[Closed] Private ownership of firearms

violent fantisists

we've heard a lot about these TJ

Can you go into a little more detail please? What violent fantasies do gun owners have? can you back that up with any examples at all?

Is it the 'violent fantasy' of scoring a perfect V-Bull, or possibly the 'violent fantasy' of a nice juicy piece of meat, on a plate, with some boiled spuds, julienne carrots, a nice red-win jus, mmmmmm

just asking like?

Are Taxi Drivers all Violent Fantasists?

I've pointed you to multiple crimes committed by Taxi Drivers, and at least too mass murders/killing sprees in the last couple of years - there's even a film about it, you should look it up.

as a gun was designed purley for killing people it is daft to claim they dont do this ...are all the guns broken?

zulu people with gins have gone on killing sprees all over the world how many examples would you like of their violent fantasies being made real??

I am not anti gun ownership but I would reduce it and not allow all gun users to store them at home

beaten to it by an Elf.

Selekta! Comefollowme! 😀

Can you go into a little more detail please? What violent fantasies do gun owners have? can you back that up with any examples at all?

I think it was the legendary original 'owning with bombers' thread, where you boasted of how any burglar would be met with extreme violence if they broke into your house, as you own guns and ammunition at home...

Sounds like a bit of a fantasy to me. 😉

JY -(last comment as you are reasonable) - dangerous people get access when the law fails (as may have happened here) or when they act illegally.

I supported tighter gun laws on the basis that a large % of weapons used are stolen. Hence the changes not that long ago on security and restrictions on types of guns. But the restriction placed on small bore rifle enthusiasts etc went too far IMHO. But there needs to be a balance and in the main, the police have it correct at the moment. But this can never be 100% foolproof. But neither would a complete ownership ban.

Criminals and the insane will always be able to access dangerous weapons. The law needs to balance the needs of the majority with respecting individual rights. And it does a reasonable job at the moment.

Far better to understand the motivation behind the crime that merely targeting the instrument.

To be honest, I'd rather not go into your violent fantasies Zulu. We've seen shadows of them at times here over the years and they'd be pretty disturbing. Nearly as much as the bitty ones.

You really need to move to a southern state of the USA (as mentioned earlier on your [i][b]diversionary[/b][/i] thread).

TJ actually used the term "fatasists" in one post. I'm still trying to decidce whether that's an insult or a thumbs-up stance. Maybe a mis-spell and what he really meant was "fetasists", but again couldn't decide whether it for or against the squeedgy cheese...

Edited for missing s

as a gun was designed purley for killing people it is daft to claim they dont do this ...are all the guns broken?

Ah, interesting move of the goalposts there, we've gone from guns being designed to kill, to being designed to kill [b]people[/b]

would that be why my rifle is commonly called a deer rifle? because it was designed to kill people? is that right Junky?

Funny about the violent fantasies really, the only violent fantasies I have are about women, and recently the majority of them involve me being tied down while Pippa Middleton violently unleashes her riding crop on me 😉

What about accepting the result of democratic choice, even if it goes against your view?

That would be the democratic choice of a population that was alive 100+ years ago?

Don't remember a referendum on gun ownership lately, or any political party even putting forward a policy I could vote on.

If you want to argue the toss with TJ, try coming up with something meaningful.

Your arrogance knows no bounds does it, Elfin. Toys 19 posted that on the first page.

Comefollowme indeed...

(Rolls eyes. Again...!)

Criminals and the insane will always be able to access dangerous weapons.

heya minute ago you said they were safe 😉
yes of course but guns make it much easier to do the rampage ...any examples of gun owners doing this with a hammer/kinife an other object instead or using their gun when they go loco? they ar emad but not as mad as choose the wrong tool for killing

The law needs to balance the needs of the majority with respecting individual rights.

And it does a reasonable job at the moment.

Hard to know these are raare but would be rare if we reduced gun onweship to zero - is it a price worth paying ..I am not sure tbh.
I am not passionate one way or the other but as a lefty lean towards illiberalism and state intervention on this issue 😉

interesting move of the goalposts there, we've gone from guns being designed to kill, to being designed to kill people

would that be why my rifle is commonly called a deer rifle? because it was designed to kill people? is that right Junky?

Thread needs shooting.

THM

TJ - the nonsense starts on page 1 and is frankly pretty offensive to law-abiding gunowners.

And I'm sure there will be many gun owners prepared to stand up and fight for your right to be "offended"

Maybe one of the problems with society, apart from gratuitous gun ownership, is that fact that people choose to be "offended" by almost anything anyone says that they disagree with these days.

so yes - preventing gun ownereship without good cause would reduce the numbers of murders

Isn't that what is what is already done? You need good cause to have an FAC. Less so with a shotgun granted.
Now whether the law is effectively implemented is an entirely different matter..

I did a quick google, and don't hold this up in anyway as representative of every year, but it was the first that turned up.

[url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf ]UK homicides for 2006[/url]

766 homicides, 50 through fireams.
Scroll through to page 45 and it has a breakdown of the weapons used.

Long barrelled shotguns 4 deaths
Sawn-off 7 deaths
Handguns 22 deaths
Rifles 1 death
Unidentified 13 deaths
Other 1 death

Alas it doesn't explicitly say which ones are legally owned, but I think we can rule out the sawn-offs, Unidentified, Handguns, and others - leaving a possible 5 deaths from legally own weapons. Might be less, might be more, but it's in that ball-park. So if you just banned *all* gun ownership, you'd be looking a reduction in homicides by roughly 5 deaths.

What people who wish for extra legislation, or more money spent on enforcing existing legislation may want to think on, is could the amount of money required to do either save more lives a year if spent on other things?

because it was designed to kill people?

Right, let's have it out...where did the need for guns come from in the first place? Was it for Zulu and Flashfarts huntin' and fishin' and trappin' survivalist weekends or was it for killin' folk?

This me being a 'violent fantasist' earlier in my life.

[img] [/img]

Never even tried to kill anyone.

Up to now.

noteeth - Member

Thread needs shooting.

quote of the thread

Ohh I just thought of something. A gamekeeper I know, wife was sexually assulted on the way home from the pub by someone they both new and lived close by. Instead of going round and giving him a kicking which any reasonalbe bloke with a spine would do, he did nothing, because if he had he would have lost all his gun licenses. The latter is always in the mind of every gun owner ie never get involved in violence of any sort or you will lose your license. the latter is a fact a gun license is easy to lose. And before we have all the pricks saying that fights don't result in deaths they do knocked over and bang your head..dead. Well a good chance. Look at the newspaper seller and the polceman in London. Gun ownership leads to less death not provealbe of course but I would suggest a high possiblty.

*puts hand up*

Killing folk.

Stones
Sticks
Spears
Knives
Bows
Guns
Lightsabres

And so on...

[i]"would that be why my rifle is commonly called a deer rifle? because it was designed to kill people? is that right Junky?"[/i]

Are you saying if you shot it at a person that the bullet would magically veer around them because they're not a deer ? 🙂

SD-253 - Member

. Gun ownership leads to less death not provealbe of course but I would suggest a high possiblty.

AndI get accused of contorted logic.

Uttlerly ridiculous. there is a direct correlation between the number of legally held guns adn the number of gun killings in a society.

Legal gun ownership makes illegal gun and ammunition ownership more likely.

The desperate need to find some justification for owning guns is really amusing.

So gun owners are now complete pacifists?

Jeez, I'm being asked to make a lot of leaps of faith here, but that one...

Boredom Kills.
Who should we ban?

Gun laws are not nearly onerous enough as mentally ill people and violent fantisists get hold of them and guns do kill people.

Indeed. However I'm not aware of any existing technology or methodology that can detect 'mentally ill people' and 'violent fantisists' with 100% success or without false positives.

If you've got one that would be awesome! and would solve a lot of the world's problems.

there is a direct correlation between the number of legally held guns adn the number of gun killings in a society.

Only if you include suicides, I don't think anyones really worried about 'violent fantasists' topping themselves really are they 😉

if you look at homicide rates, there is no correlation at all.

Ps - TJ - correlation does not mean causation, lesson one in science class 😉

TJ There is a direct correlation between the numbers of legally held guns and the numbers of gun murders in any society

Some stats to reflect on here from [url=

]"Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide"[/url]

Table 3: Eastern Europe Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)
Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownership

Russia...........20.54 [2002] 4,000
Moldova..........8.13 [2000] 1,000
Slovakia.........2.65 [2000] 3,000
Romania..........2.50 [2000] 300
Macedonia........2.31 [2000] 16,000
Hungary..........2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland..........1.98 [2004] 39,000
Poland...........1.79 [2003] 1,500
Slovenia.........1.81 [2000] 5,000
Cz. Republic.....1.69 [2000] 5,000
Greece...........1.12 [2003] 11,000

And from the conclusion of this article: "the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world."

Thing is TeeJ, how does the legal ownership of rifles, shotguns and all the other stuff the violent fantasists use for a killin' and a huntin' and a trappin' lead to illegal ownership of handguns which are what are used in most shootings what we don't want happening?

LHS - I think the big game thing may blow TJ's final O-ring

It shouldn't, its infinitely better than buying any meat at your local supermarket.

there is no correlation at all.

