Should Laws Regarding Gun Ownership Be Tightened Up?

[Obelix]

Ooo - you are special aren't you? The use of guns as a method of vermin control is exceptionally ineffective.

 

Actually no, it's remarkably effective and unlike other forms of control it doesn't catch the wrong species.

[Erin]

I haven't heard of many legitimately held guns being used to kill people. Do you have a link to show what you appear to be claiming.

I would suggest that more people are killed by fists. Or alcohol. Or cars. Or busses. Do you think we should ban busses?

 

I dont claim anything, look at my post 41, people do look at the wider picture. Why do you think the laws were tightened up in the first place, those are the facts. In this country its been nutters with guns who have caused mass murder. How can you compare that with a bus or fist.

[RonJeremy]

I dont claim anything, look at my post 41, people do look at the wider picture. Why do you think the laws were tightened up in the first place, those are the facts. In this country its been nutters with guns who have caused mass murder. How can you compare that with a bus or fist.

 

I think that's what the problem is - not the guns. It's the nutters.

What about nutters in cars? Or psycho nutters in pubs with fists?

Or psycho bus drivers?

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2015 at 13:54 ----------

 

Just looked at 41 - you suggest something needs to change - what is the quantifiable problem? What do you suggest the government does about it?

[Harrystottle]

Or the Polish guy who murdered six people with knives in the channel islands?

 

Look, in the 1960's you could buy a shotgun licence from the Post office for ten bob. You could own a pistol. You could own a semi-automatic rifle.

 

But gun crime was negligible. So why was that?

 

If legal gun ownership equals mass murders, why did these not occur back then?

[RootsBooster]

I dont claim anything, look at my post 41, people do look at the wider picture. Why do you think the laws were tightened up in the first place, those are the facts. In this country its been nutters with guns who have caused mass murder. How can you compare that with a bus or fist.

 

Easy, you can plow a bus straight through a large crowd of people, killing many, or you could drive a bus full of passengers off a cliff.

 

Yes people can commit mass murder with guns, is it a regular problem we have in the UK though?

[Cyclone]

I dont claim anything, look at my post 41, people do look at the wider picture. Why do you think the laws were tightened up in the first place, those are the facts. In this country its been nutters with guns who have caused mass murder. How can you compare that with a bus or fist.

 

The laws were changed in a massive knee jerk reaction to killings with illegally held weapons... Nobody who actually thought about the issue believed that the change in the law would make anyone safer, and they were entirely correct, gun crime went UP after the law was changed because criminals routinely ignore the law anyway!

[Harleyman]

Or the Polish guy who murdered six people with knives in the channel islands?

 

Look, in the 1960's you could buy a shotgun licence from the Post office for ten bob. You could own a pistol. You could own a semi-automatic rifle.

 

But gun crime was negligible. So why was that?

 

If legal gun ownership equals mass murders, why did these not occur back then?

 

Probably something to do with murder by gun, knife or whatever got you hanged for it.

[Halibut]

Probably something to do with murder by gun, knife or whatever got you hanged for it.

 

Almost certainly nothing to do with that. The reasons lie in society.

[RonJeremy]

Almost certainly nothing to do with that. The reasons lie in society.

 

<<post removed>> off topic

Edited April 20, 2015 by RonJeremy

[Cyclone]

Probably something to do with murder by gun, knife or whatever got you hanged for it.

 

There was no change in the rate of homicide when the death penalty was repealed, so no, almost certainly not.