guns should be banned

northernneil

unless you need a firearm for your occupation i.e. a shotgun for agricultural use then you legally should not be able to own a firearm. Plainly a taxi driver has no need at all for a shotgun.

Shooting clubs should be regulated so that owners are not allowed to keep rifles at home and police should be told if the gun is to be taken away from the clubs range i.e. to go hunting.

nothing good comes from guns ...

KillerMetre

Couldn't agree more.Although if someone is mentally ill enough to kill 12 people then I imagine they will use anything as a weapon,though it is hard to think of a more efficient weapon than a gun.

night_porter

Simply put guns don't kill ....people kill.

Maybe you think nothing good comes from gun ownership but as a former England Clay Shooter I cannot agree with you.

Richard Faulds won a Gold medal at the 2000 Olympics having been a former world youth champion. British shooters have dominated the world FITASC championships for years.

It is very sad what happened in Cumbria but someone who is intent on killing people could do as much if not more damage using a motor vehicle.

Let's not have a knee jerk reaction that would ruin many peoples sport just because someone went crazy.

Anonymous

night_porter wrote:

Simply put guns don't kill ....people kill.

Maybe you think nothing good comes from gun ownership but as a former England Clay Shooter I cannot agree with you.

Richard Faulds won a Gold medal at the 2000 Olympics having been a former world youth champion. British shooters have dominated the world FITASC championships for years.

It is very sad what happened in Cumbria but someone who is intent on killing people could do as much if not more damage using a motor vehicle.

Let's not have a knee jerk reaction that would ruin many peoples sport just because someone went crazy.

:shock: Rather flippant there. Tell that to the families and friends of those in Cumbria, Hungerford and Dunblane...

disgruntledgoat

northernneil wrote:

unless you need a firearm for your occupation i.e. a shotgun for agricultural use then you legally should not be able to own a firearm. Plainly a taxi driver has no need at all for a shotgun.

Shooting clubs should be regulated so that owners are not allowed to keep rifles at home and police should be told if the gun is to be taken away from the clubs range i.e. to go hunting.

nothing good comes from guns ...

Word round here is that he inherited the guns from his father and that they were both licensed and registered. What you describe is pretty much the law as it stands witht he exception that licensed rifles and shotguns are permitted to be kept at home in a locked cabinet (I believe).

Bad laws are made in haste and a knee-jerk clampdown on legal gun ownership is certain to be a bad law. As the news said last night, there are 22,000 registered and licensed guns in Cumbria (owned mostly by farmers)... this is the act of one man gone crazy, he could just as easily have run them over in his car.

Radioactiveman

Not quite as insensitive as Prince Philip following dunblane

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"

However a gun is a much more efficient weapon. as much as I have enjoyed shooting previously I cant help but think the vetting process needs to be more restrictive. Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

saymush

Radioactiveman wrote:

Not quite as insensitive as Prince Philip following dunblane

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"

However a gun is a much more efficient weapon. as much as I have enjoyed shooting previously I cant help but think the vetting process needs to be more restrictive. Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

Do you mean the mental health of the man when he takes out a licence or when he flips and does soemthing like this?

Gazzaputt

night_porter wrote:

Richard Faulds won a Gold medal at the 2000 Olympics having been a former world youth champion. British shooters have dominated the world FITASC championships for years.

Yea and they're all household names :roll:

FFS they can keep their guns at a club and they can be used under strict supervision.

There is no need for them to have the guns at home full stop.

Shooting as a sport in a controlled environment I support. Any tom, dick or harry living in the sticks doesn't constitute having to own a firearm.

saymush

NapoleonD wrote:

night_porter wrote:

Simply put guns don't kill ....people kill.

Maybe you think nothing good comes from gun ownership but as a former England Clay Shooter I cannot agree with you.

Richard Faulds won a Gold medal at the 2000 Olympics having been a former world youth champion. British shooters have dominated the world FITASC championships for years.

It is very sad what happened in Cumbria but someone who is intent on killing people could do as much if not more damage using a motor vehicle.

Let's not have a knee jerk reaction that would ruin many peoples sport just because someone went crazy.

Its not flippant really though is it?