Ps - TJ - correlation does not mean causation, lesson one in science class

Gun ownership leads to less death not provealbe of course but I would suggest a high possiblty.

You mean "legal gun ownership" of course?

And where do illegal guns come from?

rightplacerighttime - Member
THM

TJ - the nonsense starts on page 1 and is frankly pretty offensive to law-abiding gunowners.

And I'm sure there will be many gun owners prepared to stand up and fight for your right to be "offended"

Maybe one of the problems with society,is that fact that people choose to be "offended" by almost anything anyone says that they disagree with these days

apart from gratuitous gun ownership,

rightplacerighttime - Member

Gun ownership leads to less death not provealbe of course but I would suggest a high possiblty.

You mean "legal gun ownership" of course?

And where do illegal guns come from?

And where do illegal guns come from?

Well, when a mummy gun and a daddy gun (who are married to other guns) love each other very much....

Your arrogance knows no bounds does it, Elfin.

No. 😀

I better not tell you about the summer i spent in Australia shooting camels,

or the 2 years spent shooting possums at night in NZ

Or clearing caribou for the canadian government,

Good times, made some great friends had a ball,made good money, and could hit a camel from over a 1000yds and still be able to send to the taxidermist.

Dont give a shite what you say,shooting things can be fun,eating them is even better,and when combined with alcohol can be absolutely hilarious.

stop being so typically british and go get a gun you don't no what your missing.

big up to Zulu and his murderous ways.

RPRT - you can have a difference of opinion without insisting on imposing your views on others and questioning the morality of those who disagree.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/private-ownership-of-firearms/page/8#post-3334426 ]This me being a 'violent fantasist' earlier in my life.[/url]

stop being so typically british and go get a gun you don't no what your missing.

I prefer the greater and far more macho thrill of fighting in pubs, rather than shooting something what can't fight back.

Go get a broken bottle, you don't know what you're missing. 😀

You can prove yourself to be much more of a 'mayn' if you do so. Shooting animals is for pansies.

TeamHurtmore + 1

teamhurtmore - Member

RPRT - you can have a difference of opinion without insisting on imposing your views on others and questioning the morality of those who disagree.

Which is why you just chucked a load of insults my way as well as the ridiculous "guns don't kill people do"
????

TandemJeremy - Member
That an answer to me elf - not trying to trip you up - genuinely interested. the "yes sir" approach has always worked for me. Including being chased by a cop in a car for 3 miles - I was on a motorbike in a hurry in traffic and didn't even know he was chasing me full blues and twos Got away with that one

Tj using a motorbike as a lethal weapon late last year! ban them all. etc.

TandemJeremy - Member

SD-253 - Member

. Gun ownership leads to less death not provealbe of course but I would suggest a high possiblty.

Uttlerly ridiculous. there is a direct correlation between the number of legally held guns adn the number of gun killings in a society.

Legal gun ownership makes illegal gun and ammunition ownership more likely.

The desperate need to find some justification for owning guns is really amusing

All these types of shootings have been done by people with gun certificates of various sorts. Not inner city drug gang killings but this sort of multiple killing of people with no connection to crime.
If people were not allowed to hold guns then gun murders would decrease - no doubt.

Is that True ?

Raoul Moat didn't have gun license (you said he did earlier) so I'm doubting you have checked your facts here. 

When you say "ALL" do you actually mean "Some" 

And actually "Hardly Any" in the last 25 Years ??

There is a direct correlation between the numbers of legally held guns and the numbers of gun murders in any society.

Is that True ? Cite your source please ?

Gun crime in the UK  increased year on year in the 35 years leading up to 2006 (Home office statistics)

A total increase over that time of 1500% !!!

And all that time gun control was steadily getting more strict. 

Not to mention that the massive increase in Private gun ownership in America due to the relaxation of the laws on carrying a concealed weapon in many states. Has coincidentally seen a massive drop in gun related violent crime in the same time frame.

The point about usage is a crucial one - the only use for a gun is killing things - 
so yes -[b] preventing gun ownereship without good cause[/b] would reduce the numbers of murders -

We already do that ??

It's just that the "TJ-Law" version of Good Cause....

 is different from what the "Actual Law" think 

No shock there though I don't suppose eh ? 

Raoul Moat didn't have gun license

Where did he get his guns from?

TandemJeremy - Member
That an answer to me elf - not trying to trip you up - genuinely interested. the "yes sir" approach has always worked for me. Including being chased by a cop in a car for 3 miles - I was on a motorbike in a hurry in traffic and didn't even know he was chasing me full blues and twos Got away with that one

soldiers fantasise about war not guns...

You might want to swat up on current affairs. Try googling "Afghanistan".