Tighter than what, you absolute morons? They’re *literally* illegal.
But I thought we already can’t own anything besides a shotgun or rifle with a license and clear purpose?
Absolutely no pistols either…
How could they be tighter than that?
I think it needs to be established how the weapon was acquired, whether it was (at least originally) legally held in the UK, etc. Beyond that, it just seems reactionary when our laws are very tight as it is.
I’m sure that will stop the Columbian drug cartels
Cartel hit in the middle of London.
>we must ban guns!
Because if it’s one things criminals respect and follow, it’s laws
That’ll stop the criminals with their legally obtained firearms! As we all know they’re sticklers for the rule and paperwork.
Hmmm those with criminal intent will break the law anyway, so yeah, let’s waste more time and money on doing this 👍
How much tighter you want it? It’s already a vice grip… these guns are coming in by boat, have non of you watched top boy ?!!!?!? It literally is exactly the same! The London estates are filled to the brim with guns!
We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Whoever’s calling for stricter ones can fuck right off.
Was the gun a legally owned gun?
Apart from farmers I knew growing up in the countryside I know no one who owns a gun. What percentage of gun crime is committed with legally owned guns? I can’t really think of any I’ve heard of.
Seems a bit daft, our gun laws seem fine.
Ah yes tighter control on leagaly owned and licences firearms will surly stop those that obtain and use them illegally.
For a nation with the second strictest gun control laws and one of the lowest legally owed firearms used in a crime in the world what else can you do to stop criminals obtaining them.
How can gun laws get any tighter, working great already aren’t they, that weapon was likely an illegal firearm
Our politics being constantly Americanised leads to stupid takes like this.
How about you crack down on Colombian drug cartels?
I forgot what sub I was on and immediately assumed America, I admit I’m not the most knowledgeable on gun control laws here, but as far as I’m aware they’re pretty hard to get your hands on. Legally at least.
No way was that shotgun obtained legally, I would be interested to hear otherwise. Would you really jump through all the hoops to own a shotgun just to fire it at someone? It’s way easier to get one illegally if you just want to use it for crime. Also, firearms related homicides are absurdly low in the UK it seems silly to think regulating law abiding citizens will prevent illegal gun circulation, look what the war of drugs achieved…
What’s going on here? Who the hell shoots up a funeral of someone who died of leukaemia? The article is completely silent on motive.
Tighter gun laws are good, but there’s no discussion of where this gun has come from, or of the societal problems that led to this. You can ban all the guns you want, but if these gang conflicts are ignored (and underlying poverty not alleviated) then it’ll just keep happening. The weapon will be different, the place might change, but it will keep happening
Other than tighter controls on ammunition, (which are already pretty tight) I can’t really see this doing much to help
Nothing more effective than a poorly thought out, knee jerk legislation
I’m pretty sure the gunman didn’t give a toss about any laws. Tighter gun controls just makes life more difficult for those who are law abiding. The current gun laws in the UK seem to be pretty good on the whole. The shooter is guilty of breaking those already in place. It’s catching criminals that needs improvement. This is just the government trying to look like it’s doing something, when it actually, in a practical sense, isn’t.
Agree with the licensing argument already laid out in the comments. The overwhelming majority of legally held firearms aren’t used for criminal purposes. Banning all guns wouldn’t stop criminals using them.
This’ll only affect the law abiding citizens who have to jump through enough hoops as it is
Well thats Labour loosing any chance of my vote then which honestly is a massive shame because now I dont have anyone to vote for.
Folk like me shooting some clays on the weekends arnt contributing in any way to cartel murders.
We dont need tighter gun regulation, we need to admit that we are loosing controll of orginised crime in this country. Time to stop arresting people for what they write on twitter and go after the scary more effort, requiring you to leave the office to deal with criminals.
There seems to be this knee jerk reaction every time there is gun crime in Britain with a politician wanting a sound bite but very rarely say what they will do or how it will prevent crime.
Keir states “But other people, where better checks should be taken over circulation of guns…
So I think that we need to look again as to whether those laws are strong enough.”
You currently require two referees of good standing who must have known you personally for at least two years and must be resident in Great Britain. You also need sign off from your registered GP to say you are of sound mental wellbeing. A firearms officer will also visit your property to interview you, see your living arrangements and check you have a secure gun cabinet suitable for storing them. This is for both shotgun certs and firearms licences, but with the later you also need prove you have need for a rifle, such as being a member of a target shooting or hunting club ect (it is down to the discretion of the fire arms officer and chief of your local police whether they will grant the cert, so the more evidence you can provide the better).
Is Keir suggesting you need three referees rather than two to prevent these shooting? Or that GPs are not capable of declaring whether you are of sound mind? Or that the firearms officers are not doing sufficient checks and should do two interviews not one? I’m not sure what more checks in the licensing process can be put in to prevent a criminal with a gun using it for nefarious purposes.
