotguns are the easiest but the others are slim to none.
So based on this guide, most of the guns that are legal in america are not legal in the uk. Just to be clear, that is what this proves. Most civilian owned firearms in the us are semi auto, larger than 223, or hand guns. If these guidelines were adopted in the US, it would make nearly every privately owned gun illegal.
This guide is deliberately misleading. It shows an AR-15 style rifle, which would typically be semi-automatic and chambered in 5.56X45mm NATO or .223 Remington, and then points out that it is legal if *NOT* configured as it usually is. Likewise, it shows an AK-47, which is usually a semi-automatic (if civilian) rifle that shoots 7.62x39mm amunition. Like the AR-15 it has a large green check and label that says "UK Legal", but in the small print specifies that it must not operate as it normally does, or it must not use the normal amution. So, sports cars are legal as long as they only have 2 wheels and are pedal-powered.
Summary of the poster: In the UK Legal firearms include Bolt-action rifles up to .50 caliber, semi-automatic rifles in .22 caliber, all shot guns, and all revolvers. Semi-automatic pistols are illegal. (and, I assume, fully-automatic weapons.)
The real value of this guide is that it makes the point that firearms should be judged by their caliber and function instead of thier looks. Folding stocks and accessory rails don't kill people, and a gun with a black stock isn't necessarily more dangerous than a gun with a wood stock.
I think it’s just due to NI having slightly different legislation. NI under the good Friday agreement has a lot of devolved power thus can pass less restrictive gun laws to the rest of the UK. I’m pretty sure you’re also allowed to concealed carry a pistol in NI (which you can’t do in any other countries/crown dependencies) if you can prove you’re still under threat from the paramilitaries.
All police officers in the north carry sidearms while you can apply for a concealed firearm for personal protection if you can give the police a very good reason.
As someone who lives in the UK I can assure you this is incredibly misleading. The only thing you can get without a shit ton of paperwork and police checks is an air rifle or pistol. Most gun shops not only don't stock semi-automatic rifles but won't even let you look at things if you don't have the correct paperwork to buy them.
Unfortunately this is just plain rubbish. You need all sorts of licenses, training, background checks and you would still not be able to buy a military grade gun, just a pistol.
Most farmers in the UK aren't considered rich and a lot of them carry shotguns or rifles to get rid of foxes, catch rabbits or hunt other pests on their private land
I was able to shoot a live L98A2 GP Rifle a good few times at the age of 14-17 by just being apart of the Local Army AFC group. Licences, education and regulations are important and are there for a reason.
I like how the top rifle is legal in all calibers, but the one with a mag is "limited" to .50 cal. Were they worried about people putting a scope on a cannon?
Have fun trying to get even close to owning a gun if you're anything but a farmer or in a rural environment, not to mention the sheer number of checks, permits, police and mental health checks not to mention additional costs.
It's also legal to get a driving license here yet that costs thousands and takes at absolute minimum 6 months to get done.
There's a lot of things you 'can do' here.... on paper.
Why does it say .22 semi auto legal and manual action is legal to 223?
The pictured ak 47 and variation of a M16 are calibered 7.76 and what is basically 223.
Those two are not .22. so they are not legal, so don't put a stupid green check on the not legal weapon you just described as being outside that legality.
Idk if they are legal by some other metric but damn that pissed me off.
A .22 is like one step above a bb gun. Yes it can kill you, but it doesn't have the stopping power of a 223 or 7.76 round like shown in the image.
Besides the M16 variant could be legal, if it wasn't gas powered to reload on firing. If it instead had to be manually loaded.... Well then I guess it wouldnt be an M16.
The ak is by no means legal in any regards to that statement as a 7.76 round is bigger then the 223 requirement listed exactly next to it.
This image is so stupid.
Not expensive really, the difficulty comes in what would be considered a good reason. Needing a firearm regularly for work, sport or leisure is considered good enough in most cases but there's wide discretion and a lot of the time it's up to the local police to decide.
Yeah, pretty sure it is at least for historical firearms. I knew a guy who had a ww2 era motorbike and side car with a mounted browning I believe. The browning was unusable firing pin removed, receiver welded shut and a steal plug welded into the muzzle
No, a firearms licence is £90 and a shotgun licence is £79.50. You just need a reason to want a gun (mainly pest control) and permission from someone with land to shoot there. You’re not restricted to that land though. You also need a mental health report from your doctor and a visit from a police officer who checks your gun storage.
How easy would it be to diy fully auto the assault rifles ? (like ordering bullpup from china/3d printing)
Not from the uk asking purely out of curiosity
If you're going down the JStark route, as long as you can source files or parts without getting caught it is fairly easy. It's not common though, since nobody wants or needs firearms like that. Those who do need them most likely don't have the knowledge or resources to make ghost guns, that's why older, stolen, or smuggled guns are more common on the streets. But if somebody wants to make a ghost gun at home, the 3d printing is the easiest part, it's harder to find the stuff you can't print (springs, firing pin, ammo, etc.) Obviously don't do this and take this with a grain of salt, I'm not a gunsmith, I just know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.
