Forum menu
In the big scheme of things the number of people killed by legally held guns as a percentage of the overall population is stupifingly small. That said I think more could be done to make it even smaller. There are needs and wants in all aspects of life and I'd say there are too many folk with legal access to gun through wants rather than needs and a look again at the criterion for gun ownership would be quite timely. If this meant that legitimate sporting gun users found the pacticalities of continuing their pastime too difficult to continue that's a shame but shit happens. There are other pastimes. Would it hurt the rural economy - maybe, but there are way bigger issues in the rural economy and it's survived much worse in the past.
Declaration - Countryside background, father a member of a shooting club, ex member of the armed forces so in theory should come down on the side of the pro gun lobby.
My guess is that this will be more problematic as you've then got an unsupervised structure in a rural location full of guns that everyone in the vicinity knows about.
Constant security.
Oh what's that I hear you cry? Ittul cost lots of money??
Yeah it will. And?
Surely you're that into your sport that you'd be perfectly happy to pay extra for increased public safety. I'm sure you're all that responsible, aren't you?
simon_g - Memberthe only people that should be allowed to hold guns of any sort are those with a real use for them. Thats the way forward.
That's exactly what the law does, as it stands today. Unless you want to practice target pistol, obviously.
Nope - it allows gun clubs and target shooting and it allows people to hold guns that are of no possible utility at all
...the only people that should be allowed to hold guns of any sort are those with a real use for them...
And the law already takes those needs into consideration, so what, in your opinion, TJ, is going wrong in the assessment process for nutters to obtain guns...?
The bloke that's recently gone postal appears to have been issued with one for the purpose of killing rabbits or some such. I personally don't think that's justification enough if he lived anywhere that rabbits weren't an issue as far as them being pests but justifiable if he lives/works on farm land and it's part of his job criteria, for example.
Why, whats wrong with killing things for fun? why is it any different from killing things for meat?
I enjoy pheasant shooting, does that make me a bad person? I eat the birds I kill.
I don't enjoy shooting rabbits or foxes (very rare) but have to time to time.
So if this guy in Peterlee didn't have a gun to hand the other night, what the general concensus of opinion of what would've happened?
I bet someone in that house would still be dead.
A life devoid of things that have "no possible utility" would be a very sad one indeed.
TJ, shooting doesn't = killing, you're confusing them....my invitation to come shooting still stands....
Shooting things satisfies a primal urge within you
Not at all. I shoot rats and it leaves me feeling rather empty and lifeless not quickened. And no, traps are useless and poison would get into the food chain and put other wildlife at risk, particularly where I live.
No TandemJeremy, I don't think you're wound up, i just believe you are incapable of seeing anyone elses point of view other than your own regardless how much experience that person might have in said matter.
I've already spent way too much time on this so I will bid you good day
are you seriouly saying that any of the above is likely to be true of a nut with a gun? Cool calm and collected fits the majority1. after-pub drinks, when clearly agitated, drunk, without notice etc etc
Pity why cna't define that.2. "work" guns exempt
3. Good point, I wasn't presenting the above as a complete solution.
And we are now back to where you store it.4. When you get home you return the gun, at a guess?
I do not drive the nearest nor if I ever get my license back will I. So sod you is your attitude have i got that right?5. Unlikely...and so what? There is no "right" to gun ownership.
So we are hiring police just to sit in police stations doing nothing for most of the day.6. Paid for be a fee.
Why can't you be a bit more honest you don't want people to have guns and you are happy to speed in your car which kills thousands of people every year. Ohh and if you say you never speed your a liar.
Neighbour loses about 40 chickens in about 10 attacks a year and there is nothing [u]unusual[/u] in that7. Again working gun exemption covers this...how many other guns are used for this?
