Forum menu
Bows are many times more powerful than air rifles and yet are unlicensed and seen as civilised because they are shot by athletic skilled types. Guns on the other hand are scary things only used by unskilled nutters and should just be banned. About right? Why? Archery and target shooting are as near as damn it the same in terms of strength, training and discipline. So why is one treated with utter disdain and the other seen as aspirational?
Because bows and arrows don't occupy a lot of consciousness in this society's psyche, so nutters don't fantasise about offering their enemies (usually women and children) with crossbows.
And those of us that do have access to guns, shouldn’t have them sitting at home in a residential area.
If you're well controlling who has access to very dangerous weaponry, then it shouldn't matter where they keep them, as they'll be responsible about it. Look, there's no doubt that if he had not had ready access to a shotgun, he might well have set about with a cleaver, or driven a car trough the shopping mall. The danger here isn't what they use, but why are they thinking about using it in the first place.
Once again we need to look at what this guys was doing online Most (if not all) organisations who have an interest in doing so have looked at the Russian Bot Farms successes and are busily copying them, and that's far right groups, domestic terrorists, Incels, climate denying, you name it, if you really want to you can live pretty much in an entirely different world to the rest of us that has it's own truths and realities. Our world and that world can't exist at the same time in the same place...This guy' s just one more of these folks who decided to act on it, he won't be the last.
Why would anyone be so willing to associate themselves with that culture??
Because its one where they can be honest rather than lying to people about whether they got a shag last weekend or not and being pitied if they are found out?
Its worth noting originally it was supposed to be for both men and women (indeed traces back to a female student) and was about providing support to those feeling isolated.
It got corrupted over time though into the poisonous group we see today. The problem is it seems ideally designed to suck people in bit by bit pushing them down the rabbit hole.
Look, there’s no doubt that if he had not had ready access to a shotgun, he might well have set about with a cleaver, or driven a car trough the shopping mall. The danger here isn’t what they use, but why are they thinking about using it in the first place.
Wrong on two counts. He waited until he got his gun back and as above - the less lethal the weapon the less deaths
Basically it strikes me as a load of really sad blokes sticking their hands up and admitting they’re a total loser that cant get laid…
No it’s entirely 180degs the opposite of that. It’s blokes sitting in their basements agreeing that if it wasn’t for feminism or any other other -ism you want…they would have got laid by now. It’s not them, it’s other folk.
It’s far more complex and sinister than that though. Ironically ‘incel’ was a word originally created by a lonely woman
When Alana started a website for lonely people struggling to find love, she had no idea it would become linked to a community of hate and anger directed at women, which would ultimately lead to the deaths of several innocent people in her home city
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45284455
.
‘Incel’ has since been co-opted by a whole spectrum of misanthropic/nihilistic/misogynistic/suicidal/terroristic online subculture/s. Ie ‘Redpilled, Blackpilled, etc.
Internet-addicted subcultures such as these can ‘feed’ loneliness and mental illness while also preying on the lonely and mentally ill. Catch 22
as some kind of a misogynistic and misanthropic pseudoscience
My point entirely. More and more people around the world are leaving an agreed reality and are living almost entirely in an alternate universe.
If you’re well controlling who has access to very dangerous weaponry
People change. People lie. People get hurt. People get damaged. People get angry.
it shouldn’t matter where they keep them
Of course it does. If it is illegal to take your firearm in to a residential area, your home or otherwise, that allows an intervention before a shooting in a residential area. Anyone taking their gun home is immediately seen as a concern and that could be acted on, rather than the "what a shame" response to someone using their gun to kill people in a residential area.
My point was that as a society we get completely bogged down on a handful of deaths (33 for 2019) from a heavily licenced section of society (despite what you believe)
The society I live in (in the UK) is hardly bogged down by gun deaths, it only comes up in a once in a decade event like this one.
As for heavily licensed - yes you need a license, but that license is easy to get - too easy in my opinion.
And yes, car deaths are higher but this is not a discussion about car deaths. Maybe you should start one and link to all the campaigning you have done on it.
