Forum menu
1. Cars kill more than guns. Some dimwit above said car deaths were accidents.
I think I must be the person you are defining as a dimwit.
Try this thought experiment: (assuming you can think)
I leave the house. I take my car. I go to ASDA.
I leave the house. I take my gun. I go to ASDA.
Which of the above sentences precedes an account of a deliberate killing?
Can I simplify it for you (you dimwit)
More people in the UK are killed by cars than by guns.
More people in the Uk are intentionally killed by guns than by cars
Do you get it? You dimwit!
I honestly don't think you can do a comparison between gun crime and car accidents. Gun crime is pre-meditated, you don't purposefully get into a car to kill somone (well not usually! 🙁 )
Gun legislation in the UK already goes an awfully long way to ensure that you are vetted by multiple responsibilities before having a license, and reviewed periodically. Out of the thousands of gun owners in the UK, 1 or 2 cases over the last years have turned out like this recent shooting in Cumbria. And lets not kid ourselves here, these are pre-meditated mass murders by someone who is clearly unhinged. This isn't a single shooting or stabbing because of for example finding your wife/husband cheating on you.
When a switch flicks like this in someones head, they will carry out their plans, and get hold of the tools to do this whether legal or not.
Gun legislation, like knife and banned dog breeds goes a long way to ensure that irresponsible people can't easily acquire these things and if they think about doing so they have the legal consequences to consider. It will never be able to stop it completly and certainly in this recent case, It will never, or could ever legislate against 1 or 2 unhinged mass murderers and to think it could is deluded.
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?
No need no, I know a number of farmers who dont have guns, injured or dieing animals are dealt with by the local hunt.
It will never, or could ever legislate against 1 or 2 unhinged mass murderers and to think it could is deluded
well if these 1 or 2 [it is 3 now] had not had legally held guns we would not be having this chat the real question is whether someones need [if it really is a need] for a gun is sufficient for us to take this risk
When a switch flicks like this in someones head, they will carry out their plans, and get hold of the tools to do this whether legal or not
The last three in this country had legally owned guns and you cannot name a masacre where an illegally owned gun was used. You also ignore the example above where someone went on the rampage with a samurai sword and managed to kill no one - suggesting not everyone can get a gun at a moments notice just after they have "flipped" except for those who legally own them.
LHS sorry you got lost when I mentioned buthchers and firemen but the point was that you can know peoples jobs even if you do not do the job yourself[farmer for example] neither complicated nor controversial I would have thought. You have heard of Careers advisors havent you?
Blimey, this still going!
LHS, you seem a pretty reasonable guy and our views are pretty close I think, the difference being that I would like to see the guns restricted to those who need them for professional need, rather than recreational desire - i.e. just shifting the reason for owning a little. I'm not a ban all guns from private ownership believer, just curb ownership more than it is today.
I still think you are missing a massive point here though that you are choosing not to address.
When a switch flicks like this in someones head, they will carry out their plans, and get hold of the tools to do this whether legal or not.
The fact still remains that the last 3 "switch flickers" who effectively carried out their killings were all legal licence holders. Non of them had to scratch around for weapons, they owned them - [b]legally[/b]. It could of course be sheer coinsidence; the only 3 switch flickers in the country in the last 25 years have all "totally by chance" had guns in their houses.
[b]Let's do the maths........[/b]
1/2 a million firearms owners in a country of 60 million.
So the chance of a single switch flicker being part of that subset - 1 in 120.
Chance of all 3 consecutive switch flickers being firearms owners = 1 in 120*120*120 or a [b]1 in 1.7 million chance[/b].
You seem like an intelligent chap - you simply can't believe this can you? I would suggest it is far more likely that there have been numerous more switch flickers over the years and it is just those with [b]easy[/b] access to weapons that have been able to effectively carry out the act.
convert, I see your point, and don't agree nor disagree, it depends on what your view point is and mine obviously is different.
From my personal point of view I think that anyone who makes a conscious decision to go and shoot multiple people in the face with a shotgun can't be put into the bracket of gun owner or not. Yes, i agree that the 3 you refer to all were gun owners, and if you knew what these people were capable of in advance then you would never grant them a license. If they couldn't legally own a gun would this stop them from acquiring one to carry out a pre-meditated attack like this, i don't think so.
Junkyard I won't respond to you as you just seem to be up for an argument all the time, not sure why, but its boring, calm down.
I think samuri's point in this thread is a valid one, I was saying something similar at work yesterday. Yes most deaths on the road are not intentional (tho there was that guy recently in the news ran down a cyclists after an argument, in coventry was it?. Anyone know where the stats for intentional car deaths are?) However plenty of them are not blameless, lots of careless and dangerous driving. Any other cause of death clocking up the mortality figures RTAs do would be legislated against forthwith. Cars are seemingly a special case and don't fall under the same rules....unfortunatley.