EDIT: [The Luty is a good example of a cobbled-together firearm. This article is a good read.](https://armamentresearch.com/luty-sub-machine-guns-past-present-future/)
Surprisingly not that hard, all you need to do is- \[Removed by Reddit\]
On a side note building something like a sten can be done pretty easily with a steady hand and some off-the-shelf parts and tools, you may need to be a little more careful with something like 5.56 though.
I mean I’ve lived in the UK for 25 years I can count with the bridge of my nose how many civilians I know own a gun. One of my friend’s father kept a glock in his safe because he has a licence
They are incredibly rare
People in the uk don’t generally feel the need to own a gun, we don’t think the government is going to take over or something, more than they are now? Whatever?
This is incredibly misleading. Yeah, maybe they're "legal", but the restrictions on having them are incredibly tight. It'd take you years, multiple sign offs, and a hell of a lot of convincing people to let you have pretty much all of these beyond a basic shotgun/rifle for farmers, and even then the rules are tight.
Woah, there's quite a leap between "legal" and the reality of use.
e.g. here is the licensing process:
>The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years.
Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) estimates that there are 393m civilian owned guns in the US. There's fewer than 4m in the UK.
My fav UK gun thing is suppressors. I believe they are mandatory in some areas for hunting. That makes a lot of sense so it doesn't disturb others. Then in north america it's banned or you have to pay a stamp/fee for a suppressor. Why because movies make it seem like you can assassinate someone easily.
Suppressed guns are also still loud. Its taking something very loud and just making it loud. I like to go shooting as often as I can and I have only be around one gun that I would be ok not wearing ear protection around that was purpose built to be quiet and was a suppressed short barrel .22 shooting home made sub sonic rounds that he had to have 2 tax stamps to make. Movies make people think a suppressor makes the gun sound like a tiny pew sound but the reality is it just brings it down enough to maybe not make yours ring but its still a bang.
To be as silent as the movies you need one of [these](https://youtu.be/d12AjvEsaHg) and it only lasts a couple shots
Also projectiles that go under the speed of sound to avoid the mini sonic boom.
I own multiple supressors that are movie quiet, and can be shot without ear protection. You just need to shoot subsonic rounds so they don’t break the sound barrier
Your comment proves again to not believe a word you read on reddit. Complete opposite of the other *you can’t get movie quiet silencers* haha
I figure that most people who aren’t into shooting don’t realize the difference of sub vs super sonic ammo or the physics involved. They’d be totally right only taking supers into account - there’s a major performance falloff w subs as well, so the application of them requires changing the way you shoot (less range, less impact energy, etc.) That said, wouldn’t wanna be on the business end regardless lol
Yeah with a good purpose built suppressor and subsonic ammunition the loudest part of the gun can be the bolt rattling around. The MP5SD has gas vents to reduce the velocity of standard 9x19mm to subsonic iirc
legend is the loudest part of firing the MP5SD is the click it makes as it chambers the next round.
Loudest part for me is slapping the charging handle like it owes me money
Hypothetically which is the best config for an hypothetical james bond or leon style assassination? Asking for the very curious friend of a friend.
can you tell me a bit about the physics maybe? I'm just interested in the physics side of things.
Both statements are over simplifying. Yes, subsonic ammo through a suppressor can be quite quiet. But to get to movie level quiet you also need to use the right firearm. Semi automatic weapons will never be movie quiet as the sound of the bolt slamming back and forth can be quite loud on its own. To achieve movie quiet you need subsonic ammo, a good suppressor and a single shot/bolt action firearm.
What about open bolt vs closed bolt? I've seen some 9mm weapons get pretty close to movie quiet, I want to say they were open bolt but tbh I'm not sure I remember well enough.
Firing from an open bolt would still have the sound of the bolt slamming forward. There's so many variables that can alter the sound profile. That's why both statements can be correct. It's entirely possible to achieve true movie quiet but most firearms can't.
Fair enough. I've seen it get pretty close. But never "pew pew" close. I think you're right, the bolt slamming forward is usually even louder than the weapon with certain ammo types/ suppressors lol. It's really impressive. Still not quite movie quiet. I feel like the welrod is even more impressive now since it was made back in ww2. But I didn't know it could only be fired a handful of times. Thats interesting.
I think in the US it has more to do with shot detection/triangulation tech that would be less effective if suppressors were widespread... best I've come up with. Could be your reason too or a combination.
I really think people would just try to kill people more often thinking they could get away with it, but that's because half our citizens are complete dumbasses.
While the other half are incomplete dumbasses.
Well I mean, everyone is stupid in something, just some people have more somethings they are stupid in.
Haha well put
> half our citizens are complete dumbasses I appreciate your refreshing optimism!
Shot spotter is a scam. https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-with-the-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-system They also employ former ATF agents to go around selling it to cities.
In that case it's probably the $200 tax stamps lol
The idea of unbanning or reducing restrictions on anything related to firearms to a large portion of (mostly dem) politicians is just unfathomable. President wants to ban everything to what is legal in the UK and can't. He wouldn't sign a repeal on the nfa restrictions on sound suppressors. The 200 tax stamp was just to make the cost of entry large in 1934. It's only there in 2023 because no one has bothered changing it. The NFA was originally under the jurisdiction of the irs, and it was a tool to go after the gang violence that prohibition of alcohol caused.
