Staple balls
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
How many people do you think would have been killed at Columbine if the killed had been armed with a plank of wood or a golf club ?????
More than if there was a few trusted adults on hand with something able to neutralise the threat?
|
|
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:14 PM |
|
|
I used to shoot pistols before Dunblaine. Then the knee jerk reaction was 'all guns are bad, all people that shoot must be bad, lets ban
them'.
Unfortunatly this has NOT stopped shootings from happening. It never will.
There ARE things that everyday people can use to kill people. These things are used. Banning guns of whatever sort will not stop these things
happening. Which is a real shame.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
The next comment is NOT intended to be read as an excuse not to ban guns. But every year 3,000 people are killed by drink drivers.
An item that anyone can get hold of easily, whether you have a driving license or not. Yet what measures are taken to reduce those deaths? TV adverts.
Imagine if 15 years ago guns were not banned yet instead drink driving was somehow erradicated. How many more people would be alive today.
As said, don't read too much into that. The families of todays victims will be totally devastated. But banning shotguns will not make a
difference to their grief.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:33 PM |
|
|
I guess there's an argument to be had regarding 'mad' or 'bad' when talking about illegal firearm use.
'Bad' people tend to use guns to shoot other 'bad' people, or in the commission of individual criminal acts whereby the odd
decent spud gets shot. These guns are not legally held.
'Mad' people tend to use guns to commit suicide, or if they've really lost the plot, then to shoot as many people within a group who
they feel has 'aggrieved' them in some way, and then commit suicide. These people are called 'Spree-Killers'. Their guns are
almost always legally held.
Logic dictates that as long as guns are available - legally, or otherwise - then we will continue to have these sorts of incidents. Personally, I
think that we should cut down on the number of legally held firearms to livestock farmers and gamekeepers only.
I understand that shooting is a very popular sport and I see no reason why it couldn't continue - I would however probably want
sporting-firearms owned by and kept at a shooting club.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
Sorry but there's no excuse or justification for owning a gun...... or any other dedicated weapon come to that. 
So a farmer isn't allowed to defend his animals from predators? No archery, no fencing, no medieval reconstructions?
|
|
|
tony-devon
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
the storing at a club thing is as far as I am aware, actually not the route that the firearms licencing people want to go down the route of
I have had a bit of a work out and in my opinion if all the members of the club that I attend kept their ammo and firearms at the club, not only would
this massively increase costs, but this aside, it would mean that in one concentrated place you would probably have in the region of 800-1000 rifles,
long barreled revolvers and pistols, and black powder revolvers etc etc, and 100,000's of rounds of ammunition
not such a good idea when its look at like that.
heavy is good, heavy is reliable, and if it breaks, hit them with it
|
|
|
turbodisplay
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 04:12 PM |
|
|
Picture is worth a thousand words:
 
Description
Darren
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
morcus
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
Beaten to it, I was gonna say with all this talk of Switzerland that I was under the impression they had the highest gun death rate of any country in
the world. Also the thing about making guns legal reducing crime is rubbish. If guns were easy to get hold of then you wouldn't go burgling
without one, then you end up in a situation with either just the criminal being armed or having two armed people shooting it out in a small place
which will end in serious injuries.
I dissagree with the earlier comment that its a good thing he killed himself. To me that means he won. People moan alot about our legal system and say
people aren't treated harshly enough but had he been caught theres no way he would have gotten away with an easy punishment.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 05:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
I dissagree with the earlier comment that its a good thing he killed himself. To me that means he won.
Agreed...
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
james h
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
Some guns but not many are kept at ranges.
To expect all shooters to keep their rifles at ranges is like asking people with sportscars to keep them all in one car park. Would you want to travel
all the way to the car park to drive your car? Do firearms or cars actually cause more deaths per year?
Keeping £££s of kit and ammo in one place is not only going to be expensive for the very poorly funded clubs but an extremely attractive target to
thieves.
No matter how much legislation is put in place, if someone wants to get a gun they will do. And they are needed anyway for pest control, as well as a
deterrent.
My grandad who was an army pistol champion (and trained the olympic team at one point) had to give up his absolute pride and joy after Dunblaine, and
it was horrible for him to have to send away his pride and joy to be decommisioned. Very much like seeing your car crushed, even though you had never
broken any motoring laws.
Let's hope there isn't a knee jerk reaction this time...
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by james h
Some guns but not many are kept at ranges.
To expect all shooters to keep their rifles at ranges is like asking people with sportscars to keep them all in one car park. Would you want to travel
all the way to the car park to drive your car? Do firearms or cars actually cause more deaths per year?
