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

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

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

Another sweeping generalisation

ok LHS can you answer the following questions

What does a fireman do - do they really need breathing apparatus and hoses to do their job?

What does a butcher do - do they really need to own a variety of sharp knifes to do their job
or have you just got no idea about what these people do or what tools they require?

It really aint rocket science is it

I seem to have missed something as I haven't seen many comments in the media asking for tighter gun controls. Most people seem to be sensibly waiting for more than rumours about yesterday's events.

Equally, I can't comment on whether tighter gun laws would make a difference and don't think that's a topic for today. I'm more thinking about how I would feel if a friend or family member had been one of the victims, not what affect this could have on a hobby of mine, FFS!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10222161.stm

So your opinion would be that a farmer has:

No need to kill vermin on his land?
No need to kill wild or domestic animals attacking livestock?
No need to kill a lame animal when injured or dieing?

EDIT: To be honest I personally would add in the right to protect themselves and their family if living in a remote area but i know that is a point of contention here so will keep that one separate.

Junky - I think you'll find that, as discussed, for someone to establish good cause for a firearm, they have had to convince the police, (who act on home office guidelines which lay down suitable calibres for foxing) that it is necessary.

as such, I'd argue that your statement that "it is a BS reason" is unsupportable, since the police, the government, and the law, since the House of lords judgement in R (countryside alliance vs HM attorney General) specifically states that "Foxes are a pest and the fox population has to be culled (Court of Appeal judgment, para 23)"

So, you're wrong not only in fact, but in government policy, police application and wrong in law!

Government policy, creates law which is enacted by the courts and the police, they are not seperate reasons just one. And why asume that government policy is right, I frequently don't think it is, and would never use it as a fact to support a question of what is right and wrong.

No, in the case of firearms - the law is set down by parliament, and in addition to that the home-office (government) distribute circulars giving guidance to police forces on how to apply the law - guidelines not rules, it is for each chief constable to interpret the law in his own manner.

In addition to this there is case law, which is definitive proof of the correct interpretation of the law.

throughout this, all are in agreement that killing foxes is a justifiable reason for owning a rifle.

so, either everyone in officialdom is wrong, or Junkys right!

calling me junky is as pointless as me calling you ratty. Do you feel like stopping or do we stay in the playground? That aside very good answer you are a super skilled googler. Clearly the fact farmers get guns means amazingly that my statement of BS reason has no legal weight at all thanks for clarifying that.

LHS sorry I seemed to have missed you answers to my questions about jobs all I can see is some more questions for me

We have gone way OT now so I shall leave it.
I am not anti-guns per se my only point is that it is easier to do an act like what occured yesterday if you have access to guns than if you do not have access to guns. Whether that fact alone makes it legitimate to further control the access to guns or not is the real debate IMHO.

I'm not bothered about being called ratty - in fact several people on here do it, what's your problem?

As it happens, since I've been through the application process recently and have shot more than a few foxes in the past, its all fairly fresh in my mind! yes, the fact that farmers are permitted guns means that the weight of opinion is against your statement that its a BS reason.

I'd agree on your last paragraph - however as said before, I think that the problem is down to carefully controlling who gets access to guns, not how "easy" it is.

We have gone way OT now so I shall leave i

Agreed, the butchers and firefighters thing was a little OT.

I have guns. I am sane. However, there is no legislation which would control me if I flipped one day for some reason.

IMO, gun owners are usually more controlled about life. For example, if I were to get a criminal record, they'd take my lovely guns away and I wouldn't be able to dine on self-shot pheasant. That would be a bad thing. So, I behave myself.

Our gun legislation works. As others have, no doubt,said - Guns don't kill people....

>Guns don't kill people....

Well they do don't they 🙂

There was a guy In Frankland who attacked a few people with a sword in Thornton Heath, in a church.

I never heard the part about banning swords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm

If your'e gonna do it, you'll do it.

If your'e gonna do it, you'll do it.

+1

This, thankfully, is a rare occurance and to be able to predict, legislate, and protect against this kind of pre-meditated hatred is nigh on impossible.

"Guns don't kill people...."

You're right, we need to ban wappers. Eh, rappers.

>IMO, gun owners are usually more controlled about life.<

Oh really - on what basis have you made that assessment?

>Guns don't kill people.... <

'Course not, that's not their primary function at all.

Heard it all now...

banning would not stop this sort of evil act, i like moston here i could if i wanted to, get a weapon and rounds for it , for about 300 squid, education and maybe more renewales to the current licenes, an auwfull shitty mess R.I.P those concerned.

esselgruntfuttock - Member

There was a guy In Frankland who attacked a few people with a sword in Thornton Heath, in a church.

I never heard the part about banning swords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm

If your'e gonna do it, you'll do it.

If you're gonna do it, you'll do it ? 😕

Well no.............he didn't [i]"do it"[/i] ............he didn't manage to kill anyone.

And that's the point. He wasn't successful with his intended massacre because he only had a sword.

I'm sure that if he had managed to get his hands on a gun, he would have been far more successful with his obvious mission to kill people.

If Derrick Bird had only had a samurai sword like the fella in Thornton Heath, then he wouldn't have carried out the massacre and this discussion would not be occurring now.

What was the geezer doing in Frankland btw ? I thought he was declared insane.

>I'm sure that if he had managed to get his hands on a gun, he would have been far more successful with his obvious mission to kill people. <

That's surely the point. IIRC correctly it was subsequently discovered that Hamilton ( Dunblane) had a range of major personality issues - and I'll lay odds this guy was in the same boat. Far too easy to obtain a gun licence imo

esselgruntfuttock - Member

"There was a guy In Frankland who attacked a few people with a sword in Thornton Heath, in a church.

I never heard the part about banning swords."

You're clearly a sleeper agent for the other side of the argument "Look, people go on killing sprees even if they can't get guns, the only difference is, nobody dies."

[i]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]

That's a fair point convert. And with the exception of Shipman (who is no doubt Britain's most prolific, UK soil based mass murderer), you're right, guns made it easy for those people to kill a lot of people in a very short time.