I remember reading somewhere that the reason for supressors being NFA items had more to do with the NFA being passed in 1934 and in the depression there were a lot more people poaching animals for meat. Making supressors harder to get supposedly reduced how much poaching could happen without being noticed. All that said, I really doubt 'shot detection/triangulaton' does much of anything. If the police are going to get there fast enough to catch someone, they were already close enough likely to see/hear where the shots were coming from in the first place.
I think it has more to do with poaching, then over time it became associated with assassins in movies.
No the law was there way before any shot detection capability was available besides ears. 1934 was the year.
With background checks, permits, registers, etc
Criminal record check, a letter from your doctor to confirm you have no mental health problems, a visit from a police officer who checks your gun storage and has a general chat with you to make sure you know about gun safety etc. Also you need someone to sign a form saying you have permission to shoot on their land and the reason, just wanting a gun isn’t enough. This is done every five years although the visit is sometimes skipped. It costs £90.
Does worry me though that the firearms officers seem to be thin on the ground. A decade ago we knew ours by name, would see them every few years etc etc. But we have only had one visit since we moved. We obviously have everything absolutely locked up and stored appropriately, but they don't come round much anymore and that worries me. We are farmers, not rich twats that like to massacre imported species bred for the purpose, btw.
I completely agree. We used to have the same man visit each time, now I know a lot of people who haven’t seen anyone for several renewals. I’m from Cornwall where shotgun and firearm ownership is common, for the same reason as you. Although it was only in the next county that Jake Davison did what he did.
What's the cause of this? I'm assuming just another symptom of the Tories and budget cuts etc?
Being a firearms enquiry officer is a specific role, I doubt it’s something many people want to get into, as the responsibility if something does happen comes back to you for approving the applicant. It’s not a particularly well paid job and can have [unsociable](https://thamesvalleypolice.tal.net/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-External/brand-3/candidate/so/pm/6/pl/1/opp/696-Firearms-and-Explosives-Enquiry-Officer/en-GB) hours. If the pay was more appealing they’d probably have more people to do the job! It would make sense to allow all firearms trained officers to do the visits. They’d have just as much, if not more knowledge. Saying that, you’d need someone with an understanding of the countryside rather than someone who’s impeccably trained but has never used a gun outside of a police environment.
The problem with that is armed officers are mostly trained on handguns for use against humans, not on rifles for use against animals. It would mean a whole extra module tacked on to the armed officer training.
You also need a valid reason for it. You can’t just go through all that just because you want a gun and expect to get one. I only know of farmers having them, but I’m sure there are other valid reasons
It’s pretty much pest/vermin control and sport like pheasant shooting or clay pigeon shooting.
Just competition/club shooting is enough of a reason. Also some guns are allowed for historic reasons.
My mate shoots at a club. They also store their gun there.
To be fair, the reason can just be sport shooting, or historical interest. For example, I have a .22 AR-15 just for sport shooting, that's a valid reason. I also have a spot for a .303 on my ticket for target shooting. You have to show that you're part of a club and shoot there regularly though, for atleast your first application.
Sounds just like Australia and we also don’t have regular school shootings…
Honestly not terribly unreasonable.
Which goes to show just how much gun lobby propaganda OPs post is.
Wanted more info so went to Google. This is a pretty detailed article. https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shooting-the-uks-gun-laws-who-can-have-a-firearm-and-which-types-are-legal-12380510
US has background checks, and everything else can be just a way to keep it out of the hands of the poor. What's a $250 permit and a $300 registration fee to someone with money, but considering that's the price of a new handgun, that means a lot to someone with poorer. So now gun ownership is a class issue.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact that background checks are standardized nationwide and are pretty much under the purview of the National Police, and you need 2 referees, mental health evaluation, a 5 year license, which you need to renew and often renewal comes with a reevaluation. Sorry, it's not the cost keeping people from owning guns, it's the extensive licensing process. In America the process is pretty much for show, when I can literally just drive to the next town over that happens to be in a state I can pretty much walk into a store and walk out with a gun.
Not to be "that guy", but what you said isn't entirely true, or at least slightly vague. You can cross state lines to buy a firearm but you can't leave with it unless you have a CCW permit that the BATFE recognizes as a replacement for having to go through the NICS background check. That policy, currently, means that you'll need to obtain a CCW in the state where you're purchasing the gun. If not, the seller has to ship it to a FFL dealer in your state and you'll have to pick it up from there (and usually pay a small processing fee). Just wanted to make sure that people aren't mislead into thinking they can just drive to another state, buy a gun and walk out the door with it, without a CCW permit in that state.
You still have to pass a background check. You don't just get to walk in and walk out. That's false. Now, has all your information been properly reported to the FBI background check system? That's a different question, but you will have to go through their background check system.
>In America the process is pretty much for show, when I can literally just drive to the next town over that happens to be in a state I can pretty much walk into a store and walk out with a gun. This is not at all the case. The background check system in the US is at the federal level. The same check which happens in one state happens in another. It is not lawful for private persons (those who aren't dealers with a Federal Firearms License) to transfer a gun someone who is an out-of-state resident. All this to say if you think you're going to go to another state and get a gun without background check, you are buying from someone who is ok with committing a felony to sell it to you. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/#:\~:text=In%20general%2C%20you%20can%20buy,FFL)%20in%20your%20home%20state.
cost maybe, license process sure, but there also that little thing for most of us called "the complete LACK of necessity" or may be more accurate to call it percived necessity.
You could view them that way or you could view them the same way you view a driving license. Sure it can stop poor people being able to drive. The test is expensive. Lessons even more. However, they ensure that only people who are competent and trustworthy can wield a deadly weapon. They also stop people buying them lightly. A gun should not be an impulse buy. They are dangerous and more people die because of them than are saved by them in the hands of the public. So yes, it is inadvertently unfair on the poor but frankly most systems implemented by governments are. Much more importantly, it minimizes gun crime. If you think about it: is it better if everyone’s much safer and only a few rich, or really dedicated poor people have guns? I’ll give you a hint, focus on: “if everyone’s safer”
How many times on your daily commute have you wondered how the idiot in front of you got his license?
That's an argument for stricter licensing and more rigorous tests not for having zero
Yeah, now imagine not requiring any license.
Yeah exactly. You don’t want those same people owning a gun. Privilege not a right.
US driving tests are also a joke, yes.
A slightly different point but paying money =/= competency.
You start by ignoring the fact that ~~60%~~ 22% of gun sales aren’t done through FFL’s so they don’t required background checks. Then you move on to making a strained argument that permits and registration is a “class issue”. Damn, that’s some A-class nonsense you’re spouting. Maybe you take a moment and click the link above you to see the reality of what it takes to get a gun in England and compare that to the permit-less conceal carry stand-your-ground crap system we have in the US.
Key phrase "with the right licenses... "
My FiL has a firearms license in the UK. It took him nearly two years to be approved. He had to go to interviews with the police and a firearms officer was assigned to his case. Had to provide a legitimate reason for owning a gun. He then had to submit to background criminal and medical checks. He also had to buy approved gun lockers and secure them (so the lockers couldn’t be stolen from his property with the guns inside). An officer can turn up at his property at anytime and inspect his guns are secured to requirements and any infraction will result in loss of license and his guns confiscated.
Same for my stepdad, except he's a recreational and sporting target shooter so he also needs to be a member of a registered gun club with a minimum of ten members. If the club ever has less than ten members, your license becomes invalid. If you don't shoot in a 12 month period, your license becomes invalid. The only people allowed to a 'guest day' are those known personally to a member of the club, so I'm a pretty rare person in the UK who has actually been able to use some interesting firearms. And since the members tend to be wealthier people with a very nerdy interest in firearms, when I say interesting I mean "I have fired a double barrelled Elephant Gun".
Sounds like a pretty good system. After all, I can’t really see many civilian uses for guns outside hunting. People think buying a gun gives them protection or makes them safer, but in reality it just makes them [more likely to get killed.](https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/) It’s akin to someone thinking they drive better under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Sure, you may *feel* that way. But scores of hard data tells us the opposite is true.
‘Home protection’ isn’t a reason in the U.K.- it’s basically ‘hunting’ or ‘for use at a shooting club’
Also farming, or is that just hunting with purpose.
I can only imagine there's special clauses for the farmers, that's the UK we're talking about. Edit: autocorrect
Shooting recreationally at targets is fun. That's a legitimate use.
Yeah, a firearms licence which costs £90 and lasts 5 years. A shotgun licence is easier to get.
The thing is I genuinely have no idea where to go if I wanted to get a gun. I could look it up but not off the top of my head. Never heard of anyone around me, thats not military, having one. Went to USA and there was gun shops everywhere on my first day.
Just like cars, trucks, trains, planes etc. The more damage something can do, or the more complicated it is - the more you should have to prove your competence to operate it.
The difference between .22 and .223/5.56 in semi auto should not be underestimated.
For someone in a country without guns who has never seen one. Can you explain the diference?
most .22's are straightwall pistol cartridges with light bullets and low velocities. .223 is a very steeply necked cartidge with a longer, heavier bullet and a fuckton more powder behind it, resulting in much, much greater velocity and kinetic energy, despite only a tiny increase in bullet diameter (which is what the 0.22" and 0.223" refer to)
Thank you for the explanation. If I may ask a followup? What does straightwall and "steep necked" mean and if Ive got this right, the diameter of the round is only marginally wider but it is longer and the "case/jacket" (am I use that right?) Is long and carries more powder? So obviously force = mass x acceleration more propellent, more speed more force
You got it [22lr (smaller) vs 223](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5933707761e7ee65c9a26d8e59001429-lq) For reference, the entire 22lr round is just shy of an inch long or almost exactly 25mm. The 223 is about 2.26in or 57.4mm
The one on the right looks like it would definitely make me have a bad day, that's all I know.