Keeping £££s of kit and ammo in one place is not only going to be expensive for the very poorly funded clubs but an extremely attractive target to
thieves.
No matter how much legislation is put in place, if someone wants to get a gun they will do. And they are needed anyway for pest control, as well as a
deterrent.
My grandad who was an army pistol champion (and trained the olympic team at one point) had to give up his absolute pride and joy after Dunblaine, and
it was horrible for him to have to send away his pride and joy to be decommisioned. Very much like seeing your car crushed, even though you had never
broken any motoring laws.
Let's hope there isn't a knee jerk reaction this time...
My sentiments exactly.
Sounds like the guns were a .22 rifle and a shotgun. Both legally owned. Therefore he had been through the legal requirements - perhaps the best that
will happen is a tightening up of the issue of new licences but not to the extent that it ruins a lot of peoples hobby.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
I disagree with your analogy, it would be more akin to making you leave a track car at a track which would make sense. If you only use a gun at a
range, why bring it home? Having weapons where you can access them without other people knowing about it is dangerous, for you and others. What
happens the one day that you get pissed or someone pushes you over the edge? or when you wake up in the night and think theres someone in your house?
I like alot of people have on very few occaisions flipped out and done stupid things (Like stopping in front of a huge lorry driver and treatening to
smash his face in, I'm lucky there was someone with me who managed to diffuse things) and there are times where had I had a gun there could have
been very serious consequences.
You might argue that you'll never do something like that, but you don't know and never will.
For the Record I think the current legislation makes sense even if there are alot of illegal guns about.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by james h
My grandad who was an army pistol champion (and trained the olympic team at one point) had to give up his absolute pride and joy after Dunblane, and
it was horrible for him to have to send away his pride and joy to be decommissioned.
Let's hope there isn't a knee jerk reaction this time...
Horrible?
'Horrible' is walking through the gym-hall in a rural Scottish primary school shortly after a deranged local with legally held hand-guns
had just waltzed through it and had shot sixteen kids and their teacher dead.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
Total is now up to 12 dead (plus himself) 25 injured This will raise a lot of questions about gun ownership if he acquired them legally. It's
everybody's legal right to own a shotgun at the moment and the police have to grant you a certificate if you apply unless there are serious
medical or mental grounds not to.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
james h
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by james h
My grandad who was an army pistol champion (and trained the olympic team at one point) had to give up his absolute pride and joy after Dunblane, and
it was horrible for him to have to send away his pride and joy to be decommissioned.
Let's hope there isn't a knee jerk reaction this time...
Horrible?
'Horrible' is walking through the gym-hall in a rural Scottish primary school shortly after a deranged local with legally held hand-guns
had just waltzed through it and had shot sixteen kids and their teacher dead.
Yes it is horrible, what is your point?
If a deranged local had just waltzed through it and had shot sixteen kids and their teacher dead, do you think said deranged local is going to fussed
about whether his gun was legal or not?
|
|
|
james h
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
I disagree with your analogy, it would be more akin to making you leave a track car at a track which would make sense. If you only use a gun at a
range, why bring it home? Having weapons where you can access them without other people knowing about it is dangerous, for you and others. What
happens the one day that you get pissed or someone pushes you over the edge? or when you wake up in the night and think theres someone in your house?
I like alot of people have on very few occaisions flipped out and done stupid things (Like stopping in front of a huge lorry driver and treatening to
smash his face in, I'm lucky there was someone with me who managed to diffuse things) and there are times where had I had a gun there could have
been very serious consequences.
You might argue that you'll never do something like that, but you don't know and never will.
For the Record I think the current legislation makes sense even if there are alot of illegal guns about.
I appreciate the point re my analogy, but most people do bring rifles home. It is impractical to store so many rifles at a range. Plus you need to
maintain and look after them, and if you have a competition to go to, you can't just open the range up willy nilly to get the rifle.
With regards to storage at home, by the time you have managed to get to the gun cabinet, open it, put in the bolt and attached the sights, open the
separate part for the ammo and load, any intruder would have buggered off or nicked everything by then! Or you would be in no state to do the above.
Plus most people who do have rifles that I know would rather not confront intruders anyway.
What has happened is of course terrible but if someone is determined to do damage, then they will do.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
The point I'm making is this... it's a 'bit-of-a-shame' for your Grandad to have to deactivate his handgun - it's not
'horrible'!
The facts are straightforward... Hungerford (16 murdered)... Dunblane (17 murdered)... both perpetrated by nutters with legally held
firearms!