We already have very strict gun licencing in place and as a result have very little gun crime. But Unfortuanly there will always be bad people out there willing to hurt other people, if it wasn’t a shot gun it would of been a Knife or a truck ramming the crowd or something equally lethal
EDIT: I actually listened to the LBC clip and they, being they love click bait, asked him the question knowing full well that whatever he says will get attention. His response suggests he doesn’t really have a clue what he thinks and he’s just trying to blag his way onto the next question. Other than a vague comment about certain guns not being suitable for the public, he didn’t set out any policy and he’s kept his options open.
Laws are already pretty tight. Don’t think tighter laws would have prevented this.
Do we even know if the gun was legally owned or not?
Seems a bit premature calling for tighter gun control in response to an incident if it is not immediately clear if tighter gun control would have prevented it.
Heres an idea, go after the criminals, and tighten our border security to stop guns coming in
Not being uncaring but haven’t we already got like the toughest gun controls of any country ?
When will people realise that banning != Disappearing
Most guns on the street are illegal. I highly doubt crimes are done with legal guns.
Just what we need. More knee-jerk reactions to tragic events to cover up for the fact that the police are not effectively doing their jobs… again.
Stop trying to Americanise us, Keir. Was this a legally obtained gun? I think not.
This seems a little pre-emptive of Starmer to me. Gun laws in the UK are extremely tight. In fact, I have a policeman coming to my house later this week to inspect my gun cabinet and interview me so they can consider whether I should be allowed to buy one – they’ll want to know where I shoot, why I am shooting, etc. They’ve already had access to my medical records, a report from my doctor, my (lack of) criminal record etc. The police will specify the calibre of firearm you’re allowed to buy and the quantity of ammunition you’re allowed to hold at anyone time. All purchases are recorded so the holder of the firearms certificate is accountable for what they have.
Here Starmer has no idea if this firearm is legally held or not. Plus, shotguns are regulated in a different way to other firearms, which makes using a crime involving one a sign that firearm law needs reforming a bit problematic. With a shotguy the police have to give a reason for refusing a permit. With any other firearm, it’s up to the person who wants one to positively prove that they have a good reason for buying one AND to prove that they are actually shooting regularly. If you can’t prove that you regularly use your gun then you will lose it!
Crimes like this aren’t being committed using legal/registered guns.
I am pretty anti-gun but tighter gun laws will have no impact whatsoever, those who own them legally aren’t doing drive-by shootings.
You won’t like to here this but tighter gun laws only affects legally held weapons.why don’t we ban football or cricket or fishing in fact let’s draw up a list off things we enjoy and ban all of them.
Criminal gun holders don’t give a flying …k about the law it 5 years for illegal posetion before it is fired.
36 comments
Tighter than what, you absolute morons? They’re *literally* illegal.
But I thought we already can’t own anything besides a shotgun or rifle with a license and clear purpose?
Absolutely no pistols either…
How could they be tighter than that?
I think it needs to be established how the weapon was acquired, whether it was (at least originally) legally held in the UK, etc. Beyond that, it just seems reactionary when our laws are very tight as it is.
I’m sure that will stop the Columbian drug cartels
Cartel hit in the middle of London.
>we must ban guns!
Because if it’s one things criminals respect and follow, it’s laws
That’ll stop the criminals with their legally obtained firearms! As we all know they’re sticklers for the rule and paperwork.
Hmmm those with criminal intent will break the law anyway, so yeah, let’s waste more time and money on doing this 👍
How much tighter you want it? It’s already a vice grip… these guns are coming in by boat, have non of you watched top boy ?!!!?!? It literally is exactly the same! The London estates are filled to the brim with guns!
We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Whoever’s calling for stricter ones can fuck right off.
Was the gun a legally owned gun?
Apart from farmers I knew growing up in the countryside I know no one who owns a gun. What percentage of gun crime is committed with legally owned guns? I can’t really think of any I’ve heard of.
Seems a bit daft, our gun laws seem fine.
Ah yes tighter control on leagaly owned and licences firearms will surly stop those that obtain and use them illegally.
For a nation with the second strictest gun control laws and one of the lowest legally owed firearms used in a crime in the world what else can you do to stop criminals obtaining them.
How can gun laws get any tighter, working great already aren’t they, that weapon was likely an illegal firearm
Our politics being constantly Americanised leads to stupid takes like this.
How about you crack down on Colombian drug cartels?
I forgot what sub I was on and immediately assumed America, I admit I’m not the most knowledgeable on gun control laws here, but as far as I’m aware they’re pretty hard to get your hands on. Legally at least.
No way was that shotgun obtained legally, I would be interested to hear otherwise. Would you really jump through all the hoops to own a shotgun just to fire it at someone? It’s way easier to get one illegally if you just want to use it for crime. Also, firearms related homicides are absurdly low in the UK it seems silly to think regulating law abiding citizens will prevent illegal gun circulation, look what the war of drugs achieved…
What’s going on here? Who the hell shoots up a funeral of someone who died of leukaemia? The article is completely silent on motive.
