JohnRich 4
JohnRich 4
Ownership of a firearm in the UK requires that the weapon must be kept securly locked away...
There are handgun safes which offer security, as well as quick access. Just because it's locked up, doesn't mean it is useless for self defense.
Legal firearms were a main source of illegal firearms following burglary. That source has now been reduced.
Legal cars are the chief source of stolen cars. Maybe cars should be banned!
The man who committed the Dunblane killings was a legal owner of his firearms as was Michael Ryan man who carried out the Hungerford massacre.
So why punish everyone else who didn't commit the crime? Is everyone who owns a gun a mass murderer? Is everyone who drives a car a drunk driver?
I'm for the registration of these potentialy lethal weapons.
Please explain how giving the government the serial number of your gun, prevents you from committing a crime with that gun.
Does auto registration stop the mayhem on the streets? No. In the U.S. we have 40,000 fatalities per year in auto accidents, despite registration. Registration is about taxes, and the government's penchant for list-keeping, so they can do something later, like... confiscation.
JohnRich 4
Any item can be misused for criminal purposes. Just because a few people commit crimes with air guns, shouldn't mean that no one else should be trusted with air guns.
Using this logic, the government could confiscate all your kitchen knives.
Using this logic, the government could confiscate all your kitchen knives.
"The greatest danger of bombsis in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke."
- Octave Mirbeau (1850-1917), French journalist, author.
skreamer 1
Keep waiting, I can reply to any post I like. Now you reckon I am afraid to speak my mind? Clearly you don't know me very well, which is just fine with me. 
JohnRich 4
Four children hurt in air rifle attack...
' they aren't "weapons", they're target guns.'
Tell that to these childrens mothers. You point a potentialy lethal 'target gun' at a person and it becomes a weapon.
From the London Telegraph:
"Mr Clark was brutally beaten to death by a career criminal... savagely beat him with his own walking stick, stabbing him to death with the fragments of the stick when it broke."If you think walking sticks are harmless, tell it to the family of Mr. Clark. When you beat and stab someone with a walking stick, it becomes a weapon. Clearly, walking sticks are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
"A man was last night charged with the murder of a mother of three who was stabbed to death in front of her four-month-old son."If you think knives are just harmless kitchen utensils, tell it to the family of this young mother. When you stab someone with a knife, it becomes a weapon. Clearly, knives are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
"A ROYAL Navy officer bludgeoned his wife to death with a rolling pin... David Crawley, 39, smashed his wife's skull with 12 blows..."Yeah, rolling pins are all fun and games when being used for baking cookies, but tell that to the family of this young wife. When you bash someone with a rolling pin, it becomes a weapon. Clearly, rolling pins are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
Will you join me in the call for government regulation of deadly walking sticks, kitchen knives, and rolling pins? Do it for the victims - they demand justice!
So why punish everyone else who didn't commit the crime? Is everyone who owns a gun a mass murderer?
I think the bottom line is that we, the English, do not feel like we are being punished or having our rights removed etc because, most of us really DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GUNS!!
In all my life and all the places I have lived around the UK the ONLY people who have had ANY concern for gun laws/legislations etc etc are the farmers I know because they have shotguns which they use for hunting/clay pidgeon shooting.
So the Government has got issues with BB guns now, who cares, not one person I have ever met in this country does.
------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......
JohnRich 4
I think the bottom line is that we, the English, do not feel like we are being punished or having our rights removed etc because, most of us really DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GUNS!!... So the Government has got issues with BB guns now, who cares, not one person I have ever met in this country does.
Ahhh, the tyranny of the majority...
Wouldn't it be nice to respect the rights and sports of citizens who aren't bothering anyone, even if they comprise a small minority of the citizenry?
You know, the majority of Brits probably don't give a twit about skydiving either. If the goverment moved to ban it, since the majority didn't care one way or another, would that be acceptable to you?
mr2mk1g 10
Clearly, walking sticks are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
They are.
Clearly, knives are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
They are.
Clearly, rolling pins are deadly weapons that should be registered and controlled by government.
They are.
All three examples are significantly less lethal than a firearm though, so do not need to be registered and overall are less controlled. But controlled they still are.
You know, the majority of Brits probably don't give a twit about skydiving either. If the goverment moved to ban it, since the majority didn't care one way or another, would that be acceptable to you?
If the majority wanted it banned - then yeah. Its called living in a democracy. If I don't like what the majority wants I can campaign to change their mind or move.
(I hope you realise I am pro gun, own several, and my family lost weapons in the post 96 purge. If my posts appear to run contrary to this fact, it is because I simply can not agree with some of the arguments raised by the US gun lobby, despite the fact that their purpose is after my own heart.)
You have to register walking sticks?!
You have to register kitchen knives?!
You have to register rolling pins?!
Somehow, I don't believe any of it.
All three examples are significantly less lethal than a firearm though, so do not need to be registered and overall are less controlled. But controlled they still are.
Actually, knife wounds are statistically FAR LESS SURVIVABLE than gunshot wounds. I wish I had the link to post but I know I have read that knife wounds result in death far more often than gunshot wounds do. JohnRich, can you help find data on that? Mine's who-knows-where.
You know, the majority of Brits probably don't give a twit about skydiving either. If the goverment moved to ban it, since the majority didn't care one way or another, would that be acceptable to you?
If the majority wanted it banned - then yeah. Its called living in a democracy. If I don't like what the majority wants I can campaign to change their mind or move.
That is [B]SUCH UTTER BULLSHIT[/B]!!!
Living in a democracy means that anything not popular enough to end up with a majority backing it is subject to capricious and arbitrary BANNING and you think that there is no legitimate reason to oppose that?! You think it is just something you should have to accept from the majority, even if what you do harms no one and is part of your personal pursuit of happiness? Man, that is some twisted damned logic!
In my view, anyone wishing to ban something must be required to present a compelling case. Simply having a majority desire the ban is not enough, if the ban will infringe on what should be the rights of others -- even if those others are a tiny minority (like skydivers are).
Don't you know that the U.S. has a Constitution to protect the minority from being trampled by the majority? Let's say tomorrow the majority supported the idea of rounding up all Asian people (a minority in this country) and enslaving them. According to you, even though this is an obvious infringement on their rights, it is allowable and must be tolerated "because the majority wills it."
Yes, an extreme example, but rights are rights, and freedom is freedom. If you can tell me why the logic does not apply evenly, I wish you would attempt to do so.
Peace,
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
mr2mk1g 10
All three examples are significantly less lethal than a firearm though, so do not need to be registered. But controlled they still are.
maybe I should'a put it in bold for you the first time round. Look again - you'll see its there.
Yes, an extreme example, but rights are rights, and freedom is freedom. If you can tell me why the logic does not apply evenly, I wish you would attempt to do so.
Easy - I'm referring to England not the US (see the title of the thread). If the majority wants it banned and feel they have a reason to do so, it can be banned. We have no constitution which says we cannot take away someone's right to something, we have no constitution to say we must protect a minority group. If the government wants to do something and there is popular support it can happen. Don't like it, don't come live here, no one is asking you to. If someone in the UK doesn't like it, move! It's far from bullshit.
Jimbo 0
I think the bottom line is that we, the English, do not feel like we are being punished or having our rights removed etc because, most of us really DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GUNS!!
Apparently the English _do_ give a shit about guns. You seem to have quite a lot of them over there, unfortunately none are the right hands.
You say that "most of us really don't give a shit about guns", so we know that you don't. But what about those who do?
In all my life and all the places I have lived around the UK the ONLY people who have had ANY concern for gun laws/legislations etc etc are the farmers I know because they have shotguns which they use for hunting/clay pidgeon shooting.
Farmers are the only citizens in England who enjoy hunting and target shooting?
Nothing personal dropout, but I think you've got a pretty simplistic, and probably convenient, view of the way thing really are.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
JohnRich 4
They are... They are... They are...
All three examples are significantly less lethal than a firearm though, so do not need to be registered and overall are less controlled. But controlled they still are.
Do tell us: how are walking sticks, kitchen knives, and rolling pins "controlled"? Do you have to get government permission to buy them? Does the government limit manufacture or possession? Do tell.
JohnRich 4
Here's more. It goes beyond real firearms, and air guns. Now there's a push to ban replica and toy guns also.
In the news:
Mother calls for tougher gun law
"Firearm offences had been creeping up for years, culminating in a 34% rise in 2001 to 2002, according to Home Office figures. (Despite the fact that they've already banned all handguns.) But what was more noticeable in the figures was a 46% rise in the use of replica guns in offences.
"Ms Cope, from south London, says: 'Criminals are converting replica guns to take live ammunition. They then become weapons of mass destruction.' Mothers Against Guns is calling for a total ban on the sale of replica guns, which are defined as anything that has the appearance of being a firearm whether or not they can fire ammunition.
"'We must make it harder for people to obtain and convert replicas into deadly weapons. That is why I support the call for a ban.'"
Full Story
Um, she seems to think that banning toy guns will somehow stop crimes with replica guns. But that ignores the first statistic, where handguns have been banned, yet gun crime went up 34% in one year. Doh!
In the news:
Mother calls for tougher gun law
"Firearm offences had been creeping up for years, culminating in a 34% rise in 2001 to 2002, according to Home Office figures. (Despite the fact that they've already banned all handguns.) But what was more noticeable in the figures was a 46% rise in the use of replica guns in offences.
"Ms Cope, from south London, says: 'Criminals are converting replica guns to take live ammunition. They then become weapons of mass destruction.' Mothers Against Guns is calling for a total ban on the sale of replica guns, which are defined as anything that has the appearance of being a firearm whether or not they can fire ammunition.
"'We must make it harder for people to obtain and convert replicas into deadly weapons. That is why I support the call for a ban.'"
