Forum menu
But they could drive a car through a crowded High St, no?
Where there's a will, there's a way.
No.
It's not the same.
You can't drive a car into a building and hole up there once the cops are after you, and you can't drive around a wooded island running people over.
Guns are really the only covert, portable and lethal at range weapons.
In other news - the bloke accused of shooting someone with an illegal firearm in manchester announced to court that his name was 'psycho stapleton'
Clearly he was also 'mentally unstable' - perhaps they should have banned gim from owning a gun too?
Whats our resident mental [comma] health professional's opinion?
In other news - the bloke accused of shooting someone with an illegal firearm in manchester announced to court that his name was 'psycho stapleton'
Jury please disregard Zulubitty's comments. More irrelevance and bluster. Jeez, stick to the point man.
I am not a mental health professional
However how you can claim this guy was not mentally unstable is quite amazing. he killed 3 people. The police had warnings but gave him his guns back.
Ah well - I have stuff to do now.
I am not a mental health professional
Sorry - I missed the comma 😉
TJ - I think you've actually managed to professionally embarass yourself here - do you really think that someone suffering from depression is 'clearly mentally unstable' - is that really how you view your patients?
I think it is significant that the seemingly increasingly common massacre type events couldn't take place without guns.Someone may be able to stab or gas their immediate family, but they can't walk into the middle of Hungerford or onto an island and take out tens of people that way.
You're completely correct. If you look at Breivik, he planned this for ages, planted bombs, and even went to the Czech Republic to buy illegal weapons. I don't care what legislation you put in place, there's no way you'd have stopped this massacre from happening.
Bottom line: the number of people killed with legally held weapons in the UK is tiny. If we can tighten that up a little (I've made some suggestions earlier), then that's great. But to think that we'd prevent the awful incidents like Dunblane, Utoya, Colombine, Hungerford through more stringent controls over legal weapons is unrealistic, I'm afraid.
Has this moved on to be a sensible debate yet, or is it still the usual drivel? Are we still arguing about whether using a gun for target shooting is a use or not? Is TJ still deploying his usual tactics? Have we started focusing on whether we need to look at the causes of why people murder rather than the tools they use to do it?
LHS - Member"after all most of those birds can and are reared for shooting"
I've only been pheasant shooting a few times in the UK and they certainly weren't cage reared.
You should look into this a bit more. 6 times ( at least) of the UK population of wild pheasants are shot each year according to defra. the vast majority of pheasants shot are farmed for shooting, They are kept in pens until a few weeks before the start of the shooting season.
interesting statement TJ, let's try replacing "gun" with "car"
TandemJeremy - Member
zulu - they knew he was mentally unstable and he killed 3 other people - of course he should never have had his [s]guns[/s][b]car[/b] returned to him.so long as people are allowed to keep [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b] at home then these incidents will continue. Its not that the system works in the main but failed in this case its that the system clearly does not work or else we would not see repeated killings with legally held [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b].
It has happened before and it will continue to happen so long as people are allowed to keep [s]guns and ammunition[/s][b]cars[/b] at home.
If yo think the freedom to own [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b] means multiple deaths every year is a price worth paying ten so be it. I do not. I believe the rights of people not to be killed by [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b] far outweighs the right to hold [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b]- except as said for the very few people who need [s]guns[/s][b]cars[/b]to shoot vermin.
I prefer the right to life over the right to [s]shoot[/s] [b]drive[/b].
how many more people are killed by cars than guns in our society?
both driving and shooting involve the handling of dangerous equipment and are licensed activities, killing people with one is more socially accepted than by the other
All this case demonstrates is that any system is as strong as it's weakest link. The control of firearms is far higher than that for driving and consequently deaths through legally held firearms are few. I imagine the system will be reviewed, lessons learnt and further controls imposed.
meanwhile you can run over and kill a cyclist and get community service http://road.cc/content/news/28728-driver-who-pleaded-guilty-killing-time-trialling-cyclists-walks-free-court
Bottom line: the number of people killed with legally held weapons in the UK is tiny. If we can tighten that up a little (I've made some suggestions earlier), then that's great. But to think that we'd prevent the awful incidents like Dunblane, Utoya, Colombine, Hungerford through more stringent controls over legal weapons is unrealistic, I'm afraid.