Tighter gun laws are good, but there’s no discussion of where this gun has come from, or of the societal problems that led to this. You can ban all the guns you want, but if these gang conflicts are ignored (and underlying poverty not alleviated) then it’ll just keep happening. The weapon will be different, the place might change, but it will keep happening
Other than tighter controls on ammunition, (which are already pretty tight) I can’t really see this doing much to help
Nothing more effective than a poorly thought out, knee jerk legislation
I’m pretty sure the gunman didn’t give a toss about any laws. Tighter gun controls just makes life more difficult for those who are law abiding. The current gun laws in the UK seem to be pretty good on the whole. The shooter is guilty of breaking those already in place. It’s catching criminals that needs improvement. This is just the government trying to look like it’s doing something, when it actually, in a practical sense, isn’t.
Agree with the licensing argument already laid out in the comments. The overwhelming majority of legally held firearms aren’t used for criminal purposes. Banning all guns wouldn’t stop criminals using them.
This’ll only affect the law abiding citizens who have to jump through enough hoops as it is
Well thats Labour loosing any chance of my vote then which honestly is a massive shame because now I dont have anyone to vote for.
Folk like me shooting some clays on the weekends arnt contributing in any way to cartel murders.
We dont need tighter gun regulation, we need to admit that we are loosing controll of orginised crime in this country. Time to stop arresting people for what they write on twitter and go after the scary more effort, requiring you to leave the office to deal with criminals.
There seems to be this knee jerk reaction every time there is gun crime in Britain with a politician wanting a sound bite but very rarely say what they will do or how it will prevent crime.
Keir states “But other people, where better checks should be taken over circulation of guns…
So I think that we need to look again as to whether those laws are strong enough.”
You currently require two referees of good standing who must have known you personally for at least two years and must be resident in Great Britain. You also need sign off from your registered GP to say you are of sound mental wellbeing. A firearms officer will also visit your property to interview you, see your living arrangements and check you have a secure gun cabinet suitable for storing them. This is for both shotgun certs and firearms licences, but with the later you also need prove you have need for a rifle, such as being a member of a target shooting or hunting club ect (it is down to the discretion of the fire arms officer and chief of your local police whether they will grant the cert, so the more evidence you can provide the better).
Is Keir suggesting you need three referees rather than two to prevent these shooting? Or that GPs are not capable of declaring whether you are of sound mind? Or that the firearms officers are not doing sufficient checks and should do two interviews not one? I’m not sure what more checks in the licensing process can be put in to prevent a criminal with a gun using it for nefarious purposes.
We already have very strict gun licencing in place and as a result have very little gun crime. But Unfortuanly there will always be bad people out there willing to hurt other people, if it wasn’t a shot gun it would of been a Knife or a truck ramming the crowd or something equally lethal
EDIT: I actually listened to the LBC clip and they, being they love click bait, asked him the question knowing full well that whatever he says will get attention. His response suggests he doesn’t really have a clue what he thinks and he’s just trying to blag his way onto the next question. Other than a vague comment about certain guns not being suitable for the public, he didn’t set out any policy and he’s kept his options open.
Laws are already pretty tight. Don’t think tighter laws would have prevented this.
Do we even know if the gun was legally owned or not?
Seems a bit premature calling for tighter gun control in response to an incident if it is not immediately clear if tighter gun control would have prevented it.
Heres an idea, go after the criminals, and tighten our border security to stop guns coming in
Not being uncaring but haven’t we already got like the toughest gun controls of any country ?
When will people realise that banning != Disappearing
Most guns on the street are illegal. I highly doubt crimes are done with legal guns.
Just what we need. More knee-jerk reactions to tragic events to cover up for the fact that the police are not effectively doing their jobs… again.
Stop trying to Americanise us, Keir. Was this a legally obtained gun? I think not.
This seems a little pre-emptive of Starmer to me. Gun laws in the UK are extremely tight. In fact, I have a policeman coming to my house later this week to inspect my gun cabinet and interview me so they can consider whether I should be allowed to buy one – they’ll want to know where I shoot, why I am shooting, etc. They’ve already had access to my medical records, a report from my doctor, my (lack of) criminal record etc. The police will specify the calibre of firearm you’re allowed to buy and the quantity of ammunition you’re allowed to hold at anyone time. All purchases are recorded so the holder of the firearms certificate is accountable for what they have.
Here Starmer has no idea if this firearm is legally held or not. Plus, shotguns are regulated in a different way to other firearms, which makes using a crime involving one a sign that firearm law needs reforming a bit problematic. With a shotguy the police have to give a reason for refusing a permit. With any other firearm, it’s up to the person who wants one to positively prove that they have a good reason for buying one AND to prove that they are actually shooting regularly. If you can’t prove that you regularly use your gun then you will lose it!
Crimes like this aren’t being committed using legal/registered guns.
I am pretty anti-gun but tighter gun laws will have no impact whatsoever, those who own them legally aren’t doing drive-by shootings.
You won’t like to here this but tighter gun laws only affects legally held weapons.why don’t we ban football or cricket or fishing in fact let’s draw up a list off things we enjoy and ban all of them.
Criminal gun holders don’t give a flying …k about the law it 5 years for illegal posetion before it is fired.