[Closed] FFS - less than a day and the "tighten the gun laws" knee-jerk starts...

You can't have a sweeping statement that says no one should be allowed a gun and all guns should be illegal. As demonstrated by some on this thread, some people have a genuine need to have a gun.

For me personally when i go hiking out in the Mountains I take my rifle and to that matter a hunting knife with me too. Its a matter of necessity rather than not. Doesn't mean I am going to shoot every camper or hiker i come across.

I'm assuming those mountains are not in the UK LHS. I can't imagine a reason of necessity to carry either whilst [b]hiking [/b]in the UK.

obviously when someone goes out and kills lots of people with a gun then people will suggest we should curb gun ownership. Why be so surprised about this as it seems likely he would not have done these acts to the degree he did without legally held guns.
I am sure the majority of gun owners are responsible etc but no one caqn really argue that guns are verty effective at killing/harming people.

For me personally when i go hiking out in the Mountains I take my rifle and to that matter a hunting knife with me too. Its a matter of necessity rather than not. Doesn't mean I am going to shoot every camper or hiker i come across.

Which mountains? What is the threat to your safety that requires you to carry a gun?

It was that experience that leads me to support any legislation to further restrict access to firearms of any nature, statistics can be made to support any argument and are pretty pointless.

+1 oh except for their use by Farmers in Biathlons of course 🙄

No, not in the UK. There isn't anything dangerous or that can eat you right?

[i]Which mountains? What is the threat to your safety that requires you to carry a gun? [/i]

[img] [/img]

Wombats. The most dangerous animal on earth.

Its a matter of necessity rather than not

So where do you walk and why is it necessary to carry a firearm and a knife?

Well if not in the UK, I'm not sure what your input added to a discussion on gun control in the [b]UK[/b] given that self protection from wild animals is not really a valid reason to carry here.

Also if you walk in mountains abroad, how do you get there with your gun?

I live between the UK and the US so my input is as Valid if not more so due to experiences on both sides. Gun ownership is a lot different in England yes, but i still believe that there are people over here who have a right to own a gun as highlighted by others, farmers etc.

+1 oh except for their use by Farmers in Biathlons of course

I think some of the "humour" and other intemperence is a bit misplaced given the circumstances.

I think some of the "humour" and other intemperence is a bit misplaced given the circumstances.

I dont find it funny so theres no need to come over all sanctimonious.

I dont find it funny so theres no need to come over all sanctimonious.

So you shouldn't need reminding that this isn't a laughing matter.

Who's laughing? dont be such an ars*

The word "necessity" only really covers those that need firearms for pest control reasons in the UK, including I guess controlling numbers of deer in the wild etc. Those people are reasonably easy to identify I would imagine. Everybody else than "needs" should really be reclassified as "wants" a weapon as it is purely for recreational purposes. The larger (and omnipresent, not just after a tragedy like this) question is should society at large tolerate the larger legal proliferation of weapons outside of those with "necessity" merely to feed the recreational habits of a few.

The Pandoras box of gun ownership is well & truly open now we have to deal with it - wringings ones hands & crying "shame" is pointless. We have to deal with the reality that guns ARE NOT going away!

ps convert stop being so small minded - next you will be telling me I cant have an opinion on 29ers cos I dont have one..

Suggesting that we shouldn't ban guns because people can be killed by other means seems to me to be a fairly dim argument.

It's hardly surprising that after a tragedy like this, people are questionning the effectiveness of current legislation, and whether it could have been prevented.

Thought the "farmers in biathlons" comment was inappropropriately flippant.

Clive Nutton

PS - I've not referred to you as an ars* or anything similar. That sort of personal abuse comes across a bit weak.

Not being small minded at all, I just find using an example of "need" or "necessity" that is irrelevant to the UK is well.. irrelevant to the discussion.

We have to deal with the reality that guns ARE NOT going away!