And now Cumbria... 12 murdered. Details not yet clear, but I'll say there's more than a fair chance that Derrick Bird used legally
registered firearms!
Tell me the last time there was a 'spree-killing' in the UK that didn't involve legally registered firearms...
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
dinosaurjuice
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
this guy left his house with the intent to kill people. that in itself is more dangerous than owning a gun.
edit: im very against people owning guns without reason. im not trying to defend people who think they have a good reasons to keep something designed
for the sole purpose of killing stuff, without a damn good reason.
[Edited on 2/6/10 by dinosaurjuice]
|
|
|
silky16v
|
| posted on 2/6/10 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
un-believable what has happened i'm speechless 1 of the shooting was 400yrds from my house and my mate was on the taxi rank when the taxi driver
was killed
[Edited on 2/6/10 by silky16v]
|
|
|
james h
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 12:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The point I'm making is this... it's a 'bit-of-a-shame' for your Grandad to have to deactivate his handgun - it's not
'horrible'!
The facts are straightforward... Hungerford (16 murdered)... Dunblane (17 murdered)... both perpetrated by nutters with legally held
firearms!
And now Cumbria... 12 murdered. Details not yet clear, but I'll say there's more than a fair chance that Derrick Bird used legally
registered firearms!
Tell me the last time there was a 'spree-killing' in the UK that didn't involve legally registered firearms...
Ok I think we are a bit into semantics here, of course these things are not on the same level of 'horribleness'. All these killings are
indeed tragic and horrific. Having a gun decomissioned is not even comparable of course.
It is important to remember that correlation does not equal causation with regards to legally held firearms and such tragedies, although you may be
correct in your assumption as I don't have access to the vital statistics.
What I don't want to see is the typical government response to such things. Careful consideration of the facts is needed, not something which is
just to placate the media. Target shooting is a heritage and a fantastic sport in this country, and we should try our best to encourage our young
marksmen/women.
Philosophically at least, target shooting is like the javelin - both have arisen out of survival, it just so happens that using a firearm is the more
modern method. It only takes one nutter to paint the rest of us with the same brush, unfortunately.
I can't say there won't be another killing by someone with a gun, but I would suggest that the vast, vast majority that are use illegally
held firearms, and that they far outnumber the number killed by those in the few killing sprees as mentioned. (Not that that will matter to friends
and relatives of the victims). Owning a gun and being a killer is a non sequitur despite what many think.
Anyway, all I am really trying to say is that if tighter control is needed, then so be it, but at the level we have now, I can't see it making
any difference.
If you want a firearms certificate, you must have a clean criminal record and your house, yourself and your gun cabinet is inspected by a local
firearms officer. How can anyone prevent someone from snapping and going crazy with a gun, once they have passed the satisfation of the aforementioned
firearms officer? Maybe if there was access to psychological records, but this is not going to happen realistically.
I sincerely hope that I shall be able to continue shooting for both my university and plain enjoyment without having to endure an unjustified ban on
something which is a hobby and a sport that I enjoy greatly.
|
|
|
tony-devon
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 06:14 AM |
|
|
I certainly hope there isnt a ban, will cost the government a fortune in one way or another, compensation for equipement, and all the unemployed
people as a result
the last ban did nothing but put more guns into the hands of criminals and create the fear of guns that we have today in this country
heavy is good, heavy is reliable, and if it breaks, hit them with it
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 09:10 AM |
|
|
terrible ........... no words come close to how sad this is .......... i hope he took a while to die and he felt regret and pain for what he
had just done
|
|
|
55ant
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
this guy left his house with the intent to kill people. that in itself is more dangerous than owning a gun.
agree. he was the cause, what happened is awfull, no one will argue it isnt an absolutey horrible situation. Without the gun it may have been a
differant story, but similar outcome.
away from cars, now cycling and building TT bikes
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
snip
The facts are straightforward... Hungerford (16 murdered)... Dunblane (17 murdered)... both perpetrated by nutters with legally held
firearms!
And now Cumbria... 12 murdered. Details not yet clear, but I'll say there's more than a fair chance that Derrick Bird used legally
registered firearms!
Tell me the last time there was a 'spree-killing' in the UK that didn't involve legally registered firearms...
Also add another one that has been forgotten even locally about 25 years back a guy who worked in Bothwell Bridge sewage treatment plant in
Hamilton went postal --- can't remember how many he killed istr 5.
[Edited on 3/6/10 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 3/6/10 at 08:10 PM |
|
|
So when will the media blame-game start? Who will be the first to get the sack?
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
