[Closed] Private ownership of firearms

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

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.

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.

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 😉

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

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 - Member

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.

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.

TandemJeremy - Member
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

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.

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",

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!