Heartland

Reading the newspapers today prompted the question around this office as to what to do with them. Is it time for a reform? A total ban? I'm asking here because this forum is visited by members from many different countries with differing fire-arm laws.

Personally I don't think a nation without guns, whilst being governed by people with guns, is a good thing. Though I hasten to add that I think a World without guns and ammunition would be an ideal state of affairs.

I prophesy disaster.

I think now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions from either side of the fence. OK, a terrible tragedy happened, and stricter gun laws may have helped prevent it, but this needs to be analysed from something of a more emotional and temporal distance.

Much as I personally dislike guns, that dislike is not a rational argument for gun-control. Similarly, "the US constitution says X, Y, Z" is not a rational argument against gun-control. (Never mind argument about what the X, Y, Z actually mean.)

It seems obvious that in light of what happened in Cumbria this week, we're going to get another "moral panic" about guns. However, panic is not a good place from which to try to make decisions.

Given that I'm not a gun-user, I don't actually know that much about how gun-control works in this country. I do know that the only times I ever see guns is when they're carried by police (and even then, pretty much only in airports and on mainland Europe) and that's the way I likes it.

markfiend wrote:Much as I personally dislike guns, that dislike is not a rational argument for gun-control. Similarly, "the US constitution says X, Y, Z" is not a rational argument against gun-control. (Never mind argument about what the X, Y, Z actually mean.)

It seems obvious that in light of what happened in Cumbria this week, we're going to get another "moral panic" about guns. However, panic is not a good place from which to try to make decisions.

Given that I'm not a gun-user, I don't actually know that much about how gun-control works in this country. I do know that the only times I ever see guns is when they're carried by police (and even then, pretty much only in airports and on mainland Europe) and that's the way I likes it.

ditto.

mh wrote:I think now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions from either side of the fence. OK, a terrible tragedy happened, and stricter gun laws may have helped prevent it, but this needs to be analysed from something of a more emotional and temporal distance.

What happened in Cumbria (Multiple Deaths) is a direct result of the current law and I don't think any reaction can be called 'knee-jerk' as this is actually the prime reason for guns - to kill with intent. And no policing or psychiatric tests can determine or stop anyone in possession of a gun from killing your mother or your sister or your brother.

@ boudicca Was that hindsight?

moses wrote:

mh wrote:I think now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions from either side of the fence. OK, a terrible tragedy happened, and stricter gun laws may have helped prevent it, but this needs to be analysed from something of a more emotional and temporal distance.

What happened in Cumbria (Multiple Deaths) is a direct result of the current law and I don't think any reaction can be called 'knee-jerk' as this is actually the prime reason for guns - to kill with intent. And no policing or psychiatric tests can determine or stop anyone in possession of a gun from killing your mother or your sister or your brother.

@ boudicca Was that hindsight?

That's all fair enough, but I'm in agreement with what Quiffy and Fiendy said: "panic is not a good place from which to try to make decisions". It's not the scale of the reaction but the perspective from which the reaction occurs, and now is most definitely not a good time.

For what it's worth, I'm finding it quite surprising that UK gun laws are actually so strict as they are. Here I can see armed security guards and the like almost any day of the week (and a high proportion of "Joes from the bog" would have shotguns).

Anyway, lest I give the wrong impression, I would be very much in the "anti-gun" camp too, but I would also make the point that it's not guns that kill, it's people. It doesn't feel right to be discussing things in these terms, but I would be of the opinion that if the guy was going to run amok anyway, he could have just as easily used a hatchet, a knife or a chainsaw.

moses wrote:What happened in Cumbria (Multiple Deaths) is a direct result of the current law

I don't see how. I think that the fact that only three spree-shootings in the UK in the past 30 years (Hungerford, Dunblane, now this) are actually evidence that UK gun control works quite well when you compare us with the USA.

moses wrote:and I don't think any reaction can be called 'knee-jerk' as this is actually the prime reason for guns - to kill with intent.

Well, not really. Most guns in this country are either used by farmers or by sports shooters. Not to kill people.

moses wrote:And no policing or psychiatric tests can determine or stop anyone in possession of a gun from killing your mother or your sister or your brother.

While this is true, it applies equally to any number of tools or devices.

Cars are involved in far more fatalities in the UK than are guns. But no-one tries to ban all car ownership.

mh wrote:

moses wrote:

mh wrote:I think now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions from either side of the fence. OK, a terrible tragedy happened, and stricter gun laws may have helped prevent it, but this needs to be analysed from something of a more emotional and temporal distance.

What happened in Cumbria (Multiple Deaths) is a direct result of the current law and I don't think any reaction can be called 'knee-jerk' as this is actually the prime reason for guns - to kill with intent. And no policing or psychiatric tests can determine or stop anyone in possession of a gun from killing your mother or your sister or your brother.

@ boudicca Was that hindsight?

That's all fair enough, but I'm in agreement with what Quiffy and Fiendy said: "panic is not a good place from which to try to make decisions". It's not the scale of the reaction but the perspective from which the reaction occurs, and now is most definitely not a good time.

For what it's worth, I'm finding it quite surprising that UK gun laws are actually so strict as they are. Here I can see armed security guards and the like almost any day of the week (and a high proportion of "Joes from the bog" would have shotguns).

Anyway, lest I give the wrong impression, I would be very much in the "anti-gun" camp too, but I would also make the point that it's not guns that kill, it's people. It doesn't feel right to be discussing things in these terms, but I would be of the opinion that if the guy was going to run amok anyway, he could have just as easily used a hatchet, a knife or a chainsaw.

indeed.

over here (Belgium) it still is easy to obtain a gun, even after the stuff that happened here a couple of years ago.
I don't know if more laws are going to do the trick, for example; it is okey to have illigal weapons at home as long the firemechanisme is disabled (while it takes 5min to make it function again)
some years ago people had to register their weapons or turn them over to the authority for destruction. after that loads of those weapons turned up at the black market...

I own a shotgun which I use to go and shoot innocent plastic disks every now and then. I had to go through several stages to get my licence - they check up on any criminal background, they check up with your doctor to see if you have any mental issues etc. They call up your nominated referee for a personal "endorsment" (or whatever the right word is!).
A copper comes to your house to check where you are going to store the gun (you must have a metal lockable cabinet bolted to a wall) and where you plan on storing the ammunition (which doesn't have to be kept under lock and key with a shotgun, but does have to be if you own a firearm (shotgun isn't a firearm which will have a grooved barrel and a tighter licensing system)) - sorry , got lost in brackets there.
The copper also gives you an informal interview to check that you are indeed a suitable person to own a shotgun and voila! Your licence should arrive and you are away for the next 5 years - when the whole process is repeated as you renew your license.
I will say that a shotgun license is very easy to lose - not keeping your gun locked away can lose you your licence.

Although tragic, what happened is not a normal occurrence in this country. Gun crime is lower than people realise.

I am dreading the anti-gun backlash that could happen. Hungerford and Dunblane brought about the tightening of gun laws in this country (quite rightly IMHO) but I wouldn't like to see the next "natural progression" of banning all privately owned shotguns.

Sorry for the long post!

markfiend wrote:

moses wrote:What happened in Cumbria (Multiple Deaths) is a direct result of the current law

I don't see how. I think that the fact that only three spree-shootings in the UK in the past 30 years (Hungerford, Dunblane, now this) are actually evidence that UK gun control works quite well when you compare us with the USA.

It is a direct responce because we are allowed guns under the law.

markfiend wrote:

moses wrote:and I don't think any reaction can be called 'knee-jerk' as this is actually the prime reason for guns - to kill with intent.

Well, not really. Most guns in this country are either used by farmers or by sports shooters. Not to kill people.

Their purpose is to kill, sportsmen practise the art of killing from a distance, farmers kill animals. Either can do without.

markfiend wrote:

moses wrote:And no policing or psychiatric tests can determine or stop anyone in possession of a gun from killing your mother or your sister or your brother.

While this is true, it applies equally to any number of tools or devices.

Devices that weren't invented to kill.

markfiend wrote:Cars are involved in far more fatalities in the UK than are guns. But no-one tries to ban all car ownership.

Because that is not their purpose and they have a very important and usefull primary purpose.

Outside of the Yardies and their imitators in London and Manchester gun crime is pretty much-non-existent here, and most of that is tit for tat, so frankly I don't really much care. Internationally we're on a level with the most boring areas of Scandinavia for it, so I don't see any reason to worry. Looks like gun control is actually something in Britain we do very well. If this guy passed all the tests and then went off his rocker for whatever reason, I don't see what could have been done. Restricting it to farmers won't prevent you from one of them going barmy when the next F&M outbreak ruins him.

DeWinter wrote:Outside of the Yardies and their imitators in London and Manchester gun crime is pretty much-non-existent here, and most of that is tit for tat, so frankly I don't really much care. Internationally we're on a level with the most boring areas of Scandinavia for it, so I don't see any reason to worry. Looks like gun control is actually something in Britain we do very well. If this guy passed all the tests and then went off his rocker for whatever reason, I don't see what could have been done. Restricting it to farmers won't prevent you from one of them going barmy when the next F&M outbreak ruins him.

aye, very true.

moses wrote:It is a direct responce because we are allowed guns under the law.

So you think a total ban on gun ownership is appropriate?

moses wrote:Their purpose is to kill, sportsmen practise the art of killing from a distance, farmers kill animals. Either can do without.

Erm. Sure. Did you read streamline's post? He goes and "kills" plastic disks (clay pigeon shooting?)

moses wrote:Devices that weren't invented to kill.

I don't see the relevance. Dead is dead, whether you're shot or killed in a car accident.

markfiend wrote:we're going to get another "moral panic" about guns

You're acting as my "exhibit A" here...

markfiend wrote:

markfiend wrote:we're going to get another "moral panic" about guns

You're acting as my "exhibit A" here...

I'm not panicking Mr Mannering, merely discussing.

http://www.users.on.net/~bundy23/wwom/dryden.htm

To coin an old phrase.... Guns don't kill, people do.
I've had a few guns over the years, and never felt the need to point one at another person.
(although in the case of defending myself, I definately would)

moses wrote:

markfiend wrote:

markfiend wrote:we're going to get another "moral panic" about guns

You're acting as my "exhibit A" here...

I'm not panicking Mr Mannering, merely discussing.

http://www.users.on.net/~bundy23/wwom/dryden.htm

Fairy nuff.

Serious question though, would you favour a total ban on gun ownership in the UK?

mh wrote: it's not guns that kill, it's people.

You know I really, really loathe that little sound bite. Why not ban ammunition instead?

Debaser wrote:

mh wrote: it's not guns that kill, it's people.

You know I really, really loathe that little sound bite. Why not ban ammunition instead?

i thought it was "wappers" that did it?

I think we should put our energies towards making people invincibile.

markfiend wrote:Cars are involved in far more fatalities in the UK than are guns.

Mostly in accidents. Not usually in killing sprees. Cars, knives etc have other valid uses. Guns have some valid uses such as for farmers and armed forces but I can't see any reason for individuals to own guns for other reasons such as sport. Sporting guns could be kept in registered premises by licenced sporting clubs rather than in individuals' homes.

streamline wrote:Gun crime is lower than people realise.

Because of strict gun control laws. You can't commit a gun crime if you don't have access to a gun. The comparison with America and other countries where guns are far easier to obtain and gun crime is far higher has already been made.

Andy Christ 666 wrote:Guns don't kill, people do.

Guns (or rather bullets) do kill. People use them to kill. And if guns are easier to obtain, more people use them to kill. If a person doesn't have an extremely good reason for owning a gun then surely it's better that they don't have one. If they want to shoot harmless plastic discs then they can use the guns provided at the harmless plastic disc shooting club.

markfiend wrote: Serious question though, would you favour a total ban on gun ownership in the UK?

I would favour a world wide ban but I know it's not going to happen as guns exist and will always exist. In the UK in this age, yes I would like a total ban as I don't think there should be any place for them in an educated society.

Sport/Shmort

The recent tragedy, Dunblane, excepted, hasn't every homicide in the UK been with illegally held weapons? So a ban is pretty unlikely to save anyone the next time some half-wit with a Jafaican accent feels "disrespected" and shoots.
These kind of shootings are freak occurences, and had this guy not had the gun, I'm willing to bet a home-made explosive or driving his car into a crowded bus-stop would have been on the news instead.

DeWinter wrote:The recent tragedy, Dunblane, excepted, hasn't every homicide in the UK been with illegally held weapons? So a ban is pretty unlikely to save anyone the next time some half-wit with a Jafaican accent feels "disrespected" and shoots.
These kind of shootings are freak occurences, and had this guy not had the gun, I'm willing to bet a home-made explosive or driving his car into a crowded bus-stop would have been on the news instead.

you're forgetting the 14 year old scallies with a chip on their shoulder (those who've progressed beyond knives)...

Have to say one of the very strange things about Britain is that it's a fairly safe place to live according to every international measurement yet it's people are always convinced it's an inch a way from complete collapse of the rule of law..