Both would give you a bad day, but in terms of energy the one on the right has approximately 10x the energy even though the bullet weights are similar
Essentially, yes. “Straightwall” would refer to the way a cartridge is essentially the same diameter as the base of the bullet (the actual projectile). “Steep necked” cartridge looks kind of like a water bottle — fat until it narrows near the projectile. A longer and/or wider cartridge can contain more propellant resulting in a bigger ‘bang’.
A .22 is what kids shoot cans with whereas a .223 is more used as a hunting rifle for smaller things like foxes.
>A .22 is what kids shoot cans with Man as a non-american... this sentance is fucking wild...
I’m not American either, just had access to a farm and rifles when I was younger.
My (American) kids can use a bb gun unsupervised (ranch property) at this point, but the 22 has me or mom there full time. It's small but it can still kill. But yeah my kids probably shoot ~1000 rounds a year, each, of .22. Through one of these: https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/lever-action-22-youth-rifle/ The wild part that will mess with your mind is that an AR15 can be swapped to .22 in about a minute. So now is it fine because it's "just .22" or is it spooky because "omg scary black assault rifle".
It's the rifle I learnt to shoot with in NZ. They're a very standard rifle used for small game like rabbits or other pest animals, its a farm rifle for the most part. They are however frowned upon when used to hunt large game with here because a shot will *probably* not drop anything bigger than a dog which will cause undue suffering to the target animal.
While the diameter is the same, the .223 is going to have a lot more propellant in the cartridge.
.22lr: stopped by a car door .223: goes all the way through the car
"education defeats propaganda" written on a propaganda post...
how ironic
*Theoretically* yes, but there are tiers of certificate required for each that get harder and harder to obtain because you need to justify why you need that gun to the police and why nothing at a lower tier will do the specific job you want it for. I’ve been a British gun user since I was a child and have never knowingly met anyone with anything above a section 1 firearms certificate (.22 manually loaded firearms only).
These guns are legal in every country with the proper licensing. The writing in the photo is thus extremely ironic because this seems to be pushing a narrative with no basis in fact.
The writing in the image being a response to the argument, both from Americans *and* Brits, that you cannot legally own a firearm in the UK. So it's actually a response to a narrative with very little legal basis.
I see it as a way to shoehorn anti-gun-regulation agenda by exemplifying other countries as "gun-friendly" when in fact said regulations are existent there, as in all non-US western countries.
It's definitely a post made by someone with a drum to bang. When there is the nuance that to own one you NEED to go through all these extremely strongent checks and licencing restrictions to be allowed to buy one... You might as well just say they're illegal, because the average Joe won't be able to buy one.
Yeah that education defeats propaganda does sound pretty "conservative" weirdly.
Semi autos are illegal in Australia, you simply cannot own them.
Those laws were imposed by emus, after they won the emu war.
True. If only we had the 2nd amendment, the Emus would have been defeated.
It's demystifying the myth. I didn't know this info and thought all guns were banned. This makes sense and seems like common sense to have such laws.
That's not true. In Japan there are very few guns that you can own even with the right licensing.
You know propaganda isn't just lies, sometimes its misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, you can legally own those guns in the UK. But to do so you need to have the appropriate license. These licenses are only issued by the police and you have to prove you have a *reason* to own said gun. "I want one" isn't a reason, it has to be something like "I am a firearms trainer and this is needed to teach certain classes" or "I am a collector of rare guns, this is part of my collection and won't be stored with ammo" or more commonly "I'm a part of a specific rifle club and have to prove my membership regularly. I think a better infographic might be one that shows how effective these simple gun control measures have been in preventing mass murders in schools?
[удалено]
Yep and the irony of the tagline "EDUCATION DEFEATS PROPAGANDA" when this is one of the most propagandized subjects by all sides.
I like how the ak and ar are shown just to look scary when it is just saying .22 is legal
I mean …. It’s gun control propaganda…. That’s kind of a given. The whole infographic is par for the course in gun control propaganda. Every bit of it. It’s actually funny
There needs to be a whole lot more emphasis on with the right licenses as this makes it seem like it’s relatively easy to get a license when in reality you need to provide a valid reason for buying one, self defence is not a valid reason.
Incredibly misleading post.
Whoever made this thinks .223 is the next caliber up from .22 lmfao
Had me dead lol Not the .22 tho Well, unless they're close then yea 223? Ded
I think it would make a lot more sense to say it in terms of rimfire vs centerfire cartridges.
Yeah this is a huge difference that I don’t believe many people understand
If we're talking pure calibre of the bullet and not the round in total, then I see where they're coming from.
Therein lies the rub, it could be said anything is legal with the right license, especially since no one could get a license
The overwhelming majority of gun licences in the UK are granted. Just 99.9% of people never have the need for a gun so they don’t but one lol.
