In light of the shooting dead of four people in Peterlee; do you think that the right of private ownership should be revoked?
Chat Forum
Private ownership of firearms
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
No.
Next?
Posted 4 months ago # -
No.
/ thread
Posted 4 months ago # -
No...
Posted 4 months ago # -
No.
How many die of Alcohol every year... & that's still legal.
Yes, there are a few mutters out there, but, you can't tar them all with the same brush.
Posted 4 months ago # -
No
Any other questions?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Yes
Recent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
Posted 4 months ago # -
Yes
Recent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
So "No", then.
Posted 4 months ago # -
No.
Largely for pragmatic reasons. How would people like gamekeepers function?Posted 4 months ago # -
Posted 4 months ago #
-
...do you think that the right of private ownership should be revoked?
not automatically.
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual, exhaustive, definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.
same for car-owners of course...
Largely for pragmatic reasons. How would people like gamekeepers function?
what function do gamekeepers serve?
other than shooting hen harriers?*(*my mistake, that's what Prince Harry is for)
Posted 4 months ago # -
no
Posted 4 months ago # -
Personally, I think that by token of the fact a person wants to have a gun they should be barred from having one. Seesm self evident to me.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Why should the people that enjoy shooting as a sport be penalised for the actions of a couple of people? Where will I get my free pheasants, geese and woodcock?
Posted 4 months ago # -
TJ:
Recent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
Have there been many recently then?
Posted 4 months ago # -
So the shooter in this case ws a gamekeeper was he? Or actually a violent fantasist who should never have been anywhere near a gun?
Everyone of these sort of rare incidents have been legally held guns by people clearly unfit to hold the guns and without any good reason for having them.
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
Posted 4 months ago # -
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.
same for car-owners of course...
And those with motorbikes, I trust? After all, that's just fulfilling a dangerous fantasy as well, isn't it? I mean no one NEEDS a motorbike do they? Especially not if they flout the legal speed limits.....
I'd be more than happy to have an "an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test" to keep my guns. At the moment, it's a five year certificate, so why not change that to a one year. Sounds fine to me.
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool.
Mine are tools. I use them to shoot birds. I then eat said birds. (Going to try that honey and ginger pheasant soon....!)Posted 4 months ago # -
I've got two guns, and permission for two more, and I've not shot anyone (yet) -
That should be more than enough information to form your opinions on
Posted 4 months ago # -
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Isn't shooting a sport...Posted 4 months ago # -
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.
Well that rules out farmers and game keepers as gun holders for a start
Posted 4 months ago # -
No - this is my life to live as I wish.
IF I want to own firearms then I should be able to - just because people have changed from 'reasonable and responsible' to 'depressed and dangerous' is no reason to deny the majority the use of a firearm.
The system has to improve (to notice the change) and we have to accept that occasionally even the best system will fail.
"from my cold dead hand!!"
Posted 4 months ago # -
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
Shooting a clay pigeon target is hardly "filling fantasy", and as a meat-eater I find it hard to think of any real objection to managed hunting.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Bear in mind, that the recent stigmatisation of mental health problems regarding anyone in the shooting community, means that people will be less likley to ask for help for fear of losing their sport, which clearly only makes things worse...
Posted 4 months ago # -
And those with motorbikes, I trust?
no, actually.
Motorcyclists are already very effective at testing themselves voluntarily, and those that don't pass the 'definitely-not-a-nutter' test provide a useful supply of donor organs...
(which is of course desperately sad for the family of the motorcyclist
)i like a plum and chorizo stuffing with pheasant, the bird should be well dowsed in red wine during roasting.
Posted 4 months ago # -
What's needed is a simple dna test, to see how much similarity an applicant has with this chap.
Posted 4 months ago # -
TJ - you don't get a firearms certificate unless you can satisfy the authorities that it is for legitimate reasons (which can include sporting). I don't think fantasy fulfilment is one of the recognised criteria.
As for "clearly unfit to hold the guns", easy to say with hindsight, isn't it? Perhaps less "clearly" this time last week...
Again I ask, as you reiterate "every one" - perhaps you have the evidence to humiliate me, but my perception is that the vast majority of gun crime (including, of course, murders) is committed using illegally held guns. The only legal ones I can think of in the last couple of years in fact is this one and before that that cabbie in Cumbria.
So, stats????
Posted 4 months ago # -
While we wait TJ, i don't think the guy charged with the Indian student was a legal holder. Not prejudicing his trial, but assuming for a moment that he's guilty, your assertion that these murders are entirely the work of those legally allowed to hold guns doesn't hold water for the past fortnight....
Posted 4 months ago # -
Edlong - thats the two recent ones - of people going on the rampage and killing multiple people
As for the violent fantasists - you only have to look at the people who claim to own guns on here.
Of course its all about violent fantasies. No one with a decent set of morals would ever hold a gun except as a real tool - and killing things for fun is not utility its a sickening indictment of their faulty morality
Posted 4 months ago # -
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
that rules out most of the soldiers in the world then.Posted 4 months ago # -
edlong - Member
TJ - you don't get a firearms certificate unless you can satisfy the authorities that it is for legitimate reasons (which can include sporting). I don't think fantasy fulfilment is one of the recognised criteria.
And its so clearly rigorous and keeps out the violent fantasists
Posted 4 months ago # -
As for the violent fantasists - you only have to look at the people who claim to own guns on here.
What's your point, caller? Violent? Nope. Fantasist? Well yes, but none of my fantasies involve guns, and besides, they're none of your business.
Legally held motorbikes kill hundreds of people every year. Ban them. Ban them now! etc....
Posted 4 months ago # -
I agree with TJ here - if I had a gun I would shoot TJ so it is clearly safer not to let me own one.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Normallt, TJ, I'd humour you. However, on this occasion, you are being a dull troll and talking utter rubbish. Please stop now and go outside for a bit.
Posted 4 months ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
arghh the Liberal (so called) middle class and Troll. Do you work? as you appear to be on this site all day everyday. Maybe they have a "liberal" usage policy for the internet where you work?
YesRecent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
So everyone who holds a license and isn't a farmer is potential (or is it probable?)murderer because they hold a license? Wow that is one hell of generalization. Just like saying all Muslims are potential child molester or all blacks are drug dealers. Genrealizations seems are ok with the liberal middle class when it suits them. Farmers make a huge amount of money from pheasant shooting etc a massive boost to the rural economy which is riseing year on year. Provide jobs in rural comunity when farm labouring jobs are disapearing with constant mechanisation. By the way 3,000 die on the road every year. The bigger the reduction in speed will always reduce the death rate......Something the vast majority of the anti gun loby would go up the wall over. You really need to be less of a hypocrite and get your priorities right PS There are many more murders by ilegal held guns.Posted 4 months ago # -
What is is with Northern taxi drivers and guns? Derek Bird and now this
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
