In light of the shooting dead of four people in Peterlee; do you think that the right of private ownership should be revoked?
No.
Next?
No.
/ thread
No...
No.
How many die of Alcohol every year... & that's still legal.
Yes, there are a few mutters out there, but, you can't tar them all with the same brush.
No
Any other questions?
Yes
Recent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
YesRecent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
So "No", then.
No.
Largely for pragmatic reasons. How would people like gamekeepers function?
no
...do you think that the right of private ownership should be revoked?
not automatically.
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual, exhaustive, definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.
same for car-owners of course...
Largely for pragmatic reasons. How would people like gamekeepers function?
what function do gamekeepers serve? [s]other than shooting hen harriers?[/s]*
(*my mistake, that's what Prince Harry is for)
no
Personally, I think that by token of the fact a person wants to have a gun they should be barred from having one. Seesm self evident to me.
Why should the people that enjoy shooting as a sport be penalised for the actions of a couple of people? Where will I get my free pheasants, geese and woodcock?
TJ:
Recent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
Have there been many recently then?
So the shooter in this case ws a gamekeeper was he? Or actually a violent fantasist who should never have been anywhere near a gun?
Everyone of these sort of rare incidents have been legally held guns by people clearly unfit to hold the guns and without any good reason for having them.
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.same for car-owners of course...
And those with motorbikes, I trust? After all, that's just fulfilling a dangerous fantasy as well, isn't it? I mean no one NEEDS a motorbike do they? Especially not if they flout the legal speed limits.....
I'd be more than happy to have an "an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test" to keep my guns. At the moment, it's a five year certificate, so why not change that to a one year. Sounds fine to me.
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool.
Mine are tools. I use them to shoot birds. I then eat said birds. (Going to try that honey and ginger pheasant soon....!)
I've got two guns, and permission for two more, and I've not shot anyone (yet) -
That should be more than enough information to form your opinions on 😉
Isn't shooting a sport...there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
but when i'm in charge, all gun-owners will have to undergo an annual definitely-not-a-nutter test of their mental health.
Well that rules out farmers and game keepers as gun holders for a start 🙂
No - this is my life to live as I wish.
IF I want to own firearms then I should be able to - just because people have changed from 'reasonable and responsible' to 'depressed and dangerous' is no reason to deny the majority the use of a firearm.
The system has to improve (to notice the change) and we have to accept that occasionally even the best system will fail.
"from my cold dead hand!!"
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
Shooting a clay pigeon target is hardly "filling fantasy", and as a meat-eater I find it hard to think of any real objection to managed hunting.
Bear in mind, that the recent stigmatisation of mental health problems regarding anyone in the shooting community, means that people will be less likley to ask for help for fear of losing their sport, which clearly only makes things worse...
And those with motorbikes, I trust?
no, actually.
Motorcyclists are already very effective at testing themselves voluntarily, and those that don't pass the 'definitely-not-a-nutter' test provide a useful supply of donor organs...
(which is of course desperately sad for the family of the motorcyclist 🙁 )
i like a plum and chorizo stuffing with pheasant, the bird should be well dowsed in red wine during roasting.
What's needed is a simple dna test, to see how much similarity an applicant has with this chap.
[img] 
[/img]
TJ - you don't get a firearms certificate unless you can satisfy the authorities that it is for legitimate reasons (which can include sporting). I don't think fantasy fulfilment is one of the recognised criteria.
As for "clearly unfit to hold the guns", easy to say with hindsight, isn't it? Perhaps less "clearly" this time last week...
Again I ask, as you reiterate "every one" - perhaps you have the evidence to humiliate me, but my perception is that the vast majority of gun crime (including, of course, murders) is committed using illegally held guns. The only legal ones I can think of in the last couple of years in fact is this one and before that that cabbie in Cumbria.
So, stats????
While we wait TJ, i don't think the guy charged with the Indian student was a legal holder. Not prejudicing his trial, but assuming for a moment that he's guilty, your assertion that these murders are entirely the work of those legally allowed to hold guns doesn't hold water for the past fortnight....
Edlong - thats the two recent ones - of people going on the rampage and killing multiple people
As for the violent fantasists - you only have to look at the people who claim to own guns on here.
Of course its all about violent fantasies. No one with a decent set of morals would ever hold a gun except as a real tool - and killing things for fun is not utility its a sickening indictment of their faulty morality
that rules out most of the soldiers in the world then.the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
edlong - MemberTJ - you don't get a firearms certificate unless you can satisfy the authorities that it is for legitimate reasons (which can include sporting). I don't think fantasy fulfilment is one of the recognised criteria.
And its so clearly rigorous and keeps out the violent fantasists 🙄
As for the violent fantasists - you only have to look at the people who claim to own guns on here.
What's your point, caller? Violent? Nope. Fantasist? Well yes, but none of my fantasies involve guns, and besides, they're none of your business.
Legally held motorbikes kill hundreds of people every year. Ban them. Ban them now! etc....
I agree with TJ here - if I had a gun I would shoot TJ so it is clearly safer not to let me own one.
😉
Normallt, TJ, I'd humour you. However, on this occasion, you are being a dull troll and talking utter rubbish. Please stop now and go outside for a bit.
arghh the Liberal (so called) middle class and Troll. Do you work? as you appear to be on this site all day everyday. Maybe they have a "liberal" usage policy for the internet where you work?TandemJeremy - Member
YesRecent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
So everyone who holds a license and isn't a farmer is potential (or is it probable?)murderer because they hold a license? Wow that is one hell of generalization. Just like saying all Muslims are potential child molester or all blacks are drug dealers. Genrealizations seems are ok with the liberal middle class when it suits them. Farmers make a huge amount of money from pheasant shooting etc a massive boost to the rural economy which is riseing year on year. Provide jobs in rural comunity when farm labouring jobs are disapearing with constant mechanisation. By the way 3,000 die on the road every year. The bigger the reduction in speed will [u]always[/u] reduce the death rate......Something the vast majority of the anti gun loby would go up the wall over. You really need to be less of a hypocrite and get your priorities right PS There are many more murders by ilegal held guns.Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
What is is with Northern taxi drivers and guns? Derek Bird and now this
What next cricket bats? If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats
I hold a FAC. It will expire in May and I will not be renewing it. During my years as a keen shooter I have to say I have met several people who were wrong uns but who owned things like a .308" "tactical police sniper.". Pre-Dunblane, I was at a house where a guy came back from the pub (pissed up) and decided to get his Ruger Redhawk (.44 Mag) out of the cabinet and pass it round the group. I also met someone who happily told me how he'd despatched a vixen with a sub 12 ft lbs air rifle. A member of the club I used to be a member of was jailed for eight years for rape and kidnap. He had club membership an FAC and several rim fire rifles. I could go on.
IMVHO privately owned rifles and shotguns no longer have a place in our much changed society. I believe special FACs should be issued to those who can justify it as a means of protecting their livestock and crops and satisfy all the current criteria.
BTW my father in law holds a licence and has a shotgun. He is a retired geosynthetics company managing director. Is he likely to shoot me in the face soon given that he is not a farmer?
No, think the laws are fine. You are going to get the occassional exception, not really a great deal you can do about that. Some people do have a legitimate right to own a gun, so the occassional nutter will unfortunately get access.
At the end up if I want a gun, I could go out tomorrow and find someone to sell me one quiet easily. The current legislation is stingent enough though that guns aren't really in the general culture, so I'm happy with that, you cannot really legislate for nutters imo.
do you really believe that about every gun owner?Of course its all about violent fantasies
TJ - Generally speaking yes, it does. The violent nutters with guns (of whom there are many) generally don't own them legally.
Occasionally, people lose the plot and murder their families. more often than not (read the news, you won't have to go back that far)this leads to mass stabbings. Should we therefore ban kitchen knives?
the only people who should be able to hold guns are those for whom its a tool. Not those for who its about filling fantasy
that rules out most of the soldiers in the world then.
You'll find that soldiers view their rifles, guns and pistols as tools far more so than any gamekeeper does.
Its not utter rubbish - Ryan at Hungerford, Hamilton, Raoul Mort. All legally held guns, all violent fatasists, all clearly unfit to hold, non had legitimate excuse to have the guns.
If yo have a need for a gun then fine - however far too many people have guns simply to fufill their fantasises and occasionaly this leads to these sort of shootings.
