Another good reason to ban gun ownership
Posted by: Paper Plane on 02 June 2010
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by scottyhammer
Not sure farmers would agree with you.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Derry
I'm not a farmer and I don't agree with him...
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Tony Lockhart
Outside of farmers, the rozzers and the armed forces the only reason to have a gun is to either kill someone or to practice killing someone.
On the other hand, they're interesting and great fun.
Tony
On the other hand, they're interesting and great fun.
Tony
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Chillkram
Sad beyond words.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Derek Wright
The existing laws only prevent the law abiding person from having guns, for example the people that would be into target shooting for competitions.
People with malevolent intent will still continue to obtain, own and use guns.
People with malevolent intent will still continue to obtain, own and use guns.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Svetty
quote:Originally posted by Derek Wright:
The existing laws only prevent the law abiding person from having guns, for example the people that would be into target shooting for competitions.
People with malevolent intent will still continue to obtain, own and use guns.
Except that it seems that this chap was a decent fellow until something drove him to the point of losing his marbles. Not the sort who would have premeditatively acquired the firearms specifically for the purpose of going on the rampage.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Mike-B
Banning guns is not the answer, its just simply naive to believe this.
Do you seriously think a mentally deranged person, a criminal or just a gun obsessive will be prevented from getting hold of guns or whatever to cause mass murder, to use as a gang weapon or just to own something illegal.
Yes guns need to be controlled, but for goodness sake thinking the answer is with a ban is as naive as thinking banning fox hunting or fishing is the answer to preventing animal cruelty.
This is the only country in the planet that prevents me from practising an Olympic sport thru the ban on hand guns
How do we justify that with the UK record - the highest per capita in EU - for gang/crime shootings, & to say nothing of the tragic shootings of innocent public.
Do you seriously think a mentally deranged person, a criminal or just a gun obsessive will be prevented from getting hold of guns or whatever to cause mass murder, to use as a gang weapon or just to own something illegal.
Yes guns need to be controlled, but for goodness sake thinking the answer is with a ban is as naive as thinking banning fox hunting or fishing is the answer to preventing animal cruelty.
This is the only country in the planet that prevents me from practising an Olympic sport thru the ban on hand guns
How do we justify that with the UK record - the highest per capita in EU - for gang/crime shootings, & to say nothing of the tragic shootings of innocent public.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Jim Lawson
If he had been in Arizona he would have been picked off by a good samaritan. Too bad the innocent were left defenseless yet again.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
If he had been in Arizona he would have been picked off by a good samaritan.
That propsition is entirely unsupported by evidence. It just doesn't happen (often).
Personally, I'm not threatened by gun ownership. The chances of me being accidentally (or deliberately) shot are vanishingly small. (And the chances of me being saved by some "good samaritan" are infintessimal).
I get that target shooting is a legitimate test of skill and gives pleasure to the participants. I like the engineering and look of guns. The latent "authority" in a Desert Eagle is palpable.
The people I can't relate to are the hunters. I mean, I don't really care that people choose to shoot animals; but I simply can't understand how anyone could derive pleasure from the act.
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by shoot6x7
quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:quote:Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
If he had been in Arizona he would have been picked off by a good samaritan.
That propsition is entirely unsupported by evidence. It just doesn't happen (often).
Personally, I'm not threatened by gun ownership. The chances of me being accidentally (or deliberately) shot are vanishingly small. (And the chances of me being saved by some "good samaritan" are infintessimal).
I get that target shooting is a legitimate test of skill and gives pleasure to the participants. I like the engineering and look of guns. The latent "authority" in a Desert Eagle is palpable.
The people I can't relate to are the hunters. I mean, I don't really care that people choose to shoot animals; but I simply can't understand how anyone could derive pleasure from the act.
I'm with you Winky on every point ...
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
Guns cannot be 'un-invented'. We can make sure they are well regulated, illegal ownership is heavily punished etc but they cannot just be banned.
As for the 'Good Samaritan' idea, I find it horrifying to somehow suggest that we should arm the popluation in case a member of the same population should go mad with a gun in order for ordinary peolpe to shoot them without resort to the authorities! This is anarchy, and hugely increasing the number of guns in circulation (plus reducing the threshold at which 'normal' people might feel empowered to use one on another human being) is not the way to go.
The innocent are not defenceless as you state, Jim. The best defence is prevention and flooding a coommunity with guns is not a step in that direction. When somebody steps out of the norm and does this nobody can be adequately protected, all you can do is make sure such events are as rare as they can be. Prevention also includes supportive communities, policing, health services etc. Perhaps they broke down yesterday, perhaps it was 'unpreventable' (and we have no idea of the reasons behind yesterday's events yet). Prevention is not an armed populace.
Bruce
As for the 'Good Samaritan' idea, I find it horrifying to somehow suggest that we should arm the popluation in case a member of the same population should go mad with a gun in order for ordinary peolpe to shoot them without resort to the authorities! This is anarchy, and hugely increasing the number of guns in circulation (plus reducing the threshold at which 'normal' people might feel empowered to use one on another human being) is not the way to go.
The innocent are not defenceless as you state, Jim. The best defence is prevention and flooding a coommunity with guns is not a step in that direction. When somebody steps out of the norm and does this nobody can be adequately protected, all you can do is make sure such events are as rare as they can be. Prevention also includes supportive communities, policing, health services etc. Perhaps they broke down yesterday, perhaps it was 'unpreventable' (and we have no idea of the reasons behind yesterday's events yet). Prevention is not an armed populace.
Bruce
Posted on: 02 June 2010 by JamieL_v2
quote:Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
If he had been in Arizona he would have been picked off by a good samaritan. Too bad the innocent were left defenseless yet again.
I would suggest looking at the numbers of gun related crimes compared to the size of the population in the USA and UK before extolling the virtues of US style gun ownership.
It might also be worth looking at the numbers of accidental killings too, like the British tourist who's car broke down in Miami a few years ago and went to ask for help at a nearby house and was shot dead for simply knocking on the door.
The gun laws in the UK are not perfect, but they are a lot better than in the USA.
I deplore blood sports, but having worked on farms know that guns are useful to keep pests down, protect livestock at times, and even to put injured animals out of their misery.
This case sounds very sad, it sounds as though he was not the sort of person who you might think would turn to such acts violence. Deeply sad for those who have lost loved ones, and also sad to hear of such violence in such a calm and beautiful place.
Posted on: 03 June 2010 by Derek Wright
quote:Originally posted by Derek Wright:
On Gun laws and Gun ownership it is worth looking at Micheal Moore's film that was inspired by the school shootout in 1999 (I think)
In the film Moore pointed out that gun ownership %age in Canada was very similar to gun ownership %age in the US - but that Canada does not have the same kill rate. He compared the local evening TV news coverage between two very similar towns in US and Canada, the US news was much more focused on gun crime than in Canada. In Canada the news was more focused on welfare and social news.
The implied conclusion was that it is a matter of personality and "contentment" of the country that makes the difference.
Posted on: 03 June 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
According to my quick search online, 35% of households in the USA own at least one gun, of which 35% are handguns.
In Canada 22% of households own at least one gun but only 10% of these are handguns.
Suggests different demographics and reasons for ownership perhaps? The numbers are not that close in terms of ownership either.
Bruce
In Canada 22% of households own at least one gun but only 10% of these are handguns.
Suggests different demographics and reasons for ownership perhaps? The numbers are not that close in terms of ownership either.
Bruce
Posted on: 07 June 2010 by mudwolf
I think our gun lobby is disgusting but the NRA can take down any politician if they don't Kow tow. Yeah in the countryside/rural area hunting rifles etc makes sense. Automatic weapons do not.
Amazing how fast things died down when Cheney shot his buddy's bum and of course no tests taken for alcohol. All up and up. Hunters and NRA all post themselves as great citizens and sports men, then a jerk takes out a dozen innocent people or errant ex girlfriend and family. Ugh!
Amazing how fast things died down when Cheney shot his buddy's bum and of course no tests taken for alcohol. All up and up. Hunters and NRA all post themselves as great citizens and sports men, then a jerk takes out a dozen innocent people or errant ex girlfriend and family. Ugh!