Maybe but that doesnt mean we should allow people to own then for recreation or some of the tenuous reasons outlined so far.

I own a gun in the US but not in the UK. I don't have a valid reason to own one in the UK, where as I do in the US.

In my personal opinion, and I know this is a massive point of contention, if I lived on a farm in the middle of wales / scotland etc I would want a gun for 2 reasons, a) pest control, and b) personal protection.

I know that point b) is contentious and I would never expect everyone to agree with me.

My point is that they are part of the fabric of society - recreation or otherwise..legal or illegal. What is your proposal for removing them?

convert sorry mate but the bloke has experience of gun ownership & therefore his input is valid.

My point is that they are part of the fabric of society - recreation or otherwise..legal or illegal. What is your proposal for removing them?

But lots of things are part of the "fabric" of society and they are also criminalised.
I dont think we should simply accept that they should therefore be widespread. From a relatively objective point of view I havent heard a valid reason why we should allow private ownership of guns. I dont accept the "vermin" "hunting" "defence" "hobby" arguments.

Not saying his input is not valid but the example is weak. The reason I find the point a little futile is that it blurs a very clear line in the UK which may not be the same in other regions of the world i.e. there is no recreational reason of [b]necessity [/b]to own a weapon in this country. LHS's reason maybe valid in the US where going for a wander in the wild might be dangerous but the debate is quite clearly different here.

And I do have some experience of weapons being ex services. My father still lives up in the Highlands and is a member of a shooting club (.22s target shooting in a community hall). I think he's probably the only non farmer who is a member and whisky seems to have far too much to do with an evening's activity!

On LHS's last post - whilst living in a extreme isolated location (I grew up in one) might seem very vulnerable I would imagine statistically you would be more at risk in parts of London or any other inner city. Would you want to carry there too? I guess that might be a cultural thing.

Oh I would love to live in a world where there are no guns but it aint gonna happen so we just have to live it..To say you dont accept the arguments isnt constructive - it is their position & to a certain extent they are vaild so we have to deal with them on that basis..To refute them utterly & not offer an alternative isnt helpful.

To refute them utterly & not offer an alternative isnt helpful.

I disagree, it gets to the heart of how we should implement a practical solution, ban them. I am not offering alternatives.
What is your solution? or do you not see private gun ownership as a problem?

Do you find that no-compromise position is helpful in life? 🙄

This is a very sad & tragic incident BUT it is extremely isolated so rather than ushering in the kind of ban you desire we need a more reasoned alternative. The majority of gun owners are responsible & safe.

They are responsible and safe as was this gun owner untill the terrible tragedy. The issue is whether the incident would or would not have happened if he did or did not have access to guns. I suspect [but I dont know for sure] it would not have oocured as I supect it is harder to kill someone face to face with your bare hands than using a gun.
Hard to know whether we should prevent the legitimate ownership of guns to prevent these rare occurances but I suspect most of us can see both points of view.

I disagree, it gets to the heart of how we should implement a practical solution, ban them. I am not offering alternatives.

Fortunately you don't have any real say in the matter. You obviously have no need for a gun being the mighty keyboard warrior that you are in the confines of your comfy office. Others have a very legitimate need for one, whether you like it or not 🙄

Do you find that no-compromise position is helpful in life?

On the whole no, and that is not what I am saying, I am advocating a ban for private ownership. We dont allow people to to partake in many criminal/dangerous activities in the UK, If we legislate against them in your words we dont "compromise"
I note you have not made a valid suggestion yet 🙄

There are occasions when guns should be legally held, armed forces, police etc so its not a ban on guns per se as there are instances where there existence could be beneficial.
My thoughts are not in response to this incident however I havent seen many opportunities to voice them on here in the past 🙄

Fortunately you don't have any real say in the matter. You obviously have no need for a gun being the mighty keyboard warrior that you are in the confines of your comfy office. Others have a very legitimate need for one, whether you like it or not

I do have a say, fortunatley. Given your criteria for owning one on the previous page I think your logic is flawed.

I have to be honest I dont have an alternative..Other than increased controls? My objection to your POV is the fact that you offered no ideas of your own other than a ban..An idea which I just dont see as being remotely workable in a practical sense..

best reason for owning a gun; the police response to your house is F-----g quick!

Given your criteria for owning one on the previous page I think your logic is flawed.

You have a say do you? Are you head of a government consultative committee on firearms by any chance and your IT Manager job in profile is just a front for your 'real' job? If not, and you are simply referring to the fact that you live in a democracy and have a vote, then.......... 😆 🙄

citing a few examples of a legitimate 'need'

Bit of a fail then?

democracy and have a vote, then

That would be correct, see your judgement is improving 😛

[i]I supect it is harder to kill someone face to face with your bare hands than using a gun.[/i]

The suggestion being that if someone doesn't have a gun they won't decide to go on a killing spree? That doesn't hold a huge amount of water IMO. Sure, it makes it a bit easier but there are plenty of tools out there for doing the job, banning them all would be impossible.

I suppose what a gun gives you is the precision that say a bomb or even a big truck doesn't. This chap seemed to have singled at least a few people out before shooting people at random and that would have been more difficult without the guns. Also, if someone has snapped a wire in their head, then operating a gun is something that can be done both immediately and simply. Building a bomb would take time and concentration.

So guns could quite possibly, allow spontaneous acts of violence to occur, but since incidents such as these are incredibly rare are they (guns) actually worthy of banning?

I'm no pro or anti gun by the way, I just see a ban as a waste of time.

Bit of a fail then?

it makes it a bit easier but there are plenty of tools out there for doing the job, banning them all would be impossible.

So guns could quite possibly, allow spontaneous acts of violence to occur, but since incidents such as these are incredibly rare are they (guns) actually worthy of banning?

I was a target shooter for years, smallbore and full bore rifle for about 10 years then moved onto full-bore pistol and practical pistol (google it)

Since the kneejerk reaction to Dunblane and the need to blame someone other than the nut behind the bolt (Thomas Hamilton, who i met a few times, shot alongside him and regardless of the lies perpetrated by the gun club secretary trying to dig himself out of bad press did not show any signs of being a child hating phsyco)

It has been proved time after time when things like this happen that the facts are covered over quite nicely by the press and shock tactics are used to feed lies over and over again to keep idiots watching and talking about it. The tightening of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have not accomplished anything other than taking a hobby away from well adjusted law abiding citizens for the benefit of headlines, the guns still find their way into the hands of criminals and the unhinged.

So far everything we've head about this guy is that he was a normal friendly fellow who never had a bad bone in him - so where does the argument go from here?

nothing wrong with responsibly owning a shotgun.

sounds like this chap never showed any signs he might do something like this, so very hard to legislate against.

He could have gone around with a knife, a car, poison, acid - he chose a gun. The real issue is that he flipped, for whatever, reason, picked up his guns and killed several people.

Sadly I think without robbing the entire population of it's freedom, tragedies like this will happen from time to time. No one/thing is to blame except the guy doing the killing.

Tighter gun controls will stop this kind of thing happening,

yup, in exactly the same way that drink driving legislation has stopped drunk people driving cars and having accidents, drug legislation has stopped the importation of drugs and the human tragedies caused there and 30/70 mph speed limits are totally obeyed.

Samuri

I'm not so sure. How many "killing sprees" have made the news carried out with a mallet or hammer for example? The only ones I can think of have been with a gun of some description or (coincidently) a samuri sword. Obvious lots of stabbing and one off killings with any object to hand but not killing sprees.

You could also say that these "moments of madness" overcome a (very) small percentage of the population at some point in their lives. Only the ones with access to do anything about it (i.e. access to weapons) actually carry out these terrible acts. The others anger festers and fizzles out, impotent to carry out their desires.