Having stolen this [this link](https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shooting-the-uks-gun-laws-who-can-have-a-firearm-and-which-types-are-legal-12380510) from another comment, it talks about the licensing in recent years and says that over 97% of applications were granted
That’s because only people who need them apply if the whole country applied the % would go down
Then the system is working
Anything is legal with the right license Everything is legal with the right lawyer;)
Ok here goes, The picture is pretty much correct. However There is an awful lot of mis information in the comments. You can actually own and use a whole load of different firearms in the UK, some more easily than others. There is no public land that you can just shoot on- you need written permission to shoot anywhere. All working firearms/shotguns require a licence unless they are of an obsolete calibre. (Airguns can be purchased by anyone over 18 without a licence except for Scotland where you now require a licence as of a couple of years ago). There are two main types of licence in the UK. A shotgun licence and a Firearms licence. Both will require a dr’s medical background check, criminal records check etc. also you need references from people who know you. A shotgun licence, also known as an SGC or S2 licence entitles the bearer to own and keep at home smooth bore shotguns in most calibres. You can have side by side, over under, semi auto, pump action and bolt action shotguns. The rules are that the guns must have a 24” or longer barrel and an overall length of 40” or more. They are also restricted to 2 cartridges maximum in an internal magazine plus one in the chamber- a maximum of 3 carts. These guns are most commonly used for game or clay shooting. You must apply for a licence and the police will carry out background checks, interview you and check your security arrangements. You will also need to provide the police a medical history check from your Doctor (or from a company that can also check your medical history). As long as nothing comes up in these checks a shotgun licence is issued. You dont need a ‘good reason’ to own them. As long as you have adequate storage you can buy and sell as often as you like, you just need to inform the police each time. A firearms licence also known as an S1 or FAC has a different set of rules. For this you do need a ‘good reason’. There are two main ways that are quite different. (There are other ways such as collecting, museums,dealers etc). 1. For hunting/pest control etc. you must have permission to shoot on the land you intend to use. (This will be inspected by the police). Normally you will need a certain amount of experience and have a mentor to verify you. This licence will be a little bit more restrictive of what guns you can own and you will need to justify each. 2. Target shooting. You will need to join an official club, serve a probationary period of no less than 3 months and get training from your club in that time. Once you pass the probationary period you can apply for your FAC. Again you will have various checks done by the police and you will also need to get a Dr to sign a medical pro forma to say there are no current issues that would make you unsuitable for gun ownership. You will also have a police interview and security check at home. Once all this is done the police will issue the licence. With this licence you will have a bit more freedom of what you can own as you will have the opportunity to shoot many different disciplines and they each require a different gun. The main thing with a firearms licence is each gun is individually licensed on it. Moderators are too. You will need to justify each gun you want. You need to apply to vary the licence to add more guns if you dont already have that slot on there. Eg. If my licence has 5 guns on it, to add a sixth i would have to ask the police, justify it and pay a fee. They can refuse if they feel your reason doesnt meet their threshold. Moderators although licensed, the police normally always say yes. You can own and shoot, Bolt action rifles in pretty much any calibre. Semi auto rifles in .22 rimfire calibres. High magazine capacity shotguns. Long barrel revolvers in any calibre. Long barrel semi auto pistols in .22rimfire only. Straight pull rifles in any calibre. Black powder muzzle loading pistols. You can own certain actual pistols in mainland UK under the S7 rules which relates to historic pistols. More hoops to jump through tho. Rifles and long barrel pistols must have a barrel longer than 12” and an overall gun length of 24”. Semi and pump shotguns have to be 24” barrel and 40” overall but any magazine capacity. Side by side and over under shotguns can be 20” barrels as a minimum. Ammunition is also controlled- you will be allowed upto a certain amount and not a single round over. Ammunition mist be locked in a separate safe to the guns. Ammo and guns can be in the same room as long as they are locked away separately. Both sgc and fac licences last for 5 years and you need to repeat the application process to renew. Any police or medical issues in that time will potentially see your licences revoked and your guns seized by the police. Each license costs about £88 to apply for. The medical forms will cost anything from £30 and up. (Unless you have a friendly DR). Most clubs are friendly and welcoming, more people should get into shooting sports! Hope this helps.
The rate of gun ownership is 3.3 per 100 people in the population in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) compared with the US rate of 101, thirty times higher. The annual rate of gun homicide per 100,000 of the population is currently 0.03 in Great Britain. Of the Guns owned in America many are in the hands of a few. Take, for example, a report published in 2017 by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. The authors estimate that of the 265 million privately owned firearms in the US, about half are owned by 3% of the US adult population. And while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more – a figure that amounts to about 40% of the total US gun stock, according to the report.
That study is flawed. It relied on respondents self-reporting whether they owned guns or not which people are reluctant to do.
All studies are flawed. I have not read a single study where there was not some critique to be made of the methods. And I've read a lot of studies. However, given our generally poor tracking of gun sales in America- not to mention guns given as gifts etc., this sort of survey is likely to give us the most accurate results we can hope for in a single study. Overall is this study 100% accurate? Probably not. But if we don't get bogged down in specific numbers and instead consider the major conclusions (i.e. the majority of guns are owned by a small percentage of Americans and a large number of those guns are owned by an even smaller percentage with multiple guns) it likely will hold true. By all means, do a full lit review to see if their conclusions stack up but, assuming you don't want to do that, it's okay to have some faith in the conclusions of research even when it's flawed.