8. See 5 above.
I think you will find that you made it personal when if we followed your rules the vast majority of peopole would not be able to have a gun......no doubt your intentions. That doesn't include me as I don't shoot and have no intensions of taking it up I am jsut not spitefull enough to take away some elses hobby after all the death caused by people with legal held guns are merely a spit in the ocean compared to other deaths.As for making it personal, well it says more about you than me
So lets stop everyone else.I have no desire to shoot,
I already worked that out by your attitude see above.despite my establishment/middle class/
As in your great granny had a chicken??farming origins
My guess is that this will be more problematic as you've then got an unsupervised structure in a rural location full of guns that everyone in the vicinity knows about.
Constant security.Oh what's that I hear you cry? Ittul cost lots of money??
Yeah it will. And?
Surely you're that into your sport that you'd be perfectly happy to pay extra for increased public safety. I'm sure you're all that responsible, aren't you?
Constant security in a remote location that is un-manned? so when it is targeted it takes ages for anyone to get there to stop the thieves.
But if it is manned then its no better than having the guns at home as you are relying that the supervisor of the guns isn't a nutter.
Or just let gun owners keep their guns at home.
Yes, whats wrong with that exactly?
Pends on the level of 'enjoyment', dunnit?
I totally understand hunting. In fact I'd love to do it (properly in Norway or somewhere, not in the UK with speshly raised herds and managed estates cos that's just bullshit). But there's always potential for some people to take it too far.
You do strike me as a bit over-enthusiastic when it comes to guns. You've bragged a good few times on here about your gun ownership. I do hope you don't pose in front of a mirror holding guns....
...you do, don't you? Oh dear. 😐
Zulu-Eleven - Member
[i]Comparing guns to cars is completely spurious. Please stop.[/i]
Why?They're both fairly innocuous lumps fo metal if used properly fulfil great utility and pleasure, and if used improperly kill can kill people - we don't NEED cars, but we as a society accept them, and they kill a lot more people than guns do!
The difference is guns are designed to be lethal.
I don't want to live in a country like the US or Switzerland but guns do have their uses. The current system means legal ownership is complicated enough to dissuade most of the simpletons that might buy them as toys if ownership were easier.
You've forgotten shooting is an Olympic sport, TJ. The last weapon I shot was a biathlon rifle and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
People use guns because they'd be shit if they had to hunt any other way. Oh look at me, I shot a pheasant - one of the most stupid animals one is likely to come across in the c(o)untryside. Rob a pair of trainers from Sports Direct and try catching it on foot and see how tough you are. 😆
Oh look at me, I shot a pheasant - one of the most stupid animals one is likely to come across in the c(o)untryside.
S'true though innit? No need to shoot them; just go along the motorway and pick 'em up off the hard shoulder.
I nearly had a fight with a squirrel yesterday. It tried to mug me in Hackney. 😐
Its not often I find myself agreeing with TJ....in fact, I don't think I've ever agreed with TJ but..well...I can't bring myself to say it
I know two people with gun licenses, both with criminal records and both utter headcases. I'm terrified at the thought of them having access to high powered guns considering one has a history of drug use and the other is at best unstable.
I live in a pretty rural part of the country where a lot of hunting goes on and for this guns are deemed necessary. I personally HATE hunting and blood sports in general, but others think differently which is fair enough. Its not illegal, therefore I'm entitled to my opinion but its just that - an opinion.
The statement about fantasists owning guns does in some part hold true. I can't see a legitimate reason for having pistols or automatic weapons in the home other than for some sort of role playing scenario. That said I don't know the laws on gun ownership, it might already be illegal. It pains me to say it but I'm inclined to agree with Elf as well (that actually hurts), licensing a property for gun ownership would make more sense to me.
I'd like to see more thorough checks for those applying for gun licenses, thus removing the likelihood of people like 'my friends' obtaining firearms.
The points about cars, motorbikes, MTB's are irrelevent. The insults are just pathetic.....
dogbert - MemberNo TandemJeremy, I don't think you're wound up, i just believe you are incapable of seeing anyone elses point of view other than your own regardless how much experience that person might have in said matter.
No one has come up with any reason why the private ownership of guns (except for those who use than as a needed tool) should be allowed other than "I want to"
Or just let gun owners keep their guns at home.
How about if the firing pins are removed and stored at home then?
No I know it's not a perfect solution, just trying to look at options is all.
Or just let gun owners keep their guns at home.
I'd really rather not live near anyone who had guns in their home. Speshly if I had kids.
No one has come up with any reason why the private ownership of guns (except for those who use than as a needed tool) should be allowed other than "I want to"
He's right you know. I've not read a single reasonable justification for gun ownership by anyone outside of a farm or somewhere where you actually would need them as tools.
Lots of frothing though, which is always fun.
The transition from:
respected company chairman, a member of the gun club for several years
to: a former company chairman, who recently lost his job, is suspected of shooting dead his wife and two daughters before turning the gun on himself can happen in five minutes never mind five years. That being the time between certificate renewals.
Constant security.
How'd that work?
Crikey the police can't manage!, so I doubt anyone else could.
Again, the same people would still have access.
Oh what's that I hear you cry? Ittul cost lots of money??
Nah, you hear me cry that it's a daft proposition.
Surely you're that into your sport that you'd be perfectly happy to pay extra for increased public safety. I'm sure you're all that responsible, aren't you?
Not my sport. Got no desire to shoot anything, and many of the people I've met who do aren't people I'd want to spend much time with. But that in itself isn't a reason for extra legislation.
I think people maybe need to separate arguments into 'do people want legislation to reduce murder?', and if so then examine if their proposals would do so, or 'do people want legislation to ban things that they find repulsive?', and if it's the latter, how does society strike a balance between personal freedoms and society's moralities.
Almost missed your little comment, Elfinsaftey. The use of the word 'prick' makes you think I'm angry...? Live a sheltered life do you...?
If I didn't dislike the emoticon so much I'd roll my eyes...
To win an Olympic medal, TJ. Or simply participate in those Olympic sports that require a gun.
TJ - you are a knob of the highest order! You make a statement like this
This is not a troll. Its the unpalatable truth. Gun ownership is all about killing things.
and basically you naff all. Gun ownership got me many many medals and trophies at International level as well and all I did was KILL PAPER!!!!! Stop sprouting your garbage and grow up!
The difference is guns are designed to be lethal.
Nope, they're really not, in fact they're very carefully designed and engineered to be perfectly safe, there has been a huge amount of effort and seceral hundreds of years reactice put into making damn sure that they only go off when you pull the trigger.
Sit a loaded gun on the table, and it really will not hurt anyone, unless you pick it up, point it at someone and shoot it.
I'll bet more people have been killed by car handbrakes failing, and cars rolling down the driveway and causing a crash, than have been caused by modern firearms spontaneously firing, without human involvement - they're really quite safe, inaminate objects.
No one has come up with any reason why the private ownership of guns (except for those who use than as a needed tool) should be allowed other than "I want to"
Not having ever applied for a gun licence I can't say with 100% certainty, but I am quite confident that if you put 'I want to' on your application, you won't get a licence to hold a firearm.
TJ has it crossed your mind that i would not want to live in a country where 'because i want to' was not considered a legitimate answer.
The current legislation makes it a sufficent PITA to put off casual louts while still giving people freedom to live their lives as they see fit
I'm trying to picture Zulu in a Davy Crockett hat and wearing animal skins out doing some pest control using his survivalist skills. Flashfart can be his little doggie sidekick. I reckon they'd be in heaven. Huntin' and a trappin' and a campin' under the stars. At one with nature.
Comparing guns to cars is completely spurious. Please stop.
Why?
They're both fairly innocuous lumps fo metal if used properly fulfil great utility and pleasure, and if used improperly kill can kill people
Whilst I bow to your greater gun knowledge the only thing i can do with a gun is shoot stuff - it is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity into something t...why you want to compare a thing built to kill/maim /wound to any other object that can be misused to kill is lost on me.
Zulu - riduculous - guns are for killing things - that is what they are designed for
titusrider - I want to live in a country where dangerous weapons are not allowed without good reason and I don't consider shooting things for fun to be a good reason. Freedom for people to do as they wish so long as it does not impinge upon anothers freedom
Nope, they're really not, in fact they're very carefully designed and engineered to be perfectly safe, there has been a huge amount of effort and seceral hundreds of years reactice put into making damn sure that they only go off when you pull the trigger.
Seriously, can you not see the stupidity in what you're typing?
What is the one purpose of a gun? To help with the washing up?? To help out with the gardening or guide old people safely across the road?
As for your table analogy, I'm sure Nuclear weapons are pretty safe when they're locked away in a **** off big hanger with the pins still in. It's pretty clear what they're designed for though.
Gun ownership got me many many medals and trophies at International level as well and all I did was KILL PAPER!!!!!
I know it's not fair to you, you have done nothing wrong afterall, but sadly I and I'm guess quite a lot of other folk would opt to have your right to play at putting holes in paper on hold for the greater good of the general populus. Sorry 😥
edit - I put holes in bits of paper every now and then with an air rifle. Does than make me a hypocrite?
Zulu - riduculous - guns are for killing things - that is what they are designed for
And I ask you again, what exactly is wrong with that?
Guns only kill [b]people[/b] if you misuse them.
Just like cars only kill people if you misuse them.
TJ, answer the question, geez. How would you assess who is capable of ownership of a firearm...?
"Are you are farmer ?"
No
"**** off then..."
TandemJeremy - MemberZulu - riduculous - guns are for killing things - that is what they are designed for
And yet you say yourself that different logic should apply to archery, when the only use for a bow is to kill things.
TandemJeremy - Memberguns are for killing things - that is what they are designed for
Target guns are not designed for killing things.
Almost missed your little comment, Elfinsaftey. The use of the word 'prick' makes you think I'm angry...?
Yes.
Live a sheltered life do you...?
No.
Car = a form of transport.
Gun = something ultimately designed to kill.
Unless an expert can show me evidence contrary to all the historical reference to the invention of gunpowder and guns....
None of the rifled guns I've shot was designed for killing things. They were all designed to comply with the rules of a sporting dicipline, TJ.
You're wrong. Prick...
8)
Not you, Edukator. It was meant for Elfinnotsafe...
You're wrong. Prick...
Well done you...
And with that, I'm off
teasel - MemberTJ, answer the question, geez. How would you assess who is capable of ownership of a firearm...?
"Are you are farmer ?"
No
"**** off then..."
Two things - a proper mental health assessment and a good reason for owning the gun.
Erm, no actualy, I'm always right and am never wrong. Scientifically proven.
Which, using such scientific logic as is accepted throughout the World, means that it is in fact [i]you[/i] who are wrong.
Soz, but that's how it is. 😐
Now, try again, without being rude, if you can.
something ultimately designed to kill.
Again, whats the issue with that Fred? whats the problem with killing things? You accepted yourself that this was a perfectly acceptable utility, as farmers use them for that.
the only problem that any of you really seem to have a problem with, is guns being misused to kill [b]people[/b]
Well, they don't just do that on their own, do they?
Elfinsafety - MemberOr just let gun owners keep their guns at home.
I'd really rather not live near anyone who had guns in their home. Speshly if I had kids.
Yes the odds are extremly high that they would come round and kill you and your children that happens every day..........no actually it doesn't. By the way I don't like cars and for environmental reasons I think you should have a valid reason for owning one. After all there are busses, trains, car sharing, cycling. Car ownership just means people take unnesecary journeys leading to more roads more pollutin and more destruction of the countryside. And no you don't need it to get to work move closer. Private car ownership jsut alowes people to move away from work and kill children in there rush to get home.