The more I think about the more the "guns are out there illegally so what is the point" argument holds no ground. Michael Ryan (Hungerford), Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) and now Derek Bird were the last 3 mass killers with firearms in this country and all 3 (seemingly in Bird's case) had legal access to their weapons but no professional [u]need [/u]to own them. Obviously illegally held weapons are used all the time in criminal activity but it does seem like mass killers choose the legal path to their ownership.

I think I've come off the fence and down on the side of ownership restricted to those with a professional need (landowners etc). If that means my dad has to just drink whisky instead of drinking whisky whilst taking potshots at paper targets, and the economies of certain rural areas take a hit through no game keeping then so be it.

Mephadrone that was banned by Media hype now the police have stated that the people killed here had 'no mephadrone in there systems'.

Aren't Police more likely to kill someone with a gun than anyone else?

What if the next person who goes on a mass killing spree is a copper? High stress job some have access to firearms they seem more likely to flip.........if we ban the public from owning guns then we should ban ALL guns.

I don't think taking your weapon home with you after a shift is actually a perk of the job when working in the armed response division 😀

Also, I would imagine the physiological testing and evaluation of your average armed copper is considerably higher than that given to a member of a gun club.

As said in a few posts.

People get killed by speeding drivers, drunk drivers and knives on a seemingly daily basis yet all of those are banned and against the law.

Banning guns would not alter anything.

This guy was clearly unhinged and had a plan to kill people, if he didn't own a gun he would have found an illegal one to use, and if he couldn't find a gun he would have a knife, poison...........

No matter what you do, you can't cater for the insane.

[i]This guy was clearly unhinged and had a plan to kill people, if he didn't own a gun he would have found an illegal one to use, and if he couldn't find a gun he would have a knife, poison...........

No matter what you do, you can't cater for the insane. [/i]

but surely its a lot harder to kill 12 people and injur 11 more with a knife

guns make it easier to kill people than most other weapons

I'll say it again, name me a single mass killer in the UK on the scale of Bird, Ryan or Hamilton that has used anything other than a gun? I suppose you could say Shipman but that wasn't a spree and he had very unusually access to drugs and people's trust. I simply not believe these are the only 3 individually that have felt like doing such a terrible thing in the UK in the past 25 years. They were simply the only 3 that felt like that whilst having instant access to guns.

Also, very fortunately most normal folks in the UK would not have the first clue where to get hold of an illegal weapon and long may it stay that way. Give me a couple of hours and I could get hold of half a dozen legal guns (i.e. I know where they are but would have to "liberate" them from their owners). Certainly our last 3 mass murderers with guns were normal if slightly screwy members of the populous, not members of the criminal underworld, so access for them to illegal guns I would imagine would be as hard for them as it would be for me.

6 people are stabbed to death every week in the UK.
Thats over 300 people a year.

Mass murders like yesterday will happen whether you ban guns or not. People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun.

A silenced MAC10 makes a perfect squirrel control weapon. I hope they don't ban them.

I've done a lot of shooting in the past, indeed I was employed by a government agency controlling deer for some time, and the law specified the minimum calibre and power that is permitted to humanely kill them. (incidentally a lot more powerful that the rifle this bloke appears to have had, a .22RF)

Funnily enough after a few years out of it, I've got back into it again recently, and over the past few months my background and medical checks have been extensive, including a chat with my GP and a sit down interview with the local police FEO to justify good reason, security and experience. my FAC has just been issued with no conditions based upon my past experience and qualifications, if I didn't have this it would have been given supervision conditions or a probationary membership period at a club, and I should be picking up my rifle in the next couple of weeks.

I've never shot anyone, and I don't intend to!

Once again, we see a horrific tragedy here caused not by guns, but the combination of guns and mental health problems!

My biggest concern is this paragraph, from the telegraph:

[i]It has been reported that Bird had initially armed himself with two guns on Tuesday night, but was disarmed by a friend.
Bird is then believed to have sought medical help at a local hospital for his fragile mental state, only to be turned away. [/i]

No, I do not know how true that is, but if it is, then its heartbreaking, as there seems to have been two occasions when it could have been prevented - I'm guessing the friend thought they were doing a favour, since if he had raised any concern the police reaction may well have been punitive rather than helpful, and that friend must now be mortified, and secondly It seems to indicate a failure in the mental health support services...

how / why he had a gun and what the laws should or shouldn't be aside -

why did it take the police 3 HOURS to stop a man with killing people with 2 guns? if i steal a car locally i could have police cars and a helicopter on me in 10 mins.

armed response units have reacted in much shorter spaces of time in the past. I know cumbria isn't like moss side but 3 hours seems like a very long time for him to be able to carry on killing like that.

James-o

Whils realising that it must have been chaotic and difficult, I do think thats a fair question, I also wonder if more people may have been saved or whether 'risk averseness' played its part, not dispatching ambulance crews for fear of putting them in potential danger despite members of the public being there and assuring them it was safe, its happened before:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4740688.stm

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member
Tighter gun controls will stop this kind of thing happening,
yup, in exactly the same way that drink driving legislation has stopped drunk people driving cars and having accidents, drug legislation has stopped the importation of drugs and the human tragedies caused there and 30/70 mph speed limits are totally obeyed.

Thats a very poor comparison. When banning something you reduce the supply dramatically. A better analogy would be is certain types of car were banned and/or only certain people could drive them.

BTW - does anyone know why farmers need shotguns?

that and the way it was spread over a large are i guess.. but the duration of it all is what seems so awful to me, whatever the reason.

I agree with Convert.

People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun.

But the important word is "instant"
Without the easy availability of firearms somebody with this tendency is more likely to come to the attentions of others/authorities before they act upon them.

People that intent on trying to kill people will get hold of a gun

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 26,072 certificate holders at the end of last year. Some 50,000 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 137,768 weapons are covered by that scheme.

I agree it is a BS reason

Farmer are we?

If people "need" to own a gun for whatever perceived legitimate reason then (and the stats above appear to bear this out) why do they seem to own more than one? What is the rationale in owning more than one shotgun?

My thoughts on likely outcome of legislation changes:

restriction in .22RF to bolt action only
introduction of good reason clause for shotguns
shooting club FAC restricted to being kept at club premises not homes (nice terrorist target!)
renewal period reduced

to be honest, I see no major problem with that, but it still does not tackle the root cause.

Apparently farmers need them to protect their animals from foxes ! I agree it is a BS reason.
ownership rates are surprisingly high

OK, I laid out the example of deer above, the law states the minimum calibre and power I'm allowed to use for culling deer.

[i]The number of human fatalities caused each year from motor accidents involving deer is likely to be in the range 12 – 36 for the UK (7 – 32 in England) and injuries in the range 1200 – 3600 (750 – 3200 in England). Records from the early 1990s suggest that the actual number of fatalities is typically around 14 – 15 per annum in the UK as a whole[/i] (Source, Natural England)

If people "need" to own a gun for whatever perceived legitimate reason then (and the stats above appear to bear this out) why do they seem to own more than one? What is the rationale in owning more than one shotgun?

why would anyone need more than one bike? You have to specifically prove to the police your need for every individual firearm (not SG)

why would anyone need more than one bike?

For lots of reasons however that is a pastime/interest/hobby whereas some proponents of gun ownership on here are arguing for gun use as a utilitarian and practical method of vermin control.
If that is the case its a bit like collecting yard brushes!
If its the case that some people like to collect them then thats a different argument but as a way on controlling foxes its largely innefective and this argument is largely put forward by people who simply like to kill things IMO.