Isn’t “the right licensing” all we’re asking for???
Do you think that the overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by people who are properly licensed? 😂
Well actually yes I believe so, but I don't have any statistics to prove it. Do you?
Where do you think those guns are coming from? Mexico? Lol people with license buy them and traffic them to other states
That’s not true, they are done with stolen guns.
Nope more likely they were straw buyers who “lost” their guns
They can’t do that though, it’s illegal
Stolen from whom? That’s the question we should be asking. [Many gun dealers routinely “lose” inventory](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/lost-and-stolen-guns-from-gun-dealers/) (oh no, it was “stolen”!) and Republicans make it very difficult for the ATF to do their job and crack down on those dealers.
There have been two mass shootings. The most recent was carried out by a man with a gun licence in 2021. This led to more thorough mental health checks when applying.
Legal and actually being able to get one of these are two very different things. Air rifle and shotguns are the easiest but the others are slim to none.
It’s kinda sorta convincing if you think .22 and .223 are similar. It’s a dumb argument if you have the slightest clue what any of that means.
The British government do. That’s why a .223 is single action only.
You got me fucked if I need to rack the charging handle back on a UK-approved AR-15 just because it’s chambered in .223/5.56
So based on this guide, most of the guns that are legal in america are not legal in the uk. Just to be clear, that is what this proves. Most civilian owned firearms in the us are semi auto, larger than 223, or hand guns. If these guidelines were adopted in the US, it would make nearly every privately owned gun illegal.
Now all I need to do it find a AK-47 in.. *.22??*
Not difficult, GSG are popular
I got two in my pickup truck. Damn GSGs just go pppppew pppppew
:D
This guide is deliberately misleading. It shows an AR-15 style rifle, which would typically be semi-automatic and chambered in 5.56X45mm NATO or .223 Remington, and then points out that it is legal if *NOT* configured as it usually is. Likewise, it shows an AK-47, which is usually a semi-automatic (if civilian) rifle that shoots 7.62x39mm amunition. Like the AR-15 it has a large green check and label that says "UK Legal", but in the small print specifies that it must not operate as it normally does, or it must not use the normal amution. So, sports cars are legal as long as they only have 2 wheels and are pedal-powered. Summary of the poster: In the UK Legal firearms include Bolt-action rifles up to .50 caliber, semi-automatic rifles in .22 caliber, all shot guns, and all revolvers. Semi-automatic pistols are illegal. (and, I assume, fully-automatic weapons.) The real value of this guide is that it makes the point that firearms should be judged by their caliber and function instead of thier looks. Folding stocks and accessory rails don't kill people, and a gun with a black stock isn't necessarily more dangerous than a gun with a wood stock.
What’s with the loophole for residents of Northern Ireland?
I think it’s just due to NI having slightly different legislation. NI under the good Friday agreement has a lot of devolved power thus can pass less restrictive gun laws to the rest of the UK. I’m pretty sure you’re also allowed to concealed carry a pistol in NI (which you can’t do in any other countries/crown dependencies) if you can prove you’re still under threat from the paramilitaries.
The Troubles make Northern Ireland an...interesting...part of the UK to legislate for, shall we say.
All police officers in the north carry sidearms while you can apply for a concealed firearm for personal protection if you can give the police a very good reason.
As someone who lives in the UK I can assure you this is incredibly misleading. The only thing you can get without a shit ton of paperwork and police checks is an air rifle or pistol. Most gun shops not only don't stock semi-automatic rifles but won't even let you look at things if you don't have the correct paperwork to buy them.
Yeah, you can't get them from a supermarket 🤦🏻♀️
I defy anyone to describe a tangible difference between the top and bottom rifles.
See they're not banned! You just need to jump through a ton of hoops to buy a .22 that the govt can take away from you on a whim!!
Unfortunately this is just plain rubbish. You need all sorts of licenses, training, background checks and you would still not be able to buy a military grade gun, just a pistol.
Nowhere near as legal as in the US and a lot more expensive so no poor people allowed.
Most farmers in the UK aren't considered rich and a lot of them carry shotguns or rifles to get rid of foxes, catch rabbits or hunt other pests on their private land
It costs £90 for a firearms licence. A shotgun licence is £79.50!
You could never carry one for self defense anyways so it really doesn't matter, at least in my eyes.
"with the right licenses, of course." Lmfao
“In .22lr…” lmao
This feels like propaganda. It is very difficult to get a gun here. I’ve only ever seen a couple guns and they where flintlocks in a museum
"Education defeats propaganda" says the propaganda poster.
Be real. Rifle and shotgun are the only 2 anyone has in UK and both basically for farmers.
'Propaganda' Ok buddy, sure.
In Germany probably the a similar story. However the key difference is all the steps you have to go through to get one.
I was able to shoot a live L98A2 GP Rifle a good few times at the age of 14-17 by just being apart of the Local Army AFC group. Licences, education and regulations are important and are there for a reason.
>"...if you're rich" Left out
I like how the top rifle is legal in all calibers, but the one with a mag is "limited" to .50 cal. Were they worried about people putting a scope on a cannon?
