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

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.