So there are about 700 000 people how have legal access to a firearm and 3 people over 25yrs have gone nuts and used one.....more people have won a lottery jackpot than died at the hands of a mass murderer.

Media Hysteria they need an infill 'til the world cup starts.

While the deaths are very sad i don't think banning is the answer or will happen.

You have to specifically prove to the police your need for every individual firearm (not SG)

You edited this after my post.

but OK, it was a genuine question

sorry Surfer -

You use a different calibre and type of weapon for different species, it wouldn't be sensible (or indeed safe) to use a deer rifle for rabbits, different ones for different sized deer, different ones for birds etc - road bike/mountain bike/CX bike, the arguments identical, they're suited to purpose.

This bloke had two guns, not an armoury - one is a commonly used target and/or rabbiting round, the other is a shotgun, used for birds and/or clays.

it would be mere speculation to guess what his justification was, but it appears he'd been an FAC holder for 20 Years

Z-11 did you just try and use fear of terrorisits attacking gun clubs as a reason for people being allowed to keep guns in their homes??

aaahh the good old politics of fear, are you tony blair/ george w

No kimbers, I made a comment - I think you'll find that I also went on to say [i] "I see no major problem with that, but it still does not tackle the root cause."[/i]

LHS - Member

I agree it is a BS reason

Farmer are we?

Yes!

relevance?

Well unless you are a farmer, who are you to say that it is BS that they require a gun?

Isn't it obvious LHS!

Foxes are cute cuddly darling little creatures that wear overcoats and hats and say Boom Boom, and will self regulate their populations if we stupid humans would leave them to it 🙄

Well unless you are a farmer, who are you to say that it is BS that they require a gun?

What sort of arse about face argumnet is that?

What sort of arse about face argumnet is that?

Keep things Civil.

My point is that its a complete sweeping generalisation from someone who has no experience of being in that position / job.

Boba Fatt - Member

"The tightening of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have not accomplished anything"

We're going in circles a wee bit, but what makes you think this? How do you know that it hasn't prevented further sprees? That's the catch 22 of taking action to prevent something from happening, if it doesn't happen people can say "Well what a waste of time that was, it didn't happen anyway"

Interesting point about farmers. Unfortunatley they seem to have a very high incidence of turning their own guns on themselves...

My point is that its a complete sweeping generalisation from someone who has no experience of being in that position / job.

You don't have to have been in a job to know roughly what it's about, you know!

youv'e just got to think... what percentage of people own guns and would never even think of harming anyone? just because would nutter has done something stupid it doesn't mean everyone gonna start

You don't have to have been in a job to know roughly what it's about, you know!

Another sweeping generalisation.

All i am trying to make you think about is that majority of farmers in the UK own guns, and have a reason for doing so. I am sure, as a forum member on a cycling website you will be able to convince a farmer otherwise with no experience of working, ownng or living on a farm though. This website is the fountain of all knowledge for sure.

Northwind - I'd not necessarily agree with boba fatts comment, I think its more accurate to say that:

"the tightening of the application and implementation of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have accomplished a lot"

IE - the laws for [b]who[/b] can have a gun have remained pretty much unchanged, but the checks and investigation that go into issuing certificates have been tightened up a lot.

root and branch reform is needed, simply because the application of FA law in different areas is down to the local constabulary, and there can be huge differences in interpretation and application between forces, however at the same time one size does not fit all, and rural constabularies (rightly) don't necessarily view all firearms issues with the complete paranoia that the met would.

ok then z-11 we can only form opinions of things I have done I should be quiet about child abuse, mass murder and and a myriad of other issues with that sort of logic/principle at work
LHS I have lived on farms for about 25% of my life including adulthood so I am not a town dwelling ignoramus perhaps you should be carefull about making sweeping generalisations yourself or perhaps keep quiet about things not related to logging as per Z-11 view?
Anyone can form an opinion on gun ownership NOT just those people who do own/use them..that is ridiculous to suggest otherwise