I think you're confusing threads, that was in the pick-up thread
Believe it. Entertain me.
Last edited:
Poll: UK Gun Laws
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Soldato
Ban airliners.
Germanwings crash: Who was co-pilot Andreas Lubitz?
What we know about the young German co-pilot whio crashed an airliner into the Alps.
www.bbc.co.uk
I think you're confusing threads, that was in the pick-up thread
Doesn't matter - taking a LOL city folk position one moment, then showing a large detachment from the realities of country living on the other hand makes it hard to take you seriously.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,582
While there is a part of me that reflexively thinks no-one should have guns, I know gun crime is fairly rare in the UK.
Our laws are, generally, sufficient to ensure publuc safety, while allowing people who want to own guns to do so.
Cases of people murdering their husbands, wives and children happen regularly, some of these involve guns. Unfortunately, this will always happen.
As an MP said in the debate on the 1996 firearms bill (following Dunblane); "you cannot legislate for the actions of a lunatic"
Our laws are, generally, sufficient to ensure publuc safety, while allowing people who want to own guns to do so.
Cases of people murdering their husbands, wives and children happen regularly, some of these involve guns. Unfortunately, this will always happen.
As an MP said in the debate on the 1996 firearms bill (following Dunblane); "you cannot legislate for the actions of a lunatic"
Continue to avoid providing your reasoning then.
I think the idea could work, I'm yet to understand a reason which could not be overcome.
Ban airliners.
Germanwings crash: Who was co-pilot Andreas Lubitz?
What we know about the young German co-pilot whio crashed an airliner into the Alps.www.bbc.co.uk
The argument will be that airliners serve a purpose other than killing things...
It's not simply legislation, but stricter regulation, more frequent and deeper vetting etc. can easily be facilitated.
Last edited:
Is there a limit on the amount of cartridges you can buy/own?
Soldato
I think the problem is more society than the gun itself.
It's not really that long ago that anyone could buy a gun. They didn't have mass shootings like what is happening these days.
It's not really that long ago that anyone could buy a gun. They didn't have mass shootings like what is happening these days.
No limits - but questions might be asked if you are holding an inordinate amount - though unless there is a suspicion of intent likely not much come of it.
For bullets a bit of a different situation as you may have limits imposed. (EDIT: You can also have the limits increased if you have a genuine need).
Last edited:
Soldato
They don't though. Zoom meetings for business, holidays at home. Simple. Terrible for the planet too. Ban them
Last edited:
From a classical Liberal perspective OP is asking the wrong questions, it's never "Is there a legitimate reason to permit something?", it's "is there a legitimate reason to prohibit something? ". I can't see a legitimate reason to ban all firearms, he could have done the same thing with a crossbow or knife anyway, it's a domestic killing, not a mass shooting.
Last edited:
Government already is tyrannical.
War on drugs which has killed tens of thousands, led to fentanyl becoming popular and AIDS and hepatitis C spreading widerife, the death toll is more than hiroshima, it's like they've dropped a nuclear bomb on the population.
That’s also mad to me. Should absolutely be a strict limit. I appreciate there hasn’t really been many mass shootings (fatal or not) but someone having hundreds of shells at home doesn’t seem wise to me.
How much is a shotgun shell?
They don't though. Zoom meetings for business, holidays at home. Simple. Terrible for the planet too. Ban them
I say we ban all baseball bats, a club was designed for murdering someone violently, even one person clubbed to death is too much. Screw anyone who enjoys it as a sport.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,582
It's really difficult to risk assess people, and to make that regular enough to pick up changes.
For example, Mental Health teams (of all sorts) do not prevent their service users committing homicide/ suicide, even when they are working well and having regular contact.
I'm not against better risk assessment, but it is difficult, and not foolproof.
It is not an easy fix.
Sometimes seems crazy to me, though I can kind of understand the prepper mentality LOL. Farmers I know often have .24x rifles with 200 odd rounds in storage and use maybe half a dozen rounds a year...
Yes, it is tricky, however more opportunities to identify risk is always better.
Your example about suicide doesn't quite fit, though.
The benefit of regulating guns under professional services would mean that most would be stored in their local secure location, taking away the instant access.
A lot mention the perpetrator could utilise other means, they may well do, but non are as cold or quick as firing a gun.
He only mentioned alcohol and tobacco, neither of which are instant killers.
Soldato
Epsom College head called relative before she was shot by husband
Police recover a firearm owned by George Pattison who officers believe killed his wife and daughter.www.bbc.co.uk
Incidentally, it is most likely (but by no means certain) that he killed his wife because she decided to leave him. The daughter had to go too because she would have been left with no one. In an anguished mind that is worse than death. But it goes to show that instability in the mind can happen pretty quickly. An otherwise stable person can become a dangerous nutcase almost overnight.
Last edited: