|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 4, 2010 19:55:30 GMT 1
As I drove to work yesterday I listened to two shoting enthusiasts aggressively defending their sport, as did the majority of callers who joined the discussion.
Although I accept that gun laws in this country are relatively stringent, I found it distasteful that their immediate reaction to the incident was to defend their hobby, beginning their rants with 'I feel sorry for the people involved BUT...'
The consenus appears to be that their shouldn't be a 'knee jerk reaction'. Fair enough, making policy off the hoof is always a bad idea but no one seems to be advocating this - do they mean things shouldn't change at all?
There are surely more options available than 'ban them' and 'carry on as before'.
A person who applies for a firearms licence has to prove that they 'need' the weapon and advise where they intend using it and what for.
Did Derrick Bird need a .22 rifle? Was this a case of the laws not being tight enough or not being effectively enforced?
Do recreational shooters need to keep weapons and/or ammunition in their homes, or should they be kept at secure clubs / ranges?
Some of the shooters stock arguments were a bit flimsy in my opinion.
For example
'He could have done the same with a baseball bat'
I heard this trotted out after Dunblane. When we start sending our soldiers into war armed with baseball and cricket bats I might concede they have a point, until then I think we can safely conclude guns are more efficient killers than wooden bats and almost impossible for the unarmed to defend themselves against.
We've had Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria as well as some other rampages with smaller death tolls.
When was the last massacre by a madman wielding a baseball bat or cricket bat?
Another one was
'Cars kill more than guns do'
But how many people use cars everyday compared to those who use guns?A car isn't a machine specifically designed to kill things. A gun is.
Cars are also necessary for our society to function, if recreational shooting was banned , it would be a blow for those who enjoy it, but would barely register for most people.
A lad of about 19 said he didn't get into fights because he didn't want to have his firearms licence taken from him. I'm sure there are millions of others in his age group who refrain from street violence but have never been near a gun and never will.
Another aspect is the mental health of the perpetrator; should their be psychological assessments more frequently than every five years?
Should things change after this tragedy? Would you support a total ban, resist any changes to legislation, or be open to possible amendments pending a full enquiry?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 4, 2010 20:09:19 GMT 1
keep hobbyists guns at a club and those who need them for work should have psychiatric evaluation before getting a license and then once every 2 or 3 years.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXzFp1lshBE&feature=related [/youtube]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2010 20:37:43 GMT 1
Looking at the damage done to the walls of a nearby house, i shudder to think what size calibre the gun was. I also think that there must be better ways of controlling vermin than by shooting the odd one or two. I can understand your concern, but placing firearms in one premise means that it would have to be very secure, if not manned 24/7. More frequent spot checks and a serious rise in the licence fee may keep number of users down. Then again, will dispensation be allowed for those who use fire arms in the course of their work, game-keepers etc. The bottom line is, that the number of incidents by firearm owners set against those who legally own a firearm is a very small %. I also feel that the most stringent of restrictions will not prevent these tradgedies happening. The're "one offs" by the mentally unstable and therefore, spontaneous and unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 4, 2010 22:15:24 GMT 1
The bottom line is, that the number of incidents by firearm owners set against those who legally own a firearm is a very small %. I also feel that the most stringent of restrictions will not prevent these tradgedies happening. The're "one offs" by the mentally unstable and therefore, spontaneous and unpredictable. But if Bird only had access to nothing more lethal than a baseball bat, would he have killed twelve people and seriously or critically injured several more? The only sane answer to this question is 'no'. Which in itself doesn't mean that the laws aren't stringent enough, it may be that there was a failure in enforcing them somewhere down the line. I wonder on what grounds it was decided that a man who drove a taxi for a living required such a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by gay on Jun 4, 2010 22:19:40 GMT 1
Nowt stranger as folk.
No one can know how they will react to situations in their life.
Everyone is different. Im OK in dealing with death, floods and severe major incidents that most would freak out at, but if I see someone scratch my car Ill hunt them down and batter them. Every single person is programmed differently.
I just hope this does not affect those who enjoy gun clubs.
|
|
|
Post by R6ix on Jun 4, 2010 23:16:19 GMT 1
im not a big gun user, i own air guns, but i dont think any more bans on guns are needed,you can squeeze it and squeeze it, as much as u like,but theres no legislation for folk flipping,sometimes u gotta take it on the chin and say ok that hurt, lets get on with it?
|
|
|
Post by shrew4life on Jun 5, 2010 0:32:44 GMT 1
If he didn't have access to a gun he still could have easily got hold of one.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 5, 2010 1:06:14 GMT 1
If he didn't have access to a gun he still could have easily got hold of one. could he? really? how would an older middleaged man from a rural area get access to a gun if there were none in the shops? i am not denying the existance of a black market in guns but thats more an inner city issue surely. i cant imagine in mosside trying to negotiate with a yardie for an uzi. and if he did manage to get hold of one, the moment may have passed between the anger and the getting of the weapon, a cooling off period sort of thing
|
|
|
Post by blum on Jun 5, 2010 3:40:07 GMT 1
This was a terrible tragedy, however, throughout human history people have gone berserk and killed during a frenzied rage. The UK has possibly the most restrictive gun laws in the world, we are onr of the only police forces not to carry weapons as the norm. This guy could have quite easily driven his car at high speed down a city pavement and caused just as much death and injury, he flipped and had another device that he used.
Even our olympic shooting team have to train outside of the UK, surely in the hands of responsible people guns are not a bad thing, however, in the wrong hands they are, as we have seen, deadly.
I hope the poor people he killed rest in peace, the people in hospital recover physically and mentally and that this chap rots in the fires of hell.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 5, 2010 4:44:27 GMT 1
Not a lot I can add to what has already been said, but as I am an opinionated sod, I'll have my ten penneth's worth...!
What this man did was obviously a heinous act; he used firearms he was legally authorised to hold, and that will naturally raise concerns. But, as mentioned already, you can not always cater for people who flip so terribly. No one can know for sure what would have happened if this man would not have had access to firearms. It could well be that he might have mown people down in his car, stabbed people, or just got really angry and punched someone. Perhaps more stringent psycological assesments are required, or certinly more frequent checks on licence holders by the local authorities.
However, I would be loath to see any laws passed which make it harder to own a firearm. As it is, gun laws in the UK are pretty stringent, and generally prevent the wider public from owning and keeping. Indeed, should a firearms holder be reported to the police for any offence involving threats or violence, weapons and licences are seized until the matter is fully investigated. These measure do not prevent the more usual gun crime, however.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Jun 5, 2010 5:13:38 GMT 1
The gun laws are strict enough in the UK. You can try and control something as much as you want but you can't control the human condition.
I do feel bad for genuine gun enthusiasts too, a group of law abiding citizens whose fun is spoiled by a very small number. A very, very small number indeed.
|
|
|
Post by clashcityrocker on Jun 5, 2010 15:56:50 GMT 1
im not a big gun user, i own air guns, but i dont think any more bans on guns are needed,you can squeeze it and squeeze it, as much as u like,but theres no legislation for folk flipping,sometimes u gotta take it on the chin and say ok that hurt, lets get on with it? Just interested, what do you use air guns for? People are asking the question about Bird having a conviction for stealing from his employer, and whether he should have been granted a license in these circumstances. I can't see the connection. Gun crime is relatively rare in the UK, and strict licensing and secure storage is the answer. Also, I can see no real NECESSITY in anyone other than a soldier or a trained policeman having any guns at all. Hobbyists are a different matter. I used to shoot (as a soldier) on ranges up and down the country, and many time we shared the ranges with hobbyists. None that I met or interacted with seemed like nutters, but who does? certainly not the people who convince the authorities that they should keep guns...
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 5, 2010 17:57:25 GMT 1
This guy could have quite easily driven his car at high speed down a city pavement and caused just as much death and injury, he flipped and had another device that he used. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? I'm not aware of any such incident on the scale of West Cumbria or Hungerford involving a motor car. Theoretically a car should be much easier to get hold of than a gun, but I don't know of any car massacres (could be wrong) Perhaps using a gun engenders a feeling of power and control lacking from the lives of those who have been pushed 'over the edge', making it their weapon of choice. No one can know for sure what would have happened if this man would not have had access to firearms. It could well be that he might have mown people down in his car, stabbed people, or just got really angry and punched someone. Without wishing to sound flippant, isn't the latter of those three eventualities preferable to what did transpire and therefore an argument for tighter regulations?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jun 5, 2010 19:00:05 GMT 1
Great stuff on here.
Whilst we are not in the "from my cold dead hand league" our gun laws work very well.
I feel calm and reson are called for not hot headed snap diagnostics.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 5, 2010 19:38:06 GMT 1
Great stuff on here. Whilst we are not in the "from my cold dead hand league" our gun laws work very well. I feel calm and reson are called for not hot headed snap diagnostics. same here, this hasn't changed my view on gun control either
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on Jun 6, 2010 18:58:28 GMT 1
Guns have only one purpose . and that is to kill !!
is there purpose to do the washing up or make a cup of tea ?
Why is it that the army take guns to Afganistan to defend themselves and not go out on patrol with a cup of tea in their hand instead ?
Guns = death .
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 6, 2010 19:19:00 GMT 1
Guns have only one purpose . and that is to kill !! is there purpose to do the washing up or make a cup of tea ? Why is it that the army take guns to Afganistan to defend themselves and not go out on patrol with a cup of tea in their hand instead ? Guns = death . An overly simplistic way at looking at things...firearms have no purpose other than that of the user. Certainly their inception was for use in defence, hunting, military purposes etc, but thathas evolved to the point where poeple enjoy target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc... You can say the same about hobbyist archers - the bow was designed to kill (hunting and war), but now its greatest purposes is for use by people for sport and recreation...
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 6, 2010 19:28:39 GMT 1
Guns have only one purpose . and that is to kill !! is there purpose to do the washing up or make a cup of tea ? Why is it that the army take guns to Afganistan to defend themselves and not go out on patrol with a cup of tea in their hand instead ? Guns = death . An overly simplistic way at looking at things...firearms have no purpose other than that of the user. Certainly their inception was for use in defence, hunting, military purposes etc, but thathas evolved to the point where poeple enjoy target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc... You can say the same about hobbyist archers - the bow was designed to kill (hunting and war), but now its greatest purposes is for use by people for sport and recreation... just had this discussion with a pal. my suggestion is for regular psych evaluation to be included in the price for a gun license. he said that you could say the same for drivers because you could drive through a crowded street and take out a load of shoppers. as has been argued, the car isnt a killing machine first and foremost The point about guns is that they are relatively easy to operated by anyone at short range, so if badly stored they could be picked up by anyone and used. you cant do that with a bow and arrow, a proper bow takes an incredible amount of skill and strength to be accurate with, and is not operated in an instant like a gun is. much easier to tackle an archer as they steady themselves , draw back , take aim and release. it is also very draining to do, where as a gun doesnt take so much effort. i dont see any reason why shooting enthusiasts shouldnt store their guns at the gun club.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 6, 2010 19:42:57 GMT 1
An overly simplistic way at looking at things...firearms have no purpose other than that of the user. Certainly their inception was for use in defence, hunting, military purposes etc, but thathas evolved to the point where poeple enjoy target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc... You can say the same about hobbyist archers - the bow was designed to kill (hunting and war), but now its greatest purposes is for use by people for sport and recreation... just had this discussion with a pal. my suggestion is for regular psych evaluation to be included in the price for a gun license. he said that you could say the same for drivers because you could drive through a crowded street and take out a load of shoppers. as has been argued, the car isnt a killing machine first and foremost The point about guns is that they are relatively easy to operated by anyone at short range, so if badly stored they could be picked up by anyone and used. you cant do that with a bow and arrow, a proper bow takes an incredible amount of skill and strength to be accurate with, and is not operated in an instant like a gun is. much easier to tackle an archer as they steady themselves , draw back , take aim and release. it is also very draining to do, where as a gun doesnt take so much effort. i dont see any reason why shooting enthusiasts shouldnt store their guns at the gun club. Admittedly not able to be used over long distnce but crossbows are lethal up to 50 yds, easy to conceal and operate and totally unregulated.... www.bladesandbows.co.uk/175lb-jaguar-crossbow--camouflage-stock-1244-p.asp
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 6, 2010 19:59:25 GMT 1
just had this discussion with a pal. my suggestion is for regular psych evaluation to be included in the price for a gun license. he said that you could say the same for drivers because you could drive through a crowded street and take out a load of shoppers. as has been argued, the car isnt a killing machine first and foremost The point about guns is that they are relatively easy to operated by anyone at short range, so if badly stored they could be picked up by anyone and used. you cant do that with a bow and arrow, a proper bow takes an incredible amount of skill and strength to be accurate with, and is not operated in an instant like a gun is. much easier to tackle an archer as they steady themselves , draw back , take aim and release. it is also very draining to do, where as a gun doesnt take so much effort. i dont see any reason why shooting enthusiasts shouldnt store their guns at the gun club. Admittedly not able to be used over long distnce but crossbows are lethal up to 50 yds, easy to conceal and operate and totally unregulated.... www.bladesandbows.co.uk/175lb-jaguar-crossbow--camouflage-stock-1244-p.aspcrossbows are slightly different, but i would be happy to see them banned altogether or at least heavily regulated. but the discussion is about guns, the figure of a loan gunmen taking people out one after another is a well known one and is subject to a copycat effect(unhinged people have seen it done and know it is going to be a way of going out in a "blaze of glory" as a last resort). They are also seen as the weapon of choice for bank robbers , hostage takers and various crims. there is no such thing when it comes to bows and arrows or crossbows. if we banned or at least further tightened gun laws so it is even less likely to happen, maybe it would happen to crossbows or bows, but that bridge should be crossed when it is arrived at.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 6, 2010 20:23:35 GMT 1
well, if you banned private gun ownership altogether, you may well prevent spur of the moment 'gun rampage's - but this will never prevent premeditated acts and will in now way stop gun crime, in the manner you allude to - bank robberies etc. Firearms will always be accessable to the criminal element...
|
|
|
Post by siabod on Jun 6, 2010 20:39:49 GMT 1
The bottom line is, that the number of incidents by firearm owners set against those who legally own a firearm is a very small %. I also feel that the most stringent of restrictions will not prevent these tradgedies happening. The're "one offs" by the mentally unstable and therefore, spontaneous and unpredictable. But if Bird only had access to nothing more lethal than a baseball bat, would he have killed twelve people and seriously or critically injured several more? The only sane answer to this question is 'no'. Which in itself doesn't mean that the laws aren't stringent enough, it may be that there was a failure in enforcing them somewhere down the line. I wonder on what grounds it was decided that a man who drove a taxi for a living required such a weapon. Good points, but if he was determined to kill and had no gun just think of the deaths he could have caused with his taxi. Weapon ownership should be strictly controlled but people will always find ways to reap revenge.
|
|
|
Post by blum on Jun 6, 2010 23:01:05 GMT 1
This guy could have quite easily driven his car at high speed down a city pavement and caused just as much death and injury, he flipped and had another device that he used. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? I'm not aware of any such incident on the scale of West Cumbria or Hungerford involving a motor car. Theoretically a car should be much easier to get hold of than a gun, but I don't know of any car massacres (could be wrong) I was speaking hyperthetically and you, IMO were being flppant. I was suggesting that a car can be a danegrous weapon in the wrong hands, and I think u knew thatcwas the point I was making, possibly more people have been killed in this country by hit and run drivers than by guns. Perhaps using a gun engenders a feeling of power and control lacking from the lives of those who have been pushed 'over the edge', making it their weapon of choice. No one can know for sure what would have happened if this man would not have had access to firearms. It could well be that he might have mown people down in his car, stabbed people, or just got really angry and punched someone. Without wishing to sound flippant, isn't the latter of those three eventualities preferable to what did transpire and therefore an argument for tighter regulations?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 6, 2010 23:14:29 GMT 1
well, if you banned private gun ownership altogether, you may well prevent spur of the moment 'gun rampage's - but this will never prevent premeditated acts and will in now way stop gun crime, in the manner you allude to - bank robberies etc. Firearms will always be accessable to the criminal element... agreed, but if there are less of them around you do reduce the pile available. i have no idea of the numbers of shot guns as opposed to totally illegal semi automatic or automatic weapons in robberies but it would have a small impact. the fire arms arent so much the problem with "the criminal element", having more police would help with that i think, a proper uniformed presence on our streets as nobody is scared of a cctv camera. that and sorting out the social problems in the country would reduce crime significantly , but thats another discussion
|
|
|
Post by ambergambler on Jun 7, 2010 8:03:21 GMT 1
"Guns dont kill people".......... Its the Bullets!....An awful rare incident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2010 10:06:53 GMT 1
a terrible thing that happened.
why did this guy need access to a gun?
why does anyone need to keep a gun at home?
if this chap had had to go to a local police station or even gun club to get his gun, then its possible this may not have happened.
i dont pretend for a second to understand this gun thing, but as rare and possibly unavoidable as these incidents are, questions should be asked.
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on Jun 8, 2010 16:26:53 GMT 1
Guns have only one purpose . and that is to kill !! is there purpose to do the washing up or make a cup of tea ? Why is it that the army take guns to Afghanistan to defend themselves and not go out on patrol with a cup of tea in their hand instead ? Guns = death . An overly simplistic way at looking at things...firearms have no purpose other than that of the user. Certainly their inception was for use in defense, hunting, military purposes etc, but that has evolved to the point where people enjoy target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc... You can say the same about hobbyist archers - the bow was designed to kill (hunting and war), but now its greatest purposes is for use by people for sport and recreation... Unfortunately your argument falls to pieces when the yorkshire multiple murderer calls himself The Crossbow Killer .
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 9, 2010 1:07:01 GMT 1
An overly simplistic way at looking at things...firearms have no purpose other than that of the user. Certainly their inception was for use in defense, hunting, military purposes etc, but that has evolved to the point where people enjoy target shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc... You can say the same about hobbyist archers - the bow was designed to kill (hunting and war), but now its greatest purposes is for use by people for sport and recreation... Unfortunately your argument falls to pieces when the yorkshire multiple murderer calls himself The Crossbow Killer . Ironic I agree, hardly 'falls to pieces' though, unless you know something I don't?? Has the Crossbow killer confirmed he used a crossbow to kill those women?! Or is he trying to show he is criminally unaccountable on the gounds of insanity? I did say 'greatest purpose is for use for sport and recreation'...not 'only purpose'...I can see something falling to pieces now though...
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 9, 2010 7:27:37 GMT 1
Nobody needs guns
lock them up at a gun club
let's have licenced vermin controllers run by the gov,let's say it's thier job 9-5 to meet the farmers needs
the baseball bat story is just pathetic yes an old woman might be vunerable but a young rugby player will be a different matter and how are you going to kill yourself with it ;-0
I may be wrong but anyone intent on mass murder can simply buy the ingredients at any hardware shop to make a bomb the thing is you have to be someone seriously deranged to do such a thing there are I suppose those type of people out there but thankfully it's not the sort of thing the red mist can bring on
i suppose we should be thankful we don't live in America when it comes to guns
oh and one more thing why do our police shoot to kill ? Why do they wait until a suspected armed person points a gun at them ? If you've got a handful of trained marksmen aiming the guns how about 1 in each arm, 1 in each leg and then see if he wants to give up know what I mean
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 9, 2010 13:13:20 GMT 1
Nobody needs guns lock them up at a gun club I do, in pursuit of my sporting hobby. No. The nearest club from me is 25 miles away. They would charge a storage fee. This would prevent me from pursuing my hobby ad hoc. This would be un democratic.
|
|