FFS – less than a day and the "tighten the gun laws" knee-jerk starts…

You can't have a sweeping statement that says no one should be allowed a gun and all guns should be illegal. As demonstrated by some on this thread, some people have a genuine need to have a gun.

For me personally when i go hiking out in the Mountains I take my rifle and to that matter a hunting knife with me too. Its a matter of necessity rather than not. Doesn't mean I am going to shoot every camper or hiker i come across.

I'm assuming those mountains are not in the UK LHS. I can't imagine a reason of necessity to carry either whilst hiking in the UK.

obviously when someone goes out and kills lots of people with a gun then people will suggest we should curb gun ownership. Why be so surprised about this as it seems likely he would not have done these acts to the degree he did without legally held guns.
I am sure the majority of gun owners are responsible etc but no one caqn really argue that guns are verty effective at killing/harming people.

For me personally when i go hiking out in the Mountains I take my rifle and to that matter a hunting knife with me too. Its a matter of necessity rather than not. Doesn't mean I am going to shoot every camper or hiker i come across.

Which mountains? What is the threat to your safety that requires you to carry a gun?

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.

+1 oh except for their use by Farmers in Biathlons of course 🙄

No, not in the UK. There isn't anything dangerous or that can eat you right?

Which mountains? What is the threat to your safety that requires you to carry a gun?

Wombats. The most dangerous animal on earth.

Its a matter of necessity rather than not

So where do you walk and why is it necessary to carry a firearm and a knife?

Well if not in the UK, I'm not sure what your input added to a discussion on gun control in the UK given that self protection from wild animals is not really a valid reason to carry here.

Also if you walk in mountains abroad, how do you get there with your gun?

I live between the UK and the US so my input is as Valid if not more so due to experiences on both sides. Gun ownership is a lot different in England yes, but i still believe that there are people over here who have a right to own a gun as highlighted by others, farmers etc.

+1 oh except for their use by Farmers in Biathlons of course

I think some of the "humour" and other intemperence is a bit misplaced given the circumstances.

I think some of the "humour" and other intemperence is a bit misplaced given the circumstances.

I dont find it funny so theres no need to come over all sanctimonious.

I dont find it funny so theres no need to come over all sanctimonious.

So you shouldn't need reminding that this isn't a laughing matter.

Who's laughing? dont be such an ars*

The word "necessity" only really covers those that need firearms for pest control reasons in the UK, including I guess controlling numbers of deer in the wild etc. Those people are reasonably easy to identify I would imagine. Everybody else than "needs" should really be reclassified as "wants" a weapon as it is purely for recreational purposes. The larger (and omnipresent, not just after a tragedy like this) question is should society at large tolerate the larger legal proliferation of weapons outside of those with "necessity" merely to feed the recreational habits of a few.

The Pandoras box of gun ownership is well & truly open now we have to deal with it – wringings ones hands & crying "shame" is pointless. We have to deal with the reality that guns ARE NOT going away!

ps convert stop being so small minded – next you will be telling me I cant have an opinion on 29ers cos I dont have one..

Suggesting that we shouldn't ban guns because people can be killed by other means seems to me to be a fairly dim argument.

It's hardly surprising that after a tragedy like this, people are questionning the effectiveness of current legislation, and whether it could have been prevented.

Thought the "farmers in biathlons" comment was inappropropriately flippant.

Clive Nutton

PS – I've not referred to you as an ars* or anything similar. That sort of personal abuse comes across a bit weak.

Not being small minded at all, I just find using an example of "need" or "necessity" that is irrelevant to the UK is well.. irrelevant to the discussion.

We have to deal with the reality that guns ARE NOT going away!

Maybe but that doesnt mean we should allow people to own then for recreation or some of the tenuous reasons outlined so far.

I own a gun in the US but not in the UK. I don't have a valid reason to own one in the UK, where as I do in the US.

In my personal opinion, and I know this is a massive point of contention, if I lived on a farm in the middle of wales / scotland etc I would want a gun for 2 reasons, a) pest control, and b) personal protection.

I know that point b) is contentious and I would never expect everyone to agree with me.

My point is that they are part of the fabric of society – recreation or otherwise..legal or illegal. What is your proposal for removing them?

convert sorry mate but the bloke has experience of gun ownership & therefore his input is valid.

My point is that they are part of the fabric of society – recreation or otherwise..legal or illegal. What is your proposal for removing them?

But lots of things are part of the "fabric" of society and they are also criminalised.
I dont think we should simply accept that they should therefore be widespread. From a relatively objective point of view I havent heard a valid reason why we should allow private ownership of guns. I dont accept the "vermin" "hunting" "defence" "hobby" arguments.

Not saying his input is not valid but the example is weak. The reason I find the point a little futile is that it blurs a very clear line in the UK which may not be the same in other regions of the world i.e. there is no recreational reason of necessity to own a weapon in this country. LHS's reason maybe valid in the US where going for a wander in the wild might be dangerous but the debate is quite clearly different here.

And I do have some experience of weapons being ex services. My father still lives up in the Highlands and is a member of a shooting club (.22s target shooting in a community hall). I think he's probably the only non farmer who is a member and whisky seems to have far too much to do with an evening's activity!

On LHS's last post – whilst living in a extreme isolated location (I grew up in one) might seem very vulnerable I would imagine statistically you would be more at risk in parts of London or any other inner city. Would you want to carry there too? I guess that might be a cultural thing.