^^This^^
how many more people are killed by cars than guns in our society?
Spurious, spurious, spurious. This has been done and binned. And yet, someone keeps coming back for more. Jeez. 🙄
Dunblane couldn't happen now because of the controls, hungerford was a legally held gun.
Of course if it was no longer legal to hold guns at home then shootings with legally held guns would not happen.
DD - 'cos the pro gun argument is so thin. Its basically I like guns and shooting things and its my right to do so.
Ah well - I have stuff to do now.
Really? It appears not.
They are kept in pens until a few weeks before the start of the shooting season
And this is worse than factory farming how?
And this is worse than factory farming how?
More STWers in "sticking to the point" difficulties.
One more then I really must go 🙂
so here we have another shooting tragedy.
Of course if it was no longer legal to hold guns at home then shootings with legally held guns would not happen.
Really? Thats a fair old leap there TJ
what would stop someone from pre planning a killing, like Hungerford, Dunblane and Whitehaven?
Sort of shot your own fox there haven't you?
I see you've gone all quiet on the 'castigating anyone with depression as being mentally unstable' front...
so here we have another shooting tragedy.
But by your own admission, his gun was not a problem, as it was held for professional pest control reasons, so fulfilled the utility argument, even though it was an accident...
More STWers in "sticking to the point" difficulties.
What exactly is the point at this moment in time?
More STWers in "sticking to the point" difficulties
The point is valid - I would rather kill my own food rather than have food raised from factory farming. It is better for me and the animals. Hence the reason to own a gun.
TJ is dismissing the need for any private gun ownership which I disagree with.
The point is valid
No it's not. Defend your gun-love and don't be getting into factory farming.
Defend your gun-love and don't be getting into factory farming.
I just did 🙄
Come on Darcy it's one or the other. CHOOSE!
Guns or factory farming, which is it?
Spurious, spurious, spurious. This has been done and binned. And yet, someone keeps coming back for more. Jeez
why is it spurious? both are about the licensed use of potentially dangerous equipment. There conditions placed on the licensee in both cases and health issues could see the withdrawl of either licence
personally I don't have a firearm, don't really see the need to have one and don't anticpate shooting at anything in the future. I don't have a problem with an effective system of licenced ownership to enable the use of firearms in safe environments for sport, pleasure or business (legal of course 😉 )
Its basically I like guns and shooting things and its my right to do so.
Which is actually a very strong argument, and can be applied to pretty much any activity, from religious worship to football to cinema going to whatever. As a society we decide where to draw the line - a small minority of football fans are thugs, should we ban football? A small minority of priests are child-molesters, should we ban religious worship?
Personally I think the gun-owning line is about in the right place, maybe a few more controls could be added (see nickf's post above for example) but outright banning is, imo, an authoritarian measure which does little for security, and a lot against liberty.
why is it spurious? both are about the licensed use of potentially dangerous equipment
A gun isn't potentially dangerous, it's intentionally dangerous.
Guns or factory farming, which is it?
Organically reared pheasants shot with lasers?
why is it spurious?
I dunno, try reading back through the thread - it's kinda about gun ownership, not car ownership. A car is not manufactured as a weapon. Really, if you can't get beyond this first point...
A gun isn't potentially dangerous, it's intentionally dangerous.
Oooh, I loikes dat. Zulu will be along in a minute to instruct you on how safe guns actually are. Whereas mental health professionals on tandems are likely to kill without warning.
Mental health professionals on tandems are likely to kill without warning.
This, somes it up perfectly.
Organically reared pheasants shot with lasers?
I know this was a good attempt to dodge an answer, but lasers are better than guns how?
I know this was a good attempt to dodge an answer, but lasers are better than guns how?
😆
I remember at some point in the thread, the gun-lovers were asked why target shooting couldn't be done with lasers...I was simply referring to that. 🙂
I know this was a good attempt to dodge an answer, but lasers are better than guns how?
