guns should be banned

Richard_D

Rolf F 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?

Are you sure that the Swiss have such a low gun crime rate? People always assume it but do they look at the numbers.
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.

You have used statistics to push what you believe. A recent programme about Gun use did a comparison and yes sure enough Switzerland has higher gun crime than the rest of Western Europe however if look at the crime rate rather than the gun crime rate it is in line with the rest of Western Europe. The availability means that the weapon of choice is a gun rather than an Axe, knife, machete, hammer etc.. Banning shotguns and hunting rifles will not fix the problem of people running amock just change their M.O.
Every pointless early death is horrible whether through malice, ignorance or accident but would a change in the law have prevented this particular atrocity and the simple answer is no.

Anonymous

Rolf F 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?

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

[i]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.[/i]

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.

The swiss murders were carried out by American tourists.

"You don't boil pizza !", BLAM
"Disney Rocks !", BLAM.
"Hannah Montana is better than clocks", BLAM.

And so on.....

shouldbeinbed

rapid_uphill wrote:

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.

I don't and nor do any of my friends, for over 12 months there was no fatal shootings in Manchester. the proportion of firearms offences we (as a force wide police resource) see is minimal compared to other types of crimes and violence.

That's not to say they aren't out there and waved around/ discharged now and again but it's nowhere near the Dodge City that you suggest.

Also knives sem to be the weapon of choice for Londoners recently judging by the news stories of recent fatalities that got through the cordite smoke up here.

Stewie Griffin

tebbit wrote:

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.

Thats been denied has it not? Hospital had no knowledge of him neither did Mental Health Services. I have posted about gang shootings with handguns, machine pistols and sub machine guns as I have had them occur all over our neighbourhood and infact pretty much outside our front door. I think the public not being allowed to own guns is a good idea, if I had access to one Im quite sure that I would have filled someone with lead by now be it a noisey neighbour or someone who buzzed me on my bike or the last ar5e who drove into my car while in traffic.

Im just a city boy so forgive me if Im perhaps underestimating what Farmers might have to protect themselves and their livestock from but surely shotguns are for Bears, Lions and the like?

Paulie W

A few observations on yesterday's events and the reaction to them in the media and here.

This is the third such case of a 'gunman' going on a largely random killing spree in the UK in the last 20 years or so. That is 3 too many but it still highlights the rareity of such events. However, what terrifies us about such events is not their frequency, but their very randomness and the seeming impossibility of preventing them. That someone's seemingly pleasant, easy-going neighbour could commit such acts makes us wonder what our own neighbours might do.

It is inevitable perhaps that we want to prevent this happening again and while we cant predict when or where it might happen next we do have some potential control over guns, the ability to stop people having (legal) access to firearms. If Bird had not had a gun it is possible that he may have used some other form of weapon, a knife, a sword, someone suggested his car. The reality is, however, that a gun is the weapon of 'choice' in these scenarios. There are examples of people using a sword but I cant think of anyone using a car in this way. The gun brings with it a sense of power, perhaps of invulnerability, that helps to fuel such men. I suspect that if he had no gun yesterday would not have unfolded as it did, if at all. I am not suggesting that the wholesale banning of guns is the right reaction simply that it is a reaction that is understandable in this context.

The reaction of the pro-gun lobby to such talk astonishes me, A spokesman on the BBC news focused only on the negative impact a wider restriction on guns would have on the Olympic movement in the UK and on our potential for gold medals. There would be value in these monents for this lobby simply to recognise where this reaction comes from and to focus on the reality that a siginifcant number of licensed gunowners fare farmers, gamekeepers, etc for whom the gun is a tool of the trade.

bagpusscp

Derbyshire local news from yesterday.Normally it would be national.
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html

rolf_f

Richard_D wrote:

You have used statistics to push what you believe. A recent programme about Gun use did a comparison and yes sure enough Switzerland has higher gun crime than the rest of Western Europe however if look at the crime rate rather than the gun crime rate it is in line with the rest of Western Europe. The availability means that the weapon of choice is a gun rather than an Axe, knife, machete, hammer etc.. Banning shotguns and hunting rifles will not fix the problem of people running amock just change their M.O.
Every pointless early death is horrible whether through malice, ignorance or accident but would a change in the law have prevented this particular atrocity and the simple answer is no.

Have I? I don't think I made any comment about what I believe but feel free to point it out if I did! All I said was that assuming that because the Swiss are mostly associated with non violent things such as clocks and bank accounts, it doesn't mean that the statistics back it up. Search on the net and you'll find plenty of pro gun sites going on about what a great example the Swiss are but, unless they can back it up with convincing data, it doesn't mean anything. The link I posted may or may not be based on convincing data - I don't know - but at least it is data rather than the random comment Chrisz made. You didn't complain about that so are you picking on my post to try and push what you believe?!!

As for the weapon of choice issue - do you honestly think he would have managed to kill 12 people and injure 25 more with anything other than some form of gun? There's a reason why the army tend to focus on using guns rather than axes, knives and machetes. How many knife based multi death rampages can you recall?

Richard_D wrote:

Every pointless early death is horrible whether through malice, ignorance or accident but would a change in the law have prevented this particular atrocity and the simple answer is no.

It is a simple answer - however, an answer based on opinion not backed up by anything other than personal opinion is as likely to be wrong as it is correct. Would a change in the law have prevented this crime? I think I heard that Derrick Bird inherited the guns. If it had been harder to do that, maybe he would have not bothered to keep them in the first place and then this crime wouldn't have happened. Who knows?

Cleat Eastwood

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.

Are you seriously suggesting the unfathomable grief of twelve familes is an adequate price to pay for a no mark to "earn" a gold plated piece of metal for shooting bricks thrown into the air. Christ almighy.

Porgy

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.

It was only one state in Switzerland that took till 1990 to give women the vote - not the whole country.

night_porter

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

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.

Are you seriously suggesting the unfathomable grief of twelve familes is an adequate price to pay for a no mark to "earn" a gold plated piece of metal for shooting bricks thrown into the air. Christ almighy.

You obviously work for the press because you have completely misconstrued what I wrote. My comment was in reply to "nothing good comes out of owning guns" and I said that this was not true.

Nothing I write will convince people who have limited knowledge about legal and legitimate gun ownership to change their opinions but it is my opinion that banning all guns will not prevent people commiting mass murder.

Feel free to misquote me or take these words out of context to make it look like you are the only one who cares about this tragedy.

Richard_D

In Response to Rolf question.
How many knife based multi death rampages can you recall?

Because I was accused of not basing my response on proveable facts I am going to say I can remember at least 2 but have vague memories of more. The 2 I can remember one involved somebody going into a shop front office with a samaurai sword and killing and maiming several and the other was a machete attack on a primary school. Once I have times dates and casualities I wil forward them. So my response is it is rare but not unknown.

Any discussion now about banning, not banning or changing the rules should be delayed several months at least otherwise it will be governed by emotion NOT reason. I have not and am unlikely ever to want a firearms or shotgun license but for now will defend the right of people to posess a licensed firearm.

ScaldedCat

Richard_D wrote:

In Response to Rolf question.
How many knife based multi death rampages can you recall?

There was one near Derby yesterday. A man killed a woman and her toddler and then killed himself it would appear.

Granted not a dozen people killing spree but still, not good.


Personally I support legitimate gun ownership for sporting or agricultural purposes.

tebbit

The statement is that Bird was not known to local Mental Health Services, this is very different to him being turned away by a local hospital.

de_sisti

If it's not been said before, then, ammuniton should be hideously expensive, £50+ per round.

Stewie Griffin

De Sisti wrote:

If it's not been said before, then ammuniton should be hideously expensive, £50+ per round.

Chris Rock suggested they should be $5000 each.

dbmnk

night_porter wrote:

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

guns don't kill people... lazers do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chxC7ZLR_w8


But don't despair
http://maddecent.com/blog/lazerproof

Ollieda

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.

Thats pretty much what happened when the government decided to try and control the pistol market. People were no longer allowed to keep pistols at home and they had to be stored at pistol clubs. A large amount of people left the sport as it just wasn't practical to keep their pistols at the club (i.e. if you had an hour to go to the club to do some shooting a lot of that time was now taken up with maintainance, cleaning and admin, most of which people were able to do at home).

The result of this, none or minimal reduction to pistol crime and many annoyed people who's sport was damaged for no good reason.

If someone is going to flip and go on a killing rampage they will get whatever weapon they want, just because the guns are locked away at a club it doesn't stop them being able to get hold of one from somewhere else.

Cleat Eastwood

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.

By that warped logic of not banning things because some "good" can come from then we would live in a world where Nazism is openly praised on teh grounds that it gave us the volkswagen and technolgy for rocket powered flight.....6 million what?...Oh no dont bother mentioning them...why? Because night_porter believes that we should only focus selfishly on one aspect of a problem without seeing its social context or its ramifications..

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

Fatuous beyond belief, even more starkly

People grieve....guns don't.

People die...guns don't

People want to live in peace....

rolf_f

ScaldedCat wrote:

Richard_D wrote:

In Response to Rolf question.
How many knife based multi death rampages can you recall?

There was one near Derby yesterday. A man killed a woman and her toddler and then killed himself it would appear.

That wasn't a multi death rampage. It was a domestic murder. Even if it had been a rampage, the point is it is a lot easier to disarm someone waving a knife than someone pointing a gun.

bearfraser

If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns,sports shooting has been so badly decimated we can no longer win any "Olympic" medals and afterall its people that kill people not guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank the tank

I don't like guns and don't feel comfortable near them. However I don't agree with a blanket ban, Our gun laws (so I believe) are very stringent, several workmates of mine do various types of shooting between them.

"Knee-jerk" reactions are not good ones, but one thing is for sure bring in whatever laws you like no-one can legislate for acts of sheer madness/lunacy.

1footedninja

Frank the tank wrote:

no-one can legislate for acts of sheer madness/lunacy.

except for what the goverments get away with presently anyway... and will slowly bring more changes in to create even more madness and lunacy.

I do get that you mean if someone goes postal then they go postal, long and short of it,no matter what laws are in place or not in place..

You really think the government gives a sh*t? yeah, as long as it can make a few more coins for the coffers, its just there to serve its masters at the top of the foodchain & then work its way down the chain of command.

the biggest crime is the one that stares us all in the face everyday - the fact we let ourselves be deluded into a system that self-governs itself and self-police's itself, where we forget to be human whilst chasing the next sniff of money to keep us afloat whilst the true criminals and maniac's live expensive lavish lifestyles safely and away from prying eyes, able to do unthinkable acts of sickening atrocities and utilise methods of control to get others to become mind controlled to do the same.

the loonies run things, the loonies create a system which drives people to madness, and we all sucker for it, from cradle to the grave.

the bigger picture, the world is sick and unless it heals itself sharpish then things are only gonna get even more f£ked