OK, fair enough we have different views - that's fine. I'll pick you up on one final point though -
Yes, i agree that the 3 you refer to all were gun owners
I have not picked these 3 out of thin air to effectively make my point. I have used these 3 as they are [b]the only 3[/b] in living memory in Britain. It is all we have to judge this problem on. There is not a single case in Britain I am aware of (or you are aware of either it seems) where someone has carried out an atrocity like this who has had to go looking for their weapon before committing the crime so I think it is a big assumption to believe that this is likely whilst the evidence that (a tiny minority fortunately) of those with access are more likely to do the same exists in black and white.
Of course that means that [b]only[/b] 50 people have been killed in a country of 60 million in 25 years by [b]mass[/b] acts like this with the present gun controls in place - an average of 2 a year. The judgment call as to if this is enough personal damage and sacrafice to "inconvenience" the massed majority of sensible and safe gun owners is one for someone further up the food chain than I.
I think I'll leave it that as I need to do some work! Have a good day all.
I have not picked these 3 out of thin air to effectively make my point. I have used these 3 as they are the only 3 in living memory in Britain. It is all we have to judge this problem on.
Agreed.
Raises for me 2 questions:
a) Are people who carry out these atrocities more likely to be gun owners?
b) Would these people acquire a gun whether legal or illegal?
My view point would be:
a) Probably
b) Probably
I dont think (and lets be straight here, I dont actually know - none of us do) that the three examples everyone seems to be quoting would have occurred if the individuals hadnt had immediate access to guns. The oft quoted 'switch flicking' is a bit misleading to me, as in my experience working in forensic psychiatry, the urge to carry out this kind of behaviour has generally had to have been building up for some time prior to the act itself. There are some differences in these cases regarding pre-planning and motivation - Ryan and Hamilton appeared to have killed indiscriminately, whereas Bird actually targetted people, winding down his car window and beckoning people over as if asking for directions. Whatever, my personal take on it is that in the cases of Dunblane and Hungerford, if they hadnt had immediate access to weapons, they probably wouldnt have acted on their urges, though in the case of the Cumbrian shootings, Bird would have probably found an alternative. Bottom line is, if you dont really need to own a weapon (and yes, I know, there's a massive difference between 'need' and 'want') then you shouldnt be allowed access to them. I'm very conscious that I've been sat here thinking about this thread for the past twenty or thirty minutes when really I should have been giving more thought to the victims and their families - my condolences to all those concerned.
Junkyard I won't respond to you as you just seem to be up for an argument all the time, not sure why, but its boring, calm down.
You keep saying that these people would get guns if they wanted to after loosing their mental faculties but cannot cite any examples that is why you dont answer me. As i said the evudence suggests that not everyone can get a gun at a moments notice just after they have "flipped" except for those who legally own them.
Junkyard, I refer to my previous comment about your argumentiveness.
I agreed above with convert on the fact that they were all gun owners yes and then raised 2 questions as to the type of people who commit these crimes are more likely to own a gun / or try acquire one anyway if they were illegal.
Now, no, i don't have facts to back this [b]point of view[/b] up, however using the statistical analysis of 3 people equally isn't conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I don't think arguing over different opinions is really going to change anything is it? Lets not detract from the debate and certainly not from the fact that this is stemmed from such an horrific incident.
when a gun owner goes mental, he's more likely than most to use a gun
when a 'cage fighter' goes mental, he'll probably use his fists / feet
when a man who owns a samurai sword goes mental, he'll probably use that
it's not the acess to wapons or control of them that's the issue here, it's the unpredictability of how and when someone loses their grip on reality and rational thought. so unless we all submit to regular mind-scanning, there is no solution to this. end of debate imo?
we all submit to regular mind-scanning
Crikey, we'd [b]ALL[/b] be in a lot of trouble then!!! 😐
I think what it all comes down to is that some people just go postal and shoot people. Its a very rare occurance and very hard to predict but it is possible to say that if they didnt have guns thye'd find it harder to kill people. Some think we should ban all guns due to this rare occurence and others think reacting to something so rare by banning guns is daft. Its the apparent lack of predictability that makes banning all guns attractive.
Not that it has that much relevance, but a few years ago I was staying with some mates in New York. I had to be reminded to tone down my usual levels of p**s taking on several occasions as people were 'packing heat'!
People can be unpredictable at the best of times, but I cant help but feel just a little bit anxious when they're carrying bloody big guns. Like I said, unless you genuinely need one, why bother?
LHS, I would like to see the guns restricted to those who need them for professional need, rather than recreational desire - i.e. just shifting the reason for owning a little. I'm not a ban all guns from private ownership believer, just curb ownership more than it is today.
I would like to see cars limited to work use only, no recreational use or as a means to get to places of recreation, all cars limited to 55mph, ped friendly crumple zones at the front, lifetime ban after any accident where undue care and attention is a contributory cause, lifetime prison sentence for causing a fatality.
this would save a huge amount of lives far more than your suggested gun controls.