Significant incident Plymouth

Ahleckz said:
I don’t think there’s a need to have a gun stored at your house for clay pigeon shooting. Store it at the range, under what I assume are more secure arrangements.

You’re right though, it would make me uneasy having a gun in the house rather than provide me with any sense of security. My understanding of gun security is that you probably won’t have the time to get it out and prepared in the event of a break in if it’s secured properly. (But happy to be proved wrong).
Click to expand...

I think that's rather the point, having a gun for security is not an acceptable reason to own one. If you tried to get a license on those terms for a shotgun it would be denied.

Family members of mine own shotguns for clay pigeon shooting and even I think it would be safer for them to be stored at the range, albeit maybe not that practical because a lot of people shoot in different places regularly. The requirements for storage at home are quite strict though, e.g. ammunition has to be stored in a separate safe as I understand it. And every few years a police officer visits to inspect your house and assess any risks - If you're not in compliance you can lose your license easily.
 
Johno please? said:
I have a bat under the bed personally.

But yea in this country not only would you not be able to get the gun out in time you would probably find yourself in big trouble because self defense is ALMOST illegal in our nanny state.
Click to expand...
Ever tried swinging a bat in a hallway or a staircase in a normal house?
 
Ahleckz said:
I understand you can own a shotgun in a city centre. I don’t think that should be legal. I don’t really think anyone should own a gun in their house. Perhaps an argument can be made for farmers, but certainly there is no justification to own a gun in a city.
Click to expand...

The UK has almost no homicides committed by people with firearms already, a "mass shooting" is strictly an anomaly, maybe you don't need need to understand why people might need to legally own a shotgun because it has literally zero impact on your life. This guy could've just as easily planted a bomb instead like the Manchester arena bombing and killed maybe even more people.
 
MKzHfAt.png
 
Johno please? said:
I have a bat under the bed personally.

But yea in this country not only would you not be able to get the gun out in time you would probably find yourself in big trouble because self defense is ALMOST illegal in our nanny state.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Kevin Bridges joke about shops in bad areas selling hundreds of bats but not a single baseball.
My girlfriend did buy one at the beginning of lockdown. It’s proved useful for shoving and retrieving bags from the top shelf in the larder.

RobHu said:
I think that's rather the point, having a gun for security is not an acceptable reason to own one. If you tried to get a license on those terms for a shotgun it would be denied.

Family members of mine own shotguns for clay pigeon shooting and even I think it would be safer for them to be stored at the range, albeit maybe not that practical because a lot of people shoot in different places regularly. The requirements for storage at home are quite strict though, e.g. ammunition has to be stored in a separate safe as I understand it. And every few years a police officer visits to inspect your house and assess any risks - If you're not in compliance you can lose your license easily.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that there are controls but I still don’t think they go far enough. I also don’t think there is any reasonable reason to have a gun at home, in the city. I’m not up to speed with farming but do they really need them either? Especially multiple ones…
 
Roar87 said:
The UK has almost no homicides committed by people with firearms already, a "mass shooting" is strictly an anomaly, maybe you don't need need to understand why people might need to legally own a shotgun because it has literally zero impact on your life. This guy could've just as easily planted a bomb instead like the Manchester arena bombing and killed maybe even more people.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, Salman Abedis face was also plastered all over the BBC in 2017, in response to your ridiculous and now deleted comment.
 
Roar87 said:
The UK has almost no homicides committed by people with firearms already, a "mass shooting" is strictly an anomaly, maybe you don't need need to understand why people might need to legally own a shotgun because it has literally zero impact on your life. This guy could've just as easily planted a bomb instead like the Manchester arena bombing and killed maybe even more people.
Click to expand...

33 in 2017. I don’t have time to look into details of them all, but I dare say some could have been prevented had we had even tighter gun control.

Help me understand then as No one has told me why anyone needs to legally own a gun in a city…

I also advocate that we ban bombs btw…. :rolleyes:
 
200sols said:
Hopefully not. We already have some of the strictest in the world. When was the last 'active shooter' incident in the UK? 11 years ago..
Click to expand...