People who want to own guns when there is no reason of utility should not be able to.
edlong - Member
As for "clearly unfit to hold the guns",
Me for instance. I am classed as unfit because of epilepsy.......disbility discrimination? Will you stand up for me TandemJeremy
Edlong - thats the two recent ones - of people going on the rampage and killing multiple people
Both of the people in your example were taxi drivers
there are more SGC cert holders in the country than taxi drivers
clearly, the answer is that we ban taxi drivers.
Edit -
Raoul Mort. All legally held guns
No it wasn't TJ - you're thinking of Derek Bird, you thick git!
I hear some people with driving licenses have killed people using cars. Can we take cars out of private ownership please?
Meanwhile the elephant in the room is that plenty of people who have fantasies of being Sebastien Vettel are allowed to hold driving licenses, and I'd wager that far more people have been killed by those than by people using firearms.
lazybike - Member"Of course its all about violent fantasies"
do you really believe that about every gun owner?
Yes - apart from those who use it as a tool.
there is no other reason
I enjoy clay pigeon shooting, and am in the process of going through the licencing. After I get the licence, I'll get a couple of guns (12 bore for me, possibly a .410 for my son's use - clearly only under my supervision), which will be stored either at the club or at home. If the guns are at home, they'll be in an approved cabinet in the cellar, with the ammunition in a separate cabinet.
Obviously I [i]could[/i] turn into a nutter, get the guns out and go on a rampage. But I have a large selection of lethal items around the house at present, not the least of which are very large and sharp kitchen knives. In the garden are some extremely nasty (if used in the wrong way) axes. What makes you think I'm likely to be any more of a nutter with a shotgun than I am with anything else?
aracer - Member
Meanwhile the elephant in the room is that plenty of people who have fantasies of being Sebastien Vettel are allowed to hold driving licenses.
Or those who flout the speed limit on motorbikes. Let's not forget them.
nicf - its simply that is far easier to kill with a gun. Quicker, easier and from a distance.
A gun has no other use other than killing. thats what they are for.
nicf - its simply that is far easier to kill with a gun.
No it isn't. I could walk up to 20 people on the street and more of them could kill with a car than a gun.
You are trolling VERY badly - step away.
maybe so , but soldiers fantasise about war not guns...You'll find that soldiers view their rifles, guns and pistols as tools far more so than any gamekeeper does.
There should be absolutely no private firearm ownership at all. It should be like the library system.
I'm close to TJ on this one.
How about guns/ammo used for sport/leisure are held at Police stations, released only when justified (competition, shoot etc), with penalties for late return? Or something like that?
I too see no need for them to be held at home.
TandemJeremy - MemberAnd its so clearly rigorous and keeps out the violent fantasists
We have very few shootings, so perhaps it does.
Its not utter rubbish - Ryan at Hungerford, Hamilton, Raoul Mort. All legally held guns, all violent fatasists, all clearly unfit to hold, non had legitimate excuse to have the guns.
But is there an minority of legally-held gun owner/murderers creating more media interest when the majority of gun crime is carried out using illegally held weapons? I have absolutely no idea if this is the case but I reckon that reporting the former sells more newspapers and that lots of people are relatively desensitised to the latter.
Nice one and also where will I get a bit of casual work as a beater? Although we don't really get paid as they only pay 25 pound and then take you to the pub and you spend 35 pound?????? Uhmm another helping hand to the rural community. No doubt Tandem ar*e hole thinks the country should only be used for his personal cycling benefit?Nick - Member
Where will I get my free pheasants, geese and woodcock?
Its not a troll too tall - its the unpleasant truth that the violent fantasists cannot see.
Apart from a very few people like farmers who need guns as a tool then there is no reason at all for anyone else to have them - its all about killing things and anyone who kills for fun is mentally unfit to hold a gun
A gun has no other use other than killing. thats what they are for.
Sorry, that's just not true. My air rifles have never killed anything, and I don't intend to use shotguns for anything other than clay pigeon shooting.
A gun has no other use other than killing. thats what they are for.
Richard Faulds would beg to disagree.
TJ Recent? Hungerford was, what, 1987??? And, AFAIK, Moat didn't have a licence. Even if he did, pretty sure he used a sawn-off shotgun, which would be illegal to hold even if you did have a licence.
So, "all" of the gun murders that were committed with legally held guns are Hungerford ('87?), Dunblane ('96), Cumbria ('10) and now this latest. Four incidents in 25 years?
And how many murders have been committed with illegally held guns (not including IRA types, let's exclude them for fairness)in the last 25 years?
"I don't know" is the answer tbh, but you've clearly not got anything better to do, so why don't you find out and let us know? I reckon it's gonna be more....
in fairness, 2 out of 3 happened before existing gun laws.(hamilton the cause of the change). I don't know how that would have affected their outcomes mind, worth pointing out for discussive purposes.TandemJeremy - Member
Its not utter rubbish - Ryan at Hungerford, Hamilton, Raoul Mort. All legally held guns, all violent fatasists, all clearly unfit to hold, non had legitimate excuse to have the guns.
So Olympic level sport doesnt count then TJ?
[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics [/url]
How about guns/ammo used for sport/leisure are held at Police stations, released only when justified (competition, shoot etc),
I went foxing at 11 at night twice last week, for a local farmer who was having problems with foxes
when do you propose it would be OK for me to pick up and return my rifle?
nearest police station is five miles away - nearest police station with an open enquiries desk is ten miles away, this is open office hours only...
Raoul Mort. All legally held guns
Source? (Rhetorical question TJ, I know you don't have one because that's incorrect).
however far too many people have guns simply to fufill their fantasises
Source? (Rhetorical question TJ, I know you don't have one, because you've just made that up).
People who want to kill people will kill people, whether guns are available or not, just look at the roman empire, or 1066.
More laws banning more stuff is not the answer, it's better use of the current laws and enforcement of legislation and guidelines.
its the unpleasant truth that the violent fantasists cannot see
The unpleasant truth is that you cannot see anyone elses point of view.
[img] 
[/img]
Gun Deaths
Number of Deaths from Firearms Injury - United Kingdom, 1997 to 2006
Figures include deaths with a Coroner's verdict of accident, suicide, homicide and undetermined intent.
Answer given on 25 October 2007
Year
Number
1997 - 198
1998 - 229
1999 - 207
2000 - 204
2001 - 193
2002 - 181
2003 - 187
2004 - 191
2005 - 185
2006 - 210
In a previous parliamentary answer the figures for 1994, 1995 and 1996 were given as 341, 358 and 254 respectively
interesting to note quite a drop after the dunblane legislation.
I recently went clay shooting and enjoyed it. If it were something I wanted to pursue I'd be happy to keep the shotgun at the local club and use it as and when. However if I were into shooting birds then I'm sure it would be more practical to keep the gun at home. It seems that there are a large number of shotgun owners and a very small number of shootings I can't see the sense in penalising honest people for the crimes of a very few nutters.
no its notits all about killing things
Kenny - the only reason for holding a gun that is not a tool is to fufuill violent fantasises. there is no other reason. People will attempt to justify its all about sport but its actually all about killing and blood lust.
I go shooting.
It would be unfair to punish the masses because of the actions of a few.
TJ, you are not very good at this variety of troll. Go for a jog or something.
its actually all about killing and blood lust.
No it's not. Would you like me to post you a brace of pheasant for the pot? They're free range, and very healthy too. Or are you vegan, as clearly eating any meat would be all about killing and blood lust too.
Fishing rods, they're used to kill things too for pleasure. Yeah I know some catch and release. But most are for killing animals to eat, yummy fish. Guess in TJ world we'll be banning them. But it's for the best we should try and distance ourselves from our food and how it gets to the table.
Kenny - the only reason for holding a gun that is not a tool is to fufuill violent fantasises. there is no other reason. People will attempt to justify its all about sport but its actually all about killing and blood lust.
Playstations should be banned for the same reason.
And fishing.
And archery.
And paintballing.
And historical war reenactment societies.
And dungeons and dragons.
For someone who works in the field of mental health, you really know **** all about the issue, don't you TJ
seosamh77 - don't suppose you've got any analysis of how many of those were caused by legally / illegally held guns have you?
It's just that there's a bit of a discrepancy between those figures and the four incidents TK cites as evidence that "all" these deaths are caused by the legally held ones...