:shock: Rather flippant there. Tell that to the families and friends of those in Cumbria, Hungerford and Dunblane...

verylonglegs

Radioactiveman wrote:

Not quite as insensitive as Prince Philip following dunblane

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"

However a gun is a much more efficient weapon. as much as I have enjoyed shooting previously I cant help but think the vetting process needs to be more restrictive. Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

Not sure what mental health checks would achieve, based on the information on this latest case so far there seems to be plenty of people saying he was decent friendly chap etc and they would never have expected him to do something like this. Unfortunately I don't think those most affected will ever get the answers they crave.

bagpusscp

Mental healh.
Hmm. Not one poster on here, can be sure what may trigger them into a totally irrational act.
Take any farmer of a legally held shootgun.This group has a high suicide rate.......

northernneil

its the fact that guns can be able to be kept at home. This must surely be stopped unless for occupational use.

If they are stored elsewhere in a secure shooting club or police station facility and have to be signed in and out on every use this would not stop people enjoying the 'sport' of shooting at all. Ok it may be a little more hassle to go and collect and drop off the firearm but it doesn't affect people being able to use guns for sport.

even if the guns are inherited there is simply no reason anyone needs a gun in their house unless they are a farmer or use them for an occupation (pest control etc).

Radioactiveman

saymush wrote:

Radioactiveman wrote:

Not quite as insensitive as Prince Philip following dunblane

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"

However a gun is a much more efficient weapon. as much as I have enjoyed shooting previously I cant help but think the vetting process needs to be more restrictive. Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

Do you mean the mental health of the man when he takes out a licence or when he flips and does soemthing like this?

Before they are considered for a license ofc, too late otherwise. Might pick out one or two with character flaws

disgruntledgoat

northernneil wrote:

If they are stored elsewhere in a secure shooting club or police station facility and have to be signed in and out on every use this would not stop people enjoying the 'sport' of shooting at all. Ok it may be a little more hassle to go and collect and drop off the firearm but it doesn't affect people being able to use guns for sport.

So let's say this is the case and the person wishes to remove them from the premises to "go hunting" and then, instead, goes and shoots somebody. How would your system legislate against that?

Handguns are illegal to have in the home, and yet somehow, drug dealers keep getting them in London and shooting each other. Are they all members of registered shooting clubs?

northernneil

bagpusscp wrote:

Mental healh.
Hmm. Not one poster on here, can be sure what may trigger them into a totally irrational act.
Take any farmer of a legally held shootgun.This group has a high suicide rate.......

correct, gun owners have that temptation.

I know my dads colleague got into shooting about 3 years ago ... and promptly killed himself with his shotgun a year ago. Granted he may have killed himself in another way but all statistics point to the fact that if you have a gun in your house YOU are more likely to be killed with it.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Insurance-boss-found-dead-.5426038.jp

northernneil

disgruntledgoat wrote:

northernneil wrote:

If they are stored elsewhere in a secure shooting club or police station facility and have to be signed in and out on every use this would not stop people enjoying the 'sport' of shooting at all. Ok it may be a little more hassle to go and collect and drop off the firearm but it doesn't affect people being able to use guns for sport.

So let's say this is the case and the person wishes to remove them from the premises to "go hunting" and then, instead, goes and shoots somebody. How would your system legislate against that?

Handguns are illegal to have in the home, and yet somehow, drug dealers keep getting them in London and shooting each other. Are they all members of registered shooting clubs?

it cant but in yesterdays situation do you think the officer signing out the guns may have noticed something 'strange' with the man wanting to use guns that day ? May have stuttered under questioning about where and why he was going hunting ? Hunting with a shotgun ? If you had to give 2 days notice to book out guns would this help ? of course.

illegal guns are another matter dunblane, micheal ryan and yesterday were the worst shootings in the UK and all done with 'legally' held weapons.

saymush

Radioactiveman wrote:

saymush wrote:

Radioactiveman wrote:

Not quite as insensitive as Prince Philip following dunblane

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"

However a gun is a much more efficient weapon. as much as I have enjoyed shooting previously I cant help but think the vetting process needs to be more restrictive. Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

Do you mean the mental health of the man when he takes out a licence or when he flips and does soemthing like this?

Before they are considered for a license ofc, too late otherwise. Might pick out one or two with character flaws

Are you familiar with the process required to get a firearms certificate? Theyre not available for just anyone. And not for anyone at all without a recognised need.

MattC59

Radioactiveman wrote:

Does it review the individuals mental health for example?

Yes.

rolf_f

verylonglegs wrote:

Not sure what mental health checks would achieve, based on the information on this latest case so far there seems to be plenty of people saying he was decent friendly chap etc and they would never have expected him to do something like this.

A bit of a problem this isn't it - if a 'nice, friendly, harmless' sort of bloke can go on a rampage, it suggests that mental health checks aren't necessarily going to help. Lets face it, this nice bloke was rather more effective a killing machine in one day than the clearly dangerous 'Crossbow Cannibal' was over several years.

I wonder who out there, living a normal life right now, will be the next person to go on a rampage and kill loads of people..........

Cressers

Me?

ratsbeyfus

Rolf F wrote:

I wonder who out there, living a normal life right now, will be the next person to go on a rampage and kill loads of people..........

My money is on Biking Bernie if lance gets on the podium in July!

Chrissz

In Switzerland most home owners have guns. Comparatively low suicide rate, armed robbery etc. Is it the guns per se or is it indictive of a sick society?

Chrissz

PS. There have been over 2,500 deaths caused by motor vehicles last year - shouldn't we be more concerend with banning cars, vans, lorrys etc?

rolf_f

Chrissz wrote:

In Switzerland most home owners have guns. Comparatively low suicide rate, armed robbery etc. Is it the guns per se or is it indictive of a sick society?

Are you sure that the Swiss have such a low gun crime rate? People always assume it but do they look at the numbers. Eg: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 46946.html

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Chrissz wrote:

PS. There have been over 2,500 deaths caused by motor vehicles last year - shouldn't we be more concerend with banning cars, vans, lorrys etc?

Society deems this an acceptable price to pay. Whether it deems the rights of individuals to keep guns and ammunition in their homes as an acceptable price for what happened yesterday is another matter.

tebbit

Derrick Bird went to his local hospital for mental health treatment but was turned away, surely the debate should be about the adequate provision of mental health treatment, if this man had received proper treatment, the same way he would have (hopefully) for a physical ailment, people would still be alive this morning.

rapid_uphill

People in manchester and london get shot everyday. i agree with a ban to stop people owning guns but its not going to stop criminals.

hoolio

Being granted a firearms licence isn't a simple process. You need two referees who have known you for several years and have to answer specific questions regarding how they know you, character, your attitude to firearms and their knowledge of your family/personal relationships. You also have to give permission for the police to contact your GP and review your medical records. The firearms department will also search the police database for any history involving you, they'll contact other local groups such as domestic violence for any record of you, and they'll even contact Special Branch and get a background check on you.
For shotgun licence the process is similar, but you only need one referee.

On a personal level I'm deeply saddened by the events in Cumbria and really can't begin to imagine what led him to harm so many people.

But the guns didn't make him do it, and without firearms he still could have killed several people, so I guess the question is how can you stop a single individual from doing something like this? I don't think you can in so far as you will never be able to make the world an entirely safe place, no matter what you ban.
What if the local policemen had been armed, like many of the police forces throughout Europe? That would be effective against armed individuals regardless of the legallity of ownership or type of weapon.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think banning firearms solves it.

LittleB0b

Chrissz wrote:

In Switzerland most home owners have guns. Comparatively low suicide rate, armed robbery etc. Is it the guns per se or is it indictive of a sick society?

Please don't tell me you're holding Switzerland up as a model socieity - the country that banned minarets and took till 1990 to give women the vote.

beverick

LittleB0b wrote:

Chrissz wrote:

In Switzerland most home owners have guns. Comparatively low suicide rate, armed robbery etc. Is it the guns per se or is it indictive of a sick society?

Please don't tell me you're holding Switzerland up as a model socieity - the country that banned minarets and took till 1990 to give women the vote.

...and actively encourage foreign nationals to commit suicide in their country.

nb, In response to earlier posts, I don't think that gun licenses should be issued for 'social' reasons but neither do I think that ownership should be banned completely. It would be like banning two wheeled vehicles (powered and otherwise) because of the apparently high mortality rate associated with them.

Bob

sampras38

Awful awful thing to happen and my heart goes out to all the families of the victims, but I'm not sure a total ban is the answer. I do however think owners should have to go through some kind of psychological assessment on a regular basis, Say every 12 months or so.

Bunneh

Having tried to commit suicide twice (I suck at it) having a gun would have more than likely seen me as a statistic. It's so 'easy' to just pull the trigger when you're at your lowest ebb. The walk to the local high rise can make you change your mind.

Thing is this guy could have been 'fine' all his life with small things adding up. All it takes is a simple thing to screw the chemicals in the brain, bill coming in you can't pay, or your wife sleeping with the local sheep - anyone can be pushed over the edge but, in most cases, it will take a lot to do it.

I did think guns were banned, wasn't legislation brought in after Dumblane? (sp). I know farmers have their shotguns (no I wasn't chased out of a field with my pants down, I wasn't wearing any in the first place), but I don't know who else, bar fuzz, have them.