Not necessarily
You miss the broader point. Again
No, you (deliberately?) miss the point. Again. No-one is saying if all guns are banned then no-one will ever kill anyone. What people are saying is that the easier guns are to access, and the more suited to mass murder guns are compared to longbows or tandems, then the more likely it is that unstable people will commit mass murder on a larger scale.
It's striking that you pick on the Nice murders and not the Bataclan murders - possibly because the contrast dispoves your point. The easier it is for evil or mad people to get guns, the easier it is for them to kill more people.
Are you totally without empathy?
From what I can tell binners sums these folks up pretty well..
Because it allows them to blame other people – namely women – for the fact that they lack even the most rudimentary social skills to coexist with the rest of society, particularly the female part of it. It tells them that they are entitled to have sex with women and women should just accept that and give in to their demands. Its little more than justification for violence against women as cover for their own inadequacies
So to answer your question...very little empathy towards people like that I'm afraid..
I'll reserve my empathy for those I think deserve it..
Anyone taking their gun home is immediately seen as a concern and that could be acted on, rather than the “what a shame” response to someone using their gun to kill people in a residential area.
If we had many shooting incidents, you might have a point. But we don't. The vast vast majority of people that own guns (for any reason they want to*) are decent people that understand their responsibilities. The last mass shooting was a decade ago. We don't have a problem with guns in this country, we have a problem with looking after people who're ill and need support
* That there is a legal, largely workable and enforceable method for folks to own guns or other weaponry is "a civic good" At the very least it demonstrates that our govt is willing to give it's citizens the benefit of the doubt. You should as well.
nickc - that does not mean that there is no need to tighten controls. I see zero need for anyone to have a gun in a residential area and obviously the checks and balances are inadequate
Pwersonally I would ban all guns of any sort except for genuine utility uses - farmers etc but I know that would have little support
If you want to target shoot then an airgun will do you fine.
Wrong on two counts. He waited until he got his gun back and as above – the less lethal the weapon the less deaths
****ing hell, i walked away from this post as it was giving me a sore head and briefly came back this morning, but clearly I can't keep my gob shut.
Is it completely impossible for you to see anyone elses point of view for even a second without resorting to "I'm cleverer than you" comments. Would the guy have committed the same amount or murders with a cleaver or a car? maybe. Can you kill as many people with a car or cleaver (or other bladed weapon)? Yes, see most terror attacks using a car/van/small truck and or knife. Would he have done it without access to a shotgun? maybe not, because we don't live in the alternative flaming dimension that you clearly have access to.
We get it, you are 100% anti-gun in all forms. There have been a lot of opposing opinions around this, mine included, and I am not 100% right or even feel 100% justified in my feelings on the matter, but whatever I say or think i would hope that I was big enough and ugly enough to at least to be open to changing my mind or seeing someone elses point of view.
I liked shooting, I was good at it, at a national level, and I was gutted when they took away my hobby, there's still a part of my that is because I've found nothing since that has given me anywhere near the same level of enjoyment that standing in a pissing wet field putting holes in paper targets gave me, call me weird or a fantasist, but hey, maybe that's what I am. It wasn't me who ruined it, or shot anyone, or threatened to shoot anyone, but I and other people who enjoyed their hobby had to give it up whether they liked it or not because someone decided in their head to go out and kill people because they were pissed off at the world about something that could have probably been fixed, but if they wanted to kill people or not, they would have done it by any means necessary whether they had access to guns legally or they didn't.
I hope that someday someone doesn't take away something you like, because we'll never hear the ****ing end of it
I see zero need for anyone to have a gun in a residential area and obviously the checks and balances are inadequate
No one cares whether or not you don't see the need for (anyone) to own a gun, it's literally none of your business. Personally I don't think the checks are adequate to single out the folk still listening to prog rock, but mleh.... At some point you've got to be able to say "As a group of adults we have to come up with a system that allows folks to do legally stuff that some others don't personally agree with"
Otherwise you may as well give up now and have anarchy.