Full Story
Um, she seems to think that banning toy guns will somehow stop crimes with replica guns. But that ignores the first statistic, where handguns have been banned, yet gun crime went up 34% in one year. Doh!
mr2mk1g 10
Control of knives:
Illigality of knives, sticks and rolling pins in public places:
***
Prevention of Crime Act 1953
s1(1) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable--
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [six months] or a fine not exceeding [the prescribed sum] or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [four] years or a fine . . . or both.
(2)..."offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person].
Offensive Weapons Act 1996
141A. - (1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen years an article to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to-
(a) any knife, knife blade or razor blade,
Illigality of knives, sticks and rolling pins in public places:
***
Prevention of Crime Act 1953
s1(1) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable--
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [six months] or a fine not exceeding [the prescribed sum] or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [four] years or a fine . . . or both.
(2)..."offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person].
Skyrad 0
Here here! Really, if that young man doesn't calm down I think he might have to change his name, eh what?!
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
No, really I think Dropout is spot on the money. You see you never miss what you never had. I thnk the vast majority of Brits are totaly against the public owning any form of firearms. Mainly because they don't know anything about firearms and can't see the point of having them. Like I said I personaly have been shooting since I was achild, its a discipline I really enjoy. But democracy really is about the will of the masses. Don't like it? Live in a dictatorship
Ananova:
Police stunned on learning man they shot dead just had table leg
A policeman stunned his colleagues by telling them they had shot dead a man carrying a table leg in a bag, an inquest has heard.
The Metropolitan Police armed response officer has told St Pancras Coroner's Court he was in a state of disbelief when he saw the victim only had a piece of wood.
Other officers say they opened fire after painter and decorator Harry Stanley pointed the tightly-wrapped blue bag containing the piece of furniture at them.
Mr Stanley, a 46-year-old father of three, died on the evening of September 22, 1999, as he returned to his home in Warneford Street, Hackney, after picking up the coffee table leg which one of his brothers had repaired.
Two police officers who shot dead in the mistaken belief that the table leg he was carrying in a plastic bag was a shotgun.
Inspector Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan fired twice at Harry Stanley after receiving reports of an "Irishman" leaving a pub in Hackney, east London, with a weapon in a blue plastic bag.
The hearing has been told that at the time of his death, he had been recovering from cancer of the colon and had difficulty walking, bending down or raising his hands after a stomach operation.
Police Sergeant Michael Meaney, told the jury he arrived at the scene in Fremont Street, near the junction of Victoria Park Road, after the shooting.
Ps Meaney said he escorted the officers to a nearby car and then looked inside the bag which was lying near where Mr Stanley had fallen.
"Again I had to stare at this piece of wood. I was expecting to see a shotgun. So I ran up the road and got Inspector Sharman and Pc Fagan out of the car and told them what I'd seen. They both appeared to be stunned and in shock by that. They said they wouldn't have done anything differently in the circumstances," he said.
How do you tell if a replica is real or not inthis kind of situation? And before you ask I'm still considering wether we should ban table legs
Ananova:
Police stunned on learning man they shot dead just had table leg
A policeman stunned his colleagues by telling them they had shot dead a man carrying a table leg in a bag, an inquest has heard.
The Metropolitan Police armed response officer has told St Pancras Coroner's Court he was in a state of disbelief when he saw the victim only had a piece of wood.
Other officers say they opened fire after painter and decorator Harry Stanley pointed the tightly-wrapped blue bag containing the piece of furniture at them.
Mr Stanley, a 46-year-old father of three, died on the evening of September 22, 1999, as he returned to his home in Warneford Street, Hackney, after picking up the coffee table leg which one of his brothers had repaired.
Two police officers who shot dead in the mistaken belief that the table leg he was carrying in a plastic bag was a shotgun.
Inspector Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan fired twice at Harry Stanley after receiving reports of an "Irishman" leaving a pub in Hackney, east London, with a weapon in a blue plastic bag.
The hearing has been told that at the time of his death, he had been recovering from cancer of the colon and had difficulty walking, bending down or raising his hands after a stomach operation.
Police Sergeant Michael Meaney, told the jury he arrived at the scene in Fremont Street, near the junction of Victoria Park Road, after the shooting.
Ps Meaney said he escorted the officers to a nearby car and then looked inside the bag which was lying near where Mr Stanley had fallen.
"Again I had to stare at this piece of wood. I was expecting to see a shotgun. So I ran up the road and got Inspector Sharman and Pc Fagan out of the car and told them what I'd seen. They both appeared to be stunned and in shock by that. They said they wouldn't have done anything differently in the circumstances," he said.
How do you tell if a replica is real or not inthis kind of situation? And before you ask I'm still considering wether we should ban table legs
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
juanesky 0
No, really I think Dropout is spot on the money. You see you never miss what you never had. I thnk the vast majority of Brits are totaly against the public owning any form of firearms. Mainly because they don't know anything about firearms and can't see the point of having them. Like I said I personaly have been shooting since I was achild, its a discipline I really enjoy. But democracy really is about the will of the masses. Don't like it? Live in a dictatorship
Or in a monarchy
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
If you read the bottom half of the quote, he talks about why guns shouldn't be banned.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites