Why the Uk is a better country to own a gun in than the United States

[A Guy Out West]

The purpose of this thread is to show why the UK is still a great country for shooters.

UK advantages

In the UK you get permission for a moderator/suppressor for pretty much any rifle without additional cost. In the US you have to pay a $200 tax stamp for every mod you own and - horror of horrors - you have to undergo background checks. This may seem like a minor advantage but I ruined my hearing in my left ear from shooting an unmoderated 17 Remington when I was in my twenties.

In the UK only serious people with a legitimate reason to own a gun have a gun. In the US, everyone has a gun.

In the UK firearms are locked up. In the US firearms are keep handy at all times for “home defence”.

In the UK people in gun shops know a lot about guns and shooting, whereas in the US working in a gun shop is just another job and I often find the person serving me knows very little about the products they sell.

In the UK there is no bag limit. If I want to shoot 1000 deer (in the appropriate season) I can. In the US, there will be a bag limit or tag limiting you often to only one animal.

I can go on, but it’s your turn. Also hopefully some of our friends across the pond can tell me why I’m wrong.

Clueless.

 

[A Guy Out West]

I am not sure about this, and I suggest there is a lot of greener on the other side of the fence. My views on America are from good friends, colleagues, clients and business, together with reading and huge of American hunting literature and follow the likes of Randy Newberg, Craig Boddington, etc on YouTube. I have not been to the US. But what is clear to me is the US is a collection of very different states developed by peoples of very different backgrounds and cultures, with many of those original cultures still very close to the surface.

I have though lived and worked in parts of Africa threat of violence from gangsters armed with AKs and Pangas is high and slept with a loaded shotgun next to my bed for this reason. I was going to make my life in Africa, but have now spent the majority of my life in Scotland.

Weapons of war vs Sporting guns. I have little interest in the former, but a huge interest in the latter. I can appreciate the engineering and inventiveness of the likes Henry, Mauser, Browning, Luger, Maxim etc etc but don’t feel the need to possess an FN FAL or a Glock, nor do I feel aggrieved that I am unable to freely walk down Princess Street in Edinburgh with a fully loaded AR waving my 2nd Amendment rights like a MAGA supporter.

I quite like living in a society where the Police are not routinely armed and if I have a minor road accident its very likely I will be threatened with a firearm with the other driver being terrified that I might be about to threaten him.

Coming back to hunting. The US can thank Theodore Roosevelt. He was a hunter and who loved wild spaces. It was him who really laid the foundations politically the wide access to wild lands that the Americans now enjoy. It may have been that many species in the US went from huge abundance to extinction (or at least extinct in most of their former range) in a very short space of time - 10 to 20 years to wipe out Buffalo and Elk herds in most of the US. Wildfowl and pigeons were shot in vast numbers by market hunters.

In the US hunting seems to be very much part of the culture, and thanks to the US Fish and Wildlife, and State game departments, there are now thriving game populations across most of the country, and through a controlled tag system hunters of comparatively modest means can get a tag or two and go on their own adventure and take a deer or two for their own consumption. And ditto with wildfowl etc. Private land has different levels of access and very much depends on where you are.

In the UK we have limited public access for hunting. It really only exists below the high tide mark on the foreshore after wildfowl. But even this has been severely restricted. Up here for £25 I can get a wildfowling permit for a large area of foreshore and I am free to go and lie in the mud after duck and geese. No bag limit per se - nature takes care of that.

Just about all the land in the UK is privately owned or managed. There is common land in many parts, but this jointly managed / owned by commoners. Forestry Scotland is owned and managed by the Scottish Ministers.

So for deer stalker there are really only two choices:

1) you go all in - stalking takes over your life and you fully commit to managing quite large areas, or pay lots of money to do so. Number of deer you “have to” shoot is measured in the tens if not hundreds per year. For most of us, such all in is pretty much impossible thanks to careers, families and other interests / obligations.

2) you take the odd day of guided stalking. Typically you pay a few hundred pounds to follow somebody else around the countryside on their “permission” or “estate” and shoot what they tell you to. Some guides and estates are very good others are not.

Or you shoot game birds as part of a shoot or syndicate.

What we don’t have in the UK, which you do have in the US and mainland Europe are the accessible means for younger and less well off hunters to be able to spend a few days a year in the woods, mountains etc and taking one or two birds for their own consumption.

There is a constant concern that youngsters are not coming into stalking and shooting. For anybody with a family, demanding job and a mortgage or rent to pay most hunting activities have to take a back seat, whereas I think in the US going out hunting is more part of life - you go off to the mountains with a tent, your kids, a rifle and fishing rods and you have fun having first picked up a deer tag and fishing permit.

This is very well said. There are a few things that you don’t understand, but that’s understandable. In order for me to explain in detail how everything works would require a book and better writing skills than I possess. I will leave that to Cootmier.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Couple of points, one negative one positive.
First the positive, lately the approval process for moderators has improved dramatically with turn around times in weeks rather than months, and I have even heard of a few that were days….

Now the negative, we do have issues with hunter recruitment in the US often due to what you mention above about no casual gun buyers. If I have a clean record I can buy a gun in an hour or less, and the hunting license for small game or archery deer in the same amount of time. However, if I want to hunt big game it requires application for tags, and awaiting a drawing - and the process is often convoluted and not logical. Buying a waterfowl license is easy, but complying with the law is a challenge for a newcomer, with bag limits that vary greatly by species, and sometimes portion of the season. If a newbie wants to learn they either need a mentor or plan on getting a ticket for a legal violation as they sort the regulations. And regulations are set by each state, and in my case I currently have licenses for 5 states and must keep 5 sets of regulations in mind.

There is a perfect niche market for a dedicated smartphone app IMO.

 

[Jagare]

I don't doubt that the US is a easier country to own a gun than the UK. Is the UK a better country to hunt in than the US? The UK must be the only country where people talk about covering their costs or make money out of stalking, hunting. It's can be hard to get into stalking if you don't have connections or are willing to put in the work , beating, dog work, pest control,etc.
From what i've read, seen. American hunting can be first class if you put in the planning and the leg work on the ground. There are plenty of people who want to hunt in every country who want it handed to them on a plate.
I'll stick with hunting here in Sweden. I've got some reasonable quality guns in my cabinet , a shooting range minutes away from my house and it looks like every weekend of the coming hunting season hunting something,
Do I hanker after what hunting or gun ownership opportunities the US can offer? Not at all.
Plus stalking any time I want in the UK is only a phone call and plane ride away.
,

 

[NullMac]

These arguments are all fine as long as you don't look at the cost side of the equation. What price freedom?

There is a cultural difference between the two countries about firearms. The consequence of that is that the USA tolerates a mass shooting (4 or more dead) roughly roughly every day while the UK would not tolerate that. No judgement there, that's just how it is as a result of the history of each country.

If the Brits posting here are suggesting that we were wrong to bring in bans in response to 2 mass shootings then they are misaligned with the UK culture.

Bans don't work, they just persecute the law abiding and the criminals still just use whatever firearms they want, mostly smuggled in or made in a back alley workshop.

Sure they do, we have not had another mass shooting with semi auto's or handguns since Hungerford or Dunblane. The bans may not have eliminated all deaths for the reasons you identify but they have eliminated mass shootings.

Or if that doesn't float yer boat, how about "we have lost the war on drugs, decriminalise drugs now". Have a look at the consequences of that in the US and Canada.

Why do you think Islamic terrorists in the UK run about trying to stab people? The legislation make it very very hard for them to access firearms.

Bans work just fine, you just can't see the consequences of not having one in your everyday life.

If the UK stopped with it's ignorant obsession with bans and ceased blaming responsible firearms owners for the crimes of drug gangs and organised crime in England's big cities, things really wouldn't be all that bad in the UK.

Responsible firearms owners are not blamed or persecuted for the drugs gangs or organised crime. The major changes in firearms licensing have occurred because licensed holders have lost the plot big time and shot lots of innocent people. Responsible owners just have to deal with the consequences as our politicians care more about protecting the broader public than inconveniencing you or me.

 

[LeftHandGuy]

These arguments are all fine as long as you don't look at the cost side of the equation. What price freedom?

Fair question

the Brits posting here are suggesting that we were wrong to bring in bans in response to 2 mass shootings then they are misaligned with the UK culture.

Also fair. I am misaligned to UK culture and therefore I left it..

Sure they do, we have not had another mass shooting with semi auto's or handguns since Hungerford or Dunblane. The bans may not have eliminated all deaths for the reasons you identify but they have eliminated mass shootings.

That's a logical fallacy. Whilst the relative scarcity of firearms in the UK is surely part of the reason why they are involved in fewer criminal acts of all types. But the incidence of mass shootings before the bans was statistically insignificant anyway. Neither have legally held firearms in NI been implicated in mass shootings in the period since they were banned in the mainland but not there.

Can you identify a single instance of a ban of anything that has not simply created an unregulated black market for the same thing?

Or if that doesn't float yer boat, how about "we have lost the war on drugs, decriminalise drugs now". Have a look at the consequences of that in the US and Canada.

Or have a look at how it's worked in Portugal and Switzerland. Anything can be set up to fail.

Why do you think Islamic terrorists in the UK run about trying to stab people? The legislation make it very very hard for them to access firearms.

Partly. EOTD terrorists are rarely competent soldiers and tend to rely on the easiest improvised weapons they can acquire.

Bans work just fine, you just can't see the consequences of not having one in your everyday life.

Really? Almost by definition, whenever something once legal is banned, it is precisely the law abiding who are penalized.

Responsible firearms owners are not blamed or persecuted for the drugs gangs or organised crime.

They might not be blamed, they are certainly penalized.

The major changes in firearms licensing have occurred because licensed holders have lost the plot big time and shot lots of innocent people.

Not sure that's true either, although I would accept that Hungerford and Dunblane were directly responsible for two of the most repressive and excessive changes.

Responsible owners just have to deal with the consequences as our politicians care more about protecting the broader public

No. They care about tabloid headlines and votes. They are terrified of being accused of "doing nothing".

than inconveniencing you or me.

As a legal firearms owner, especially as one who enjoys using your firearms, you are a useful scapegoat. An unpopular minority with a convenient whiff of privilege.

The UK is a great place to stalk deer, and a place with a great shooting history and heritage. It's a little disheartening to see it being so readily sacrificed for so little.

 

[Cootmeurer]

There is a perfect niche market for a dedicated smartphone app IMO.

We have smartphone apps like that for fishing, but fish can be caught and released. Rather hard to release a duck after being brought to hand.

 

[Cootmeurer]

These arguments are all fine as long as you don't look at the cost side of the equation. What price freedom?

There is a cultural difference between the two countries about firearms. The consequence of that is that the USA tolerates a mass shooting (4 or more dead) roughly roughly every day while the UK would not tolerate that. No judgement there, that's just how it is as a result of the history of each country.

Not sure where you have gotten that stat, but you need a new source.

Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2023 | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has designated 48 shootings in 2023 as active shooter incidents. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

www.fbi.gov

According to the FBI, we only had 48 active shooter incidents in the US in 2023, with only 105 fatalities. That’s hardly “roughly every day”. Also, comtrary to the media portrayal, these predominantly committed with handguns.

At least 98% of America is as safe or safer than the UK. However, in that 2% area violence is nearly guaranteed. It’s very much a cultural/socio-economic pattern and I’ve yet to see anyone on any portion of the political spectrum find and implement an effective solution.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Not sure where you have gotten that stat, but you need a new source.

Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2023 | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has designated 48 shootings in 2023 as active shooter incidents. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

www.fbi.gov

According to the FBI, we only had 48 active shooter incidents in the US in 2023, with only 105 fatalities. That’s hardly “roughly every day”. Also, comtrary to the media portrayal, these predominantly committed with handguns.

At least 98% of America is as safe or safer than the UK. However, in that 2% area violence is nearly guaranteed. It’s very much a cultural/socio-economic pattern and I’ve yet to see anyone on any portion of the political spectrum find and implement an effective solution.

Take all the kids away at birth in these areas then fund a massive education programme for them with huge support for when they enter into normal society. A kind of enforced boarding school system but organised and run by angels. Would that cut off the snakes head of no future so lets do or sell drugs? Tough on the parents but, hey.

 

[palmer_mike]

Take all the kids away at birth in these areas then fund a massive education programme for them with huge support for when they enter into normal society. A kind of enforced boarding school system but organised and run by angels. Would that cut off the snakes head of no future so lets do or sell drugs? Tough on the parents but, hey.

Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar. Didn’t someone try something similar in Germany not so long ago?

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar. Didn’t someone try something similar in Germany not so long ago?

Do you have any better ideas?
USA first nations it was done, Canada with Inuit's it was done, Australia with Aborigines it was done. I don't know if it would work but the massive under investment in poor areas of the USA is like a cancer, it just keeps growing.

 

[palmer_mike]

Do you have any better ideas?
USA first nations it was done, Canada with Inuit's it was done, Australia with Aborigines it was done. I don't know if it would work but the massive under investment in poor areas of the USA is like a cancer, it just keeps growing.

Your three examples are pretty much universally acknowledged as deeply regrettable and abhorrent episodes of history.

 

[dogone]

Yes : we in Canada have a history of abusing indigenous peoples. BUT ; because of their culture and history of hunting they are helping maintain the ownership of firearms. They have a right to have firearms to hunt and this certainly helps white folk keep theirs.
Some tribes are even given crates of ammunition by Mounties. It is an annual tradition based on their treaties giving them the right to hunt and fish.