And when was the last one in the US, about 5 mins ago? Which is why I can never understand the "MoAr gUns WiLl maKe uS sAFeR" crowd.
 
Ahleckz said:
33 in 2017. I don’t have time to look into details of them all, but I dare say some could have been prevented had we had even tighter gun control.

Help me understand then as No one has told me why anyone needs to legally own a gun in a city…

I also advocate that we ban bombs btw…. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You realise 33 is one in 2 million of the population approximately? Do you even realise how big of a number 2 million is? Did you consider most of those will likely be gang related using illegal firearms? If 1 in 2 million people die of something, what number would you be happier with, 1 in 10 million? If 1 person died of a gun death that year, should we carry on enforcing laws until we reach 0?
 
200sols said:
Hopefully not. We already have some of the strictest in the world. When was the last 'active shooter' incident in the UK? 11 years ago..
Click to expand...

With legally owned guns iirc? So why not go stricter. Again, why does anyone need to own a gun in a city? Or even rurally unless they are a farmer(and even then I question why many need one)…
 
Roar87 said:
This guy could've just as easily planted a bomb instead like the Manchester arena bombing and killed maybe even more people.
Click to expand...
people need to stop using the word easily when talking about alternative ways to kill people. these other ways are not as 'easy' to kill larger numbers of people, a knife has proximity limitations, penetration limitations etc. bombs require knowledge, parts, etc. a gun is by far the 'easiest' way to kill more than 1 person in a quick space of time. the other ways are not 'just as easy'
 
Roar87 said:
The UK has almost no homicides committed by people with firearms already, a "mass shooting" is strictly an anomaly, maybe you don't need need to understand why people might need to legally own a shotgun because it has literally zero impact on your life. This guy could've just as easily planted a bomb instead like the Manchester arena bombing and killed maybe even more people.
Click to expand...


It's reallynotthat "easy" remember everything you google is recorded. Tempura searches all and most places that sell components report
 
Freakbro said:
And when was the last one in the US, about 5 mins ago? Which is why I can never understand the "MoAr gUns WiLl maKe uS sAFeR" crowd.
Click to expand...

This shooting would barely register in the US, the reason why it is so shocking here is because of its rarity. Our gun laws are clearly working already.
 
Thekwango said:
people need to stop using the word easily when talking about alternative ways to kill people. these other ways are not as 'easy' to kill larger numbers of people, a knife has proximity limitations, penetration limitations etc. bombs require knowledge, parts, etc. a gun is by far the 'easiest' way to kill more than 1 person in a quick space of time. the other ways are not 'just as easy'
Click to expand...
But if he really wanted to, he could have easily engineered from scratch a bunch of jigsaw-style traps.
 
Thekwango said:
people need to stop using the word easily when talking about alternative ways to kill people. these other ways are not as 'easy' to kill larger numbers of people, a knife has proximity limitations, penetration limitations etc. bombs require knowledge, parts, etc. a gun is by far the 'easiest' way to kill more than 1 person in a quick space of time. the other ways are not 'just as easy'
Click to expand...

Go and buy a shotgun and ammunition then, it must be easy.
 
Roar87 said:
You realise 33 is one in 2 million of the population approximately? Do you even realise how big of a number 2 million is? Did you consider most of those will likely be gang related using illegal firearms? If 1 in 2 million people die of something, what number would you be happier with, 1 in 10 million? If 1 person died of a gun death that year, should we carry on enforcing laws until we reach 0?
Click to expand...

If one person died because of a failing of our gun legislation then yes, I’d suggest we should look at it. You can’t legislate away risk, nor can you reduce it to nil in society but you can severely limit it. By allowing people to have shotguns in their house, for no reasonable reason (still waiting for these reasonable reasons as I don’t think there are any) in cities seems quite a daft idea to me and would certainly reduce risk if we outlawed this and made our strict laws even stricter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom