Cyclone Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 From that article - "Removing risk lowers the protective instinct of individuals and communities, and paradoxically leaves them in greater danger." Hear, hear! I'd still ban guns. That won't stop murder, but it will make killing sprees more difficult. If anyone wants to understand risk and play with danger, let them expose themselves to that risk and danger, not others. Has banning ownership of most handguns made anyone safer from firearms offences. No. Would extending the ban to other firearms make anyone safer. No. Is a knife a better tool for an extended rampage, probably. It never runs out of ammo you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Whilst we do know that some form of gun control is necessary, it would be a knee jerk reaction to ban private ownership of guns altogether. True, some may look to America where everyone owns a gun and point out that over there gun crime is so common that a case like this would barely make the papers. To counter this you'd point out Canada though, where gun ownership is even more common, but gun crime lower than in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 spinac, I know of no other place in the EU, where shotgun/firearm ownership is as draconian as the UK. There is no such thing as "free access to a weapon of choice" in the UK and the permission (to own a shotgun, never mind a rifled firearm) is (i) subject to grant by an independent third party (Police Super) in the first place, and (ii) revokable. I will generally echo and support Dozy's post above, right on the money. To be fair, as regards rifled firearms (i.e. the scoped rifle in the recent rampage), with the possible exception of venison/deer, I don't think there is any free (non-managed) game big enough left in the UK for that kind of ammunition/requirement, so they could be fair game. Then again, left with shotguns only, one could just use a Brenneke instead of grain (that is...if Brenneke slugs are legal in the UK ). Same result, but more messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Wasn't it a .22 rifle? That's a standard target shooting rifle, and/or suitable for shooting vermin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinac Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Has banning ownership of most handguns made anyone safer from firearms offences. No. Would extending the ban to other firearms make anyone safer. No. Is a knife a better tool for an extended rampage, probably. It never runs out of ammo you see. Would have to disagree with you there. More guns = more opportunity for gun crime (not less as the gun lobby in America perversely claim ... "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Therefore if you allow everyone to have guns (the thinking seems to go) then gun owners will no longer only be outlaws and we'll all be safer??? Perverse logic! Reducing the ready availability of guns reduces the opportunity for their misuse and this does make us safer. I'm suspicious of those who want to use guns for sport. What thrill does shooting provide that you [one] cannot get from other sports? Are [you] trying to prove what an heroic hunter you are putting yourself up against wild creatures? Try bull-running in Spain if [you] want to match yourself against big dangerous animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Wasn't it a .22 rifle? That's a standard target shooting rifle, and/or suitable for shooting vermin.Dunno. Considering the lethality reported, I assumed -probably incorrectly- that it was a Mauser variant (7x or 8x 57). More common for scoped hunting rifles than .22 ...at least where I'm from There are many very varied sporting pursuits involving firearms, not that many of which (when considering all variants) involve shooting at living and breathing things. In the end, it's a test of skill. To the same extent as say, archery (to use a direct analogy), pétanque or any other game of skill. You're in danger of showing up your narrow mind, spinac But we are digressing and off-topic. Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinac Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 There are many very varied sporting pursuits involving firearms, not that many of which (when considering all variants) involve shooting at living and breathing things. In the end, it's a test of skill. To the same extent as say, archery (to use a direct analogy), pétanque or any other game of skill. You're in danger of showing up your narrow mind, spinac I don't have a problem with target shooting so long as the guns remain locked at the shooting club. What's the need to take them home? I'm not arguing for the elimination of risk. That's not possible. I think everybody should be encouraged to assess and manage risks in order to live a full life. However, I think the ready availability of guns is an unneccessary risk. The thrill of target shooting is perfectly legitimate. The thrill of owning a lethal weapon in the home and the potential for misuse is not ... IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04jessops Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Yet we've become such a scared society that we've completely lost the plot and now many of us seem to have become scared of non-existent threats to the extent that we now seem to think that every stranger we meet might be a paedophile, nutter, terrorist or whatever. Part of that's based on human instinct not to trust strangers - but it's taken to the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogs Of War Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 the problem stems from the invention of the "risk asessment" and compensation culture. army`s of pen pushing jobsworths too scared to let anyone do anything incase they suddenly find the Ambulence chasers knocking at ther door. kids getting grazed and cut knees from falling over playing football in the school playground etc is all part of life . well it was until we allowed these no win no fee parasites to operate in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I don't have a problem with target shooting so long as the guns remain locked at the shooting club. What's the need to take them home?Because maintaining everyone's licensed property, within a particular radius, at a single, known location (pick it up in the yellow pages) would drive up breaking/entering/burglary (regardless of how good the securtity is or could get) for criminal purposes (put the loot on the black market overnight) 100% at least? And, in the process, substantially aggravate/compound gun crime to no end within a very small period of time? Just some small practical considerations, I'm lacking the time to add more (and don't want to reply O/T much more in here) I'm not arguing for the elimination of risk. That's not possible. I think everybody should be encouraged to assess and manage risks in order to live a full life. However, I think the ready availability of guns knives/cars/garden tools is an unneccessary risk. The thrill of target shooting cooking/driving/gardening is perfectly legitimate. The thrill of owning an arsenal of lethal weapons in the home and the potential for misuse is not ... IMHOHow's that read now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.