Oh I would love to live in a world where there are no guns but it aint gonna happen so we just have to live it..To say you dont accept the arguments isnt constructive – it is their position & to a certain extent they are vaild so we have to deal with them on that basis..To refute them utterly & not offer an alternative isnt helpful.

To refute them utterly & not offer an alternative isnt helpful.

I disagree, it gets to the heart of how we should implement a practical solution, ban them. I am not offering alternatives.
What is your solution? or do you not see private gun ownership as a problem?

Do you find that no-compromise position is helpful in life? 🙄

This is a very sad & tragic incident BUT it is extremely isolated so rather than ushering in the kind of ban you desire we need a more reasoned alternative. The majority of gun owners are responsible & safe.

They are responsible and safe as was this gun owner untill the terrible tragedy. The issue is whether the incident would or would not have happened if he did or did not have access to guns. I suspect [but I dont know for sure] it would not have oocured as I supect it is harder to kill someone face to face with your bare hands than using a gun.
Hard to know whether we should prevent the legitimate ownership of guns to prevent these rare occurances but I suspect most of us can see both points of view.

I disagree, it gets to the heart of how we should implement a practical solution, ban them. I am not offering alternatives.

Fortunately you don't have any real say in the matter. You obviously have no need for a gun being the mighty keyboard warrior that you are in the confines of your comfy office. Others have a very legitimate need for one, whether you like it or not 🙄

Do you find that no-compromise position is helpful in life?

On the whole no, and that is not what I am saying, I am advocating a ban for private ownership. We dont allow people to to partake in many criminal/dangerous activities in the UK, If we legislate against them in your words we dont "compromise"
I note you have not made a valid suggestion yet 🙄

There are occasions when guns should be legally held, armed forces, police etc so its not a ban on guns per se as there are instances where there existence could be beneficial.
My thoughts are not in response to this incident however I havent seen many opportunities to voice them on here in the past 🙄

Fortunately you don't have any real say in the matter. You obviously have no need for a gun being the mighty keyboard warrior that you are in the confines of your comfy office. Others have a very legitimate need for one, whether you like it or not

I do have a say, fortunatley. Given your criteria for owning one on the previous page I think your logic is flawed.

I have to be honest I dont have an alternative..Other than increased controls? My objection to your POV is the fact that you offered no ideas of your own other than a ban..An idea which I just dont see as being remotely workable in a practical sense..

best reason for owning a gun; the police response to your house is F—–g quick!

Given your criteria for owning one on the previous page I think your logic is flawed.

I didn't give a criteria. I responded to a post questioning "Why in any sane world do these people need to own shotguns? " citing a few examples of a legitimate 'need'.

You have a say do you? Are you head of a government consultative committee on firearms by any chance and your IT Manager job in profile is just a front for your 'real' job? If not, and you are simply referring to the fact that you live in a democracy and have a vote, then………. 😆 🙄

citing a few examples of a legitimate 'need'

Bit of a fail then?

democracy and have a vote, then

That would be correct, see your judgement is improving 😛

I supect it is harder to kill someone face to face with your bare hands than using a gun.

The suggestion being that if someone doesn't have a gun they won't decide to go on a killing spree? That doesn't hold a huge amount of water IMO. Sure, it makes it a bit easier but there are plenty of tools out there for doing the job, banning them all would be impossible.

I suppose what a gun gives you is the precision that say a bomb or even a big truck doesn't. This chap seemed to have singled at least a few people out before shooting people at random and that would have been more difficult without the guns. Also, if someone has snapped a wire in their head, then operating a gun is something that can be done both immediately and simply. Building a bomb would take time and concentration.

So guns could quite possibly, allow spontaneous acts of violence to occur, but since incidents such as these are incredibly rare are they (guns) actually worthy of banning?

I'm no pro or anti gun by the way, I just see a ban as a waste of time.

Bit of a fail then?

Why? Are they not legitimate reasons for having a firearm?

it makes it a bit easier but there are plenty of tools out there for doing the job, banning them all would be impossible.

All a gun can do is kill it is it design purpose you cant reaaly do much welse with one but shoot stuff can you?

So guns could quite possibly, allow spontaneous acts of violence to occur, but since incidents such as these are incredibly rare are they (guns) actually worthy of banning?

Yes I agree I think they make it easier to do these random acts they facilitate them but I dont think they cause them. As to the ban not sure eithe rperhaps those who have them for liesur epurposes need to keep them at a club/designated site rather than their house where as those who need them for work [ not sure I fully buy that argument that they need instant access to them tbh] can keep them at home.

I was a target shooter for years, smallbore and full bore rifle for about 10 years then moved onto full-bore pistol and practical pistol (google it)

Since the kneejerk reaction to Dunblane and the need to blame someone other than the nut behind the bolt (Thomas Hamilton, who i met a few times, shot alongside him and regardless of the lies perpetrated by the gun club secretary trying to dig himself out of bad press did not show any signs of being a child hating phsyco)

It has been proved time after time when things like this happen that the facts are covered over quite nicely by the press and shock tactics are used to feed lies over and over again to keep idiots watching and talking about it. The tightening of the gun laws since Hungerford and Dunblane have not accomplished anything other than taking a hobby away from well adjusted law abiding citizens for the benefit of headlines, the guns still find their way into the hands of criminals and the unhinged.

So far everything we've head about this guy is that he was a normal friendly fellow who never had a bad bone in him – so where does the argument go from here?