FFS – less than a day and the "tighten the gun laws" knee-jerk starts…
Why in any sane world do these people need to own shotguns?
Hunting, pest control, clay pigeon shooting, biathlon…………………..Posted 10 years ago
joemarshall – Member
…The US has third world gun death rates, in the richest country in the world. Are people like you really so sick that you want that in this country too?
It's not sick to own a gun. It's sick to misuse it.
I have lived in communities where there were guns in almost every household and yet there was no gun crime. It's nothing to do with the gun, and everything to do with the person with the gun.
The big problem with gun laws are that criminals and nutters do not obey them, and never will. Gun laws are bandaid legislation.
Gun laws do not prevent gun violence. I'm sure Northern Ireland had some stringent gun laws, for example.Posted 10 years ago
Im not defending them, not in the slightest. I used to shoot, a lot. But they (being shotgun owners & others) would argue that they need them for pest control, it provides a living (in some areas shooting estates do provide a substantial income to the locality) etc etc etc..& they would to a certain extent have a point..However trying to turn this into a political argument shows a lack of understanding about the rural demographic.
Guns are a fecked up part of society..Why do we need them? I cant think of a reasonable argument to support there existence however they are part of the fabric & therefore are hard to get rid of – banning shotguns would be bloody hard if not impossible – they are far too ingrained but it may happen someday.. Whats needed is better control & lets be honest, shocking as this incident is (it is really terrible) its pretty isolated..
ps good spot eddy I had forgotten about the like of clays & biathlon..Posted 10 years ago
Deaths caused by cars are ACCIDENTS
So you really think 3000 people a year in the UK are killed because of a series of unfortunate events?
Dear me, wake up. The vast majority of these people are killed through misadventure, people being cocks.
Just like people driving around with shotguns. If I wanted to kill lots of people I would not use a shotgun, I'd use a car. A car can be a far more dangerous weapon than a shotgun. As the statistics prove. Banning guns would do **** all. This chap would just use a car or a lorry instead.
I could kill more people with a bottle of coca cola than this guy killed with a shotgun, BAN COCA COLA!!!!Posted 10 years ago
I can't see any "tighten the gun laws" knee-jerk reaction on the news anywhere.
Is this "lets not have a knee-jerk reaction" just the usual knee-jerk reaction when people expect a knee-jerk reaction ?Posted 10 years ago
**** me, shotguns in biathlons! Whatever next! 😆Posted 10 years ago
Samuri, you're being an argumentative tw*t (if you don't mind me saying).
Whether you are pro or anti cars (or guns), you can't ignore the fact the guns are designed to kill or maim and don't perform any other useful function (apart from giving a hard-on to some sad bast*rds). 😆Posted 10 years ago
Deaths caused by cars are ACCIDENTS
casual observation would suggest that they are the result of people prioritising their own convenience or entertainment over others' safety 🙁Posted 10 years ago
I could kill more people with a bottle of coca cola than this guy killed with a shotgun
What size of Coca Cola bottle would that be? 500cl, 1 litre or 2 litre?
Would the bottle be glass or plastic?
Given that a shotgun blast can kill with one discharge at up to 50 metres, how many blows with a Coca Cola bottle does it take to kill a person fifty metres away?
Can you do it with one blow out of a car window?
Or are you just a silly person?Posted 10 years ago
Eldridge again thats wide of the mark – lethal range of a shotgun is so dependent on many factors..Type of cartridge you are using, the choke on the barrel, the weather, altitude & lastly what you are actually aiming at..Get your facts in order & stop writing headlines for the Mail!Posted 10 years ago
the result of people prioritising their own convenience or entertainment over others' safety
Much as we'd all like to think that road deaths and injuries are caused by people on their mobiles or tuning their radios, harsh facts indicate that most are just ACCIDENTS – simple errors and misjudgements which have consequences out of all proportion to their originsPosted 10 years ago
epicyclo – Member
"The big problem with gun laws are that criminals and nutters do not obey them, and never will. Gun laws are bandaid legislation."
Reducing the number of guns in circulation and making them harder to obtain is pretty likely to help, don't you think? Criminals might not be deterred but it's still harder to get your hands on a gun and ammo than it would be without legislation, and also easier to obtain prosecutions (find a legal gun in a house- do nothing. Find an illegal gun in a house- prosecute criminal)
I mean, I would like to agree with your argument in a lot of ways, I deeply dislike laws that penalise the many for the actions of the few but I don't think you can argue that there's no benefit or that it only punishes the law abiding. Deterrant might not work (it's rarely effective) but the practicality of the sitution does IMO.
"If I wanted to kill lots of people I would not use a shotgun, I'd use a car. "
Actually, you're spot on tbh. Remember the glasgow airport "bombing"? All that fannying around putting gas cans into a Jeep, and all they had to do was drive down Sauchiehall Street at 40mph on a friday night. Statistically that Cherokee was less deadly than the average.Posted 10 years ago
wide of the mark – lethal range of a shotgun is so dependent on many factors
Yes – and so is the lethality of a Coke bottle. The explosive power of a 2 litre Coke bottle on the top of Everest is so much more devastating than at sea level! LOLPosted 10 years ago
Eldridge go look it up & learn something – it seems you dont know an awful lot about the subject you are talking about..Posted 10 years ago
go look it up & learn something
I'm always willing to learn. Recommend me some authorities which prove that the 100% lethal range of a standard 12 gauge shotgun is more than 50 metres
For full-size humans, of course, Not for specially bred, very slow flying, easy-for-aristoctratic-twits-to-hit game birds!Posted 10 years ago
**** me, shotguns in biathlons! Whatever next
Powerslides.Posted 10 years ago
its not the Mail he's writing for, its The Mirror
the Toffs chip gives it away.Posted 10 years ago
Guns don't kill people, rappers do…Posted 10 years ago
Was one of the victims
shot to death outside Hyper-Value?
Guns are tools. They can be misused like any other tool. It's the fault of the (ab)user, not the tool itself.
Got to love the people who think it's a tory thing – clearly you've never actually lived in the countryside where IME it's a very broad spectrum of people who own shotguns.
You might have a point with rifles, for which you need proof that you have somewhere to use it, which often means owning land/paying to go stalking lots.
And finally, what are you gonna do when theres a zombie apocalypse and there aren't any guns? 😆Posted 10 years ago
**** me, shotguns in biathlons! Whatever next!
MG – only a sad pedant would pick that up given the context of the discussion. AFAIK it is a possibility that a shotgun AND a rifle was used. Go and occupy yourself by checking for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. 🙄Posted 10 years ago
Whether you are pro or anti cars (or guns), you can't ignore the fact the guns are designed to kill or maim and don't perform any other useful function (apart from giving a hard-on to some sad bast*rds).
As has been stated, guns don't kill people, people do. Lots of far more commonly available things can be a lethal weapon and I'm being argumentative to allow people to see that going on a killing spree is the dangerous thing here, not what tool is used.Posted 10 years ago
After Hungerford, automatic and semi-automatic rifles were banned, and since then we've had no mass killing with automatic or semi-automatic rifles.
Wrong. Yesterday's shootings were done with a shotgun and a "Semi automatic hunting rifle" according to the paper in front of me.Posted 10 years ago
Semi automatic rifles weren't banned were they?Posted 10 years ago
Reducing the number of guns in circulation and making them harder to obtain is pretty likely to help, don't you think?
not really. seeing as pistols are still the weapon of choice here in london gangsterland. (if you believe what you read in the papers) they are from europe and are smuggled in.
all weapons on a firearms certificate are named and numbered so when pistols were banned all would have been handed in or sold abroad with an export license. all pistols in circulation today have probably never been legally held in this country.
making firearms harder to obtain isn't going to stop a nutter determined to source a weapon by any means and kill people.Posted 10 years ago
F wits here today.Posted 10 years ago
1. Cars kill more than guns. Some dimwit above said car deaths were accidents. Crap. No such thing. They were caused by inattention or stupid driving. Lets ban Citreon Saxo's. Around here they have killed more than guns.
2. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong. I hate haedphone wearers on bikes, people who come to the countryside and then want facilities and those who speed in cars. Absolutely loath them and wish that the last bunch would all drive into trees. But apparently thats unreasonable.
Nope, gun control in the Uk has solved nothing apart from prove the fact that politicians are liars. Note that they haven't banned pistol shooting in the olympics yet our own shooters have to go abroad to practice.
Sad when something happens but who asks for the banning of horse's when some kids breaks their neck. better still ban those silly trampolines.
All calls to ban guns are by those who want an easy way of increasing their profile or know no better.
everything is going to get banned, guns so you cant shoot people. cars so you cant run somebody over, knifes to stab people …. if somebody is so determined to kill somebody they are going to do it,
i dont think that guns need to be banned as people like farmers need them, i do understand the goverment trying to make the law a little tighter but i dont think that guns will ever be unaccesable to someone tahts determined to kill someonePosted 10 years ago
Northwind – Member
…Reducing the number of guns in circulation and making them harder to obtain is pretty likely to help, don't you think?
In case you haven't noticed there is already gun control in this country. Criminals still get their guns because they don't care what the law says.
The result of gun laws is that criminals and nutters have guns, and law abiding people do not. I'd prefer to see that equation reversed.
BTW I do not see much need for a gun in a UK urban environment.Posted 10 years ago
Regardless of anything previously said, cars kill more people than guns. Anyone wanting to save lives would save more lives by banning cars than by banning guns.Posted 10 years ago
I'm forwarding this thread to the police as list of people who should never be given a FAC 🙂Posted 10 years ago
I'd prefer to see that equation reversed.
Wouldn't it still be the same? Clue's in the namePosted 10 years ago
have lived in communities where there were guns in almost every household and yet there was no gun crime. It's nothing to do with the gun, and everything to do with the person with the gun.
+1 for this.
Mentally unhinged / people pushed to the edge / criminals will always find a way to carry out their plans.Posted 10 years ago
I'm forwarding this thread to the police as list of people who should never be given a FAC
I don't want one, they sound awful.Posted 10 years ago
I'm not trying to start an argument as so many do on here, but can you prove this as a quick google would say to me it is perhaps slightly more over there over a long time period and a far greater population.
Yeah, the tendency to shoot one's school mates in the us is way out of proportion to their population compared to pretty much any other country.
Lists of the worst ones here :
This bloke had a shotgun licence didn't he?
It would be interesting to know what his reason for owning one was on his application. Maybe he did a bit of pest control on the side or was it for recreation?
I can't see the controls changing that much after this legislatively but it will have given those that distribute the licences a gentle jolt to make sure they are thorough in their process following which can never be a bad thing. This bloke sounds like he was acting pretty "normal" up until the last 48hrs so I doubt it would make much difference in this case.Posted 10 years ago
This bloke sounds like he was acting pretty "normal" up until the last 48hrs so I doubt it would make much difference in this case.
According to the bbc he'd had a license for 20 years. Recreational would be my guess. Not uncommon. Be a good boy, have no criminal record, the police come round once a year to check you're storing the guns and ammo in the correct manner.
Bet there's *at least* one person on here with a license for both a shotgun and a rifle.Posted 10 years ago
Funny, no one's mentioned knives yet, so far as I can see. Or hands. Both tools, both weapons, just like guns.
And to those who think landowners are rich and tory voters and therefore a valid target for your prejudices, my dad is neither, so go **** yourselves.Posted 10 years ago
Personally, I think the fact that you want to own a gun, should by that very token exclude you from having one.Posted 10 years ago
Years ago, when a young impressionable lad, I did a week's work experience with the Royal Artillery.
During that time I got to fire an impressive range of weapons from the British Army's arsenal of the day:
Being a thoughtful lad, the feelings I experienced using these weapons (especially the Stirling SMG, like a kind of deadly hosepipe) and the gleeful look on some of my colleagues faces, put me off guns for life.
Education of men in the destructive potential of weapons of all kinds, together with increased emotional literacy and awareness of ones options when life seems hopeless seems far more likely to result in a reduction in these sorts of very rare but tragic events.
One more thing – the context in which we are making our comments here is tragic and our position is privileged in the light of the seemingly random nature of some of Bird's actions. Deep sympathy to all those involved.Posted 10 years ago
I went to a gun club 20 odd years ago. I expected it to be a sport of precision and concentration. I was pretty appalled to find that the members were a bunch of fantasists dreaming of being John Wayne or Clint, add in the well stocked bar which was busy throughout the night, it was a pretty scary experience. I thought at the time that it would not take much to push any of them over the edge to make use of their weapons in violence, their spouses must have dreaded the results of any argument.Posted 10 years ago
It was that experience that leads me to support any legislation to further restrict access to firearms of any nature, statistics can be made to support any argument and are pretty pointless.
The topic ‘FFS – less than a day and the "tighten the gun laws" knee-jerk starts…’ is closed to new replies.