WOOOOOSH
WOOOOOSH
Should've used a laser... 😛
so here we have another shooting tragedy.
very sad, just like those people who kill their unseen child while parking the car on the drive or the pensioner who recently killed his wife by crushing her against the garage door.
accidents happen, they are all avoidable but to err is human.
you are human aren't you TJ? i do have my suspicions that you are a korean spam-bot released to cause angst and paranoia on the u.k's internet.
Was shooting people an accident? Did he just err?
A gun isn't potentially dangerous, it's intentionally dangerous.
so are cars that can do more than the national speed limit.
do you really think that someone suffering from depression is 'clearly mentally unstable'
so what you are saying is he was mentally stable and shot three people with legally owned firearms .....so we cannot even trust the non mentally ill with guns..I hear your plea brother I hear your plea
how many more people are killed by cars than guns in our society?
You mean in the uk or world wide? Given the wars we have fought I would go for guns by about 8 million worlwide I donnu hundreds of millions more …whats your best guess? Probably more cars than guns as well but hey good point
both driving and shooting involve the handling of dangerous equipment and are licensed activities, killing people with one is more socially accepted than by the other
It is because one is an accident and the other is using a device designed to kill - yiou have spotted that accidently killing someoen by error or omission is viewed as worse than going on a gun rampage .do you disagree ?
It is a chalk and cheese comparison a guns sole design purpose is to kill and maim a car can do this [ as can any inappropriately handled implement] where as a gun does it when handled properly
Why do armies not equip their soldiers with cars ?
It is a really stupid point to keep labouring.
Of course if it was no longer legal to hold guns at home then shootings with legally held guns would not happen.
Really? Thats a fair old leap there TJ
what would stop someone from pre planning a killing, like Hungerford, Dunblane and Whitehaven
nothing but they would not be able to use a legally held gun as that would be illegal
both are about the licensed use of potentially dangerous equipment.
No a gun is not potentially dangerous it is only dangerous…. the only way to render it safe it is to not use it …why do they own them to kill stuff [ the odd sports shootist aside] whey do people own cars …to get somewhere …they are not the same thing at all just because you can kill with them both.
I could kill with a potato masher[ might take some time like but I could] but I would let a child play with one …how about a loaded gun ….no more dangerous as they bioth kill …jessus this is a daft point to keep labouring and gets re hashed every few pages
very sad, just like those people who kill their unseen child while parking the car on the drive or the pensioner who recently killed his wife by crushing her against the garage door.
accidents happen, they are all avoidable but to err is human.
he went on agun rampage to comapre this to accidently killing a loved one in an accident is just stupid.
No one is arguing a car is not at all dangerous and that they do not result in deaths but that does not make them more dangerous than guns or we would give them to armies to defend themselves
If I was going to kill someone, I wouldn't shoot them. That would be daft.
I'd recruit a lot of friends, all dress up like a Napoleonic theme night in a gay club, get a load of horses and a pack of rabid hounds. Then we'd charge after my victim, making as much noise as possible with bugles and stuff, before setting the hounds on them to tear them limb from limb.
This would be just as illegal as shooting people, but apparently the police don't give a flying **** about you doing it, and just turn a blind eye.
so are cars that can do more than the national speed limit.
Best stick to making the tea or whatever it is you do between posting (or is it the other way round?).
A gun isn't potentially dangerous, it's intentionally dangerous.
so are cars that can do more than the national speed limit.
Its a good point, and rather well put 😀
you are a korean spam-bot
And here we have an early contender for post of 2012
😀
Its a good point, and rather well put
Struggling again bitty?
My neighbour has guns.
He has owned them all this life.
He hunts, and provides local restuarants and, ahem, his neighbours, with fantastic meat.
I'm glad he has them. I don't need one.
He is very serious about ownership, safety, and keeping his nose clean.
Top bloke.
So he gets to keep his guns, imo.
erm
Was shooting people an accident? Did he just err?
i wasn't there but i guess he went apeshit?
so are cars that can do more than the national speed limit.
No not really, no.