I see zero need for anyone to have a gun in a residential area
I agree 100%. The inconvenience of having to keep your gun secure and away from residential areas seems a small price to pay to enjoy your sport, or your game shooting, or for your work in pest control or culling.
Another aspect that I don't think has been covered, but I wonder if is relevant. This guy, mentally ill as he was, incel driven, all of those things. He'd decided to end his life. But he was basically so angry that he wanted to do this first.
Once he went out and started shooting people it was virtually inevitable it would end with his death too, either at his own hands or at the hands of the firearms response team. With a knife, or even a car, far more likely he'd have been stopped by non-lethal means and right now be facing an even more miserable existence locked up for the rest of his life. As others have noted it's hard to put a knife in someone, I suspect even harder to put it repeatedly in yourself.
Lots of drama here with no substance. There is no need to store any gun away from home and there is zero harm in having one at home regardless of where you live.
They have to be securely stored and very little gun thefts from homes shows this works.
Define residential area for a start.
If you could not store a gun at home this shooting would not have occured
There is no need to store any gun away from home and there is zero harm in having one at home regardless of where you live.
whatiffery but Davison rolls up to his shooting club asking to get his gun out of the locker in an absolute rage, and with no good reason, the armourer simply says no?
If the journey to the club hasn't already lowered his anger level?
If you could not store a gun at home this shooting would not have occured
That's utter garbage.
If you want to target shoot then an airgun will do you fine.
Which incidentally are harder to get a licence* for than a shotgun.
* to own an airgun in Scotland requires a licence, for this licence you have to demonstrate a 'need' for one and that you've a 'place' to shoot. Plus be of good character etc, for a shotgun licence you only need the 'character' bit.
whatiffery but Davison rolls up to his shooting club asking to get his gun out of the locker in an absolute rage, and with no good reason, the armourer simply says no?
Naive to say the least.
How about, he rolls up quite calmly and signs a gun out ten drives a few miles and gets out and shoots folk.
What part of the report said he ran about in a rage ??
Talk about whatiffery.
https://unherd.com/2021/08/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-incels/
A more nuanced view, still doesn't change the tragedy. The issue with these things is that press like a simple story, the Sophie Lancaster murder wasn't really about anti goth sentiment https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/robert-maltby-on-the-of-his-girlfriend-sophie-lancaster-the-goth-thing-was-an-oversimplification
Would the guy have committed the same amount or murders with a cleaver or a car? maybe.
You can't say anything about this murderer in particular but as a general proposition, sure: prospective murderers go on to commit fewer murders when they have less access to guns.
Naive to say the least.
How about, he rolls up quite calmly and signs a gun out ten drives a few miles and gets out and shoots folk.
Yes, he could do that too.
But the point is it removes the absolute anger possibility, if there's a cool down time / some sort of barrier to just getting the gun out of a cupboard in the house. Do you not accept that could happen?
What part of the report said he ran about in a rage ??
Eyewitness reports of an argument and shouting preceding the shooting. By a bloke whose gun had been removed until he'd completed an anger management course. Not that much whatiffery is it?
But you keep on defending that it's fine that he had his gun at home.
kelvin
Full Member
I see zero need for anyone to have a gun in a residential areaI agree 100%. The inconvenience of having to keep your gun secure and away from residential areas seems a small price to pay to enjoy your sport, or your game shooting, or for your work in pest control or culling.
This is totally impractical on so many levels.
Lots of shooting and pest control takes place very late or very early. I'm deer stalking tomorrow morning. I will leave the house at 4am. Where is my gun stored, how far out of my way do I need to travel to collect it and will it be available 24/7?
Oh, and I'm off to shoot a round of clays on Sunday morning. With thousands and thousands of other people, most of who only need their shotgun on a Sunday morning. And I presume you'd like to centralise the storage locations for economies of scale and ease of security etc? I'd better start queuing now.
How about, he rolls up quite calmly and signs a gun out ten drives a few miles and gets out and shoots folk.
not if he is not allowed to take it of the gun range
Lots of shooting and pest control takes place very late or very early. I’m deer stalking tomorrow morning. I will leave the house at 4am
As I said - leaving aside those who actually need a gun off site for utility puposes.
Oh, and I’m off to shoot a round of clays on Sunday morning. With thousands and thousands of other people, most of who only need their shotgun on a Sunday morning.
That ones easy - the shooting range does the secure gun storage
This is totally impractical on so many levels.
No it's not, it's inconvenient.
Oh, and I’m off to shoot a round of clays on Sunday morning. With thousands and thousands of other people, most of who only need their shotgun on a Sunday morning. And I presume you’d like to centralise the storage locations for economies of scale and ease of security etc? I’d better start queuing now.
Who said that? Stored at the gun club would be fine like many already are. I'm guessing your gun club doesn't have thousands and thousands of members otherwise the queues at each stand would be massive.
Why would he not be ? you seriously cannot expect folk to only shoot at a range ?
But you keep on defending that it’s fine that he had his gun at home.
Please don't insult me or twist what I have said. I have done no such thing. He should not have had a gun at all and someone will answer for it.
most of who only need their shotgun on a Sunday morning
All the more reason not to have gun and ammunition at home 7 days a week.
I'm aware that it would be inconvenient for many people if they could not to keep their gun at home.
Impractical on so many levels.
It would be akin to keeping your golf clubs at your local course and having to sign them out.
They are sporting equipment !.
I’m deer stalking tomorrow morning.
Oh, and I’m off to shoot a round of clays on Sunday morning.
You are a character in a BBC costume drama and I claim my license fee rebate and a swig from you hip flask 😀
tjagain
Full MemberOh, and I’m off to shoot a round of clays on Sunday morning. With thousands and thousands of other people, most of who only need their shotgun on a Sunday morning.
That ones easy – the shooting range does the secure gun storage
I think you misunderstand the context of a gun club / shooting range in the UK. Yes, there are some big formal grounds (a handful around the UK) that could probably offer this service but many, many clay shoots are run at an unmanned location out of an ISO container with a few clay traps that are rolled out and set up each weekend. There's sometimes a club hut and somewhere to buy a bacon butty but they only open on a sunday morning or specifically when there's a shoot. There is no infrastructure that could accommodate gun storage so you'd need to centralise at an offsite location, hence my comment about queues.
It would be akin to keeping your golf clubs at your local course and having to sign them out.
That doesn't sound too bad. In fact many people choose to do that already
It would be akin to keeping your golf clubs at your local course and having to sign them out.
They are sporting equipment !.
What bollocks. You accuse me of whatiffery, if you think these two are even close then you're wired to the moon.
Or for the deer stalking the gun is kept on the estate. Its not rocket science
It would be akin to keeping your golf clubs at your local course and having to sign them out.
And that would be a problem because...?
There is no infrastructure that could accommodate gun storage so you’d need to centralise at an offsite location, hence my comment about queues.
Anywhere that wants to be a gun range of any sort needs to have secure storage as a part of their business
No need for centralising - the whole point is that the guns are kept secure and can only be used for the purposes intended
in fairness you might want your clubs to play at another course. As you may want your gun to go to another shooting ground.
But golf clubs are not anywhere close to guns as potential threat to life in the wrong hands (or the right hands at the wrong time)
Or for the deer stalking the gun is kept on the estate. Its not rocket science
What estate ? I shoot in a dozen different places including private gardens, spread all over East Central Scotland.
This is simply turning into a rant by people who simply hate guns. Not a discussion.
in fairness you might want your clubs to play at another course. As you may want your gun to go to another shooting ground.
So not the bollocks you accused me off?.
Cheers.
Why would he not be ? you seriously cannot expect folk to only shoot at a range
Why not? I don't want them shooting in random places! I want them tightly controlled
As above - with an exemption for the very few people like farmers who actually have a utility need for guns. For the gamekeepers the estate has secure storage and the gun never leaves the estate.
Anywhere that wants to be a gun range of any sort needs to have secure storage as a part of their business
Utter tosh. You're in danger of just making up allsorts here.