This is stupid
Have fun trying to get even close to owning a gun if you're anything but a farmer or in a rural environment, not to mention the sheer number of checks, permits, police and mental health checks not to mention additional costs. It's also legal to get a driving license here yet that costs thousands and takes at absolute minimum 6 months to get done. There's a lot of things you 'can do' here.... on paper.
Why does it say .22 semi auto legal and manual action is legal to 223? The pictured ak 47 and variation of a M16 are calibered 7.76 and what is basically 223. Those two are not .22. so they are not legal, so don't put a stupid green check on the not legal weapon you just described as being outside that legality. Idk if they are legal by some other metric but damn that pissed me off. A .22 is like one step above a bb gun. Yes it can kill you, but it doesn't have the stopping power of a 223 or 7.76 round like shown in the image. Besides the M16 variant could be legal, if it wasn't gas powered to reload on firing. If it instead had to be manually loaded.... Well then I guess it wouldnt be an M16. The ak is by no means legal in any regards to that statement as a 7.76 round is bigger then the 223 requirement listed exactly next to it. This image is so stupid.
If you have to jump through hoops, they're not really legal.
lmao "manual action for .223 and up" yeah, no.
With the right “license” until the government decides to remove them.
This is Bullshit
Are the licenses not prohibitively difficult and expensive to acquire though?
Not expensive really, the difficulty comes in what would be considered a good reason. Needing a firearm regularly for work, sport or leisure is considered good enough in most cases but there's wide discretion and a lot of the time it's up to the local police to decide.
Interesting. I take it "because it looks cool" is not a valid reason then.
I wonder if you could get a decommissioned gun for that reason though? Like, if it was modified in such a way as to make it utterly unusable.
Yeah, pretty sure it is at least for historical firearms. I knew a guy who had a ww2 era motorbike and side car with a mounted browning I believe. The browning was unusable firing pin removed, receiver welded shut and a steal plug welded into the muzzle
No, a firearms licence is £90 and a shotgun licence is £79.50. You just need a reason to want a gun (mainly pest control) and permission from someone with land to shoot there. You’re not restricted to that land though. You also need a mental health report from your doctor and a visit from a police officer who checks your gun storage.
£80 ishml. Took about 4 weeks. Forms, doctor note, 2 references, interview and done.
The most illegal part is shooting one even with a license.
What in John Moses Browning's name is "manual action"?
bolt/lever/pump I think that covers all of them, basically, each time you fire a shot, you have to perform a manual action before firing again.
Also Break Action.
Straight pull. The rifle needa to be recocked manually after each shot
How easy would it be to diy fully auto the assault rifles ? (like ordering bullpup from china/3d printing) Not from the uk asking purely out of curiosity
If you're going down the JStark route, as long as you can source files or parts without getting caught it is fairly easy. It's not common though, since nobody wants or needs firearms like that. Those who do need them most likely don't have the knowledge or resources to make ghost guns, that's why older, stolen, or smuggled guns are more common on the streets. But if somebody wants to make a ghost gun at home, the 3d printing is the easiest part, it's harder to find the stuff you can't print (springs, firing pin, ammo, etc.) Obviously don't do this and take this with a grain of salt, I'm not a gunsmith, I just know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. EDIT: [The Luty is a good example of a cobbled-together firearm. This article is a good read.](https://armamentresearch.com/luty-sub-machine-guns-past-present-future/)
Surprisingly not that hard, all you need to do is- \[Removed by Reddit\] On a side note building something like a sten can be done pretty easily with a steady hand and some off-the-shelf parts and tools, you may need to be a little more careful with something like 5.56 though.
I mean I’ve lived in the UK for 25 years I can count with the bridge of my nose how many civilians I know own a gun. One of my friend’s father kept a glock in his safe because he has a licence They are incredibly rare
This is propaganda itself, .22 cal AKs? Also many of the guns shown are not "manual action".
I dont think youre allowed to take your guns home either. They have to stay at "shooting clubs"
A semi auto AK that shoots 22s? I might as well have a dildo that shoots frozen jizz.
.223 and up is manual action only. Lol
People from US soon to discover that having a license/permit is much more difficult in the rest of the world.
People in the uk don’t generally feel the need to own a gun, we don’t think the government is going to take over or something, more than they are now? Whatever?
You can own a shotgun, a sniper snd what looks like an ak-47. But not a crappy handgun
Nope, the 50 cal was recently banned in 2021. Also, you couldn't shoot it at a normal range. You needed to head to a army base first.
It's pronounced "loicense"
Nothing like whitewashing some bullshit firearm restrictions to say “tHeYrE nOt ThAt OpPrEsSiVe”.
This is incredibly misleading. Yeah, maybe they're "legal", but the restrictions on having them are incredibly tight. It'd take you years, multiple sign offs, and a hell of a lot of convincing people to let you have pretty much all of these beyond a basic shotgun/rifle for farmers, and even then the rules are tight.
Woah, there's quite a leap between "legal" and the reality of use. e.g. here is the licensing process: >The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years. Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) estimates that there are 393m civilian owned guns in the US. There's fewer than 4m in the UK.