Poll: UK Gun Laws
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
I'm sorry but this is arrant incoherent nonsense, on one hand you go on about how the male obviously planned the killing but this planning could not have been done with another weapon on means used?
Lets look shall we...
Man kill partner and kids with a hammer
with a knife
by burning them in a car
By gassing them with carbon monoxide
Kills family members by driving at them
Kills family members with a crossbow
Same sex couple kill the kids by driving of a cliff
The idea that someone can be so far gone so as to decide that they will kill close family members (and often their own children) but will be stopped because they cant get access to a firearm isn't credible
Last edited:
Why do people use a gun instead of a car to kill their entire family?
Last edited:
Pretty much, his post made no sense, it's some weird logic of how a gun can only be used when you plan a murder, but there's no actual logic behind that lol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,723
- Location
- Welling, London
Didn’t we just have a case where a husband killed his wife and kids and buried them underneath the kitchen floor?
Eh....Kills family members by driving at them
Like I suppose it's not the entire family but then there was this one Same sex couple kill the kids by driving of a cliff
Also man kills family by strangling/smothering them
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,134
Sure, he could have used a gun. But he didn’t. He got his knife from his cutlery draw. Took the time to sharpen it, and then knifed people. It wasn’t a spur of the moment killing that could have been done with a gun. There was planning and premeditation here and the knife was the unique thing which allowed this double murder and I really don’t get why he needed it. If we had better laws then these two people would likely still be alive.
Laws and punishments are not a deterrent to crime.
Last edited:
It's silly... guns do seem to be a big problem for suicides in places like the US but the problem there is the lack of planning/ preparation needed to quickly do away with oneself with a gun not the planning needed!
People that kill family members tend to do it either quickly mid argument with whatevers to hand (unlikely to be a firearm) or in a rather pre meditated way.
Like Sally Challen... whose unfaithful husband went out one morning after a reconciliation in their relationship and she took a call from another mistress that tipped her over the edge.
She calmly prepared food for her husband when he returned. And when he sat down to eat it she bludgeoned him to death from behind with a hammer (she presumably had to go both retrieve and hide this in the kitchen) before she tried to kill herself by jumping of a local multi storey car park and then driving to some cliffs before she was talked down.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,213
Nothing new
I like the idea that farmers have the time to spend sitting in a hedgerow for an entire day blasting pigeons, crows and other birds, the farms we shoot over have multiple people with permissions at certain times of the year shooting most days out of the week to keep vermin at bay. We do this for free, providing our own ammunition and insurance.
These threads are always a laugh to read, townies who have no idea about the rest of the country but watched an episode of Countryfile and think they know enough to preach how others lives should be lived.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,894
people in the country wildfouling is a plentiful source of affordable environmentally sound free-range meat (and a hobby which keeps people healthy and farmers happy)
it would not affect me if all shotguns were banned but i think you would have a mutiny from 1000s of law abiding country folk and farmers. (my dad would be leading the charge
)way more so than say the handgun bans (handguns had no real legitimate practical use for the average punter imo).
also don't forget the business case, there is a lot of money in wildfouling esp at the sharp end -phasants and grouse etc, that would be a lot of livelyhoods up in smoke , not to mention it's an excuse to protect certain parts of the countryside from being spoilt ....
Last edited:
I would say said townies are entitled to an opinion without knowing the ups and downs of a farmer. This is about who should have guns because they - ya know - can kill people.
Some shoots are in random fields, so yes I am.
Who are you?
Yes, others picked knives. I guess we need to ask why did this guy pick his gun? For me I’d say guns are a step away from the brutality of a knife or hammer. Perhaps it’s easier to kill with a gun than a knife. It’s easier, less likely to cause injury to him, and psychologically may be easier. I’m just suggesting if he had to get up close and personal it may have had a different ending.
More humane and certain I suppose. Not that I'd want to be in their head.
At what point can we just accept a bad person committed a crime and we don't need additional laws?
A gun can be an "easier" option especially if someone had the mentality of not wanting their victims to suffer or worrying they might not be able to see it through with a method which was less decisive - but with these kind of lengths chances are very high it would have happened one way or another sooner or later.
Yeh, no I understood what you were trying to illustrate but your example just didn't work as it's based around the logic that once concerns are identified the suicide is prevented, which is flawed logic.
Yes, you can assume they would have killed them by any means, but you can also assume it was the presence of the firearm that also acted as an enabler in the lead up, we don't know.
Yes, but these could be replaced by a regulated service, where strict controls are in place around central storage, frequent vetting etc.people in the country wildfouling is a plentiful source of affordable environmentally sound free-range meat (and a hobby which keeps people healthy and farmers happy)
it would not affect me if all shotguns were banned but i think you would have a mutiny from 1000s of law abiding country folk and farmers. (my dad would be leading the charge
way more so than say the handgun bans (handguns had no real legitimate practical use for the average punter imo).
also don't forget the business case, there is a lot of money in wildfouling esp at the sharp end -phasants and grouse etc, that would be a lot of livelyhoods up in smoke , not to mention it's an excuse to protect certain parts of the countryside from being spoilt ....
Relevance? Or is this an 'attack their reputation' type thing
Last edited: